Candidate survey and evaluation CITY OF ADELAIDE Supplementary election July 2021 - Adelaide Park Lands ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Candidate survey and evaluation
CITY OF ADELAIDE Supplementary election
July 2021
The City of Adelaide is holding a supplementary election to fill one vacancy on the Council – an
“Area Councillor.” Area Councillors represent the entire city, rather than one ward.
There are seven candidates for this single vacancy. Each candidate has supplied to the
Electoral Commission of SA a candidate “profile” and a black-and-white photo. These are
being mailed to voters by 12 July, with polls closing at midday on Monday 26 July.
If you receive a ballot paper in the mail, you’ll also receive a short, official and rather bland
profile about each of the seven candidates below. There are strict restrictions on what
candidates can and can’t say in these official “profiles”.
We asked each of these candidates four questions:
1. What future land uses would you support within the Park Lands? (e.g. informal
recreation, amateur sport, professional sport, cultural festivals, institutional, educational,
tourism?)
2. What kind of new buildings would you support within the Park Lands? (e.g. clubrooms.
kiosks, swimming pool etc)
3. What kind of new private commercial developments would you support in the Park
Lands, if at all? (e.g. hotel, gymnasium, office building, residential, retail, innovation
hub?)
4. Do you support World Heritage listing of the Adelaide Park Lands?
Their full responses are provided in the following four pages. We have provided an
evaluation and a how-to-vote recommendation on the final page.
Survey of candidates
Suplementary Election July 20211. What future land uses would you support within the Park Lands?
(e.g. informal recreation, amateur sport, professional sport,
cultural festivals, institutional, educational, tourism?)
FRANK I believe Park Lands are inalienable public spaces for community and public interest
BARBARO: activities that pose no ongoing damage or threat to the amenity.
I would support recreational activities, sports, cultural activities, educational activities and
KEIRAN SNAPE tourism as long as the areas used remained open and accessible to the public.
The park lands along with the city plan are one of the defining aspects of our city. The
ANDREW parklands are more than a physical feature or a public amenity they in part define
WALLACE Adelaide culturally and he way we approach and care for this important space speaks
volumes about its citizens. This has never been more critical to build resilience through
climate change, re establishing biodiversity and to mitigate urban heat island effects.
The parklands are spaces that could be foundational in reconciliation, healing and
enabling a deeper connection, understanding and respect of aboriginal culture. The
parklands should primarily be a space for public benefit and public access. Existing
highly developed (and sometimes degraded) areas of parklands should be re-imagined
to increase this public benefit. These use can include amateur and professional sport,
recreation and cultural facilities.
The Parklands are a unique feature of the City of Adelaide, as voted the third most
THEO VLASSIS liveable city in the world. I would support Cultural Festivals, Educational Tourism that
highlights the beauty of our surrounds, plus the existing activities now in place to be
enjoyed.
I will have three guiding principles as a councillor (If I get elected): Livability
(maintaining and developing green areas is a key factor), Business Recovery and
SHAHIN Multiculturalism. I will support any plan which supports these subjects. It depends on
SAYYAR DASHTI the proposed plan, benefits to the community and the effect on previously mentioned
principles . All these activities can be supported (Multicultural events , sport events,
educational events and touristic events) if they can demonstrate a positive effect. An
action plan is required for a detailed study.
I have fond memories in my youth playing the “round ball game” football, in the
INGMAR (ALEX) Southern Parklands when competing for Adelaide City FC and Memorial Drive Tennis
BOOKLESS- Club, before it became NextGeneration. I would like the Parklands to continue to be
PRATT heavily focused on community and amateur sports, no matter which one. In addition
the Parklands should always be open and available for community festivals and
events. The City of Adelaide’s population is steadily increasing and with further high-
rise buildings being approved, pressure on the Parklands will increase and in turn be
further valued by the community as a free and accessible open space.
The main principle I apply to Park Lands use is that it should be green, open and
publicly accessible space, in line with Colonel William Light’s vision. Informal
KEL SPENCER
recreation is the desired main use, while amateur sport is an important aspect we
cannot have only sports fields. Tourism should be a good driving force of use, and is a
way that we can promote the Park Lands. Festivals are also important but cannot
monopolise large spaces for long periods of time. Permanent institutions should not
be supported, including educational institutions.
Survey of candidates
Suplementary Election July 20212. What kind of new buildings would you support within the
Park Lands? (e.g. clubrooms, kiosks, swimming pool etc)
FRANK Any new building is an encroachment on Park Lands and could add subtle and
incremental undesirable change so I would be reluctant to approve new
BARBARO buildings.
