[COM] Adelaide Oval Redevelopment

[omada]

hah, nothing like the power of raw statistics to back up an argument, thanks P.G

[rhino]

Federal Government Oval funding 'not ruled out', Wayne Swan says
Business Editor Christopher Russell From: AdelaideNow May 18, 2011 11:15AM

THE Federal Government has left open the possibility of helping fund the Adelaide Oval redevelopment.

Treasurer Wayne Swan told AdelaideNow the "lines of communication remain open".

The initial federal funding package had fallen away because Australia failed to secure the soccer world cup.

But he would continue to discuss the matter with the South Australian Government.

"We come to this with good will," Mr Swan said.

"It is an exciting project for SA, it is one of the great cricket ovals of the world."

However, it was necessary to maintain fiscal discipline and he would make no commitment at this stage.

Mr Swan was similarly reluctant to promise any extra funding toward building the new Royal Adelaide Hospital.

[Prince George]

wowza! is that really $1200 per resident. With our population of 23 million people that equates to $2.76b dollars! I'd like to see a detailed breakdown of those numbers. I bet it's something like 20% of our population are responsible for 80% of losses.

"net spending in the country’s legal forms of betting divided by the number of residents over age 16". Population will be somewhat less than the full 23 million. Still a mountain of money, though.

[Waewick]

I wonder what that graph would look like if illegal betting was included (as if you could ever know the number!)

[stumpjumper]

Speaking of facts, Adelarch:

Mmm, and a small group of residents from a particular suburb of Adelaide having control over not only the entire Parklands but also the Adelaide CBD is of course completely democratic…

The legal position is: Under the Park Lands Act 2005, drafted under the direction of John Hill, then Minister for Environment and Conservation, the Adelaide Park Lands are held in trust by the Adelaide City Council for the residents of the City of Adelaide (ie the 'square mile' and North Adelaide).

The Park Lands are open to everyone. They are used and enjoyed by many more people than the residents in the ACC area, and despite the technical legal position, most South Australians feel a proprietary interest in the Park Lands, which is a good thing.

But Moran is right this time. There is no basis for the government to acquire, seize, or otherwise take control of any part of the Park Lands except as set out in the Act, ie for road widening etc.

The only way control can be handed to SMA seems to be by an amendment to the Act.

As for democratic, how is the handover by the ratepayer-elected ACC of parking at AO to the unelected gentlemen of the Stadium Management Authority in any way democratic? SMA is a private incorporated business entity. Neither its earnings and expenditures nor its deliberations or appointments are open to public scrutiny.

[silverscreen]

From the master of cut & paste, herewith the latest (pertinent) comments from Krystoff Raw:

Time For Yarwood To Go
May 18th

In the light of developments this morning on the State Government’s plans to blast the ACC off controlling the Adelaide Oval precinct (see our other article at ACC To Lose Precinct), it is time for Lord Mayor Stephen Yarwood to reconsider his position.

Hopefully Lord Mayor Stephen Yarwood (if he ever bothers to get up early enough to put the council’s view about anything that may run counter to the State Government’s) won’t feign surprise about what he and his council have now been told.

In response to very clear indications that this was always the Government’s game plan, and indeed ever since the Adelaide Oval matter started hotting up at the end of last year, Yarwood has run the line that the ACC is in negotiations with the Government and that it has communicated its concerns and issues (control of the precinct and car parking revenue) and these matters will be negotiated at the appropriate time. The message – it held all the keys to the gates of Adelaide Oval.

This was in the face of the SANFL stating categorically that its conditions precedent to any deal involved it having that control not the ACC.

At no stage did Yarwood attempt to get these issues debated in public and neither did he attempt to enjoin in the Vote No campaign to stir up public concerns and help bring that vote down. In that way, this type of pressure on the ACC could have been averted or better fought off with the SACA vote on its side. It seems he knew better and his cunning play of ‘slowly slowly catchy monkey’ would prove itself to be a master stroke in due course. Stephen Yarwood you are the Baldrick of the State.

