Beer Garden

[[Shuz]]

The problem, I believed, with 5000+, IDC, Picture Adelaide, etc. is that they were all run and funded by Government. IDC, as fantastic as it was, was heavily politically motivated and influenced. They were not truly independent. I am talking about having an independent organisation, with no agenda, other than to facilitate debate, that following 'popular' debate, relay that information to the Government and business communities.

And agree with you Waewick, I'd love to get into politics too, but I'm not going to kiss anyone's arse and be beholden to factions and unions and that crap. I'd be a true independent for sure, but then, that's a hard objective to achieve, given the structure of our political system heavily favours the two major parties.

[Nathan]

The problem, I believed, with 5000+, IDC, Picture Adelaide, etc. is that they were all run and funded by Government. IDC, as fantastic as it was, was heavily politically motivated and influenced. They were not truly independent. I am talking about having an independent organisation, with no agenda, other than to facilitate debate, that following 'popular' debate, relay that information to the Government and business communities.

Whilst they were funded by the government, they did act independently. They were there to inform government, not the other way around.

[[Shuz]]

The problem, I believed, with 5000+, IDC, Picture Adelaide, etc. is that they were all run and funded by Government. IDC, as fantastic as it was, was heavily politically motivated and influenced. They were not truly independent. I am talking about having an independent organisation, with no agenda, other than to facilitate debate, that following 'popular' debate, relay that information to the Government and business communities.

Whilst they were funded by the government, they did act independently. They were there to inform government, not the other way around.

When the IDC was first set up, it reported to the Premier, through DPC. It then got moved over to DPTI and reported to the Minister for Planning, before eventually being disbanded. It was never independent.

[Waewick]

I like the idea of a organisation that focuses on things, like people have said that can have immediate impact even if not that obvious.

It would have to start small but if you can get clear logical and well articulated ideas I can't see why it couldn't succeed.

Even something as small as fixing up a portion of there parklands or doing the leg work on proving why an idea works rather than just asking the government to do something

[Wayno]

Shuz & Waewick, for this organisation, what qualifications would the leaders & core members require to gain & sustain public respect? Who chooses the leaders? And who would fund? To be non-politically motivated it would probably need to be not-for-profit, esp if govt funded.

Let's run a mock situation (e.g. taller residential buildings along inner suburban arterial roads). The govt wants it, many of the populus do not, with a minority of NIMBYs being organised & publically vocal. What can/would/should this new organisation do in this instance? Would it side with the govt in this case because that's the view of the org leaders? Or would the org, being impartial, have a charter that prevents it from taking stance at all? What if you guys, as progressive types, did not agree with an org decision - do you get to vote on such matters? Plenty more questions but that'll do for starters...

[Waewick]

Shuz & Waewick, for this organisation, what qualifications would the leaders & core members require to gain & sustain public respect? Who chooses the leaders? And who would fund? To be non-politically motivated it would probably need to be not-for-profit, esp if govt funded.

Let's run a mock situation (e.g. taller residential buildings along inner suburban arterial roads). The govt wants it, many of the populus do not, with a minority of NIMBYs being organised & publically vocal. What can/would/should this new organisation do in this instance? Would it side with the govt in this case because that's the view of the org leaders? Or would the org, being impartial, have a charter that prevents it from taking stance at all? What if you guys, as progressive types, did not agree with an org decision - do you get to vote on such matters? Plenty more questions but that'll do for starters...

they are good questions, but they really can't be answered about a group that doesn't exist.

I would assume, that in establishing a group you would sort through those things at the time of creation, get some wise old heads to point in you the right direction of setting such a group up

I really like the way the high court operates, you have a vote and the person/people that disagree have the opinion to respond how they would like, but it isn't Anne Moran style sound bytes, it is considered and articulate responses.

[[Shuz]]

Wayno, any such group ought to be completely independent. No government funding whatsoever. The moment it receives govt. funding, is the moment they want something in return. The problem with community consultations is that they are too ad-hoc. They start and stop. It's always given a timeframe - you have 6 weeks - very much "speak now or forever hold your peace". I believe that the reason people whinge and complain so much, is because they are shut out of the discussion as soon as consultation finishes and the discussion then becomes very one-sided from that point thereon. It should always be an ongoing thing... You might argue, well nothing would get done - I argue otherwise, they would be, but this group could be part of something that helps add reason and alleviate concerns and transforms debate from an engaging, positive, rational one, as compared to many of the irrational debates we hear of time and time again.

The point would be that what the public takes away from it is a sense of reality and understanding which they would come back with, and contribute to better and healthier debates in future.

I'd envision you'd have qualified people and experts to help contribute to discussion and getting the facts right, they would be more like a part of an advisory group, but I don't see any reason why the leadership group has to be strictly a bunch of qualified people and/or experts. It could just be your Average Joes.

