SA State Election 2022

[SBD]

@Rev and others, do you seriously know anyone (yourself included if you like) that:

• You would be prepared to vote for as your local member and to have as premier, and
• The person would be prepared to take on the job for less than a 6-figure salary?

Does this person have other income that tips them over $100k income that they wouldn't have to give up to take up the role (spouse income, investments, "old money" etc)?

[rev]

@Rev and others, do you seriously know anyone (yourself included if you like) that:

• You would be prepared to vote for as your local member and to have as premier, and
• The person would be prepared to take on the job for less than a 6-figure salary?

Does this person have other income that tips them over $100k income that they wouldn't have to give up to take up the role (spouse income, investments, "old money" etc)?

Think about it this way.
A politician has countless advisors and staff.
Who are also paid very well.

How many public servants do we have, who are in stressful jobs and often thankless?

How many of the public servants who are working in families sa, who take care of vulnerable kids, who get paid as well as a politician and their advisors/staff?

Why aren't we paying people who are looking after vulnerable, neglected, abandoned kids,6 figures?
If we are paying our politicians 6 figures, and their staff, in order to apparently attract the best people, why isnt the same done to attract the best to take care of those kids?

Why aren't teachers paid 6 figures, they are after all responsible for educating our children, and spend more waking hours with kids then parents do.

What about our nurses?


If we're supposedly attracting the best people for political positions by paying 6 figures, why is our state in the mess its in?
Why can't any of these "best people" figure out how to keep people here and reverse the brain drain?

Why can't they figure out how to lower the cost of living?

Why can't they figure out how to implement a road maintenance program?

Why can't they fix the health care crisis?


They are the best people possible right because they're paid 6 figures courtesy of the tax payers...right?

Well, as one of those tax payers, we aren't getting value for money.

[SBD]

@Rev and others, do you seriously know anyone (yourself included if you like) that:

• You would be prepared to vote for as your local member and to have as premier, and
• The person would be prepared to take on the job for less than a 6-figure salary?

Does this person have other income that tips them over $100k income that they wouldn't have to give up to take up the role (spouse income, investments, "old money" etc)?

Think about it this way.
A politician has countless advisors and staff.
Who are also paid very well.

How many public servants do we have, who are in stressful jobs and often thankless?

How many of the public servants who are working in families sa, who take care of vulnerable kids, who get paid as well as a politician and their advisors/staff?

Why aren't we paying people who are looking after vulnerable, neglected, abandoned kids,6 figures?
If we are paying our politicians 6 figures, and their staff, in order to apparently attract the best people, why isnt the same done to attract the best to take care of those kids?

Why aren't teachers paid 6 figures, they are after all responsible for educating our children, and spend more waking hours with kids then parents do.

What about our nurses?


If we're supposedly attracting the best people for political positions by paying 6 figures, why is our state in the mess its in?
Why can't any of these "best people" figure out how to keep people here and reverse the brain drain?

Why can't they figure out how to lower the cost of living?

Why can't they figure out how to implement a road maintenance program?

Why can't they fix the health care crisis?


They are the best people possible right because they're paid 6 figures courtesy of the tax payers...right?

Well, as one of those tax payers, we aren't getting value for money.

We can offer all public servants (or even just teachers, Department of Child Services and nurses) and party advisors a pay rise if you like, that wasn't my point.

I didn't say that a 6-figure salary guarantees that only the best people will be elected. That is clearly false. My point was that if only a lower remuneration is offered, then mostly only people who can't earn six figures elsewhere would even stand for election, so we would not even have the option of getting some of the really good people.

The "brain drain" is because many of our "best people" can only aspire to low-six-figure income in South Australia, and can earn much more much earlier in their careers in other places. If they don't have family or other reasons to stay in SA, why would they? This is why it's so valuable to the state to have things like the shipyards and the developments at Lot 14.

[rev]

@Rev and others, do you seriously know anyone (yourself included if you like) that:

• You would be prepared to vote for as your local member and to have as premier, and
• The person would be prepared to take on the job for less than a 6-figure salary?

Does this person have other income that tips them over $100k income that they wouldn't have to give up to take up the role (spouse income, investments, "old money" etc)?

Think about it this way.
A politician has countless advisors and staff.
Who are also paid very well.

How many public servants do we have, who are in stressful jobs and often thankless?

How many of the public servants who are working in families sa, who take care of vulnerable kids, who get paid as well as a politician and their advisors/staff?

