In this day and age, no event the size of the Clipsal 500 can exist without the support of large-scale sponsorship and corporate investment - by extension, facilities dedicated to the enjoyment of people in so-called 'big business'. To use the argument that the sole users of this pit-lane facility will be from other states/countries and therefore not subject to South Australian taxes implies that their presence is not beneficial to the prosperity of South Australia. Such an argument assumes two things - that visitors to all events within the ACC jurisdiction directly contribute funds to the advantage of South Australians, and that business and payroll taxes of South Australian residents and businesses are the lone sources of revenue for the South Australian government.Clr Yarwood wrote:Don’t believe everything you read…a few facts – its not 11 months a year – it’s a week over 5 months. 11 months is just this year and most of that is section at a time bitumen and concrete footings – the headline was not only dumb, but incorrect.
Furthermore anyone that thinks the ACC members are recalcitrants are spending more time moaning than they are doing their homework. 5 of the councillors (inc myself) are 40 years old or less and very progressive.
The others are highly intelligent, experienced and imaginative people able to listen and learn with an average age around 55…hardly old!
“Ho really†is right…it was NEVER a grandstand and you guys were never going to be invited…none of us were.
$55 million of YOUR taxes for a VIP box for people that pay no local taxes…what the???
Vision, progress, the future? How about let’s stop debating a pile of seats for a 4 day V8 race and talk about the Government investing in infrastructure that supports sustainable living and affordable Gen Y housing options.
Gen Y cannot afford to buy a house and the ice caps are melting and some people suggest the State Government should blow $55 mill on a grandstand for a business that is making good profits…hmmmm…am I missing something?
The parklands will be there 100’s years after the race has come and gone…real vision is about appreciating that one day when the world’s population is 9 billion plus Adelaide will have one of the best open space networks of any city in the world.
Vic Park? More like where is the tram going Mike Rann?
Are we to assume that all visitors to the Festival and Fringe, for example, are residents of South Australia, who in turn pay South Australian stamp duty, South Australian car registration, are paid only in South Australia, and spend money only in South Australia for the benefit of solely South Australian-owned businesses? The argument that Clipsal visitors are not South Australians and therefore not contributing to our profitability is a fallacy. Our wine and food are consumed; our human resources are utilised; our city is advertised through personal experience by visiting executives, employees and companies - these are not just advantages to those employed at the Clipsal for any given year, but those who can further the salience of South Australia as a worthwhile investment for the future. It is important to note that the temporary grandstand appears equally oriented towards corporate facilities, so I ask again - what advantage beyond its eventual deconstruction does a temporary grandstand offer over the defeated permanent alternative?
It is clear that both assumptions are not absolute. Increased state tax revenue is determined by employment, business confidence, Federal Government policy, et. al. Additional employment results from, among other things, additional business investment - often the result of large-scale events like the Clipsal 500 acting as the catalyst for negotiation and commitment from businesses seeking additional locations or headquarters. This, in turn, results in a larger number of people earning a larger income, contributing to an increase in employment, business confidence and consumer spending. Similarly, businesspeople with positive experiences as a result of their time at the Clipsal 500 are more likely to hold a positive view of Adelaide - while it seems inappropriate, business investment is frequently determined by such subjective measures.
In addition, the $55 million cost for a permanent structure is a one-off investment - its value cannot be compared to a temporary structure until the expected lifespan of a permanent building is compared to the cumulative cost of the construction of a temporary grandstand. If the $600,000 figure is to be believed for the annual construction/demolition of a temporary grandstand, then one must first determine the expected recurrence of the temporary structure. If we assume the permanent grandstand shall never come to fruition and the temporary grandstand is to be required indefinitely, that single-year value of a temporary structure erected every year is called into question. I for one would expect a permanent structure to last at least 25 years; similarly, I would expect the annual expense of the construction of a temporary structure (particularly via wage increases) to rise dramatically in the future. In other words, the value of a temporary structure cannot be determined until construction cost increases and lifespan is factored into the annual expense over the event's projected duration.
Similarly, if the usefulness of a permanent grandstand is called into question, then we must first discuss the usefulness of a temporary structure. Given the SAJC's desertion of Victoria Park, the temporary grandstand has no use beyond the four days of Clipsal 500 activity. Assuming Clr. Yarwood's claim that construction and removal time of 5 months is accurate, it is not remotely acceptable that a structure utilised for only four days requires a 5 month construction period, especially given the permanent proposal was earmarked for usage by the SAJC for horse-racing outside of the Clipsal 500 as well as various conventions that could make use of the facilities. We must demand further analysis of how the facilities can be utilised throughout the year before an appropriate resolution can be reached as to whether or not a permanent grandstand is most suitable.
To be perfectly honest, I am concerned that the appropriate issues were not publicly discussed in the context of Victoria Park. I am concerned that more attention was not focused upon seeking out year-long usage for the building beyond horse and motor racing through successful interior design, achieving appropriate public access for Victoria Park throughout the year, or seeking out alternate styles for the external views. I am concerned that the approved temporary structure addresses very few of the concerns aimed at the proposed permanent structure. Above all, I am concerned that so many questions continue to exist after the ACC considers this issue to be resolved, as implied by its approval of the temporary grandstand.
