Sensational-Adelaide.com

Posted: **Sat Apr 19, 2008 6:28 pm**

I have to give a huge no-no towards MJNH at cheltenham.

Posted: **Sat Apr 19, 2008 7:00 pm**

Wayno wrote:
Hoops wrote:I agree with everything said in that submission but think we should include some possible alternatives.
So if he HAS looked into SOME other alternatives and failed he might go... "Hm thats a good one i never looked into that"
hiya hoops, the only sites i can think of are:
* ex-Clipsal site,
* Keswick barracks,
* Rebuild on the current RAH site,
* Cheltenham (surrounded by wetlands so everyone wins?)
* others?

I've been thinking about this all afternoon, I'm not sure if this is a good idea: We should keep the letter simple and on message. Keeping it under one page and straightforward will mean it will gain more attention. In order to do this we shouldn't clutter it up with suggestions that teach grandma how to suck eggs. While its possible that there's alternate sites that they haven't considered, what's the likelihood that they have already?

If this step is successful then we should see some kind of release from the Government, that will make their position more clear and possibly include what they have considered. At that point it would be more appropriate to offer alternatives.

Posted: **Sun Apr 20, 2008 2:01 pm**

Wayno,

I have been thinking about your proposed letter, regarding the hospital for much of the day..and I've come up with nothing

I am really torn, and I think my main question is how 'prime' I really believe this land to be

To me, it seems a bit of a lonely corner of town, and the railway is in the way of it being absolute waterfront - or am I mistaken? I wonder if Adelaide's population can currently support an entertainment precinct which is quite so removed from the action of the city.

Another quick point, if I may. I wonder about the phrase 'pro-development'. As a new member, I don't want to make unnecessary waves, but I am not always 'pro-development'. For example, I don't like the sound of what they did to the Hotel Adelaide International, and I do not support the Buckland Park development. I just wonder if 'pro development' is a little confining, though I understand the spirit of what it means.

Thanks for your work on this letter Wayno. Even though I am dithering over forming an opinion on the hospital, I'm really excited to be part of a group which is actively supporting Adelaide's future

Caroline

Posted: **Sun Apr 20, 2008 4:14 pm**

Wayno

I think, if we are to write to the Premier on this matter we need a document with a lot more substance than this one page letter.

There needs to be detailed reasons for an entertainment precinct. What it hopes to achieve for the City, its residents, tourism, economy etc.
Details of the facilties incorporated into such a precinct. Sports Stadia, Hotels, apartments, restauarants, Casino?, family entertainment, public plaza for outdoor events, etc.
The flow on effect to the western end of the City and North Terrace and the increased patronage of the tram and rail system.

Supported by some diagrams, as has been posted already.

Is it still possible to keep the hospital where it is and do a substantial upgrade?
-Do we need a huge Marj, or can facilities at the other major hospitals be upgraded at a much lower cost?
-Is it necessary to have a hospital in the CBD area where traffic is severely congested at the best of times?
-Hospitals should be in the burbs amongst most of the population. Yes, no?
-Should it remain adjacent to Adelaide University? Is there any scholastic relationship between the two?
-What of the health problems associated with a hospital that will sit on top of the filthy diesel spewing trains.

Perhaps a submission much like the one sent to the ACC. I'm willing to contribute.

Posted: **Sun Apr 20, 2008 4:40 pm**

wilkiebarkid wrote: I think, if we are to write to the Premier on this matter we need a document with a lot more substance than this one page letter.

Do you really think that such a document put together by a load of amateurs would be a good idea considering that the Premier is the one with all the information and civil servants' reports behind him? What we want from this letter is an explanation, and possibly a change of plan. We're not going to sway opinion with our ignorance.

wilkiebarkid wrote: -Should it remain adjacent to Adelaide University? Is there any scholastic relationship between the two?

Remember that the Marj proposal is not just the hospital. It's a relocation to greatly needed larger premises for the hospital, UniAdelaide medical teaching and research facilities as well as the IMVS.

Posted: **Sun Apr 20, 2008 5:58 pm**

monotonehell wrote: Do you really think that such a document put together by a load of amateurs would be a good idea considering that the Premier is the one with all the information and civil servants' reports behind him? What we want from this letter is an explanation, and possibly a change of plan. We're not going to sway opinion with our ignorance.

BINGO!

