Sensational-Adelaide.com

Hi Stumpjumper,
Marina Adelaide has most probably been appionted by one or more individual owners of berths to lease the them.
In my opinion, this would have been purely a commercial arrangement made on an individual basis with the owners.
In relation to Searles, LMC's decision was most probably based on a number of complex and inter-related considerations, only one of which was the historic value, and as owners of the land they have every right to do what they did.-
I put it to you again that if Searles was indeed a vibrant business with full order books, they would have made alternative accomodation arrangements.

Marina Adelaide has most probably been appionted by one or more individual owners of berths to lease the them.
In my opinion, this would have been purely a commercial arrangement made on an individual basis with the owners.

yipiyiyo, my only information is what I was told by Marina Adelaide and what is on their website, viz.: 'wet and dry berths exceeding 500 vessels, 550 more berths nearby'. I assume that Marina Adelaide and NQ have some arrangement between themselves. What that arrangement might be is of no interest to me. I don't understand your concern here.

In relation to Searles, LMC's decision was most probably based on a number of complex and inter-related considerations, only one of which was the historic value, and as owners of the land they have every right to do what they did.-

LMC is not the owner, but would have exactly those rights as landlord. My question is why they acted, and why in haste? Was it to help LMC's higher-charging tenants in Marina Adelaide? Was it about aesthetics, in an attempt to help sales at Newport Quays? Was it about pollution? Were there other reasons? As I said, the only reason given was that on the notice to quit - termination of tenancy.

As to historic value - its presence or not is not really a reason to demolish, given that time the buildings had stood.

Because none of the tenants of the earlier demolitions went for LMC's Marina Adelaide offer - as in Searles' case, about 15 times the rent for half the space without slipways, only a medium weight lift - LMC could probably have expected the no they got from Searles as well.

As to work safety issues, you may not be aware that for about ten years, the government then the LMC had refused to allow Searles to upgrade their building, and continued to do so until the end.

It's uncertain exactly what recent environmental testing has been done at Searles.

I put it to you again that if Searles was indeed a vibrant business with full order books, they would have made alternative accomodation arrangements.

I have a good knowledge of this matter, yipiyiyo. Before LMC offered Searles a tenancy at Marina Adelaide (of which LMC is the landlord to a private consortium), it offered Searles commercial rates for the vacant premises of Beswick boatyard, a tall shed north of Port Adelaide Rowing Club. LMC had previously bought the propety. I understand that Searles was happy to go ahead, but that LMC withdrew its offer to Searles and offered the yard at a cheaper price to Marina Adelaide. That is a serious matter and further, it suggests that Marina Adelaide's facilities are insufficient.

Here's a question for you, yipiyiyo: If it is correct that the land on which the Jenkins St boatyards stood has no title of any sort, then what kind of lease, if any, was terminated?

Thankyou Stumpjumper
Based on the info provided your last blog,
You view the rental hike for another boatyard location as greed and captialism. I view it as commercial reality.
You view the low rental at Seales boat yards as their right, I view the low rental as a tax payer subsidised space that that would cost millions of dollars to make it a safe working environment and guess who who have to pay. The tax payer.
No wonder the boat yard occupants made a big issue out of this.

I'm a patient man, yipiyiyo.

Based on the info provided your last blog, You view the rental hike for another boatyard location as greed and captialism.

I'm having trouble understanding exactly what your concerns are. I don't see the rent asked by MA as 'greed and capitalism'. MA offered similar packages to each of the boatyards closed by LMC. All of them rejected the packages as too expensive. No other operator has taken space at MA either. I regard that as commercial reality, the reality being that the rates being asked by MA are above what the market will pay. I don't see how you can argue with that.

You view the low rental at Seales boat yards as their right,

No, I don't. There are no 'rights' involved. I have never seen any written agreement between any of the Jenkins SAt yards and their landlord, whether LMC or whatever was its predecessor. I don't even know what the rent was in dollars, except that it was reportedly 1/15th of what MA asked. That could make the Jenkins St rents low or MA's rent high, depending on your point of view.

I view the low rental as a tax payer subsidised space that that would cost millions of dollars to make it a safe working environment and guess who who have to pay. The tax payer.