Why aren't we paying people who are looking after vulnerable, neglected, abandoned kids,6 figures?
If we are paying our politicians 6 figures, and their staff, in order to apparently attract the best people, why isnt the same done to attract the best to take care of those kids?

Why aren't teachers paid 6 figures, they are after all responsible for educating our children, and spend more waking hours with kids then parents do.

What about our nurses?


If we're supposedly attracting the best people for political positions by paying 6 figures, why is our state in the mess its in?
Why can't any of these "best people" figure out how to keep people here and reverse the brain drain?

Why can't they figure out how to lower the cost of living?

Why can't they figure out how to implement a road maintenance program?

Why can't they fix the health care crisis?


They are the best people possible right because they're paid 6 figures courtesy of the tax payers...right?

Well, as one of those tax payers, we aren't getting value for money.

We can offer all public servants (or even just teachers, Department of Child Services and nurses) and party advisors a pay rise if you like, that wasn't my point.

I didn't say that a 6-figure salary guarantees that only the best people will be elected. That is clearly false. My point was that if only a lower remuneration is offered, then mostly only people who can't earn six figures elsewhere would even stand for election, so we would not even have the option of getting some of the really good people.

The "brain drain" is because many of our "best people" can only aspire to low-six-figure income in South Australia, and can earn much more much earlier in their careers in other places. If they don't have family or other reasons to stay in SA, why would they? This is why it's so valuable to the state to have things like the shipyards and the developments at Lot 14.

People who are after a 6 figure salary wont stand for election if they can't earn a six figure salary and pension from being a politician? That's a fucking great outcome then.
Because those sorts of people aren't the best people to represent their electorate and constituents.
And that's my point.

Exactly, why would someone stay here if they can make more interstate.
Someone, you or whoever I don't know/care, said we need to pay 6 figures etc to get the best politicians.
We've been paying them 6 figures and an extremely over the top pension for a very long time now. If that was the criteria for attracting the best people for the job, why is our state in such shit shape?
Why are we still losing people?
And the many other issues in this state that I've posted about before.

Anyway, the 500 is returning, first election promise kept by the new government?

[rev]

https://indaily.com.au/news/2022/03/28/ ... -business/

New arena canned. Would post in the City Arena thread but its still locked.

[rubberman]

A few other things about the recently deceased entertainment stadium, apart from the Parklands issue.

First, the area proposed was SMALLER than the existing Entertainment Centre site.

Second, it is less accessible.

Third, the proposed site had zero room for expansion. The existing site has land next door that possibly could be purchased.

So, the former Government was trying to sell us a limited stadium on a limited site with worse access...for $600m. WTF?

So, even if the idea that a bigger venue would bring bigger acts was valid, then the Liberal proposal was a dog because the site was simply smaller than the existing one. IF it could be shown that a bigger venue would bring bigger acts, then surely the best way is to demolish the existing Entertainment Centre and build it even bigger? The Liberals never attempted to explain this huge logic hole.

Add to that the idea of relocation of the WCH to the parkland near the RAH. Also insane. Access there is bad enough already...so what's the reason for adding to it? Especially since the WCH is already going through an upgrade...paid for by the taxpayer. Other than some tidy mind idea that everything being close makes it more efficient is just OCD unless there's an actual study. If that were so, you'd never have a WCH, because the ultimate closeness is to combine it in the RAH...And there's good reason for the separation. Again, no explanation. And that's without NIMBY questions like whether the site would end up like another LeCornus? Gah. The stupid...it hurts!

[claybro]

A few other things about the recently deceased entertainment stadium, apart from the Parklands issue.

First, the area proposed was SMALLER than the existing Entertainment Centre site.

Second, it is less accessible.

Third, the proposed site had zero room for expansion. The existing site has land next door that possibly could be purchased.

So, the former Government was trying to sell us a limited stadium on a limited site with worse access...for $600m. WTF?

So, even if the idea that a bigger venue would bring bigger acts was valid, then the Liberal proposal was a dog because the site was simply smaller than the existing one. IF it could be shown that a bigger venue would bring bigger acts, then surely the best way is to demolish the existing Entertainment Centre and build it even bigger? The Liberals never attempted to explain this huge logic hole.

Add to that the idea of relocation of the WCH to the parkland near the RAH. Also insane. Access there is bad enough already...so what's the reason for adding to it? Especially since the WCH is already going through an upgrade...paid for by the taxpayer. Other than some tidy mind idea that everything being close makes it more efficient is just OCD unless there's an actual study. If that were so, you'd never have a WCH, because the ultimate closeness is to combine it in the RAH...And there's good reason for the separation. Again, no explanation. And that's without NIMBY questions like whether the site would end up like another LeCornus? Gah. The stupid...it hurts!

