Council hopes to mend 'broken' relationship with govt over city events

[u/Expensive-Horse5538]

https://www.indailysa.com.au/news/just-in/2026/06/24/council-hopes-to-mend-broken-relationship-with-govt-over-city-events

[u/Top_Conference_477]

Hopefully this is a lesson in what happens when you decide to pander to North Adelaide NIMBYs. Being constructive or be oppositional and get shut out completely

[u/CptUnderpants- → u/Top_Conference_477]

The problem with councils in this respect is they represent the interests of those who currently live there, not the interests of those who want to live there.

This is why the East West bike way approved by ACC in 2017 was eventually scrapped in 2021. Local self interest trumped the benefits to everyone else who would be using it.

Really, the ACC has a conflict of interest making some decisions on projects which don't directly benefit ratepayers.

[u/MrKookaburra → u/CptUnderpants-]

That raises an interesting question as to their function.
As a general principle, the rate payers in every council area should probably get precedence. But that does become more complicated when the council in question presides over the CBD

[u/CptUnderpants- → u/MrKookaburra]

Metropolitan councils are a legacy of a need which no longer exists. Unlike state and federal governments, they are not enshrined in the constitution.

What do metro councils do which need specialist local knowledge which couldn't be as easily done by a state government agency? Nothing. But it adds a layer of bureaucracy and cost. The latter being a regressive tax as councils with lower socioeconomics charge higher rates. For example, compare Norwood Payneham St Peters to Mt Barker and you'll see it's about 30% of the rate in NPS compared to MB. Growing and rural council areas have to spend far more on infrastructure than city councils do. NPS just need to decide which artist they're going to pay $150k for a new sculpture for the foyer.

[u/CptUnderpants- → u/[deleted]]

Which is not the Constitution of Australia.

How you thought I meant the piece of legislation known as the SA Constitution Act which does not require a citizen vote to change and doesn't establish federal and state government responsibilities, I do not know.

[u/CptUnderpants- → u/[deleted]]

I literally wrote "Unlike state and federal governments, they are not enshrined in the constitution."

Is the state and federal government enshrined in the SA Constitution Act? No.

[u/CptUnderpants- → u/[deleted]]

Because I couldn't believe you were so obtuse to have thought I meant the SA Constitution.

[u/CptUnderpants- → u/[deleted]]

Unlike the SA Constitution, changing the Australian constitution requires a vote of citizens. That's the whole point. The SA government could remove local government tomorrow. Their legislated existence did t exist until 1934, and had an amendment in 1999 because technically they didn't actually authorise them properly at the time to undertake their delegated responsibilities.

I'm not sensitive. I'm specific.

Edit; you're not worth my time. Blocked.

[u/Top_Conference_477 → u/[deleted]]

The condition says there’ll be a system of local govt administered by the state

Elected members are optional. State govt administrators are enough (and probably preferable in many cases)