What Council can do:

11th October, The Advertiser

The Council can purchase this land, less that already paid by tax-payers, and lease it back to the SAJC. This opportunity could also pass by though, and the lease be given to the prosperity of the City of Adelaide.

Hold on! The SAJC supposedly do not have the financial means to sustain Cheltenham Park, yet they propose to sustain a lease and full-scale development of a different racecourse (and combined motor raceway) at Victoria Park. What government concessions are involved with such attractions? Oh, yes, the Pokies can sustain them at Cheltenham Parklands, and so too co-development. Lord knows we all need landlords in the hands of sustainable gambling houses.

Let's consider an alternative crowd draw-card: Cheltenham Park, part of the Adelaide parklands, as was originally intended (see subdivision prohibition), attracting specific international visitors through the creation of a biodiverse wetland. Tourism in South Australia earns more money than the total of exports, such as "coal and wool combined" in Australia ($3.3bn boon for state, The Advertiser, 4th November, 2005).

Catchments of stormwater run-off would also afford the Council the ability to sell water to surrounding industries, residents with bores (which historically we have), and to the State Government to trade with interstate users of the Murray River. The City of Salisbury is in the forefront of this endeavour in Adelaide. Their wetlands are renowned, progressive, and proven.

Prime Minister John Howard has pledged money to save water in SA so there exists a very viable grant application option. Please consider a longer term solution that will suit residents, council revenue, the Murray, and South Australia, rather than just the few who will be able to afford more investment properties!

Now, what could councils do with this spare money?

23rd February 2005, The Portside Messenger

What "operational expenditure" do they use this allocated money for, if it is not for the stipulated preservation of open space? Can the money by developers who fully use all open space for development, rather than leaving the legal requirement of 12.5% open space (and so pay the equivalent cost to fully develop), be legitimately used by councils in various ways?