SA Footy

of the City if West Torrens and the Adelaide City council


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

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.

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.

That may be so, but what about the rate payers/residents, Geez they may as well add the Port to the amalgamation as well based on that theory
I fear we will get screwed if it goes ahead. The council bowing to the wishes of the State Govt., tourism, industry with little thought for the rate payers

BTW Adelaide's works depot is already located within the City of West Torrens.

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....

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....

LMFAO WTCC has no idea on what they are doing and this proves it makes me glad i moved to Werribee now my local council does a good job and i am happy with my rates. When Williamstown and Altona merged Altona's rates went sky high to pay for the trendies that live in Willie.

5 years ago I moved from a council area that was (and still is from what I understand) too big for its boots (TTG) to a smaller council zone (Prospect). While I am still disappointed with some things at local government level (lack of attention to the streetscape of the actual council boundary in particular), they are far easier to deal with and more responsive to being questioned.

Something that would be lost if they merged, I understand the angst of those in the WTCC area.

Well I have lived in WTCC for 10 years and i can't praise them enough.

I can't recall the last time I saw a pothole in any of the streets, all other aspects of services are excellent.

Rates are extremely cheap , my house is worth 1.5 times that of my parents who live in PT Adelaide Enfield yet my rates are 40 % cheaper.

Excellent council , I wouldn't like to see them merge.

Only upside would be being able to vote on the future of Adelaide CBD

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.

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.

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.

I've lived in Walkerville since 1994, I firmly believe that small and debt free is the best local government you can have, it certainly pays dividends in low rates and the community is not forced into subsidizing services they don't want or need. We did have to fight off a determined effort by the Olsen government to force our council to almalgamate with the debt ridden and chardonnay sipping lefty dominated Prospect council. One concession was we were going to be given a 5-year transition period to move to the much higher rates "enjoyed" by Prospect residents. Yep it was hands off Walkerville council, 95% voted against the merger.

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.

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!!!

Ive also had to deal with Adelaide City Council. Not as bad as everyone makes them out to be, but sitll would rather have there heads in the sand then do anything. But I guess thats not there fault thats the culture of adelaide at times.

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!!!

I must admit that my experience with Prospect was back in the late 1970s and early 1980s, when they were not bad, but I think were late in that period showing signs of becoming bogged down in bureaucracy.