Reluctant to keep rehashing this, as this proposal is dead. But it will raise its head eventually, because the Ent Centre should be located in the CBD eventually. So, to your list of problems with this site.

1.Smaller footprint-so what? Modern enclosed arenas are designed take up less footprint than the older era centers. As are new outdoor stadiums.

2.Less accessible. -It is next to the main train station end of all metro lines, and a tram stop, and links to multiple bus routes? There are multiple public carparks nearby. Are you implying that Adelaide Oval is not accessible? It is in the same vicinity.

3. Zero room for expansion. There are complaints that this was already overkill for Adelaide-how much expansion would it likely need?-It is already an expansion of the existing Entertianment Centre, which is by all reports past its use by date.

4. General rant about hospitals etc. Not sure your point? What is the Labor plan for WCH? If access to the site is so bad, why did Labor build the worlds most expensive hospital there? Does it not make sense to have the WCH with direct access to the main emergency hospital?-labs, expertise etc.-Are you sure there is never any collaboration between the two?

Lets be happy that there is a new government, with new ideas that can be assessed on their merits. But at some stage, the Ent Center needs an upgrade, is not currently in a central location-and Adelaide may be stuck with it now for a decade at least-but hey...hospital ramping will be sorted...

[rubberman]

A few other things about the recently deceased entertainment stadium, apart from the Parklands issue.

First, the area proposed was SMALLER than the existing Entertainment Centre site.

Second, it is less accessible.

Third, the proposed site had zero room for expansion. The existing site has land next door that possibly could be purchased.

So, the former Government was trying to sell us a limited stadium on a limited site with worse access...for $600m. WTF?

So, even if the idea that a bigger venue would bring bigger acts was valid, then the Liberal proposal was a dog because the site was simply smaller than the existing one. IF it could be shown that a bigger venue would bring bigger acts, then surely the best way is to demolish the existing Entertainment Centre and build it even bigger? The Liberals never attempted to explain this huge logic hole.

Add to that the idea of relocation of the WCH to the parkland near the RAH. Also insane. Access there is bad enough already...so what's the reason for adding to it? Especially since the WCH is already going through an upgrade...paid for by the taxpayer. Other than some tidy mind idea that everything being close makes it more efficient is just OCD unless there's an actual study. If that were so, you'd never have a WCH, because the ultimate closeness is to combine it in the RAH...And there's good reason for the separation. Again, no explanation. And that's without NIMBY questions like whether the site would end up like another LeCornus? Gah. The stupid...it hurts!

Reluctant to keep rehashing this, as this proposal is dead. But it will raise its head eventually, because the Ent Centre should be located in the CBD eventually. So, to your list of problems with this site.

1.Smaller footprint-so what? Modern enclosed arenas are designed take up less footprint than the older era centers. As are new outdoor stadiums.

2.Less accessible. -It is next to the main train station end of all metro lines, and a tram stop, and links to multiple bus routes? There are multiple public carparks nearby. Are you implying that Adelaide Oval is not accessible? It is in the same vicinity.

3. Zero room for expansion. There are complaints that this was already overkill for Adelaide-how much expansion would it likely need?-It is already an expansion of the existing Entertianment Centre, which is by all reports past its use by date.

4. General rant about hospitals etc. Not sure your point? What is the Labor plan for WCH? If access to the site is so bad, why did Labor build the worlds most expensive hospital there? Does it not make sense to have the WCH with direct access to the main emergency hospital?-labs, expertise etc.-Are you sure there is never any collaboration between the two?

Lets be happy that there is a new government, with new ideas that can be assessed on their merits. But at some stage, the Ent Center needs an upgrade, is not currently in a central location-and Adelaide may be stuck with it now for a decade at least-but hey...hospital ramping will be sorted...

1. That's no reason to build a new stadium on parklands. Almost all the chatter about a new stadium was because the existing one is too small. If what you are saying is true, and I have no reason to disbelieve, then why not simply rebuild on the existing site?

2. It's on the wrong side of the tracks for good accessibility. Unless, of course, a lot of money is spent on bridges and overpasses. That could be better spent elsewhere.