People on here dont seem to understand that the reason they were not consulted on the location of the hospital is because they are not experts on where to locate it. I completely disagree with sending a letter etc.

Posted: **Sun Apr 20, 2008 9:23 pm**

muzzamo wrote:
monotonehell wrote: Do you really think that such a document put together by a load of amateurs would be a good idea considering that the Premier is the one with all the information and civil servants' reports behind him? What we want from this letter is an explanation, and possibly a change of plan. We're not going to sway opinion with our ignorance.
BINGO!

People on here dont seem to understand that the reason they were not consulted on the location of the hospital is because they are not experts on where to locate it. I completely disagree with sending a letter etc.

What the!!

So its okay to put together a submission from a group of amateurs to the ACC but not to the Premier???

I'm sorry but my IQ is up there with the best of them, but some of you guys in these threads are erratic and irrational (READ: all over the place like a dog's breakfast).

If we are to be serious about being a legitimate stakeholder in this debate, let's drop the political references to confirm S-A apolitical position. i.e rename the thread dropping any reference to Rann or MHS.

Posted: **Sun Apr 20, 2008 9:36 pm**

wilkiebarkid wrote: What the!!

So its okay to put together a submission from a group of amateurs to the ACC but not to the Premier???

I'm sorry but my IQ is up there with the best of them, but some of you guys in these threads are erratic and irrational (READ: all over the place like a dog's breakfast).

If we are to be serious about being a legitimate stakeholder in this debate, let's drop the political references to confirm S-A apolitical position. i.e rename the thread dropping any reference to Rann or MHS.

Whoa there Barkid. No one's being accused of being dumb (IQ). I said ignorant. Ignorant meaning we don't know things that the Premier knows. The BIG difference between this and the ACC submission was that everyone was invited by the ACC to make a submission. Whereas here we are asking the Premier (from a point of ignorance), "What's going on? We don't understand your decision. Please inform us as to why you've made it."

We should not try to tell the Premier about alternative solutions as this stage, as the Government has all the information at their disposal and probably have already considered alternative sites. From our ignorant position (notice I say "our") we can not make these suggestions until we are fully in possession of the facts.

Any initial letter to the Premier should state our position on the land, and ask for information. If that information is forthcoming THEN we might be in a position to start to make suggestions, if the Government's position does not add up.

This is not "all over the place like a dog's breakfast". This is a considered and rational step. An erratic step would be to play all of our cards at once. Let's take this one step at a time, especially in light of our position with regards to our knowledge.

Posted: **Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:53 am**

muzzamo wrote:
monotonehell wrote: Do you really think that such a document put together by a load of amateurs would be a good idea considering that the Premier is the one with all the information and civil servants' reports behind him? What we want from this letter is an explanation, and possibly a change of plan. We're not going to sway opinion with our ignorance.
BINGO!

People on here dont seem to understand that the reason they were not consulted on the location of the hospital is because they are not experts on where to locate it. I completely disagree with sending a letter etc.

That's pretty much how I feel too, though Monotonehell said it better than me. I don't feel I understand the situation well enough to put forward a solid opinion. What I do want is an explanation as to why this decision was made - I don't just want to be told, 'If you don't like it, don't vote for me.'
Thanks, Caroline

Posted: **Mon Apr 21, 2008 1:36 pm**

I think the Kennett article is timely and actually helps push this discussion along.

The current letter asks "why build a hospital on the railyards? don't put it there, instead build an entertainment precinct". the problem being that the Marj and an EP are actually only 2 pieces of a bigger puzzle.

Perhaps we should be asking "Tell us how you decided the railyards are the best spot for a hospital. Also while on the topic of open and progressive govt, we want you to publish a 2030 master plan covering all of Adelaide Suburbia including healthcare (hospital), sports and entertainment precinct, world-class education facilities, private & public transport infrstructure, etc". ...and still keep the letter to 1-2 pages.

Posted: **Mon Apr 21, 2008 1:56 pm**

It is also worthwhile pointing out that we don't expect the railyards to be turned into an entertainment precinct in the next budget but see it as a long term strategic decision which can be implemented as funds are available and the different components are required.

Posted: **Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:01 pm**

V0.3 is attached, and is renamed as master-plan.doc

master-plan-v0.3.doc: (305.5 KiB) Downloaded 217 times

It's more of a positive forward looking document now, instead of just a whinge about the railyards. Am i way off the mark? or is this closer to where we want to go?