So you think that the boatyards were paying below market rent at Jenkins St, and you see the amount below market as a loss (subsidy) borne by the taxpayer. OK. What rents were being paid at Jenkins St? I don't know. What is a market rate rent for a yard art Jenkins St? I don't know. I'd be obliged if you'd tell me.

'Millions of dollars to make it a safe working environment' - I'd be interested to see your calculations. Apart from the inundations, I'm not sure how different the work environment at Searles Jenkins St yard would be from any other slipway. The old shed does not necessarily mean an unsafe work place. Work safety has more to do with safe work practices, adherence to standard operating procedures, safety data sheets etc than the condition of the building or the fact that the floor is subject to inundation. I'd be interested to know how you estimated that millions of dollars would have to be spent at Searles Jenkins St premises to comply with OH&S requirements. As to the taxpayer having to pay for OH&S improvements for tenants of the government - where did you get that idea?

I'm fairly sure that if Searles had been offered a respectable lease at market rate (say 10 years + 10 + 10 with rent to CPI) then the proprietor would have been happy to invest his own funds in a new floor or a new shed or whatever it is that your OH&S concerns are based around.

To my certain knowledge, LMC has expressly refused to negotiating leases for continuing occupation at any price. I suppose that means from your point of view that the taxpayer will henceforth be subsidising the now-vacant land at Jenkins St, because the taxpayer will not be receiving whatever rent the yards offered to stay in business.

Don't forget that the taxpayer was quite happy to fork out an unexpected $17.5 million on demand to build marina berths for the Newport Quays consortium without any return whatsoever at any time.

No wonder the boat yard occupants made a big issue out of this.

I don't quite get your point here.

Are you saying that the yards understandably made a fuss because they were losing their low rentals (although they had offered to pay market rent under normal commercial leases)?

Or are you saying that the yard operators made a fuss because somehow that would attract the government to spend millions on unspecified OH&S improvements which would be done at taxpayers' expense?

It's obvious, yipiyiyo, that you are angry about the situation, but you seem to be having trouble expressing your anger in a logical and coherent way. I'd be interested to know what your primary objection to recent events is.

The facts remain that the LMC was extremely keen to get rid of the Jenkins St boatyards, which it has now done, at the cost to the state of a number of full-time jobs and a small, sustainable industry. The LMC has not managed to evict the RAN which occupies significant improvements between two of the former boatyards. The LMC is yet to give a rational justification for what it has done. LMC has claimed that the yards were a source of pollution, but EPA cannot state what tests they have done or provide any results. LMC has claimed that the land is needed to store contaminated soil, yet the site is clearly subject to tidal inundation and moreover the RAN in the centre of the site has had no notice of any such intention by LMC and advises that it would in any case object most strongly to such a proposal. LMC has claimed that the site is needed for Stage 7 as yet undesigned of a project which is now stalled at Stage 2 and is rumoured to be for sale as a whole to a new developer.

None of these justifications requires the immediate quitting of the site by the boatyards.

Until LMC produces a better reason for its drastic and costly (to the taxpayer) action, people will continue to speculate that LMC acted primarily either to eliminate the competition for its struggling tenants at Marina Adelaide 6kms away down river, to assist flagging sales at Newport Quays by eliminating the 'unsightly' boat yards, or for some other reason not made public.

I say again, that all I am seeking is the truth. I have no idea why the LMC acted as it did over the boatyards. i cannot understand it.

As more businesses in the Port close down (at least three long-standing businesses in the last month), it is urgent to find out what is going wrong. It is my contention that government mismanagement is significantly responsible for the problems in the Port.

If I were in charge, I would urgently convene a panel of experts with a track record of success in dealing holistically with disused port precincts. I would ask them to come up with some costed alternatives.

It is becoming ever clearer that the state government especially Mr Foley and the LMC have between them given us a deeply flawed program for the revival of the Port, one which may deliver even more problems as time goes on.

There are around the world thriving, popular revived port precincts which have been completed in the last few years. If we don't want the Port to join the list of government-managed disasters such as Monarto, the Government Frozen Food Factory, the MFP, the National Wine Centre, the Flower Farm, the Scrimber Project, the Government Radio Network, the Government Laundry etc then we should swallow our pride and call for help now.

A few pointers / comments regarding what I have rea on the last page of this forum:

Searles Boatyard was indeed a a vibrant business with full order books. The low rental was passed on to the customers.

