[COM] New Royal Adelaide Hospital | $2.1b

[Port Adelaide Fan]

Opposition claims Royal Adelaide Hospital cost blowout

OPPOSITION Leader Isobel Redmond has suggested the cost of the new Royal Adelaide Hospital has blown out by $1 billion.

Ms Redmond raised the claims in Question Time in State Parliament today.

Her treasury spokesman Iain Evans said Macquarie Bank was using a $2.73 billion figure in presentations to potential investors, rather than $1.7 billion.

He said the higher figure was included in documents released by the Macquarie Bank in January as a briefing for potential investors.

"This is a document that Macquarie Bank is using to go out and seek private investment into the hospital," Mr Evans told parliament.

"The total use of funds come 2016 is $2.73 billion.

more: http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sout ... 6034830105

[stumpjumper]

Agreed, but it does raise an interesting question: why should any owners of redundant industrial buildings which aren't heritage listed need council approval to demolish them?

Well, council approval for demolition is a requirement under the Development Act 1993 which includes 'demolition' in the definition of 'development'. In other words, it's the law. In this case, no harm has been done by the failure to comply, but there is 'equality before the law' in this country. If you disagree with the law, contact your local MP.

Alternatively, go through the state's legislation and rule a line through any legislation you disagree with. Everyone else should do the same thing. For example if the speed limit is 60kmh in a place where you consider 75kmh more appropriate, you can if caught speeding there explain to the court that because you disagree with the speed limit, you do not have to comply with it.

stumpjumper wrote:
Does anyone have any drawings or information on traffic management around the North Tce/West Tce/Port Rd intersection?


http://www.adelaidecitycouncil.com.au/a ... ssment.pdf

Thanks AtD.

[Aidan]

Agreed, but it does raise an interesting question: why should any owners of redundant industrial buildings which aren't heritage listed need council approval to demolish them?

Well, council approval for demolition is a requirement under the Development Act 1993 which includes 'demolition' in the definition of 'development'. In other words, it's the law. In this case, no harm has been done by the failure to comply, but there is 'equality before the law' in this country.

Yes, I'm aware of that. I'm just wondering why the Development Act 1993 includes demolition in the definition of development.

[mattblack]

Agreed, but it does raise an interesting question: why should any owners of redundant industrial buildings which aren't heritage listed need council approval to demolish them?

Well, council approval for demolition is a requirement under the Development Act 1993 which includes 'demolition' in the definition of 'development'. In other words, it's the law. In this case, no harm has been done by the failure to comply, but there is 'equality before the law' in this country.

Yes, I'm aware of that. I'm just wondering why the Development Act 1993 includes demolition in the definition of development.

Demolishion is actually referd to as "building work' under the act along with 'construction' and 'removal of a building'. 'Building work' is then regarded as 'development' which in turn is then refered to under section 32 in the act as 'no development may be undertaken unless the development is a approved development'. Its basically a leagal framework to distinguish between different forms of building work that can be undertaken.

[Ho Really]

Thanks Howie for re-opening this thread. Also thanks to AG for the info and maps. There was an article just recently in the Advertiser with a good sized illustration showing the main fault lines, but I can't remember if it was published just after Christchurch or the Northeastern Japan earthquake. The chances of us getting anything like Christchurch is very, very remote, since our fault lines are very old and we're not on the edge of one of the tectonic plates. My concern was based on the increasing number of large earthquakes in the Pacific Rim (Indonesia, New Zealand, Chile, Japan and Mid Pacific) and the possibility of something catastrophic happening in the not too distant future (and I'm not saying the 2012 thing) which could trigger movements on our fault lines. My opinion is still that we should have erred on the side of caution on this one.

Cheers

PS. Just to reiterate: I'm not against a new hospital, in fact the hospital looks great. It's just the location.

