[COM] Adelaide Oval Redevelopment

[AtD]

Liberal sources have privately told the Sunday Mail they are disappointed and frustrated at the parade of former Liberal MPs publicly undermining their position.

Lol.

Re: compulsory acquisition. Does that require an act of parliament or can it be done unilaterally at the minister's discretion?

[metro]

haha good on john howard and all these other high profile federal liberals, just shows how stupid the SA Liberals really are

hopefully the SA government have a contingency plan in case they dont get the 75% yes vote from SACA

[stumpjumper]

It appears that the government could 'compulsorily acquire' actually or effectively in a number of ways:

1. Under the Land Acquisition Act 1969.

2. By passing a new act of Parliament (requiring assent of both Houses) excising land from the Park Lands (cf National Wine Centre site).

3. Under the Adelaide Park Lands Act 2005 - the responsible minister can determine what is and isn't Park Lands, subject to preserving as far as practicable Light's original configuration (with the minister deciding what is practicable).

4. By a long lease from ACC.

5. By some variation or combination of the above. I'm not an expert...

[silverscreen]

Article below from KRYZTOFF Raw, 2 April 2011

RAW: SA Government Prepares To Blast City Council Off Adelaide Oval Parklands

('We will work with the SA Government to deliver capital city AFL' - Lord Mayor Stephen Yarwood)

The SACA Information Book, now released to its members, reveals for the first time how the SA Government will deliver control of the Adelaide Oval precinct and car parking revenues to the SANFL in the face of Adelaide City Council resistance. It is going to legislate the ACC away from his historic role as guardians of the parklands under the Parklands Act.

The Information Book (IB) states ‘the State Government will grant a long term priority use licence to each of the SACA and SANFL to unrestrictedly and exclusively use Adelaide Oval for cricket and football during their respective seasons.’ Under current legislation it can’t do that.

Presently, the Adelaide City Council owns all the parklands for the benefit of South Australia under the Parklands Act. It then grants leases and licences to various entities to use portions for appropriate purposes. Presently, the SACA enjoys a lease that has a further 33 years to run over the main ground area. However, it does not have control over the so called ‘Adelaide No. 2 Ground’ nor Pinky Flat and the northern carpark which remain in ACC control.

The ACC have said they support the grant of a new lease to the SMA provided it (the ACC) retains ultimate control over the land and control of the car parking revenue from the various car parks (Pinky Flat and the northern car park.)

The SANFL has said that it requires control over the precinct and the car parking revenues in order for the move for it to be viable.

Now, with the benefit of the IB, these conflicting positions can be reconciled with the State Government moving to own all the parklands involved, being all of that between King William Rd, Montefiore Rd, Pennington Terrace and the River Torrens. It and not the ACC will then grant these licences to the SANFL and the SACA to do as they wish without the fetter of lease terms with the ACC (including them skimming the car park revenues.)

And so, the great history of this State, where the Parklands have been guarded over by the ACC will end.

So, the issues arising are: Will the Government stop at the Adelaide Oval area only or will it pursue Victoria Park as well so it can get its Clipsall 500 Grandstand also built?

How will the minority parties in the SA Legislative Council receive this proposition? As previously predicted by Kryztoff, this is where all this will finally come down to and the Government needs five of the seven independent or minority party votes to get there. Expect a lot of money to go their way for pet projects.

Just whether the SACA Members vote can stop all this is also now a moot point. As the proposed changes to the SACA constitution suggest, if the members don’t support the proposal at their meeting on 2nd May, the SACA board has no mandate to advance the issue with anyone and may well be acting in breach of its constitution (if it is not already doing so) if it tries to.

So, that would leave compulsory acquisition of the SACA’s leasehold interest (and then legislation) for the SA Government to pursue, which even the SACA’s own accounting would suggest will require another $100m at least and perhaps as much as $200m more.