On the hypothetical topic you raise - this is where the advisory group would help 'start' the discussion - they would lay out the facts to the people and have a reasoned and informative discussion with people, those directly affected, those indirectly affected. "We identify that these proposals would be this big in size, 10 storeys tall, cast shadows between x and y hours over z area, add this many people to the area, increase land value here, decrease land value there, etc. Now if someone comes along who jumps up and down screaming (hypothetically) "tall buildings and shadows will disturb my cats sleep!" (or some other bizzare concern here) We really need to be asking a series of rolling questions. Too many people make arguments and cases for things, without even realizing that true implications or flow-on effects of what they're arguing for. If they advocate building on the fringe... we then should be stating the facts - pros for sprawl, cons against sprawl. How does that compare to the proposed strategy in question? I think a lot of people would be going "Oh, I hadn't thought of that, or yeah, that makes sense".

Do you have evidence to prove that tall building and shadows disturb your cats sleep?
Where do you live? Is the shadow even affecting your property at all? If you live in say, Elizabeth, and nowhere near the site in question, why does it concern you so much? (They can have a say, but it helps filter our what their agenda is - do they have relatives living in the area in question or do they just have a really uninformed fear of tall buildings based on a 30 minute biased documentary of English ghetto slums on BBC)...
Do they believe that we need to 'densify' our cities, or continue building on the fringes? If we build on the fringe, that means we use prime agricultural land, but that also means everyone would have a house and a backyard.
Should we have population growth or none at all? Where should we put these people? Are they seriously advocating a zero immigration policy? (If so that's a matter for the Feds, not the State, so we would advise them, that if they strongly believe in that, they should take up their cause there. Any changes to the law then, would then mean that the State wouldn't make building 10 storey developments a high priority, if at all.
Advise them that they need to be realistic - social costs, economic costs, environmental costs. Is what they're suggesting even achievable? Lay out the facts as to what is achievable - Are they open to compromise? Would having setbacks at or redesigning buildings in such a way so they minimize impacts and alleviate some of their concerns? Fact is that building new suburbs cost the State Government $2 billion per new suburb. That's a fact. Are they happy for the State Government to be investing their money in infrastructure for new suburbs, or densify the inner city, make use of existing infrastructure, and redirect $2b elsewhere?

You could go on and on and on. That's the whole point. Reasoned debate!

[[Shuz]]

In response to your last point - I think its fair that if there were a charter about putting forth a stance or proposed policy decision, that it actually commands an overwhelming majority of people's views and opinions. Something like 66% or even 75% ought to be the threshold. Democracy. Where 51% of the population takes away the voice of the other 49%. I can't remember who said that. But it's a bloody good saying, and has a good point. And not just that, but the facts should go to business, government and community leaders (hypothetically) something along the lines of "The organization recommends such policy be adopted, based on the consensus of 72% of its members and 68% of the population involved. Consideration should be given to 13% of members and 11% of population support adopting this policy in partial measure, and 15% of members and 21% of population do not support it at all." It should never be "The organization recommends this policy be adopted". Full stop.

I think its important to allow a conscience vote all on matters and be able to speak out independently of the organizations view. Towing the party line, so to speak, is actually withholding your freedom and right to express individual opinion. The charter should provide that right.

[Wayno]

Ok, presume no govt funding. So how to sustain? A few leaders plus a modest number of members would burn several hundred thousand bucks per year.

Also how are members selected? What if people from a NIMBY-style organisation wanted to be involved? They would obviously need to adhere to the charter, but could influence voting.

[Waewick]

so this thread is probably an example of getting ahead of your self.

from my perspective, from small things, big things grow, so initially it would be a group of people with an idea, which they champion, how that then evolves is best left for then (of course, you make plans)

[dsriggs]

There's an ad in today's Advertiser saying that AdelaideNow's moving to a subscription only format.

Good luck with that.

[Nathan]

There's an ad in today's Advertiser saying that AdelaideNow's moving to a subscription only format.

Good luck with that.

Switch from AdelaideNow to Advertiser.com.au is tomorrow I believe, along with the paywall. $1 for the first month, and then $4 per week after that. 5 articles free.

[Shahkar]

Posting updates on loads of developments on SSC. Why don't people post any more there? After all, A LOT of stuff is happening right now! The other cities should know we are changing!

Also, I've found it is a great way to showcase the city

[Waewick]

There's an ad in today's Advertiser saying that AdelaideNow's moving to a subscription only format.

Good luck with that.

yep, looks like i've read my last Advertiser article.

[[Shuz]]

Hurrah! Drinks on the house to celebrate the Advertiser's rapid fall into obscurity!