I do not support new buildings in our Park Lands. I would support refurbishment
KEIRAN SNAPE of existing buildings as long as the land size is not increased (indeed I'd support
efforts to decrease square footage of buildings)
Any new uses should increase publicly accessible green areas of parkland from
ANDREW that its current use. Existing 'undeveloped' areas should be protected for green
space and general recreation. This should be the dominant purpose of this part
WALLACE of the city.
Importantly anything that is built into the parklands for whatever purpose should
be of the highest designed quality. They must be conceived and built to rigorous
environmental standards and the outcomes should be something that the
community should be duly proud and part of our future heritage.
I would support the existing buildings that the Clubs have at the moment on the
THEO VLASSIS Parklands, also support the maintenance of these existing buildings and their
amenities to bring them up to the standard that is required by law to be enjoyed
by the people of Adelaide and others.
It depends on the proposed plan, its benefits to the community and the effect on
SHAHIN SAYYAR previously mentioned principles. Swimming pools, kiosks, local museums, halls
of fame and play areas would always be great options.
DASHTI
I do recognise that some existing facilities are becoming tired and lack modern
INGMAR (ALEX) amenities and I support the need to attend to these matters. But I believe that
the existing footprint should not increase, including adding a second floor to a
BOOKLESS- structure that previously was not, even though technically the footprint has not
PRATT increased. Of course there will be outlier incidents were an addition is needed
for clubroom bathrooms and or adaptations to change rooms to be both female
and male friendly. Nevertheless, those would be viewed individually on merit.
I would support a refurbished Adelaide Aquatic Centre, on the basis it is a
KEL SPENCER facility that serves the community. Clubrooms may be appropriate, subject to
size and lease term and conditions. They should seek to consolidate and
replace other buildings within the Park Lands, with no net increase in footprint. I
would support kiosks and hospitality that are only ancillary to the informal
recreational aspects of the Park Lands usage, therefore adding to the
enjoyment of the surrounding green, open and accessible spaces. Above all
else, the design of buildings should be sympathetic to a Park lands setting, and
the lease terms of these buildings should allow for public use as easily and as
often as possible.
Survey of candidates
Suplementary Election July 20213. What kind of new private commercial developments would
you support in the Park Lands, if at all? (e.g. hotel,
gymnasium, office building, residential, retail, innovation
hub?)
FRANK Park Lands need to remain that and commercial activities if they are viable
BARBARO and valid have other alternatives.
I do not support any further attempts to privatise areas of our Park Lands
KEIRAN SNAPE and as a matter of principle I would fight to reduce the areas of privatisation
in our Park Lands.
I do not believe in private commercial development for private means in the
ANDREW parklands. Private and public co investment in public facilities can yield
good outcomes for our community if intelligently conceived,
WALLACE executed and managed.
On new private commercial developments I think there is plenty of land
THEO VLASSIS outside of the Parklands for new developments. As stated the Parklands
should be in pristine condition for the community to enjoy as Parklands.
A building on parklands may have a negative impact on livability but any
SHAHIN SAYYAR plan which preserves green areas, boosts the economy and provides
services to the community can always be studied. A green innovation hub
DASHTI might be a good option but for others, a well-detailed plan is required as
these types of buildings are not ideal matches for parklands. parklands
belong to the public and privatization is the least favorite action.
I do not support any private commercial builds in the Parklands no matter
INGMAR (ALEX) the rationale. This includes any club no matter the sport, making the
Adelaide Aquatic Centre their hub. Furthermore, I do not support any
BOOKLESS- rectangular sports stadium being built in the Parklands, like that which has
PRATT been suggested in the past, either. Be it to benefit the “round ball game”
football, or concerts. The home of football in this State is
Hindmarsh/Coopers Stadium and concerts can continue to be held at
Adelaide Oval.
I would not support any of the examples listed. Please note my previous
KEL SPENCER answer regarding kiosks and Tourism. Again, any proposal would need to
maximise public usage in some form, adhere to good design principles and
not involve the sale of any land or long term lease.
Survey of candidates
Suplementary Election July 20214. Do you support World Heritage listing of the Adelaide Park
Lands?
Park Lands are one of Adelaide’s key standout features that complement
FRANK the built environment. I have no doubt that once we become fully aware of
BARBARO the environmental repair needed the Park Lands, along with nature
generally, will be elevated to the status that is beneficial to people and
World Heritage listing will promote that process.