If Stephen Yarwood thought his appeasement of the SA Government since becoming Lord Mayor was working in order to get back control over major development projects, then all can now see this is a Neville Chamberlain ‘Peace in our Time’ moment for him. He has got it horribly wrong.

And if the Liberal Party thought playing stum on this was good politics in the hope the SACA members would do their dirty work for them, then they too have just got a wake-up call. They need now to get involved in the Adelaide Oval debate because it is all now about the future control and use of the parklands, not just Adelaide Oval.

[Prince George]

The SANFL has said that it requires control over the precinct and the car parking revenues in order for the move for it to be viable.

Consistent, once again, with the story laid out in Public dollars, private stadiums - the parking is the bit that actually makes money, even more than the ticket or food/drink sales, and the teams end up getting that revenue rather than seeing it used to defray the public cost. It is uncanny how accurately that book describes this project.

[crawf]

Malcolm Blight is the latest high profile person to support the Adelaide Oval project.

Article in today's tiser/AdelaideNow

[silverscreen]

More from the RAW web-site. From last month but still relevant.

RAW: Adelaide Oval – What Has KG (and the Casino) Been Smoking?

Mar 27th

The return of football brings with it not only winter but The Advertiser’s Friday morning football lift out including the return of Ken Cunningham’s weekly spray. This week’s KG included a hand written ‘Plea to SACA Members’ which opens ‘To all my fellow SA Cricket Association members, I am begging, pleading and imploring you to give the green light to the Adelaide Oval redevelopment when it is time to vote in May.

‘If this doesn’t go ahead we’ll be the laughing stock of the rest of the country.’

‘If it is all about drop-in pitches and ridiculous trivialities like not being able to see the Adelaide Hills from the western stand then you might as well turn off the light and forget about making the city and this precinct exciting and vibrant.’

And so it went on, praising the benefits for football.

Well Ken, it is not just about those things and you can see a fuller list now posted on Greg Howe’s website www.saveadelaideoval.com and it includes that other ‘ridiculous triviality’ of a cost of a minimum of $535m.

But that is not the issue here which is that this is the same Ken Cunningham who not once, not twice but three times condemned this move of football to Adelaide Oval in no uncertain terms in his very same column last year. Here he is on 21st May where after describing the redevelopment proposal as a ‘farce’ went on to say:

‘The more I hear and see, the more I am convinced the great plan to get AFL there (Adelaide Oval) … was nothing more than a rushed exercise in political point scoring. The Crows sure as hell don’t want to go there.’

Then again a week later:

‘Even Mr Magoo can see that’s a marriage made in hell and won’t work, so why is there is so much pressure being put on everybody? Sport will be the biggest loser out of this. AAMI stadium goes and then we’re left with only one major sporting venue. We’d be the only major city in the country that doesn’t have more than one stadium. It’s one step forward and two steps back.’

Finally at the end of July, under the heading of: ‘Hands Off Our Oval’, KG writes,

‘There is now a putrid stench surrounding the Adelaide Oval development proposal.

‘It’s all about the AFL and their greedy grab to dominate the landscape and dictate the terms that everybody must play by.

‘Why should we be forced to accept Adelaide as a one major football ground town when all the other cities have at least two? Is that forward thinking for the generations to come? No bloody way!

‘Expecting them (the SANFL) to leave West Lakes is like asking the Queen to move out of Buckingham Palace and shack up in rented digs.

‘If I were in (Leigh) Wicker’s boots, I would be calling Mike Rann, Kevin Foley, Ian McLachlan and Andrew Demetriou and telling them to stick it up their backsides.’

You do have to wonder what has brought about this sudden change of heart that matches Michelangelo Rucci’s front page scorn of Demetriou last year for picking up a $1m bonus for getting football back to Adelaide Oval but then this year trumpets him as the sage of the east we should obey after Demetriou told us it was good for us.

Corporate interests are not far behind and in a much more immediate timeframe.

