Riverbank Precinct Code Amendment

The City of Adelaide is the world's only city within a park. The Park Lands are why Adelaide is one of the world's most liveable cities and the large green belt around the city is critical to help Adelaide be climate ready at to mitigate urban heat in the face of rising temperatures and less rainfall overall. The State Government managed areas of the Park Lands are becoming increasingly built up and inaccessible with no links in and out of the green areas of park. No more development in the Park Lands, no more land grab (the proposal to build a commercial multi-storey car park on 'free' park lands instead of using or even buying land on non-parklands is morally indefensible) , use existing land (preferably non-parklands) or existing building footprints!

My vote next election will be to those who will commit preserving the parklands and not be directed by developers. To our politicians I say, govern for the people please.

Have we learnt nothing about the importance of the Park Lands through Covid? Having unfettered access to nature is critical now more than ever. This is our public land. It is sacred to Kaurna. We craved nature during lockdowns. Why on earth would we commercialize more of the Park Lands? I am gob smacked by this proposed amendment. How can we have a Green Adelaide Landscape Board announced with much fanfare and a proposal for Adelaide to be a National Park City (both I support) when proposals such as this fly in the face of common sense. The Government is wanting to take 70 hectares of river-front Adelaide Park Lands for development. Are we not better than this? We know how critical areas like the Park Lands are to our community welfare. Scrap this proposed amendment and involve all aspects of community in a sincere discussion about The Park Lands.

I thoroughly distrust the current Venue Management Corporation. It needs to be revamped and opened up to scrutiny.

Can the apparently now feeble Park Lands Authority be re-constituted as trustee over this whole Riverbank notion, to report annually to Parliament and City Council. The proposal does not say who will be in charge or accountable.

Given the violence inflicted on the Parklands long ago by the railway excision, and more recently by improper buildings like Intercon-tinental Hotel and the Walker hotel, I agree that an overall re-conceiving is necessary. That dusty parking area west of Morphett st bridge is a disgrace now. Slack legacies like the old gaol and the police barracks need to be re-worked for broader benefit. The railway was, in its day, but now is a dated survivor needing total modernising/greening. Why does the Gaol etc zone extend over rail line: insert a specific green zone between and green up the railway land too.
Broader value is the key word. Those new hotels are not for broad benefit and do damage to businesses in the CBD proper. Now in this scheme, everything Riverbank must have a mandate to be actively inclusive. Those private rowing sheds are a 19C left-over and apparently elitist (like many sports leases all over parklands): what do they contribute to the city or the broader public? Every lessee in this scheme should have a mandate to think broadly and to report annually on achievements to open further to the broad public.
War Memorial Drive (?memorial how?) needs to be reworked from traffic to leisure use.
Rather than a giant parking station in the new health precinct, please think of active transit around the whole area. Arena? Stadium? Such vanity projects in masonry belong on the brewery site or other non-park areas.
This whole proposal seems to contain little (except near Zoo) that will restore previous excisions or improper or outdated legacy uses of which there are plenty to work on. Please show where there is some trading back to passive leisure or simple nature.

Yet another example of a miserable public policy failure attempting to be prosecuted by this appalling Government. When will the Government start governing for the people instead of commercial interests.

Hands off the Parklands. They are for all South Australians’ consumption, not just your mates!

It’s just like the Government’s approach to COVID – no problem selling out on South Australians’ health, economic welfare and quality of life for the commercial interests of Big Pharma.

Government has failed to provide prophylactic and early treatment of COVID, especially for vulnerable groups (Ivermectin/hydroxychloroquine, vitamin D, vitamin C, zinc, quercetin, melatonin, nasal and mouth washes).

Government has failed to defend the use of Ivermectin for COVID, knowing that it is a potent antiviral, being successfully used in many countries, and having been demonstrated to be effective in trials (see bird-group.org or the FLCCC if you've had your head in the sand).

Government has failed to call out the lack of efficacy of vaccines in neutralising COVID, thereby failing vulnerable groups and enabling the start of medical and economic apartheid in Australia.

Government has failed to call out the strong safety signal in relation to the COVID vaccines, leading to the needless, disastrous immediate side effects being experienced by people (death, paralysis, stroke, heart attack, ....). The magnitude and scope of the long-term effects are yet to be realised but the warning signs and conceptual possibilities are already being reported. It is extraordinary that children are being vaccinated.

Leave the parklands as was intended, for future generations to enjoy in their natural state.

I live in Thebarton and do not want the parklands given over to car parks. The RAH has already increased congestion in our neighbourhood!

I object most strongly to the proposed Code Amendment of the parklands and demand its immediate withdrawal. The parklands were surveyed by Colonel Light and given to the people of Adelaide. As such, they are not for any government to do what it will. This is shameless theft by the government for financial gain. Ayers House has already been lost. Enough! These assets belong to the people. Stop the theft!

Remember this at the next state election!!

I’m not opposed to a new WCH at the proposed site, but to go beyond that is wholly unacceptable. The concept of a riverbank precinct in the style of Melbourne can only be realised by alienating part of the parklands and that is idiotic. To proceed almost guarantees that the Liberal government will be a one term government.

Far too extensive to understand. Public lands must remain public ownership.

Far too complex and extensive. Needs to be considered in smaller segments.

This is public land. It is sacred to the Kaurna people (who have hardly been considered in consultation). Our parklands are too precious to be turned into commercialised zones. You are employed to serve the public; as a member of the public, I demand you trash this so-called amendment.

Another absolutely appalling attempt to use valuable PUBLIC land for private interests. Stop it. Colonel Light would be turning in his grave. And the poll question is ludicrously phrased.

It's all been said before (and too often ignored) - HANDS OFF our Parklands! We aren't - and don't want to be - a tacky version of Melbourne.
RAP

All future developments of a commercial nature or which involve commercial activities, within the ACC, should be built on commercial land. Simple.

The building proposal is unacceptable, the land belongs to whole community and natural breathing lungs land!

My register code is 7263

7263