Here's the text to save you from downloading:

To The Honorable Mike Rann, Premier & The Minister for Economic Development,

We, the membership of SENSATIONALADELAIDE, wish to applaud your intention to build new road, rail and healthcare infrastructure, but request that a comprehensive and visionary master plan for the Greater Adelaide region be created and published within the term of your Government.
Of concern is the recent declaration that the new hospital will be built on the Adelaide Railyard site. This is prime civic land with potential for many alternate purposes. We request you make public the rationale for your decision in the context of a broad reaching master plan. In this way the public's confusion and anger may be quelled.

Composed of around 1200 members (and growing), SENSATIONALADELAIDE is an active, Internet-based, community group engaged in constructive debate regarding development and urban planning in Adelaide.

We believe that a master plan and an open decision making process will deliver benefits that cannot be underestimated. Such a plan would focus largely on infrastructure and use of open space including; public & private transport, expanded role for education, a sporting and entertainment precinct, world class healthcare facilities, parkland invigoration, urban sprawl and density, and water security via storm water reuse & wetlands. The overarching goal being to enrich the South Australian way of life and realise our latent potential.

Our roads and healthcare system requires support and upgrading, and yet they remain just two of our future needs. A Greater Adelaide master plan will give direction and confidence to the general public, act as a catalyst for future private enterprise investment, and actively contribute to our population growth goals.

We thank you for your consideration of our correspondence, and we eagerly await your response.

Yours sincerely,
The membership of SENSATIONALADELAIDE.

i realise my grammar is never the best, and will defer the task of editting to those more worthy

Also, feel free to completely rewrite the letter if you think i'm just wasting everyone's time - i promise i won't cry (much)...

Posted: **Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:12 pm**

Wayno wrote:It's more of a positive forward looking document now, instead of just a whinge about the railyards. Am i way off the mark? or is this closer to where we want to go?

i realise my grammar is never the best, and will defer the task of editting to those more worthy Also, feel free to completely rewrite the letter if you think i'm just wasting everyone's time - i promise i won't cry (much)...

Oh that's much better Wayno. A more positive vibe but still challenging the Premier to make public the decision making process. Except for the clumsy double negative "will deliver benefits that cannot be underestimated" I think it's spot on.

Posted: **Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:12 pm**

I for one don't feel the need to send Mr Rann a letter asking for his reasoning. Why? Because the Marjorie Jackson-Nelson Hospital is a ridiculous idea. And the only reason why some people are still defending this ridiculous idea is their own political bias.

In the past I have voted Labor, and at other times I have voted Liberal. As always, in the next State election I will vote for the party that has the State's interests at heart. Mr Rann you served the population of SA an ultimatum. Vote for the Opposition if we don't want a hospital on the trainyards. That's called political suicide.

PS It seems the silent majority are finding a voice, A friend emailed this link to me earlier today. http://www.toxicmarj.com

Posted: **Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:20 pm**

ColonelFlashLight wrote:PS It seems the silent majority are finding a voice, A friend emailed this link to me earlier today. http://www.toxicmarj.com

Oh FFS... "Trees, not trains?" What a load of :wank:

Sensational-Adelaide.com

Railyards... what do you want done to them?

Re: Article: Rann's Hospital vs MHS Entertainment Precinct

Re: Article: Rann's Hospital vs MHS Entertainment Precinct

Re: Article: Rann's Hospital vs MHS Entertainment Precinct

Re: Article: Rann's Hospital vs MHS Entertainment Precinct

Re: Article: Rann's Hospital vs MHS Entertainment Precinct

Re: Article: Rann's Hospital vs MHS Entertainment Precinct

Re: Article: Rann's Hospital vs MHS Entertainment Precinct

Re: Article: Rann's Hospital vs MHS Entertainment Precinct

Re: Article: Rann's Hospital vs MHS Entertainment Precinct

Re: Article: Rann's Hospital vs MHS Entertainment Precinct

Re: Article: Rann's Hospital vs MHS Entertainment Precinct

Re: Article: Rann's Hospital vs MHS Entertainment Precinct

Re: Article: Rann's Hospital vs MHS Entertainment Precinct

Re: Article: Rann's Hospital vs MHS Entertainment Precinct

Re: Article: Rann's Hospital vs MHS Entertainment Precinct