[Xaragmata]

Cleared site - Wednesday:

[adam73837]

With regards to any future development around the site, on Page 22 of this document (http://www.adelaidecitycouncil.com/adcc ... ssment.pdf), the site appears to be contained between North Terrace and the railway lines. Could any other non-hospital related developments go between the railway lines and the river; especially considering what they want to do with the riverfront between Morphett Street and King William Road.

P.S. Sorry if this belongs in another thread.

[[Shuz]]

I am under the impression that is what the intention will be in 30-50 years time. Let's just focus on AO and the existing Riverbank precinct first before we start fantasizing about the future potential of that section.

Back to the RAH. Not suprised the cost has blown out to $2.7b.

Hospital development billion-dollar blowout documents leaked
Daniel Wills, Sarah Martin
AdelaideNow
May 04, 2011 10:10AM

An impression of proposed Royal Adelaide Hospital development, of which details of its $1.7 billion cost are shrouded in secrecy the Opposition says.

DOCUMENTS detailing the alleged $1 billion blowout in the cost of the new Royal Adelaide Hospital have been leaked.
Opposition treasury spokesman used the Macquarie Bank RAH equity information presentation last month to allege the $1.7 billion project had blown out to $2.7 billion.

The Government said the cost of the RAH would include costs additional to construction, but refused to release details.

A copy has now been sent anonymously to AdelaideNow and other media outlets.

The Opposition is denying responsibility.

The documents show a total cost of $2.73 billion with annual repayments of $330 million.

Construction is priced at $1.78 billion. Finance is costed at $671 million.

Upfront pre-construction costs are $102 million and related costs and cash reserves total about $170 million.

The documents are accompanied by a cover letter to Treasurer Jack Snelling from a "very concerned citizen of South Australia".

It demands he explain why the project is being delievered as a public-private partnership when the Government can borrow money far more cheaply.

The document suggests that the Public Private Partnership will have to pay investors interest repayments of 15 per cent, compared to about 5 per cent if the Government directly borrowed funds.

It also accuses the Government of misleading the public about the total cost.

Government spin: Construction costs are priced at $1.78b.

[Pants]

It's not a blow out. The govt. has just only referred to construction costs when talking about the cost of this project.

That's a bit misleading, as the average Joe won't think about the cost of finance etc, but you'd have to expect there to be more to the cost of a project than just the cost of building it.

As to whether those additional costs represent value for money, I'm not so sure.

[Pants]

Mike Rann's embarrassing himself on Twitter repeating "it's all bullshit, construction costs will not be more than $1.7b". We get it Mike, but no-body's saying that they will. The blowtorch is on the ancillary costs now.

[Wayno]

What's the annual cost to run the current RAH? would be a good baseline for comparison.

[Waewick]

What's the annual cost to run the current RAH? would be a good baseline for comparison.

that was my first question too.

would be interest comparison, that being said you would imagine a slightly higher cost at the new RAH ...would you

[Aidan]

It's not a blow out. The govt. has just only referred to construction costs when talking about the cost of this project.

That's a bit misleading, as the average Joe won't think about the cost of finance etc, but you'd have to expect there to be more to the cost of a project than just the cost of building it.

As to whether those additional costs represent value for money, I'm not so sure.

Of course they don't. And if the government has only referred to construction costs when talking about the cost of this project then they've been deliberately misleading the people of SA. It's the total cost we will pay that matters, not the construction cost.

[cruel_world00]

If it's good enough for Labor then it's good enough for Liberals.

What have the Liberals been saying about an RAH rebuild? Were they just quoting the rebuild costs and not the associated costs?

If the Labor govt has consistently been describing the $1.7 billion figure as construction costs, sure it's sneaky politics, but they haven't really lied. I see where you might think it's misleading, but it's not exactly lying.

[Waewick]

If it's good enough for Labor then it's good enough for Liberals.

What have the Liberals been saying about an RAH rebuild? Were they just quoting the rebuild costs and not the associated costs?

If the Labor govt has consistently been describing the $1.7 billion figure as construction costs, sure it's sneaky politics, but they haven't really lied. I see where they have been misleading, but it's not exactly lying.

edited for accuracy