Commenting on the story: Cross Road partly reopens after truck crash

Another heavy vehicle accident at the base of the freeway. And while we think of the family of the injured driver, thank goodness it didn’t happen in peak hour. The outcome could have been significantly worse.

Which begs the question, why are we spending hundreds of millions of dollars on intersection upgrades on Cross, Glen Osmond and Portrush roads when this money could have been directed to construction of a heavy vehicle route that removed this traffic from what is clearly a dangerous section of road?

The budget for the three intersection upgrades totals $194 million. Goodness knows what the actual cost is, especially when rebuilding the Waite Gate House and other associated works is included.

We also need to factor in the loss of trees and existing buildings, the environmental impact of these enormous fields of bitumen and the impact on amenity and the surrounding community.

The SA Government is currently working on the draft SA Freight and Supply Chain Strategy. Lets hope this includes the diversion of road and rail freight from the current route, allowing us to improve safety, reduce traffic volumes on these key roads and reinstate passenger train connections to Mount Barker and other Hills communities along the existing rail corridor.

This would truly be an investment in our future. – Nicolette Di Lernia

On the topic of a freight bypass away from the South Eastern Freeway, it is refreshing to hear the Treasurer publicly say that the Government is seriously considering this.

I live in the Adelaide Hills and use the SE Freeway to get to the city, including my commute to and from work.

As Stephen Mullighan said, serious incidents involving trucks on the freeway are not frequent, but they happen often enough, and have involved loss of life as well as property. It’s a treacherous descent for heavy freight and presents a risk to the light commuters they share the road with.

In my time living in Adelaide, I have also lived on Hampstead Road, part of the heavy freight route, and I have always thought it does not make sense for so many heavy trucks to be lumbering through the Adelaide suburbs. The noise and the pollution are not good for these neighbourhoods and as soon as we started our family we moved off Hampstead Road for these reasons.

The same goes for other suburban thoroughfares such as Portrush Road and Lower Portrush Road. Surely most of the heavy freight can and should be diverted to a new purpose-built route that bypasses the suburbs.

Finally, back to the topic of the SE Freeway, would it need seemingly constant resurfacing if it was not continuously stressed with heavy trucks 24/7? Wouldn’t lowering the number of trucks on the SE Freeway surely reduce ongoing maintenance costs for the government? – Stevie Vicino

Commenting on the story: Short stay accommodation rate hike concerns

The area in which I live is full of AirBnBs, those listed on Booking.com have their addresses published.

It is easy to see the proliferation of them, houses withdrawn from the residential rental market.

A recent conversation with the Valuer-General’s office re classifications of use revealed if there is one room (for rent) in a house it is residential, code 1833 B&B, single unit. When two or more rooms are for short-term rent, it changes the category to 1834, short-term rental multiple, and becomes a commercial property use, hence a change of use to commercial.

Commercial water, ESL, council rates and land tax are therefore payable. Councils and Land Services only need to look at Booking.com to see where these properties are, they also list the number of beds.

When you look you see the vast number of houses withdrawn from residential rental, no wonder there is such a shortage of rentals. There is actually no question of change of use. – Sue Lehmann

Developers warn pub protection push will ‘decimate’ live music

Bruce Djite is spouting nonsense. We know not to be ruled by such thinking, because what is of value to a society goes way beyond the confines of  property developers’ balance-sheets. – Michael Jacobs

Commenting on the opinion piece: Premier’s department a ‘safe space’ from accountability

All power to Rex Patrick. His InDaily revelations about the truly Orwellian response he received about his FOI bid reminded me of the confidentiality provisions in the Local Government Act 1999 (SA), section 90 (3).

There’s a confidentiality provision at (j) which states “information the disclosure of which – (i) would divulge information provided on a confidential basis by or to a Minister of the Crown, or another public authority, or official (not being an employee of the council, or a person engaged by the council; and (ii) would on balance be contrary to the public interest.”

Two observations:

1. ‘on a confidential basis’ is triggered simply by writing ‘confidential’ in any correspondence (rationale: I say it is, so it is!)

2. ‘ … on balance be contrary to the public interest’ is perhaps the silliest clause in the whole Act. Very obviously to the ordinary person, a matter desperately being kept secret is in fact likely to be fascinating to the public and public revelation critical in transparency and accountability terms and, on balance, very clearly in the public interest.

But transparency is like anthrax to bureaucrats and ministers. Rex’s assurance that his search is just the beginning should have them worried. – John Bridgland