Where Ratepayers & Residents Can Have Their Say about Council Issues
Please click on the link below to download a “How To Vote Card” for Max Gallanti, who is standing against Michael Atkinson in Croyden.
Remember, Max stands for saving St Clair, while Michael Atkinson is in favor of building high density housing on our pristine park and giving us contaminated land without grass or trees in its place.
We are unable to apologise in regard to a comment made against Michael Atkinson by an individual on the Save St Clair Facebook site. This site is not, and has never been, associated or affiliated in any way with the above-mentioned Facebook site. The authors and domain owner have absolutely no control or influence over posts made on that site, which merely addresses the same issue as this site – that of the stealing of the St Clair community land from residents and ratepayers to their detriment, by the City of Charles Sturt.
An apology has been requested by Mr Atkinson and is refused, as such may incorrectly indicate some liability on the part of this site – and we have absolutely no liability in the matter. The previous apology posted on this site was done so in error and is withdrawn.
Mark Walker
Administrator
The following letter sent to us has been forwarded to The Advertiser & other newspapers for publication, as well as TV channels (other than Channel Nine as Google gave a warning that it’s site may harm your computer, which may have been a temporary aberration attributable to hackers, detected malware or a virus):
Letter to The Editor
30 December 2009
I challenge you, Premier Rann, Treasurer Foley, Attorney General Atkinson, Minister Hill & Ministers Maywald & Gago to a debate on national television. The only condition I seek is the full protection of Parliamentary Privilege; not that I intend to disclose anything but facts & my opinion of them.
I wish to debate you all on the following issues within South Australia:
* Water policy & the River Murray, including related taxation;
* Desalination vs Storm water recycling & purification & expansion of existing water storage facilities with reverse pumping back to the Murray in times of overflow;
* The impact of desalination on power use (see rail electrification below) & the coastal environment;
* The missed opportunity at the recent Premier’s conference to put water use of our river Murray water (being used by the eastern states to grow rice & cotton) on the table as a priority;
* TOD’s;
* The proposed light Rail system & public transport in general;
* The impact of rail electrification on CO2 emissions & potential blackouts to households during peak electric power use periods (see desalination above);
* Revocation of Community land at St Clair & the Barossa;
* Councils increasingly ignoring their constituents on issues like land revocation, Chelsea Cinema, Cheltenham Racecourse and other local issues;
* State Government & Councils refusal to ban “donations” from developers – we the taxpayers & ratepayers donate far more in the way of taxes, duties, GST & rates, allegedly resulting in South Australia being the highest taxed state in Australia;
* State Government’s position in declining a need for an Independent Commission Against Corruption in this State, which refusal allegedly has the strong support of Councils like the City of Charles Sturt;
* Freedom of speech, Internet censoring & media reporting in general, from a State perspective;
* The proposals for the former Mitsubishi site & the former Clipsal site;
* Mental Health facilities in this state and the impact of the Glenside redevelopment on our capacity to care for the mentally ill. Included in this would be reference to existing government policy to relocate the mentally ill to within the community (mostly in substandard facilities like cheap pubs and community housing) without allegedly the provision of proper care and rehabilitation activities;
* The alleged singling out of “bikies” as an illegal group, noting the vast majority of crime in this state appears to emanate from other sources;
* The proposed “Marj” (Royal Adelaide Hospital) redevelopment;
* The proposed redevelopment of Adelaide Oval;
* Government’s previous push to close Country Hospitals in favour of 4 “Super Hospitals”;
* The state of our City & Country roads – e.g. Goodwood Road, South Road & roads to the mid-north, when fines, registrations & taxes are purportedly allocated for such purposes;
* The financial position of this State; recalling that Treasurer Foley previously advised at the height of the Global Financial Crisis that SA had suffered financial losses. I have witnessed nothing subsequent to this than ad nauseum grandiose announcements on how you, our State Government, will spend our money in the billions. Is the money there or will we see increased taxes akin the water rate rises to pay for a desalination plant nobody wants (or needs)?;
* Treasurer Foley’s plan to import skilled labor from the Phillipines as opposed to increasing re-training & education facilities for the unemployed and those who have lost their jobs during the GFC;
* The ability for a labor dominated Council like the City of Charles Sturt to command the protection at their meetings numbering in the 10′s of Police Officers, at least 2 paddywagons & 6 police cars + 2 designated Police Negotiators & then lock out all but 30 or so selected ratepayers to public meetings;
I could go on but guess you all get the idea. Hell, I’ll even let you bring along the alleged 130+ taxpayer funded media staff contingent under your command to back you all up. Hey, why not bring along our City of Charles Sturt Mayor Harold Anderson & Councilor Sykes (who allegedly works for Mr Atkinson) for good measure?