KEIRAN SNAPE Yes, wholeheartedly
ANDREW I support World Heritage Listing of the parklands as well as Adelaide
WALLACE working towards National Park City and Well City status.
THEO VLASSIS To arrive as the third best liveable City in the world the Adelaide Parklands
would have played a major role in this decision therefore I would support
World Heritage Listing
SHAHIN SAYYAR I will definitely support this listing
DASHTI
In short, I would not be against such a proposal. That being said, there
INGMAR (ALEX) would be much that would need to be researched regarding the potential
BOOKLESS- increase in local, national and international tourism and the infrastructure of
paths, lighting, viewing areas, weather shelters and other potential
PRATT unforeseen factors would need to be addressed. Moreover, to what extent
would the traditional Kaurna Peoples of the Adelaide Plains be included in
the process if such a proposal was to move forward? Nature based and
eco-tourism with an overarching indigenous story telling aspect would be a
great result if the Parklands were to be recognised as World Heritage. I
also regard the five squares in the Adelaide Central Business District as
well as the sole square in North Adelaide as an extension on the
surrounding Parklands.
I think we need to do more to remediate, reclaim, and then activate our Park
KEL SPENCER Lands before seriously embarking on a very expensive process. The funds
given to that potentially multi-million bid could be better spent on the above
goals first. There is no doubt that our Park Lands are unique in a global
context and provide a wonderful opportunity to create a point of difference
for our beautiful city
Survey of candidates
Suplementary Election July 2021EVALUATION AND HOW-TO-VOTE RECOMMENDATION
The Adelaide Park Lands Association congratulates all seven candidates for responding
positively to our four questions about your Open Green Public spaces.
We are encouraged that all candidates appear to recognise the value of your Park Lands to
the City of Adelaide, and the multiple benefits that they offer to residents, businesses,
sporting groups, tourists, commuters and others.
Nevertheless the purpose of this exercise was to distinguish between the candidates,
compare their responses and offer our suggestions on how to vote.
Question 1: Future land uses.
Some candidates appeared not to appreciate distinction between "facilities" and "activities"
with responses that would leave open a path to new "facilities" that might reduce the area of
Open Green Public Park Lands. The only candidate to expressly support Park Lands
remaining "open and accessible" was Keiran Snape. Most other candidates were generally
supportive of this principle, albeit with less clarity. Other candidates used qualifying words
e.g. “primarily”, referred to vague “principles” or used generalities rather than responding to
the question about land uses and the specific examples cited. Keiran Snape was the only
one to make “open and accessible to the public” a necessary condition of proposed future
land uses. The response from Shahin Sayyar Dashti was disappointing insofar as he would
support "any plan" for Park Lands that would complement his "three principles".
Question 2: New buildings
Responses from six of the seven candidates were encouraging. Most appeared to
understand the risk of creeping privatisation, as in recent years many clubs and sporting
groups have sought to build function centres, bars and private storage facilities on Park
Lands. Refurbishment of existing buildings is one thing, but extension of private facilities, to
further restrict public access is another thing entirely. Two candidates (Kel Spencer and
Ingmar (Alex) Bookless-Pratt) suggested that new buildings "should not" increase footprint,
but only Keiran Snape indicated he would argue for a reduction in built footprint. Other
candidates might argue for a reduction in built footprint if the opportunity arose, but they
didn't say so. We are evaluating candidates by their own words. One candidate, Shahin
Sayyar Dashti, was prepared to endorse new closed facilities on Park Lands.
Question 3: Private commercial developments
Six of the seven candidates were adamant that private commercial developments should
not be approved on your Open Green Public Park Lands. Only Shahin Sayyar Dashti was
prepared to countenance a study of such proposals.
Question 4: World Heritage listing
Five of the seven candidates were supportive of World Heritage Listing. Kel Spencer
believed that pursuing World Heritage should be prioritised lower than "remediate, reclaim
and activate" Park Lands. Ingmar (Alex) Bookless-Pratt was "not against" it.
Based on the candidates responses, the Adelaide Park Lands Association recommends:
Vote #1 Keiran Snape, and put Shahin Sayyar Dashti at #7 (last) on your ballot paper.
We are ranking the other five candidates as equal second: i.e. we are not recommending
any particular distribution of preferences 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6.
Survey of candidates
Suplementary Election July 2021You can also read
