Sensational-Adelaide.com

David, I feel compelled to bring to everyone's attention your letter that appears in today's InDaily in response to Lachlan Clyne's article about the parklands.

Mr Clyne's article was strong of opinion, yet considered, well-reasoned and respectful. Your response, on the other hand, is none of these things and does a disservice to your standing as an Adelaide City Councillor. As I have said to others on this forum before, I will defend to the death your right to have an opinion, but only if it is expressed in a respectful and reasonable manner. You may not agree with the views expressed by Mr Clyne, but it's completely inappropriate in your capacity as a public office-holder to attack Mr Clyne and describe his views as "arrant nonsense".

I have no affiliation with Mr Clyne or the City of Unley, just a desire for civility and respect in all aspects of public debate.

To be fair, it does seem a bit rich for a neighbouring council to complain about not having a say about the parklands when they don't contribute anything to them.
(Personally I'd like to see all neighbouring councils contributing financially, so that that there is much more money available for upkeep and upgrades)

Maximus,

Perhaps my language was more intemperate than usual and for that I apologise - to you and Mayor Clyne but quite frankly I am sick and tired of reading opinion pieces which denigrate the Adelaide City Council's custodianship of the Park Lands, most of which are ill-informed and unfairly critical of the Council.

First, it is important to know that the Adelaide Park Lands Authority comprises of 10 members, 5 of whom are appointed by the Minister, including a community representative and the other 5 are ACC Councillors. The main task of the Authority is to prepare long termstrategic plans for the Park Lands and to provide advice to the Council and the Minister. It always consults widely on its plans and that consultation of course includes Mayor Clyne and his Council.

When it comes to developing the Park Lands the ACC bears the brunt of the cost of doing that work most of which is for the benefit of the metrpolitan-wide community - Adelaide City ratepayers are generally a minority of the users of the park facilities. As I said - quite reasonably I think - if Unley wants facilities built close to Greenhill Road and specifically for the needs of their residents then they should discuss these plans and how they are to be funded with the Adelaide City Council .

The Mayor's remarks reflected on Adelaide City Councillors and the way in which they distribute their very considerable annual expenditures and I think I was entitled to take exception to these totally uncalled for reflections on the work of the Adelaide City Council which works on the advice of the Park Lands Authority.

Cllr David Plumridge AM
City of Adelaide.

David, many thanks for taking the time to reply. And, more broadly, for your ongoing contribution to this forum. It is, of course, your participation that has allowed me to 'have a go' at you so directly in the first place!

I would like to make it clear that I don't necessarily disagree with you in your opinions about the Parklands. In fact, I can very much see your point of view. Likewise, however, I think Mayor Clyne has expressed some valid points, so I'm personally somewhat undecided about this particular aspect of the Parklands' management.

Irrespective, the real point I was trying to articulate was about the civility, or lack thereof, of public discourse between publicly-elected officials. Perhaps I'm just starting to get old, but it feels like it's getting worse. I cringe every time I see/hear politicians 'having a go' at each other in the media -- all too frequently, it seems to me, in a highly undignified and disrespectful manner. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but everyone is also entitled not to be belittled for expressing that opinion. There are certainly many ways to disagree with someone without being boorish or disrespectful.

Of course, it's important that opinions are based on facts, and I appreciate you outlining some of those in your post. I note also a letter from the Acting Lord Mayor in yesterday's InDaily (very respectfully and reasonably written, I might add) in which he adds further to the debate.

Ultimately, I think we all more or less want the same things for the Parklands, it's just that we sometimes hold differing views about how best to achieve the outcome.

david wrote:Maximus,

Perhaps my language was more intemperate than usual and for that I apologise - to you and Mayor Clyne but quite frankly I am sick and tired of reading opinion pieces which denigrate the Adelaide City Council's custodianship of the Park Lands, most of which are ill-informed and unfairly critical of the Council.

First, it is important to know that the Adelaide Park Lands Authority comprises of 10 members, 5 of whom are appointed by the Minister, including a community representative and the other 5 are ACC Councillors. The main task of the Authority is to prepare long termstrategic plans for the Park Lands and to provide advice to the Council and the Minister. It always consults widely on its plans and that consultation of course includes Mayor Clyne and his Council.

When it comes to developing the Park Lands the ACC bears the brunt of the cost of doing that work most of which is for the benefit of the metrpolitan-wide community - Adelaide City ratepayers are generally a minority of the users of the park facilities. As I said - quite reasonably I think - if Unley wants facilities built close to Greenhill Road and specifically for the needs of their residents then they should discuss these plans and how they are to be funded with the Adelaide City Council .

The Mayor's remarks reflected on Adelaide City Councillors and the way in which they distribute their very considerable annual expenditures and I think I was entitled to take exception to these totally uncalled for reflections on the work of the Adelaide City Council which works on the advice of the Park Lands Authority.

Cllr David Plumridge AM
City of Adelaide.

Well said, David!

Notes from Councillor David Plumridge AM - Issue No 103

- Planning Reform - Planned and Unplanned
- Recognition for Adelaide's Great Buildings
- Prepare for Ageing Now

- Decisions of Council made at its meeting on 10 December 2013

As these are my last Notes for 2013 I take this opportunity to wish all my fellow S-A members (supportive or otherwise!) a Happy Christmas and Prosperous New Year.
David Plumridge AM
Area Councillor
City of Adelaide

Hi David, can I ask why the moreton bay fig is being removed from hindmarsh square?