I have never been a Politician, a lawyer or held community office. I am a self funded retiree with some experience in the finance industry. I will stand totally alone in a debate with you all. Will you all stand accountable & debate only one? If you do not, I can only accept that you all fear only one thing – the truth.
Mark Walker
West Lakes
Have Minister Atkinson and Minister Weatherill now taken to pleading their case by admitting that the government has made mistakes?
Not a bad ploy really; if all else fails go for the old sympathy vote. Works every time, particularly if you have the moral high ground. How do you think you’re going in this respect fellows?
It's About
It’s hard to build much of a hill of morals when the government is taking a children’s park away and giving them less play space on suspect land with no significant trees.
By the way, we haven’t heard much from the man at the top over the issue. You know who we mean; the one who is always saying “It’s about this” and “It’s about that”.
Anyway, if the government (and the Council?) is in the business of admitting to mistakes we can readily give them a hand. Here goes a few:
It’s about not saying up front that you had to have St Clair for your TOD and your light rail (which is simply not true when the Actil site is located only 500m away).
It’s about subjecting the Woodville community to a farcical consultation process using the ALP Charles Sturt puppet show, with no intention of listening to the community.
It’s about putting the land swap in the Charles Sturt CEO’s performance agreement, and then leaving him in charge of the consultation process.
It’s about legislating a cute deal for developers in which changing the status of community owned land only requires consultation within a pitiful 500 metre radius (and then not listening to the residents anyway).
It’s about consulting in an area that has virtually no ratepayers (over a third of the land within 500 metres is encompassed by the former Cheltenham Racecourse, Woodville High School, the uninhabited Actil site and the Charles Sturt Council complex itself).
It’s about offering soccer clubs/associations brand new facilities then “consulting” them and claiming their numbers as part of the Council’s supposed “widespread support”.
It’s about forcing the hand of the Woodville High School Governing Council by threatening to re-open Brocas Avenue (which may yet happen). Is student safety the only reason that they have agreed to support the land swap and therefore not exercise the power of veto they hold over the land?
It’s about including the 1100 students of Woodville High School as supporters in your “widespread support” group without asking them what they think.
It’s about making promises about road closures that you possibly can’t keep (Woodville High please note).
It’s about the developer refusing to build houses on the contaminated Actil land, regardless of how well it is rejuvenated. Is this due to the possible risk of litigation in 30 years time from people who might become ill?
It’s about playing Russian Roulette with our children’s lives, and their children’s lives, by having them play on former industrial land instead of heeding the very sound judgement of the developer.
It’s about the supposed hectare for hectare swap of pristine land for a contaminated industrial site (Actil).
It’s about the Council not benefiting financially while giving away Woodville’s crown jewels to developers.
It’s about not disclosing who does benefit from the millions of extra dollars which emanate from selling prestigious St Clair Reserve blocks compared to blocks on the Actil site.
It’s about consistently and doggedly arguing that there is no other alternative for the TOD other than St Clair Reserve, despite the fact that there are clearly a number of other possibilities (check your own research guys).
It’s about ignoring the carpark site already owned by Council, located directly across the railway line from St Clair AT THE WOODVILLE RAILWAY STATION for the non-ambulant denizens of the TOD, who the government clearly thinks cannot walk further than 20 metres.
It’s about refusing to consider TOD locations further along the railway line to the west (for example the Actil site).
It’s about conveniently ignoring the advice of the experts that you are so fond of quoting about introducing TODs —at all costs avoid disadvantaging and alienating the folk who already live there by taking away their parks.
It’s about the refusal to have major traffic impact studies of the whole area conducted (fearing what you might be told?)
There you go; that’s a good start to the list of mistakes that the government and the Council could admit to making. Should be heaps of votes in that lot!
Where to from here Mr Rann? An investigation could be announced because some irregularities in the consultation process have suddenly been discovered? Perhaps that could last until after the elections in March?
Perhaps try making another heap of “It’s about” statements about an entirely unrelated area to try to take the heat off? Why not try threatening to sue a few of the people who voted you into power, but are disenchanted now?
Better get a move on with whatever you’ve decided to do. Woodville unrest has rapidly escalated from Save St Clair and now it has spread to all of Charles Sturt and beyond. We’re getting calls from groups and citizens all over the state who are disaffected by the government’s arrogance and failure to listen (remember your slogan at the last elections—‘Labor Listens’).
Maybe the simplest way out would be to back off St Clair Reserve altogether. Now that has a certain appeal about it…….Where did I leave that white horse tied up?