Last month, Kryztoff (www.kryztoff.com/RAW/?p=2107) broke the story that the Adelaide Casino was the ‘private’ party that the SA Government was seeking to bank roll the shortfall in costs of between $100m and $200m for the Adelaide Oval redevelopment.

In response the Adelaide Casino contacted us and advised that that was not the case, that their development plans were quite separate and their future totally independent of what happened at Adelaide Oval. Further, the Casino’s planning timetable put it at another time of the year beyond when the Adelaide Oval redevelopment gets resolved one way or the other.

Not so it seems given by the coverage in yesterday’s Advertiser where it reported that ‘SkyCity chairman Rod McGeoch said the group would reconsider its investment if the oval redevelopment was voted down.’ Further, SkyCity managing director Nigel Morrison is reported as saying ‘the Oval remained (our emphasis) a key factor to convince the board to back the $250 million facelift’.

Mixed in with not revealing to SACA members the reality of drop in pitches for eight months by SACA President Ian McLachlan, Treasurer Foley forgetting about the $85m cost blow out, the AFL not telling the SANFL about the discussions with McLachlan that went on for a couple of years etc and Mr Demetriou’s bonus, you do have to wonder why anyone would believe anything said by any of the cheerleaders for this project at this point in time.

Indeed Ken, you were right, ‘there is now a putrid stench surrounding the Adelaide Oval development proposal.’ Even Mr Magoo can see that.

[Waewick]

you could look at it from the other way

the more people find out about the development the more likely they are to support it.

heck, I was anti the development until I took the time out to read the details and remove my original bias to see a new stadium built and the RAH re-built.

[[Shuz]]

I too am slowly beginning to support the idea as well, I think only so because of the increasing speculation that the vote will probably fail and that alternative options, ie: compulsory acquisition are being considered. Which, all in all, at the end of the day, is probably a better outcome for further redevelopment options down the track more likely to succeed overcoming concerns regarding the northern hill and scoreboard heritage concerns.

Having said that, I in no way support the process which this whole thing has gone through from start to finish though, which has been far from democratic. The State Government quite frankly shouldn't have had to resort to compulsory acquisition and should have more willingly conceded to the fact that people simply wanted a new inner city stadium elsewhere. They had the oppurtunity to consider other options and pathways, few of which were considered adequately.

[Omicron]

The SANFL has said that it requires control over the precinct and the car parking revenues in order for the move for it to be viable.

Consistent, once again, with the story laid out in Public dollars, private stadiums - the parking is the bit that actually makes money, even more than the ticket or food/drink sales, and the teams end up getting that revenue rather than seeing it used to defray the public cost. It is uncanny how accurately that book describes this project.

Panem et circenses. I've never seen such a rabid collective of head-nodding and arm-waving, and the doomsday predictions are becoming increasingly ridiculous.

[silverscreen]

Panem et circenses.

You're absolutely right. Couldn't agree more. (But are you sure that's really the metaphor you wanted to use? )

[Waewick]

went to the new members event this evening.

alright without being awesome, shirted around some questions but that would be it.

[stumpjumper]

The State Government will grant a priority use licence to each of SACA and SANFL to unrestrictedly and exclusively use Adelaide Oval for cricket and football purposes during their respective seasons subject only to the right of the State Government to stage international events (such as the Olympic Games, FIFA world Cup, Commonwealth Games
or Rugby world Cup).

What?

The quote is from page 14 of the SACA information booklet. http://helium.saca.com.au/helium/librar ... ooklet.pdf

The state government presently has no control over or responsibility for AO. For the government to lease the redeveloped AO to SACA so that

"SACA will have use of Adelaide Oval during the cricket season."

the government will have to either control or own the land. This is a considerable change - so is SACA's loss of its total, year-round exclusive occupancy of AO. 'The land' could be most of the land bounded by King William Rd, War Memorial Drive, Montefiore Hill road and Pennington Tce, plus Pinky Flat and about 3ha of land west of Morphett St bridge, including carparks etc. That hasn't really be discussed.