3. Expansion. Every time we build something, it only takes a few years and someone calls for something bigger. I'll bet a slab of Coopers that no matter how big you build a stadium, ten years later there'd be people saying if only we had a bigger one, we'd get the big acts from overseas. So, yeah, the ability to expand is needed.

4. The existing WCH is in the process of an upgrade right now. The whole system was studied to death when the new RAH was being conceived. Decision: new RAH and upgrade WCH. First is done, and the second is happening. If the collaboration you talk about were important, you simply wouldn't have a WCH, everything could have been combined in a much bigger RAH, with just another floor on the RAH. That was not considered the best outcome. The decision was made and the money was spent. That's it for this iteration.

As for the Entertainment Centre not being in a central location? That's a pretty fine distinction if you look at a map of the Adelaide metropolitan area.

[Llessur2002]

But at some stage, the Ent Center needs an upgrade, is not currently in a central location-and Adelaide may be stuck with it now for a decade at least-but hey...hospital ramping will be sorted...

It's as central as the Sidney Myer Music Bowl and arguably more central than the Palais Theatre in St Kilda. No one ever complains about their locations.

[rev]

It's not that bad of a location, kind of at the end of the parklands there, but it's not like it's in any way integrated with the parklands nearby, and the tram line was an after thought really.
Would have been good if the river front was redeveloped entirely and included an entertainment & convention centre in one, but hey.

[Nathan]

I think they should revitalise Bonython Park, and turn it into an A-grade urban park. There was talk of this years ago with a previous Labor governments riverbank masterplan, highlighting Bonython Park as a potential "Bicentennial Park". Imagine bringing that right up, encouraging development up along Port Rd (particularly the Coke and West End sites), improving the connection to river across into Hindmarsh, and having some landmark expansions on the two corner sites at Port Rd/Adam St/Park Tce (particularly where the multi-storey carpark is).

[rev]

I think they should revitalise Bonython Park, and turn it into an A-grade urban park. There was talk of this years ago with a previous Labor governments riverbank masterplan, highlighting Bonython Park as a potential "Bicentennial Park". Imagine bringing that right up, encouraging development up along Port Rd (particularly the Coke and West End sites), improving the connection to river across into Hindmarsh, and having some landmark expansions on the two corner sites at Port Rd/Adam St/Park Tce (particularly where the multi-storey carpark is).

Not a bad idea at all.
The part of Bonython that's hidden away between the train line and river is...sad.
That corner where the Raptis fish market was could be something special.

There's some demolition work happening at the brewery.

But you know, this sort of stuff needs politicians with vision and tenacity.

[A-Town]

A few other things about the recently deceased entertainment stadium, apart from the Parklands issue.

First, the area proposed was SMALLER than the existing Entertainment Centre site.

Second, it is less accessible.

Third, the proposed site had zero room for expansion. The existing site has land next door that possibly could be purchased.

So, the former Government was trying to sell us a limited stadium on a limited site with worse access...for $600m. WTF?

So, even if the idea that a bigger venue would bring bigger acts was valid, then the Liberal proposal was a dog because the site was simply smaller than the existing one. IF it could be shown that a bigger venue would bring bigger acts, then surely the best way is to demolish the existing Entertainment Centre and build it even bigger? The Liberals never attempted to explain this huge logic hole.

Add to that the idea of relocation of the WCH to the parkland near the RAH. Also insane. Access there is bad enough already...so what's the reason for adding to it? Especially since the WCH is already going through an upgrade...paid for by the taxpayer. Other than some tidy mind idea that everything being close makes it more efficient is just OCD unless there's an actual study. If that were so, you'd never have a WCH, because the ultimate closeness is to combine it in the RAH...And there's good reason for the separation. Again, no explanation. And that's without NIMBY questions like whether the site would end up like another LeCornus? Gah. The stupid...it hurts!

Reluctant to keep rehashing this, as this proposal is dead. But it will raise its head eventually, because the Ent Centre should be located in the CBD eventually. So, to your list of problems with this site.

1.Smaller footprint-so what? Modern enclosed arenas are designed take up less footprint than the older era centers. As are new outdoor stadiums.

2.Less accessible. -It is next to the main train station end of all metro lines, and a tram stop, and links to multiple bus routes? There are multiple public carparks nearby. Are you implying that Adelaide Oval is not accessible? It is in the same vicinity.

3. Zero room for expansion. There are complaints that this was already overkill for Adelaide-how much expansion would it likely need?-It is already an expansion of the existing Entertianment Centre, which is by all reports past its use by date.