The only city councillors who did raise a stink were Anne Moran on radio and TV very late in the piece, Mark Hamilton (in an article in The Advertiser that was written well before proxies closed but did not appear until after) and Deputy Lord Mayor David Plumridge. But when your chief is silent, there is not much you can do.

Well Lord Mayor, Stephen Yarwood, the following key points are now your reality (and they are much greater in importance than just car parking revenue):

* The ACC is going to be blasted off the parklands as we foretold 7 weeks ago.
* History has repeated itself – you don’t appease aggressors
* The Victoria Park racecourse is going the same way
* The Memorial Drive Tennis club is doomed.
* Your policy of attempting to redefine relationships with the State Government is in shreds and it is now too late to do much about it.
* Don’t expect The Advertiser or the Sunday Mail to support you if you do stand up for the Council (where were you this morning?) – everyone knows whose mast they have nailed their colours to. You too will now be another ‘whingeing naysayer.’ The sporting elite don’t give a toss about heritage. (But maybe Steve they will hail you as another voice of reason if you continue to be anonymous on this issue!)
* You will go down as the Lord Mayor who sold out the Adelaide City Council and its history of being the custodians for the parklands because you thought you knew better.
* Any thoughts you had about standing as the Labor Party candidate for the State seat of Adelaide, a la, Jane Lomax Smith and spending your post Mayoral years on North Terrace are gone. Especially as it seems the State Government will legislate for Barton Terrace to be opened to cater for traffic coming up from the Port – good bye all Noth Adelaide voters.)

You need to resign Stephen Yarwood and resign now and go back to town planning – perhaps in some ghost town like Silverton where you can hang out with other spirits of yesterday who thought they too were going to have the last laugh before harsh realities of the day set in.
share save 171 16 RAW: Time For Yarwood To Go
Adelaide Oval redevelopment, Anne Moran, Lord Mayor Stephen Yarwood, SACA

AND on the same web-site:


RAW: Adelaide Oval et al To No Longer Be Under ACC Custodianship

May 18th

[stumpjumper]

Well pasted, silverscreen.

I don't see why Vic Park is 'going the same way' or why Memorial Drive Tennis Club is 'doomed'.

The current Labor position on Vic Park must be that articulated by the Treasurer and Deputy Premier at the time Kevin Foley:

Treasurer Kevin Foley now says he was wrong to seek a permanent new grandstand.

He says the Opposition bill would have trampled on the interests of people living near Victoria Park.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008 ... ?site=news

And why is Memorial Drive Tennis Club doomed? If you take a look, MGTC has been more or less taken over by Next Gen.

[Will]

From the master of cut & paste, herewith the latest (pertinent) comments from Krystoff Raw:

Time For Yarwood To Go
May 18th

In the light of developments this morning on the State Government’s plans to blast the ACC off controlling the Adelaide Oval precinct (see our other article at ACC To Lose Precinct), it is time for Lord Mayor Stephen Yarwood to reconsider his position.

Hopefully Lord Mayor Stephen Yarwood (if he ever bothers to get up early enough to put the council’s view about anything that may run counter to the State Government’s) won’t feign surprise about what he and his council have now been told.

In response to very clear indications that this was always the Government’s game plan, and indeed ever since the Adelaide Oval matter started hotting up at the end of last year, Yarwood has run the line that the ACC is in negotiations with the Government and that it has communicated its concerns and issues (control of the precinct and car parking revenue) and these matters will be negotiated at the appropriate time. The message – it held all the keys to the gates of Adelaide Oval.

This was in the face of the SANFL stating categorically that its conditions precedent to any deal involved it having that control not the ACC.

At no stage did Yarwood attempt to get these issues debated in public and neither did he attempt to enjoin in the Vote No campaign to stir up public concerns and help bring that vote down. In that way, this type of pressure on the ACC could have been averted or better fought off with the SACA vote on its side. It seems he knew better and his cunning play of ‘slowly slowly catchy monkey’ would prove itself to be a master stroke in due course. Stephen Yarwood you are the Baldrick of the State.

The only city councillors who did raise a stink were Anne Moran on radio and TV very late in the piece, Mark Hamilton (in an article in The Advertiser that was written well before proxies closed but did not appear until after) and Deputy Lord Mayor David Plumridge. But when your chief is silent, there is not much you can do.