Transfer of this area of Park Lands, the largest alienation of Park Lands from public control and access in the state's history.

There are some serious questions supporters should ask about this proposal - questions which would arise wherever in SA the project was and whatever it comprised.

In addition to the state government becoming landlord to the AFL/SANFL and SACA other surprises are in store?

Risk - what is the risk of a cost blowout, and who would pay it? IMHO, the risk is high, and the public will pay.

Debate, consultation and information - If this development involved only SACA and the footy clubs, there would no argument for public debate or the release of information.But the public is putting up ALL the money, including any blowout and for good measure including paying out the debt on SACA's existing redevelopment. So there is a need, under 'no taxation without representation' for some debate. There has so far been no legislation relating to this, so there has been no debate in parliament. The public debate has been hampered by the government promoting one side of the argument, and doing its best to restrict information to the 'yes' case.

Anyone wanting useful information before making up their mind (provided they are one of the 20,000 SACA members - otherwise they have no say) will find very little information around.

There is no business case available, no financial estimates, nothing even on who will be in control of the oval.

And what will it cost for Joe Public to go to the cricket or footy? the AFL says the public will receive 'value' and SACA says the ticket prices will be 'incredible value for money'. But how much? No-one's saying.

Talk about a pig in a poke.

Why then are the backers so keen?

Well, SACA, which is putting up no money, stands to have its debts paid and to be given free of charge the state's largest entertainment complex. A good deal for them.

SANFL is guaranteed $8 million per year, which it will divide between AFC and PAFC, and can pull down the grandstands at West Lakes and redevelop the rezoned site, creating millions of dollars of income. Not a bad deal. AFC and PAFC get beautiful new offices and social facilities. Great.

Everyone is hoping to control the jewel in the crown - the cash-generating carparks. If they're not built, there is no chance of anyone benefitting from them.

Each of about 600,0000 Joe Public taxpayer's are already paying about $890 for the oval component of the redevelopment. Each Joe Taxpayer will also pay about $70 for the $40 million footbridge, but what Joe will pay for the carparks and other items? Unknown. There must be costings, but they're not available. Joe will also pay for any cost blowout.

Back to the commercial use of the land. There's a precedent-setting SA Supreme Court case which decided that land on which 'sports clubs' run commercial enterprises should be rated as commercial land. SANFL should know about this - it lost a case to Charles Sturt Council in 1998 on the rates it paid on West Lakes.

SANFL v CITY OF CHARLES STURT No. SCGRG-97-1420, SCGRG-97-1421, SCGRG-97-1422 Judgment No. S6568 [1998] SASC 6568 (27 February 1998)

You can read this judgement at http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinod ... rt%20SANFL

There's food for thought. What would be the rates on the hectares of commercial land adjacent to the city? They'll have to be reflected in ticket prices and costs of venue hire.

Does anyone's opinion matter if the government is going to take the whole thing over?

Without these basic questions answered, it's like signing up for a lifelong contract without knowing the cost.

I'm not arguing for or against the redevelopment here - I'm arguing for more information than the spin available in SACA's information booklet, and for some say by Joe Public the taxpayer, who will pay every cent including any blowouts and currently has no say at all.

[silverscreen]

Re Stumpjumpers post above:
These are issues our local paper wont discuss. Whether you support his views or not he raises topics that in a democratic (tax paying) society should be out in the open. The Advertiser has not printed a single article or opinion piece that challenges the rose-coloured oval deal. Today's Advertiser letters suggest some dissent, pushing the lost-heritage cry but that to my mind is a minor issue compared to the backroom deals and politics that will have us all paying for a desperate and poorly planned development that will fail both cricket and footy in the long term.

[stumpjumper]

Good points. There are some serious questions about this project, although anyone raising them tends toi be brushed off as being anti-progress etc.

The government seems to be ready to take the major role. I'd like to know more about that, for a start.