Super Council Merger
thoughts any one?
NO EFFING WAY



As a resident of the West Torrens council area I do not want the backwards thinking imbeciles of the Adelaide City Council deciding the future of my local area
by heater31 » Wed Jun 04, 2008 11:53 pm
by Psyber » Thu Jun 05, 2008 12:00 am
by Ian » Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:14 am
Lord Mayor Michael Harbison and West Torrens Mayor John Trainer wrote:The pair said the move would better serve the state's transport management by bringing Adelaide Airport, the Keswick International Rail Terminal, Adelaide Railway Station and the city's new Franklin St bus station under the control of one council.
by Dirko » Thu Jun 05, 2008 10:34 am
heater31 wrote:NO EFFING WAY![]()
![]()
![]()
As a resident of the West Torrens council area I do not want the backwards thinking imbeciles of the Adelaide City Council deciding the future of my local area
by Strawb » Thu Jun 05, 2008 4:23 pm
SJABC wrote:heater31 wrote:NO EFFING WAY![]()
![]()
![]()
As a resident of the West Torrens council area I do not want the backwards thinking imbeciles of the Adelaide City Council deciding the future of my local area
Agree, couldn't think of any thing worse. The WTCC has some of the cheapest rates around (compare them to Charles Sturt), and they do a pretty good job of keeping everything looking nice, and they seem to have most things and well run.
Last thing we need is the Adelaide City Council to look after Lockleys Oval...WTCC do a good job of ensuring that it always looks good...![]()
Ian, what would you say the condition of the Lockleys Oval is like ? The bigger the area a council looks after, means they have to spread resources around more and things like parks/ovals etc get looked after less frequently...
Interesting that there is a residents group in West Beach, who want to break away from Charles Sturt, and realign the boundary so the South side of the River (West Beach) falls into the WTCC.
I do voluntary work for the council as well and it's great as I don't have to travel far, and I know my local area really well. Keep it as it is....
by smac » Thu Jun 05, 2008 4:28 pm
by once_were_warriors » Thu Jun 05, 2008 4:40 pm
by stan » Sat Jun 07, 2008 3:02 pm
Psyber wrote:I've always liked "local government" to be local and to be able to talk to councillors face to face.
I lived in Vale Park years ago when it transferred from Enfield Council to Walkerville, a relatively small council, and services went up while rates went down.
Those pro mergers talk about "economies of scale" but I suspect what you get is bigger bureaucracy and less flexibility.
by Psyber » Sat Jun 07, 2008 5:46 pm
stan wrote:Psyber wrote:I've always liked "local government" to be local and to be able to talk to councillors face to face.
I lived in Vale Park years ago when it transferred from Enfield Council to Walkerville, a relatively small council, and services went up while rates went down.
Those pro mergers talk about "economies of scale" but I suspect what you get is bigger bureaucracy and less flexibility.
Local councils are F****** useless.
by mick » Tue Jun 10, 2008 3:19 pm
Psyber wrote:I've always liked "local government" to be local and to be able to talk to councillors face to face.
I lived in Vale Park years ago when it transferred from Enfield Council to Walkerville, a relatively small council, and services went up while rates went down.
Those pro mergers talk about "economies of scale" but I suspect what you get is bigger bureaucracy and less flexibility.
by stan » Sun Jun 15, 2008 5:35 pm
Psyber wrote:stan wrote:Psyber wrote:I've always liked "local government" to be local and to be able to talk to councillors face to face.
I lived in Vale Park years ago when it transferred from Enfield Council to Walkerville, a relatively small council, and services went up while rates went down.
Those pro mergers talk about "economies of scale" but I suspect what you get is bigger bureaucracy and less flexibility.
Local councils are F****** useless.
In my experience of living in the areas:
Enfield were shocking - at one stage I was involved in deposing 2 counsellors and an Alderman at the next elections - it can be done.
Prospect weren't bad, reasonably helpful and approachable.
Walkerville were really good.
Mt Barker were OK until they got big.
I also owned property in Stirling and found them OK to deal with.
My experience small councils are reasonable and easy to deal with - above a certain size they just get bureaucratic, rigid, and slow.
by stan » Sun Jun 15, 2008 5:37 pm
by Psyber » Sun Jun 15, 2008 5:48 pm
stan wrote:My experiance:
Prospect : F******** useless, slow. Horrible to work with.
Enfield : What he said, really. They are that terrible, so terrible they make prospect look good.
TTG : ding....ding.....ding.........ding............oh yeah TTG. Not helpful, they try but will get bogged down in there own bureaucratic shite.
Playford : F*** ARE they really that un helpful. The answer is no there ok, BUT USE SMALL WORDS ONLY!!!
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |