[COM] Adelaide Oval Redevelopment

[crawf]

This project was always going to go ahead regardless of the vote, but if it did get rejected by SACA members.. It would of started a whole new long saga which would of been costly and delayed the project even further. This would of also completely tarnished Adelaide's already tarnished reputation and made a mockery of the hard work this state has done to get rid of the 'rust belt' tag.

However the outcome was good for once!, and you can definitely sense the positivity and optimisticism in the air today - the likes I don't think I have ever seen whilst living here in Adelaide. We are really seeing history in the making right at the moment, last night especially will be put in the history books as a huge step forward to creating a more vibrant happening city.

Ofcourse there is people who disagree with this result, many with logical reasons (many with not). But the debate is now finally finally over, it's to move forward and make sure this project is done the best way possibly. So that means no more of this -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJv5qLsLYoo

Amid the general celebrations: from Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association headquarters, Kent Town today...

'The oval redevelopment will make no difference to trading hours in the CBD. The CBD is not a tourism precinct and extended hours are inappropriate. SDA policy (ie government policy) will not change.' My bracketed words.

Labor will still most likely loss the election in 2014, so I predict these prehistoric trading hours will get the axe in 2015/2016. Anyway that's for another overly discussed topic!

Moving back to the topic, both the Adelaide Casino and Festival Centre management on the news tonight stated they are now willing to forge ahead with their planned makeovers - Fantastic news!. Ofcourse the Adelaide Convention Centre expansion was always going to go ahead regardless of the outcome.

Adelaide will be such a different city in the next 5-10 years. Bring it on!

[crawf]

BTW this made the national news late on Monday night and yesterday morning.

[mattblack]

Just fixed your youtube links will.

Might want to add the hospital to that list Happy days.

[AtD]

BTW this made the national news late on Monday night and yesterday morning.

Yeah it was on most channels here.

[Pants]

Hey ricecrackers...

FOCUS has turned to the flow and use of proxy votes in Monday's critical Adelaide Oval verdict.

The South Australian Cricket Association has said it will not release details of the vote that saw 80 per cent of its members vote in favour of the $535 million upgrade of Adelaide oval.

The Advertiser understands "undirected" proxy votes were automatically counted as a yes vote for the upgrade at SACA's special general meeting at the Wayville Showgrounds.

This clause was stated on proxy voting information for members.

Former federal MP for Port Adelaide Rod Sawford was surprised by the 80 per cent member support for the Adelaide Oval proposal and said transparency was critical in any voting process.

"There are some basic principles on how democratic results ought to be undertaken," Mr Sawford said, noting undirected votes were in many cases ruled invalid or in the negative. "You should be able to show your results and they should be accountable and in this case there is half a billion taxpayer dollars involved so it should be explained how 80 per cent was obtained," he said.

"An abstention is part of democracy too."

SACA secured the 75 per cent member approval required to change its constitution to give up control of Adelaide Oval to football in the watershed vote at Wayville.

The yes vote attracted a significant 80 per cent majority. Media outlets had reported insiders as saying the no vote was running at 40 per cent ahead of Monday's special general meeting.

Some have asked how this information became available while political veteran Mr Sawford, a key figure in exposing the SA Jockey Club vote controversy, noted how difficult it is to achieve an 80 per cent majority.

"I do find it a very surprising result and probably requires some analysis," he said.

"Not making how the voting was calculated available to the public, when it is the public who are funding (the project) is probably not acceptable."

SACA last night confirmed "it would not be releasing a breakdown of the figures" or say if it had been privy to proxy vote results ahead of Monday's special general meeting. Votes cast, however, will not be destroyed for six months.

The returning officer, Ernst and Young's Mark Phelps, declined to discuss the handling of the count saying inquiries should go to SACA.

Interesting.

[Prince George]

Also interesting is that ABC 891 got a copy of the SACES economic impact report that the SMA comissioned. It's still not available for us to see, but they did quote a couple of sections from it. Much as I suggested at the time, the $111m gain is strictly within the City of Adelaide. The report explictly stated that much of this is redirected spending from elsewhere in the city and state, that these losses are not considered within the report, and that the net benefit to the state will be substantially lower than this figure. And I know I say this over and over again, but that is the Substitution Effect in action - if you aren't changing the price of things or changing people's income, then largely all we do is shuffle money that's being spent anyway. This isn't rocket science, it is easy to understand what the implication of those caveats in the report are - the SMA make the concious and deliberate choice to share only their headline numbers.

[Wayno]

And I know I say this over and over again, but that is the Substitution Effect in action - if you aren't changing the price of things or changing people's income, then largely all we do is shuffle money that's being spent anyway.

PG, no need to apologise - it's an effect worth repeating.