4. General rant about hospitals etc. Not sure your point? What is the Labor plan for WCH? If access to the site is so bad, why did Labor build the worlds most expensive hospital there? Does it not make sense to have the WCH with direct access to the main emergency hospital?-labs, expertise etc.-Are you sure there is never any collaboration between the two?

Lets be happy that there is a new government, with new ideas that can be assessed on their merits. But at some stage, the Ent Center needs an upgrade, is not currently in a central location-and Adelaide may be stuck with it now for a decade at least-but hey...hospital ramping will be sorted...

1. That's no reason to build a new stadium on parklands. Almost all the chatter about a new stadium was because the existing one is too small. If what you are saying is true, and I have no reason to disbelieve, then why not simply rebuild on the existing site?

2. It's on the wrong side of the tracks for good accessibility. Unless, of course, a lot of money is spent on bridges and overpasses. That could be better spent elsewhere.

3. Expansion. Every time we build something, it only takes a few years and someone calls for something bigger. I'll bet a slab of Coopers that no matter how big you build a stadium, ten years later there'd be people saying if only we had a bigger one, we'd get the big acts from overseas. So, yeah, the ability to expand is needed.

4. The existing WCH is in the process of an upgrade right now. The whole system was studied to death when the new RAH was being conceived. Decision: new RAH and upgrade WCH. First is done, and the second is happening. If the collaboration you talk about were important, you simply wouldn't have a WCH, everything could have been combined in a much bigger RAH, with just another floor on the RAH. That was not considered the best outcome. The decision was made and the money was spent. That's it for this iteration.

As for the Entertainment Centre not being in a central location? That's a pretty fine distinction if you look at a map of the Adelaide metropolitan area.

1. The parklands where the new arena was to be built on consists of a car park, dirt roads and boat sheds. It's an eyesore and the new arena would have resulted in a zero net loss of overall parklands as a number of boat sheds along the river would be returned to parklands. Win-win.

2. There would have been a number of access improvements to the site, including a tunnel to link the Convention Centre with the new arena.

3. That may be the case with major stadiums like Adelaide Oval, but it's not quite the case with indoor arenas. 15,000 is probably the sweet spot for an indoor arena in Adelaide. Most NBA arenas in the US are around the 15-20k mark, and arenas in Australia are between 13-18k.

[rubberman]

Reluctant to keep rehashing this, as this proposal is dead. But it will raise its head eventually, because the Ent Centre should be located in the CBD eventually. So, to your list of problems with this site.

1.Smaller footprint-so what? Modern enclosed arenas are designed take up less footprint than the older era centers. As are new outdoor stadiums.

2.Less accessible. -It is next to the main train station end of all metro lines, and a tram stop, and links to multiple bus routes? There are multiple public carparks nearby. Are you implying that Adelaide Oval is not accessible? It is in the same vicinity.

3. Zero room for expansion. There are complaints that this was already overkill for Adelaide-how much expansion would it likely need?-It is already an expansion of the existing Entertianment Centre, which is by all reports past its use by date.

4. General rant about hospitals etc. Not sure your point? What is the Labor plan for WCH? If access to the site is so bad, why did Labor build the worlds most expensive hospital there? Does it not make sense to have the WCH with direct access to the main emergency hospital?-labs, expertise etc.-Are you sure there is never any collaboration between the two?

Lets be happy that there is a new government, with new ideas that can be assessed on their merits. But at some stage, the Ent Center needs an upgrade, is not currently in a central location-and Adelaide may be stuck with it now for a decade at least-but hey...hospital ramping will be sorted...

1. That's no reason to build a new stadium on parklands. Almost all the chatter about a new stadium was because the existing one is too small. If what you are saying is true, and I have no reason to disbelieve, then why not simply rebuild on the existing site?

2. It's on the wrong side of the tracks for good accessibility. Unless, of course, a lot of money is spent on bridges and overpasses. That could be better spent elsewhere.

3. Expansion. Every time we build something, it only takes a few years and someone calls for something bigger. I'll bet a slab of Coopers that no matter how big you build a stadium, ten years later there'd be people saying if only we had a bigger one, we'd get the big acts from overseas. So, yeah, the ability to expand is needed.

4. The existing WCH is in the process of an upgrade right now. The whole system was studied to death when the new RAH was being conceived. Decision: new RAH and upgrade WCH. First is done, and the second is happening. If the collaboration you talk about were important, you simply wouldn't have a WCH, everything could have been combined in a much bigger RAH, with just another floor on the RAH. That was not considered the best outcome. The decision was made and the money was spent. That's it for this iteration.

