Most interesting comment from Melissa (Posted August 7, 2018 at …

Comment on No ‘mitigation’ of major dust hazard for road users by Alex Nelson.

Most interesting comment from Melissa (Posted August 7, 2018 at 2:09 pm) because, if her observation is correct, it indicates the layout of streets and drainage in Kilgariff has been very poorly designed.
That area previously simply did not get inundated, even in heavy rainfall events – the water simply soaked into the ground or drained naturally towards St Mary’s Creek.
If “the existing drains filled near to capacity on relatively light rains” then that is an indictment on the standard of work allowed to pass acceptance for this new suburb.
It would seem this whole development is more scandalous than I first realised.

Alex Nelson Also Commented

No ‘mitigation’ of major dust hazard for road users
@ The Bush Engineer (Posted August 7, 2018 at 10:30 am) might like to have the courage of his/her convictions and come out of hiding from behind your psuedonym.
What we’ve got in this situation is a case of massive over-engineering, a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Kilgariff is situated on a higher level of ground to the adjacent St Mary’s Creek channel and all that is (was) required was to run smaller channels from the streets and kerbsides towards the lower area.
What we’ve now ended up with is a situation that will create a knock-on effect, increasing the likelihood and frequency of increased water flow over Colonel Rose Drive which in turn will necessitate extra engineering works to mitigate that situation, too.
But hey! That’s the name of the game, isn’t it? To keep those taxpayers’ dollars flowing to prop up private enterprise – all that rich white fella welfare disguised as keeping the economy going! That’s the way it’s always been done here in the Territory, especially since Self-Government!
Let’s remember Kilgariff only proceeded after 2009 in order to circumvent native title issues in and around the main town area.
Prior to that it had always been official government policy (both Commonwealth era and during the long reign of CLP government 1974-2001) never to develop suburbia south of the Gap.


Recent Comments by Alex Nelson

How do NT Labor and the CLP rate on heritage?
@ Domenico Pecorari (Posted October 11, 2019 at 11:25 am): Concurrent with this period of disregard for heritage, Domenico, is the steady decline of our local economy.
It’s not a coincidence.


Old visitors centre trashed
The repurposed building displaying its current very distinctive architecture was officially opened by NT Federal member Nick Dondas on February 6, 1998 as the new you beaut Visitor Centre and headquarters of the Central Australian Tourism Industry Association (CATIA).
The major modification of the former “Queen Elizabeth II Memorial Welfare Centre” (more commonly known as the Infant Welfare Clinic or Baby Clinic) as a visitor centre cost $260,000 of Federal funding.
Now this public asset is abandoned, trashed and boarded up.
Your taxes at work, yes?


Old visitors centre trashed
@ James T Smerk (Posted October 9, 2019 at 1:04 pm): Yes, it’s been vacant since 2013 – see my story.


Government electricity firm in trouble as solar booms
The rise of renewables supplanting the old fossil-fuelled energy technologies echoes the period almost a century ago when camel trains and droving on horseback gave way to rail and motor transport.
The mind boggles, all the same, at the prospect of feral gas generators roaming the outback with mobs of camels, horses and donkeys.


Council backflip on Anzac Oval heritage
@ Eli Melky (Posted October 4, 2019 at 11:35 am): I acknowledge Councillor Melky’s long-standing support for the preservation of Anzac Oval in its existing state as a major community asset which predates the beginning of my effort towards nominating the oval for heritage listing.
I also thank Councillor Auricht for his principled stand on this matter.
As for Councillor Satour’s querying “that the proposal for heritage listing had not come up until the Anzac precinct became the government’s preferred site for the national Aboriginal art gallery”, she ought to be aware that often happens in regard to proposed redevelopment projects.
It’s not unusual (the recent failed nomination of the old Darwin Primary School at Frog Hollow is another example) and it’s also the right of any person under the NT Heritage Act (passed by Labor in 2011) to make such nominations.
After the conclusion of the mid-September committee meeting I spoke with Councillor Satour to suggest I could make a presentation to the Town Council about the nominations for heritage listing of Anzac Oval and the old school, given that the council had not sought to discuss these matters with me.
Councillor Satour seemed responsive to that idea but there was no follow-up.
I became concerned about heritage implications after learning in late 2017 of the Government’s intention to replace the former Anzac Hill High School as its preferred site for the National Aboriginal Art Gallery, and upon being informed this had not been taken into consideration I resolved at that time to nominate the old school for heritage listing.
The decision to nominate Anzac Oval came much later, after being prevailed upon by others to do so.
In December 2017 I wrote to Minister Lauren Moss explaining the historical background to the origin of heritage legislation in the Northern Territory which arose out of major controversies in Alice Springs in the late 1980s – clearly this message was lost on the Minister and her Parliamentary colleagues.


Be Sociable, Share!

A new way to support our journalism

We do not have a paywall. If you support our independent journalism you can make a financial contribution by clicking the red button below. This will help us cover expenses and sustain the news service we’ve been providing since 1994, in a locally owned and operated medium.

Erwin Chlanda, Editor