Advert
Advert – scroll down
Displaying the 5 latest comments.
Submitted | first-name | support | concern | top-concern | message |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2026-09-18 17:43:11 +02:00 | Ted | No I do not | All of the above | Loss of Public Asset | You dont understand our history or the promise of our future. Stand down you ignorant morons. |
2026-09-17 14:49:07 +02:00 | Grant | No I do not | All of the above | Severe Sewer & Utility Grid Strains | the golf course would be turned into yet another shit hole of filth so no i do not support this development |
2026-09-17 13:32:41 +02:00 | Saroj | No I do not | Other | ||
2026-09-17 12:49:06 +02:00 | Shaun | Not fully | Procedural Unfairness & Retroactive Approvals | It seems like this has not been thoroughly thought through and is rushed. It needs to be planned carefully and have meaningful participation. | |
2026-09-14 19:52:33 +02:00 | Etienne | No I do not | All of the above | Loss of Public Asset |
The City maintains that the redevelopment process is entirely “procedurally sound” following the adoption of Council Resolution C39/05/26 on 27 May 2026. Proponents argue that the draft concept represents a vital step toward spatial justice, turning an exclusive recreational area into a vibrant, high-density precinct with 8,600 homes (minimum 30% social housing). They assert that technical studies, transit coordination, and environmental impact assessments will be dealt with thoroughly in the subsequent legislative phases after the land disposal principle is approved.
Opponents argue that the City is executing an administrative “bait-and-switch.” Asking the public to approve an irreversible public asset disposal while keeping essential technical studies (valuations, sewer metrics, and TIAs) hidden behind PAIA walls violates the basic tenets of fair administrative action under PAJA. Furthermore, the revelation that PRASA has zero alignment with the City’s transit claims proves that the project’s planning is prematurely optimised. The community insists that the public participation process must be halted and restarted only when all baseline evidence is public and the legal authorisations are genuinely transparent.