Sensational-Adelaide.com

Will wrote:

ricecrackers wrote:

Will wrote:
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.

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.

ABC News wrote: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.

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

ricecrackers wrote:

Nathan wrote: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

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.

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

Edit: that was in response to ricecrackers.

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

Pants wrote: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.