"Market related" prices is determanined how?

The so called low rentals paid by the Jenkins str boatyards was in no way a "burden" on the taxpayer. Fact is - we are living in times where businesses close down, goes into receivership, lays off workers etc. These boatyards were sustainable and flexible, and in the case of Searles, debt free. Why then would the LMC close down a business? Does that not add to the economic stresses? How do we validate the development of meduim- and high density housing as a way of "boosting" and "uplifting" the Port area? Surely people will come and see activity rather than houses.
I reiterate - why?
Maybe it is a simple as.... because they can.
An LMC employee once said (no names, obviously) that the longer they wait to get the boatyards out, the more difficult it would be. Hence the haste. Also remember that the LMC has an obligation to hand over the land to the developers.

As for Marina Adelaide - we can carry on debating semantics, facts, and other disputed truths. The simple deduction is that the only garuantee for the success of MA is if it does not have any competition. There were once 7 boatyards. Now there is 2.
On a practical note - there was enough work in the industry to keep 7 boatyards in business. Add to that the few shipwrights (not all of them) who work from the back of a van, and the facilities at the yacht clubs. Now - with an added 500 or 600 marinas, can we asume that we will (heaven forbid!) have an extra 500 or so boats in the Port River? If that is the case, then if every "new" boat has to be slipped, preasure washed and antifouled once a year, then it implies almost 2 boats per day, over and above the usual work carried out by the boatyards. Why then would you reduce the number of boatyards? and can we imagine the extra pollution in the river?

Well said LeeShore.

I can add, re market acceptance of rates, that where Searles typically charged $100 per week for slipping (distinct from repair charges), MA's standard slipping charge is around $100 per day.

I know at least one boatowner and former Searles customer who, after hearing MA's high slipping charge is taking his boat to Wirrina for slipping.

Another racing yacht owner is going back to the 'scuba diver with the broom' for a mid-season scrub.

Remember "We're from the government, we're here to help you."

The net result of the ugly, heavy-handed destruction by the government and its lawyers of the 170 year old tradition of boat building and maintenance in Port Adelaide is the complete dislocation of a viable, environmentally sustainable industry; loss of full time jobs; loss of accrued infrastructure; loss of coordinated, available skills and loss of the visitor-drawing potential of a picturesque business.

Even my unhappy friends who bought at Edgewater (whose property is now on the market along with their neighbours) are complaining.

'With the boatyards over there, we had something interesting to look at. Now it's just dirt. It's going to be years before they build anything there, if ever. Just another reason to get out.'

Having left its near fatal marks on the Port, the LMC is now busy converting the Le Fevre Peninsula to a secure industrial enclave, while Treasurer Foley assures us that 'residential and industrial uses can co-exist on the Peninsula'. Yet, already a local sports club can no longer hold home events due to its parking area disappearing behind the LMC's razorwire.

Instead of being guided by the best interests of the community, the government/LMC has been captured by just two out of the many players in urban growth: industrial interests and residential property developers. The result has been a narrowly based, unsustainable development in the Port.

We are now reaping what our government has sown.

Hard to accept as it may be, the Port is in big trouble. The sooner this sad fact is faced the better. Now is not a time for unproductive blame, it is a time to get together the best, proven experts we can and try to salvage the situation while there is some momentum left.

The blame, the court cases and the political point scoring can come later. The Port needs help now, with all hands to the wheel, and it needs a viable roadmap for the future.

Let's admit the problem, and go to the world's numerous successful harbour redevelopments, find the people who know what they're doing and
get them out here to have a look.

I've come across an odd bit of information:

In 1936, the SA Auditor-General, J.W. Wainwright, advocated use of the Le Fevre Peninsula as an industrial site. In the interests of assisting GMH at Woodville to stay in SA, a new bridge was built across the Port River at Birkenhead. new wharves were built at Osborne for ICI and a planning review declared Le Fevre Peninsula to be a 'protected industrial area'.

Today, the state government is still assisting the industries of Le Fevre Peninsula by building the Third River Crossing(s) and making an undisclosed contribution to construction for the ship building facility on the peninsula.

In recent months, almost 20km of foreshore and land on the peninsula has been fenced off behind razorwire, with signs declaring the land to belong to LMC/DefenceSA, trespassers prosecuted.

