Sensational-Adelaide.com

The project is not dead. The misunderstanding was based on the vagaries of the English language. What Todd Brown was actually saying was that stage 2A was "for all intents and purposes' finished. He said that because the company building the townhouses for stage 2A, Alpine Construction has gone bust, and thus there may have been confusion and worry for those parties which had purchased.

I repeat, the project is not dead, and will proceed as planned!

Will wrote:I repeat, the project is not dead, and will proceed as planned!

I for one really hope your right, but can you confirm this?

Paulns wrote:

Will wrote:I repeat, the project is not dead, and will proceed as planned!

I for one really hope your right, but can you confirm this?

It was on the news; it think it was on Channel 9 on Sunday.

The news was about how Alpine Construction, the company that built the townhouses for Stage 2A had gone bankrupt, but that stage 2A was almost finished anyway, so it didn't affect their delivery.

If Newport Quays had been cancelled, there would ahve been much more news.

Will, correct me if I'm wrong. This project is a JV between Multiplex and Urban Construct.

I'd like to know the current timeline for the development looks like.

It would be understandable if the current economic conditions had trashed the original estimated timeline. Tighter credit, slower sales in the market segment.

No-one's talking about that, but I'm sure we could take it.

I was down there this afternoon, and had a good look around. As a medium to high density development, it's very nice. There are a lot of empty dwellings and not many boats in the marina berths, and I don't like the single access point from either a convenience or emergency access and exit point of view, but it's a good job.

For what it's worth, I think a journalist took a bit of artistic licence with Todd Brown's comment. I think he meant 'stages up to and including 2A are finished'.

The rest can wait until the time is right, without too much cost. Remember that the consortium isn't holding the land.

AtD wrote:Will, correct me if I'm wrong. This project is a JV between Multiplex and Urban Construct.

Yes, that is right. Alpine Construction was sub-contracted by Multiplex to build the townhouses.

I was reading the earliest posts in this thread.

It appears that representatives from the development consortium were incorrect in their statements in 2007 as to how many units had sold and when they sold.

Like anyone, I have access to records of settlement details of the sales in the development.

The accuracy of the statements of people from the development consortium and others who were in a position to know the true state of affairs are very important, as they may reasonably have been relied upon by prospective purchasers in making their decisions.

In this context, for the development's managers to offer misleading figures is not simply 'sales talk'. It is misrepresentation.

My initial efforts indicate that the statements from consortium personnel may have inflated the actual sales figures at certain stages of the development.

I wholly agree with caveat emptor and even think it should be extended, but I don't agree with misrepresentation and I disagree with the view sometimes implied here that property development is a special case, a kind of legitimised cowboy zone where law and ethics do not apply as long as the buildings keep going up, whatever the financial or other impacts on the community.

Stumpjumper have you ever thought to lay the blame on maybe the purchasers who have signed contracts [and therefore the property is sold] and then don't settle?

How many of these are there, there could be heaps! So the project could genuinely be "sold out", but come payment time - they don't pay.

Buyers are also greedy and could have been simply gambling/speculating on making a profit, paid their 10% but never had any intention to buy or maybe did not even have the money to buy. They paid there 10% deposit and hoped that would be it and hoped to sell it on in the next 2 years.

Purchasers could now raise many true and pertinent "reasons" not to settle, but I bet if they were sitting on a tidy profit somehow magically they would find the money and settle.

The other factor is also the banks/valuers who may have made it so hard that they dont lend the money or maybe only lend 50% of the price, making it even hard for the "genuine" buyers.

Also for a project like this to get off the ground the banks usually demand 60% - 80% are sold off the plan, so the developer would have had to show this to the banks anyway, so "sales talk" wouldn't have cut it with them.

hgih I am a very strong supporter of caveat emptor. The 19 injunctions against the consortium which are presently stopping building at Newport Quays, and the class action which has resulted in a number of out of court settlements, are the result of more than enthusiastic sales talk. They are the result of misrepresentation by the vendor.

Firstly, I/we don't know what was said or what the alleged misrepresentations are and I don't hope to second guess it.
My point is there are always two sides to every story.

On what I have seen on TV, the failure of the progress of the 3rd stage is an issue.

If the developer has made many attempts and spent many thousands of dollars and had many meetings trying to get approval and the council/authorities dont approve it - is that the developers fault?

If the developers genuinely believed stage 3 would be approved and will happen [one day] they may have been telling the truth. It might just be a matter of when rather than if.

Further if completion dates were given, were they only an estimate or were they binding and expected to be relied upon ie in writing?

I would like to hear both sides to make an informed decision.

Further out of court settlements are often used not as a sign of guilt/innocence but rather to just get on with it. Many couldnt be bothered fighting in court for years and spending a fortune on solicitors/barristers, when compromising/discounting with compensation, may be the quickest, easiest and fairest solution.

My belief, in the end, its all about money. If buyers were sitting on a $1m profit, there would be no disputes, they would gladly settle.

At the end of the day these clowns were gambling that they would be able to sell shelter to a greater fool for $$$.

The truth is if the apartments were guaranteed to be worth more in the future, they should have paid something closer to that now.

hgih has a point. So do I.

It's true that the PAE council has been the immediate apparent cause of the development's failure to proceed. However without knowing the full story it's not easy to see all the relationships between and the relative importance of customer dissatisfaction, council refusal, economic conditions, the internal affairs of the consortium partners, government policy etc.

I think it's common ground that misrepresentations were made. From what I've heard the misrepresentations concerned the future financial performance of the properties, in such strong terms that caveat emptor was left by the wayside. It also seems clear from media reports that there have been complaints about the lack of amenities proposed in yet to be built stages.

The Land Management Corporation finally forced Searles Boatyard at Jenkins St Birkenhead closed yesterday. The 85 year old business with several boats on its slips, full order books, and turning down work because of the impending closure, had been fighting the LMC and its Newport Quays development partners to keep operating.

No specific development is planned for the site, which is referred to as 'stage 7' of the development which is now stalled at stage 2. There is no apparent urgency for Searles to leave its site. Indeed, the Navy, which has a substantial building and dock adjacent to Searles' yard, has no plans to move in the near future.

Nevertheless, LMC has gone as far as obtaining court rulings preventing Searles owner from speaking to media and banning media from entering the premises.

The closure puts half a dozen skilled tradesmen and several apprentices out of work and deprives South Australia of its remaining large scale timber boatyard.

The whole episode does not reflect well on the LMC, or the Newport Quays development partners.

I note that the Newport Quays partners are alleged to have donated over $600,000 to the SA ALP in recent years.

A few questions stumpjumper
Isnt the landlord entitled to have their property back at the end of the lease [or more-so if there is no lease] or does the tenants needs somehow over-ride the owners?
If the boat yard is profitable why cant they just go and rent another big shed and keep employing their apprentices and keep going?
Have they been paying a "peppercorn rent" for the past years and therefore are resisting facing the reality of paying market rent like the majority of businesses?

stumpjumper wrote:The Land Management Corporation finally forced Searles Boatyard at Jenkins St Birkenhead closed yesterday. The 85 year old business with several boats on its slips, full order books, and turning down work because of the impending closure, had been fighting the LMC and its Newport Quays development partners to keep operating.

The Independent Weekly had a nice slideshow on the boatyard last night - I can't find it today, but the story
with 1 pic is at http://www.independentweekly.com.au/new ... torypage=1