I hope we see the substitution effect play out with transport costs (PT vs Petrol & Parking). i'm a semi-regular footy supporter, and will definitely catch the train instead of driving.

[AtD]

^ The substitution effect is not at all straight forward in an import dependent consumer market.

[Pants]

the SMA make the concious and deliberate choice to share only their headline numbers.

As they would if they're trying to get the bloody thing off the ground!

I was actually amazed at the frankness of some of the SACA board/architect's responses to questions at the meeting. Very much leading with their chin.

Prince, I don't have the means, time, nor inclination to back this up with anything bordering on concrete, but I'd imagine that many of the flow-on effects of this project are largely immeasurable. As a famous lawyer once said, "it's the vibe"... If this development becomes a springboard for future development along the Torrens and gives our restless youngsters and potential investors the feeling that something's happening in this city so they respectively stay and invest here, even taken at their highest, the benefits in the SACES report could be well exceeded.

[rhino]

And I know I say this over and over again, but that is the Substitution Effect in action - if you aren't changing the price of things or changing people's income, then largely all we do is shuffle money that's being spent anyway.

If the positive feelings that this development is creating can keep a few (a lot) more young professionals here in Adelaide, then the money that gets spent here is money that would otherwise have been spent interstate. Similarly, if this development brings more Victorians here to watch the footy, then the money that they spend here is also a bonus - it's not money that is not being spent somewhere else in the state.

[skyliner]

BTW this made the national news late on Monday night and yesterday morning.

Reported in Brisbane last night - gave a good impression - nothing 'rust bucket' about this.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

[spiller]

I respect people's need for numbers, but we are so far past that now. In the scheme of things, that was settled over a year ago in the 2010 election. People have voted, its happening. This is going to trigger a transformation of Adelaide on a HUGE scale. I'm sitting with a bucket of popcorn, waiting to watch it all happen.

[Wayno]

Below is the official SACA communication to all members - note the reference to an independent 3rd party running the process.

Dear SACA Member

Monday night’s historic vote of the Association’s members in support of the redevelopment of Adelaide Oval heralds a new era for cricket in South Australia.

The vote was, if you like, the end of the beginning; we now have the task of bringing this vision to reality along with the South Australian National Football League, the State Government and the Stadium Management Authority.

Throughout the process the Board and management of SACA has acted in your interests and the interests of cricket. We will continue to do so.

We sought to provide you with all of the information at our disposal so that when the time came to vote, you could make an informed decision.

On behalf of the team at SACA, I would like to sincerely thank members for their participation in the process and for their support. The figures as provided to us by Ernst & Young, who independently conducted the vote along with Computershare – and the independent scrutineers Pitcher Partners – show a total of 12,539 members out of a possible 19,203 of those eligible took part in the vote. By any measure, that is a huge response in a non-compulsory vote.

Of those who voted, 80.37 per cent were in favour. Again, this level of support is almost unheard of.

Thanks to the support and vision of our members, we can now move forward with this project. I recognise that not everyone voted and not everyone voted in favour but I can assure all members that we will continue to work diligently to make the most of this fantastic opportunity for our Association and our sport.

I look forward to keeping you updated on progress.

Warm regards

JOHN HARNDEN
SACA Chief Executive

[stumpjumper]

show a total of 12,539 members out of a possible 19,203 of those eligible took part in the vote

Note, 'took part in the vote', not 'voted'.

Why can't we have some detail on the effect of preference votes, especially undirected ones?

If this project is to proceed without battles every inch of the way, there must be transparency. If right at the start, a major player won't provide basic, uncontroversial information about votes, it doesn't look good for the future of communication in this 100% publicly funded project.

This vote business should be dealt with quickly and openly, now. Maintaining public trust in the way the public funds are being spent is very important.

This is a perfect case of what I mean about this thing needing expert project management, about the whole project, not just the bricks and mortar. With all respect to their ability to run a sports club, MacLachlan and Whicker may be out of their depth running a $500 million construction project.

Underestimating, right at the start, the value of public trust is not a good omen.

[dsriggs]

Jeez...

12,539 members cast a vote either by proxy, or in person at the Wayville Showgrounds on Monday night, with 10,078 indicating they're in favour of the changes to iconic cricket ground.

The figures as provided to us by Ernst & Young, who independently conducted the vote along with Computershare – and the independent scrutineers Pitcher Partners – show a total of 12,539 members out of a possible 19,203 of those eligible took part in the vote.

Of those who voted, 80.37 per cent were in favour.

Also, you want to know preferences in a yes/no referendum?? There's no preferences. There's yes & no.

10,078 people voted "Yes"
2,461 people voted "No"
6,844 people did not vote, and thus were not counted in the final ballot.