As for the Entertainment Centre not being in a central location? That's a pretty fine distinction if you look at a map of the Adelaide metropolitan area.

1. The parklands where the new arena was to be built on consists of a car park, dirt roads and boat sheds. It's an eyesore and the new arena would have resulted in a zero net loss of overall parklands as a number of boat sheds along the river would be returned to parklands. Win-win.

2. There would have been a number of access improvements to the site, including a tunnel to link the Convention Centre with the new arena.

3. That may be the case with major stadiums like Adelaide Oval, but it's not quite the case with indoor arenas. 15,000 is probably the sweet spot for an indoor arena in Adelaide. Most NBA arenas in the US are around the 15-20k mark, and arenas in Australia are between 13-18k.

Well, number 2 could just as easily be applied to open it up for...parklands!

There's zero justification for encroaching on parklands when the existing Entertainment Centre site is quite suitable. Yes, the area is presently an eyesore, but it could be opened up as parklands and the existing Entertainment Centre redeveloped as an entertainment centre.

Considering this is a discussion about the election, the fact that the Liberals couldn't grasp that redevelopment of the existing entertainment centre site was not only the most economic solution, but also one that would not lose votes demonstrates their proposal was a dog. They went out of their way to pursue a second class project with no clear benefit over a rebuild of the existing site.

[A-Town]

1. That's no reason to build a new stadium on parklands. Almost all the chatter about a new stadium was because the existing one is too small. If what you are saying is true, and I have no reason to disbelieve, then why not simply rebuild on the existing site?

2. It's on the wrong side of the tracks for good accessibility. Unless, of course, a lot of money is spent on bridges and overpasses. That could be better spent elsewhere.

3. Expansion. Every time we build something, it only takes a few years and someone calls for something bigger. I'll bet a slab of Coopers that no matter how big you build a stadium, ten years later there'd be people saying if only we had a bigger one, we'd get the big acts from overseas. So, yeah, the ability to expand is needed.

4. The existing WCH is in the process of an upgrade right now. The whole system was studied to death when the new RAH was being conceived. Decision: new RAH and upgrade WCH. First is done, and the second is happening. If the collaboration you talk about were important, you simply wouldn't have a WCH, everything could have been combined in a much bigger RAH, with just another floor on the RAH. That was not considered the best outcome. The decision was made and the money was spent. That's it for this iteration.

As for the Entertainment Centre not being in a central location? That's a pretty fine distinction if you look at a map of the Adelaide metropolitan area.

1. The parklands where the new arena was to be built on consists of a car park, dirt roads and boat sheds. It's an eyesore and the new arena would have resulted in a zero net loss of overall parklands as a number of boat sheds along the river would be returned to parklands. Win-win.

2. There would have been a number of access improvements to the site, including a tunnel to link the Convention Centre with the new arena.

3. That may be the case with major stadiums like Adelaide Oval, but it's not quite the case with indoor arenas. 15,000 is probably the sweet spot for an indoor arena in Adelaide. Most NBA arenas in the US are around the 15-20k mark, and arenas in Australia are between 13-18k.

Well, number 2 could just as easily be applied to open it up for...parklands!

There's zero justification for encroaching on parklands when the existing Entertainment Centre site is quite suitable. Yes, the area is presently an eyesore, but it could be opened up as parklands and the existing Entertainment Centre redeveloped as an entertainment centre.

Considering this is a discussion about the election, the fact that the Liberals couldn't grasp that redevelopment of the existing entertainment centre site was not only the most economic solution, but also one that would not lose votes demonstrates their proposal was a dog. They went out of their way to pursue a second class project with no clear benefit over a rebuild of the existing site.

There were plans for movie production companies to move into part of the existing Entertainment Centre once the new arena was built. Besides, completely demolishing and rebuilding the entertainment centre at its current site would mean we have at least two years of concerts and shows relocated to even worse venues or cancelled altogether.

Yes the existing site's location isn't terrible, but the modern template for new stadiums and arenas in Australia is for them to be build in or as close to the city centre as possible, especially in cities like Adelaide where public transport in areas away from the CBD and suburban connectors is poor. That's why the CBD site was selected. As mentioned before, it's currently barren wasteland and the new arena wouldn't have resulted in any net loss of parklands.

After Brisbane's arena is built in time for the Olympics, Adelaide will be the only mainland capital city in the country without a modern arena.