[COM] Re: Victoria Park
Posted: Sun May 22, 2011 12:01 pm
Failing to base policy on the preservation of a location of a species until we have proper knowledge of its existence in other places isn't really defensible IMNSHO. This is a species that is far less common than it used to be, and we should take this opportunity to arrest the decline.stumpjumper wrote:Basing policy on the preservation in a location of a species without proper knowledge of its existence in other places isn't really defensible, imho.
Whereas I'm for it in ways that don't preclude racing and still allow the butterflies to thrive.As to the increased use of Vic Park, I'm all for it.
The main benefit would be that it would be likely to attract Formula 1 back. But you do raise an interesting question: why would a permanent stand be so much more expensive than temporary ones?The grandstand idea had a few serious problems. Here's a quick retrospect, as I see it:
1. The 'grandstand' was to be built at public cost for private use, which lowered support. At a cost of $55 million the structure was to be used for 4 days of the Clipsal race and according to SAJC between 8 and 20 days of horse racing. SAJC ruled out any continuing use as a licenced function premises, perhaps doing so under pressure from various quarters as a result of rumours of proposals for a 'Lucky Horseshoe' style facility like those operated under CEO Steve Ploubidis at Morphettville and Cheltenham. This meant that even a bank rate return on the investment of $55 million would require an imputed rent of about $220,000 per day in use, which was obviously not on the cards. This made the $1 million pa cost of erecting and breaking down the temporary stands more palatable.