Yet much has changed in the fifty years.

I'd like to know whether the government has simply dusted off the fifty year old policy to intensify the industrial use of Le Fevre Peninsula, or whether some review or forward modelling has been done to see if there is a risk of problems from: the limited area of the peninsula; the proximity and growing value of residential development on the peninsula; the difficult access to the peninsula.

There exists an alternative - development on the land side of the Port River with its almost unlimited cheap land, easy access for freight and to the national rail network etc.

Land side development would probably need an expensive excavated harbour, but there are many compensations - reduced traffic impacts across the whole city, increased safety , better separation of residential/industrial uses etc.
I'm wondering if a land side development has ever been considered?

2/ I find it very hard to believe stumpjumpers comments about the Jenkins Street shipbuilders. I do not know of any business that would close with full order books unless there was another underlying issue. Certainly relocation would not be an issue for a vibrant profitable business.

As I mentioned befor - in the case of Searles - the books was in order. It was a self-sufficient business with an established and constantly updating / re-newing customer base. There were therefor underlying issues. One of them is obviously that it became a personal issue - one man and one business dared to defy the government, developers and LMC.
The initial brief (many years ago) was that the developement would incorporate the Jenkins st boatyards. I suppose a few dollars have been spent on Political donations since then, and things have changed.
Relocation would only be on the terms of the LMC. As I mentioned befor - the only way for MA to be succesfull, is to eliminate all competition. The grand plan was then to "incorporate" the likes of Searles into one of their little rabbit warrens in the MA complex. That would mean, for a start, that the state and type of business would change into an unknow entity. That, combined with the rediculous logistics and "market related" (sic) rent would simply mean finicial suicide. Surely a business that has survived for a hundred years would know if something were to work for them or not?!

3/ Last month a king tide flooded the boat yards. Imagine the uproar and litigation if worksafeSA had been called in after a workers comp accident caused by the flooding.

Those boatyards have been subject to occasional flooding for decades! Electric motors and machinery were mounted off the floor, and there was always sufficient warning to make sure everything else was stacked up. The last two floods were the biggests ones recorded, and at Searles it meant a day and half of cleaning and drying while normal work carried on. I cannot imagine a Workers Comp because of wet feet. In fact - in the last 5 years I do not know of a single workers comp to have come from the boatyards.
On that note - the LMC has not allowed the buildings to be altered or upgraded for many years. A few individuals should maybe investigate their exposure to asbestos, from the wall-cladding on the northern side.....

Apologies for diverting the discussion up the peninsula. The main issue at the moment is the behaviour of LMC in relation to the Jenkins St boatyards.

Hmmm - I think the LMC is to be held accountable for many more atrocities accross the state. I just comment on what I am familiar with.

Hmmm indeed. I think there's a good PhD, to say the least, in a study of the evolution of the powerful LMC from Don Dunstan's modest SA Land Commission of the 1970's, established to moderate speculation in vacant land, through the SA Urban Land Trust to the present leviathan Land Management Corporation, which can act as the government in developer's clothing.

The guardian has to an extent become the thing guarded, and the question arises - who watches the LMC? Its executive is not elected, yet it controls an enormous sum of public assets.

In 1981 the SA Land Commission became the Urban Land Trust, empowered to hold land and, as prevailing circumstances required, to make land available for, and otherwise assist in the orderly establishment and development of new urban areas and urban consolidation in existing urban areas. It was allowed to divide land and to participate in joint ventures, but it could not acquire any improved property which was occupied by a resident or on which business was being carried on. This seems to be a sanction against the acquisition of land like the Jenkins St boatyards, but refers only to the now defunct Urban Land Trust, and in any case would not cover land already owned by the government. In any case the boatyard land is no doubt owned by the government, although it has no title.

In 1995 the Housing and Urban Development (Administrative Arrangements) Act allowed the creation of the Land Management Corporation. The charter of the LMC had by 2004 been altered three times, with questions being asked in Parliament about it, but the present content of the charter is uncertain, as the LMC website is not currently accessible. It was taken down some time ago and there is no indication when it will return to public view. Responsibility for the terms of the LMC charter has in the past rested with the Minister for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure, Pat Conlon, and the Treasurer, Kevin Foley.