Hi David,

Just wondering if you know what is happening with the site next to the Queens Theatre that the council has sold to datong. I belive it was sold on the condition site works are to of commenced by early 2014. Given that an application has not even been submitted for this site yet, it appears this is not going to happen and once again the developers are taking the council for a ride like they did with the Precinct. Will the council look at fining the developers or some other way of encouraging them to play by the rules they initially agreed to?

Ben

rooshooter wrote:Hi David, can I ask why the moreton bay fig is being removed from hindmarsh square?

Alas the tree has a seriously diseased root system and big splits in the trunk close to the ground level. There is a serious threat of major limb drop in an area of high pedestrian traffic which presents a risk that the Council is not prepared to take.
Very regretfully I believe it had to go and I supported the decision. It will certainly change the whole look and feel of the N/E corner of Hindmarsh Square - and reveal a lot more of the Crowne Plaza!!!

David

Ben wrote:Hi David,

Just wondering if you know what is happening with the site next to the Queens Theatre that the council has sold to datong. I belive it was sold on the condition site works are to of commenced by early 2014. Given that an application has not even been submitted for this site yet, it appears this is not going to happen and once again the developers are taking the council for a ride like they did with the Precinct. Will the council look at fining the developers or some other way of encouraging them to play by the rules they initially agreed to?

Ben

Quite frankly I don't know. I will find out and post an answer as soon as possible.

Davvid

david wrote:

rooshooter wrote:Hi David, can I ask why the moreton bay fig is being removed from hindmarsh square?

Alas the tree has a seriously diseased root system and big splits in the trunk close to the ground level. There is a serious threat of major limb drop in an area of high pedestrian traffic which presents a risk that the Council is not prepared to take.
Very regretfully I believe it had to go and I supported the decision. It will certainly change the whole look and feel of the N/E corner of Hindmarsh Square - and reveal a lot more of the Crowne Plaza!!!

David

Yet Council is more than happy to plant 30 odd gum trees in Victoria Square knowing full well they are more prone than other types of trees to drop limbs, in what is 'envisioned' to be a high pedestrian traffic environment? Seriously, what a load of. If Council is going to lead by example, at least be consistent.

[Shuz] wrote:

david wrote:

rooshooter wrote:Hi David, can I ask why the moreton bay fig is being removed from hindmarsh square?

Alas the tree has a seriously diseased root system and big splits in the trunk close to the ground level. There is a serious threat of major limb drop in an area of high pedestrian traffic which presents a risk that the Council is not prepared to take.
Very regretfully I believe it had to go and I supported the decision. It will certainly change the whole look and feel of the N/E corner of Hindmarsh Square - and reveal a lot more of the Crowne Plaza!!!

David

Yet Council is more than happy to plant 30 odd gum trees in Victoria Square knowing full well they are more prone than other types of trees to drop limbs, in what is 'envisioned' to be a high pedestrian traffic environment? Seriously, what a load of. If Council is going to lead by example, at least be consistent.

there is no evidence to suggest that gums drop limbs more or less than most other varieties.

This issue is covered by some 'commercial in confidence' provisions but what I can say is that Datong has lodged a DA with DAC which is currently being considered. ACC is maintaining close contact with the developer to ensure all conditions are met. Council holds protection in its contract with the developer which it will consider if and when the developer is in breach.

David

david wrote:

Ben wrote:Hi David,

Just wondering if you know what is happening with the site next to the Queens Theatre that the council has sold to datong. I belive it was sold on the condition site works are to of commenced by early 2014. Given that an application has not even been submitted for this site yet, it appears this is not going to happen and once again the developers are taking the council for a ride like they did with the Precinct. Will the council look at fining the developers or some other way of encouraging them to play by the rules they initially agreed to?

Ben

Quite frankly I don't know. I will find out and post an answer as soon as possible.

Davvid

Thanks David,

Appreciate the reply.

david wrote:This issue is covered by some 'commercial in confidence' provisions but what I can say is that Datong has lodged a DA with DAC which is currently being considered. ACC is maintaining close contact with the developer to ensure all conditions are met. Council holds protection in its contract with the developer which it will consider if and when the developer is in breach.

David

david wrote:

Ben wrote:Hi David,

Just wondering if you know what is happening with the site next to the Queens Theatre that the council has sold to datong. I belive it was sold on the condition site works are to of commenced by early 2014. Given that an application has not even been submitted for this site yet, it appears this is not going to happen and once again the developers are taking the council for a ride like they did with the Precinct. Will the council look at fining the developers or some other way of encouraging them to play by the rules they initially agreed to?

Ben

Quite frankly I don't know. I will find out and post an answer as soon as possible.

Davvid

A question for David, perhaps, or anyone else familiar with such matters... Has there been any progress with the idea of pop-up urinals being installed, either temporarily or permanently, in the city? You might remember that we discussed this last year and subsequently discovered that Stephen Yarwood was in favour of the idea.

The trial in Canberra that I referred to back then is still ongoing, although I have no idea whether there are any plans to make the urinals a permanent installation. Apparently there have been a few bright sparks who've decided that pushing over the urinals is just too much fun to resist. Nevertheless, they've apparently been effective in cutting down on public urination. They're now even talking about using the data on 'litres collected' as a kind of market research tool...!