[COM] Adelaide Oval Redevelopment

[ricecrackers]

Securing a 75% yes vote was always going to be hard.

Look at the history of referendums in Australia.

The only places where 75% or more of the votes can be achieved in 'elections' are places like Zimbabwe, Syria and Cuba.

This outcome does NOT mean, SA is backwards or Adelaide is a country town. Just look at the results of the poll on this site, as a small snapshot of the wider SA community sentiment. The majority of people want it, it is just that we were left in the ridiculous situation where something so important was placed in the hands of so few.

It is sad, how quickly people forget the hundreds of developments happening in our city and state when presented with 1 negative outcome.

i would dispute that this pro-development at all costs site is indicative of the wider SA community sentiment but i agree that this outcome has nothing to do with whether SA is non-progressive or otherwise

Well maybe this 'pro-development at all costs' website is indicative of the wider SA community.

what based on a SACA vote of 10,000 members? a vote that will effectively bail them out of an $80 million debt?

a SACA membership of which 4800 voted yes by proxy and another 2300 voted (???) tonight giving us a grand total of 8000+ YES votes

wait, that doesnt add up does it

i'm certain these voting slips will be buried at sea

[crawf]

Mike Rann has gone berserk on twitter

Pat Conlon will meet with codes first thing in the morning. Then we will meet with Adelaide City Council and get cracking with legislation!

Time to move forward and think big. Time for Adelaide and SA to be bold and not be diminished by a minority who want to stop progress.

Though I highly doubt he will be around when the first ball is bounced in 2014/2015.
\

[Nathan]

ricecrackers, so because the vote didn't go your preferred way, it must be "rigged"?

[Alyx]

SACA members have voted to approve the Adelaide Oval redevelopment with a 80.37% Yes vote

After nearly 18 months of fierce debate and many millions of dollars spent on draft plans and proposals, the Adelaide Oval redevelopment and the move of AFL to the city has been given the green light.

Monday night at Wayville Showgrounds was the location of the SACA meeting and vote, with over 2000 members attending on the night.

SACA President Ian McLachlan addressed the meeting before presentations from Oval architect Jonathon Gardiner and John Harden, SACA Chief Executive.

A 90 minute question and answer session then followed before the official voting took place.

At approximately 9:45pm, Ian McLachlan gave the vote result, an announcement that was greeted with huge applause.

The result means that the Adelaide Oval will get a half a billion dollar facelift and from 2014 AFL football will be played in the city.

Along with a redeveloped Oval, the whole riverside precinct will be revitalised and a footbridge from the railway station across the Torrens to the Adelaide Oval will be built.

All the reaction to the decision covered on 891

Join Breakfast with Matthew Abraham and David Bevan Tuesday morning from 6 for the analysis of the SACA vote, with all the key players disdcussing the result and dissecting the repercussions for the future of football and cricket in South Australia.

http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/201 ... e=adelaide

[ricecrackers]

ricecrackers, so because the vote didn't go your preferred way, it must be "rigged"?

no

i'm just pointing out that the published numbers dont add up and that leads me to believe something fishy is going on here

[spiller]

ricecrackers, get a grip. how can someone be so damn cynical? whatever drugs you are on must have some street value

[Prince George]

ricecrackers, so because the vote didn't go your preferred way, it must be "rigged"?

no

i'm just pointing out that the published numbers dont add up and that leads me to believe something fishy is going on here

I think that ricecrackers is referring to the previous reports that of the 8,000 proxy votes, only 60% were 'yes'. If that figure was correct, then that's 4,800 'yes' votes; so if all of the 2,000 people who came tonight all vote 'yes' as well, that gives a total of 6,800 out of 10,000 votes, which is only 68%. On the surface of it, it would appear that there's no way that they could reach 75% let alone 80% given what was reported, which would seem to leave a couple of explanations:

1. (aka the conspiracy explanation) That first report was a mis-representation to encourage people who were for but weren't suitably motivated to attend. Something similar happens at elections where a party who know that they have very strong support suggest that it's going to be very close to discourage supporters from thinking that they could afford to make some "protest" vote.
2. (aka the stupidity explanation) That first report was just plain a mistake and there's nothing strange going on beyond a simple error.

As a friend of mine likes to say "never ascribe to malice something that can be explained by stupidity", but it turns out that there's an intriguing third possibility that doesn't involve that first report being wrong. The SACA voting allows someone who had lodged a proxy vote to change their mind - they can attend the meeting in person and cancel their original vote. If, in that case, we have our original 4,800 'yes' votes and 3200 'no', and tonight out of the 2000 people who attended 1800 were actually people who had voted 'no' that now wanted to change their mind, while the other 200 all vote 'no' - that means that we've got a total of 8200 votes split 6600/1600, which is an 80% 'yes' vote.

Alright, that's a very remote possibility, but I reckon maths is pretty interesting so I thought I'd throw that out there

[Pants]

Me too! It's an amazing result. Especially given the noises from the gallery tonight.

Edit: that was in response to ricecrackers.

[ricecrackers]

Me too! It's an amazing result. Especially given the noises from the gallery tonight.

Edit: that was in response to ricecrackers.

interesting

[ricecrackers]

ricecrackers, get a grip. how can someone be so damn cynical? whatever drugs you are on must have some street value

cynicism has served me well and keeps me in the black
anyone who is asking for your money cannot be trusted to be providing you with all of the facts about your pending investment. thats how capitalism works and i intend to be on the informed side more often than the ignorant one.

[Pants]

That 60% proxy vote figure was quoted from Advertiser sources. Hardly confirmation from SACA itself.

The 2,000 attendance figure was SACA's expectation ahead of the meeting. More than that turned up.

SACA weren't running the ballot. Independent firms with reputations at stake were, so I doubt anything untoward happened.

[crawf]

I don't think I've ever seen so much Pro-Adelaide talk on the social network websites aswell the media.

Times may be changing afterall...

[Pants]

Just noticed our poll finished with a combined 82% yes vote. We got pretty close.

[ricecrackers]

That 60% proxy vote figure was quoted from Advertiser sources. Hardly confirmation from SACA itself.

The 2,000 attendance figure was SACA's expectation ahead of the meeting. More than that turned up.

SACA weren't running the ballot. Independent firms with reputations at stake were, so I doubt anything untoward happened.

but the Advertiser are pro YES
why would they under report the figures?

[Pants]

Because they were all but guessing or because they wanted to scare those for the development into taking the time to vote.