Worth investigating, I'd say.

as the LMC website is not currently accessible.

I don't quite understand... I can access it just fine.

http://www.lmc.sa.gov.au/home/

I can't download the charter at the moment, but I guess you could call them up and get them to send it to you.

The LMC website went back up this morning.

As you say, the charter is still not available.

My point concerns the power over public assets and the accountability to the public - the owners of those assets - of the LMC.

As a member of the public, I'd like to know what that accountability is.

My point concerns the power over public assets and the accountability to the public

....and that is the point! - those assests - being land AND business AND heritage AND trades and tradesmen AND buildings - belong to the public. Not the LMC (Wayne Gibbings), Foley, Conlon, Rann, and even less so to the developers who's invoices, incidently, gets paid with our tax money.

Indeed - the LMC is accoutable to nobody, except Foley and Conlon who can, at a whim, replace those who do not "produce" and "perform". Hence, I get the impression that the LMC is desperate to perform and produce, and they can do so - again - why would no legal action (Searles, for instance) sucseed? - because the LMC / Government / (Developers?) can afford the lawyers.... that is, yes, paid for by the taxpayer.

Political buzzwords and convenient excuses often go hand-in-hand, and are often created as slogans in order to abuse power by branding others as outcasts. One such statement is “anti-development”.
End of argument.
Sorry, no, that is nothing more than bullying! And yes – it is abuse of power at the expense of those who are most vulnerable. And a business like Searles, and the people who applied their trade there, are vulnerable because they have put their faith and trust in honest hard work, and served the community in an honest and transparent manner. People like Kingsley Haskett, and many others, is not asking for wealth, but merely asking for the right to exist. Note – it is not a privilege, but a basic right!
It is a right being denied by the privileged few, like those at the LMC, who act with total disregard for the human element. With total disregard for the intense human emotion of sentiment, and indeed; love! The developers act with disregard for the past, formed by idealistic prospects for the future, which has failed many times over. Shame on you, LMC.

LMC's charter is back up on the net, it's good to see. The whole website has been overhauled, and is now a lot more punchy (electioneering?) showing Minister Conlon to be the LMC's shining sun central to and around whom all activity revolves "delivering successful outcomes for South Australia" - meeting and exceeding the expectations of stakeholders blah blah blah

http://www.lmc.sa.gov.au/home/inner.asp ... &mainID=16

The LMC's predecessor, the Land Trust, was specifically prohibited from acquiring land in use. This was to protect peoples' livelihoods and the value of their businesses and is particularly notable in view of LMC's closure and demolition of the thriving Jenkins St businesses and conversion of their land to vacant mudflats

(2) The Trust shall not acquire by compulsory process—
(a) any dwellinghouse that is occupied by the owner as his principal place of residence;
(b) any factory, workshop, warehouse, shop or other premises used for industrial or
commercial purposes;
(c) any premises used as an office or rooms for the conduct of a business or profession;

The Trust was not even allowed to buy land that was already subdivided! It was purely a 'land bank', but the LMC has moved on, with Foley, by his own words, imagining that he is one of the property development industry's major movers and shakers.

The point is that if the LMC did not own the land under the boatyards - and since the land appears to have no title - it may well be there has been some acquisition of the land by LMC.

The LMC hass now merged in some ways with DefenceSA (whose corporate structure plan shows that it is headed by the Minister for Economic Development (Mr Rann) and the Treasurer Mr Foley)

http://www.techportaustralia.com/About.mvc/DefenceSA

The LMC and DefenceSA are sharing the signs warning people off land on Le Fevre Peninsula. The conglomerate is growing and already controls 100's of $ millions of asssets, a lot of it off the state's balance sheet and outside parliamentary scrutiny.

It's all for SA, of course. No-one is saying it's bad per se, but there must be transparency and scrutiny. The opaque business of the Jenkins St boatyards shows that there is very little transparency about the LMC at that scale, so what of the rest of the expanding organisation?

It's starting to feel like WA Inc. Remember WA Premier Brian Burke and his Treasurer Julian Grills? They played 'big businessmen' for a while too, and did it all for WA.

Whether the constraint about working properties applying to the Land Trust still applies to the LMC I don't know. Finding out is made more difficult by the LMC having removed data from its website.

On it goes.