Well Lord Mayor, Stephen Yarwood, the following key points are now your reality (and they are much greater in importance than just car parking revenue):

* The ACC is going to be blasted off the parklands as we foretold 7 weeks ago.
* History has repeated itself – you don’t appease aggressors
* The Victoria Park racecourse is going the same way
* The Memorial Drive Tennis club is doomed.
* Your policy of attempting to redefine relationships with the State Government is in shreds and it is now too late to do much about it.
* Don’t expect The Advertiser or the Sunday Mail to support you if you do stand up for the Council (where were you this morning?) – everyone knows whose mast they have nailed their colours to. You too will now be another ‘whingeing naysayer.’ The sporting elite don’t give a toss about heritage. (But maybe Steve they will hail you as another voice of reason if you continue to be anonymous on this issue!)
* You will go down as the Lord Mayor who sold out the Adelaide City Council and its history of being the custodians for the parklands because you thought you knew better.
* Any thoughts you had about standing as the Labor Party candidate for the State seat of Adelaide, a la, Jane Lomax Smith and spending your post Mayoral years on North Terrace are gone. Especially as it seems the State Government will legislate for Barton Terrace to be opened to cater for traffic coming up from the Port – good bye all Noth Adelaide voters.)

You need to resign Stephen Yarwood and resign now and go back to town planning – perhaps in some ghost town like Silverton where you can hang out with other spirits of yesterday who thought they too were going to have the last laugh before harsh realities of the day set in.
share save 171 16 RAW: Time For Yarwood To Go
Adelaide Oval redevelopment, Anne Moran, Lord Mayor Stephen Yarwood, SACA

AND on the same web-site:


RAW: Adelaide Oval et al To No Longer Be Under ACC Custodianship

May 18th

Finally, the NO side shows their true colours.

This line says it all:

Especially as it seems the State Government will legislate for Barton Terrace to be opened to cater for traffic coming up from the Port – good bye all Noth Adelaide voters

.

Oh NO! poor people invading North Adelaide!

Furthermore the fact that the NO vote is also calling for the resignation of Lord Mayor Yarwood, whilst heaping praise on Cr Anne Moran is also telling. Lord Mayor Yarwood is a man of the future, a man who wants to embrance the future and govern for ALL users of the city, not just a handful of North Adelaide residents. To call for his resignation because he is not a nostalgist, who want to turn Adelaide into a museum a la North Adelaide society says it all.

My message to the NO people is: you lost. Adelaide will never again be your personal plaything.

[SRW]

Adelaide Oval legislation going to Parliament
ABC News Online, 18 May 2011

Legislation has gone to State Parliament for the Adelaide Oval upgrade to proceed.

Infrastructure Minister Patrick Conlon says it will protect the oval's current name, its heritage scoreboard and cathedral views.

The State Government will be licensed to control the Adelaide Oval parklands area under the bill.

The minister would be authorised to grant a lease over the Oval and sub-license parklands control to the Stadium Management Authority, to let football and cricket manage car parking.

The Government is yet to reach agreement with Adelaide City Council but can override any council resistance.

Mr Conlon has met councillors and admits management of parklands parking remains a sticking point, but he says he remains hopeful of solving differences.

"Despite the fact we could legislate we have not sought to simply go in with a stick, we've sought to make an agreement," he said.

"We're not quite there, but we're not far apart."

New CEO of the Department of Transport Rod Hook explained the City Council was being urged to relinquish control over car parking for the Oval.

"The Government wants the council to license the Minister to be in charge of that car park area and the Minister will sub-license the Stadium Authority to run those car parks," he said.

Keen for details

City Councillor Anne Moran says the council's non-negotiable desire to retain control of car parking is being swept away by government.

She says the council is keen to see the detail of Mr Conlon's legislation.

"Every councillor that's on the council now ran with banners saying 'protector and carer of the parklands', so in my mind this council's got nowhere to go," she said.

"Handing it over to the Government is one thing, if they ran a car park they're at least democratic, but to hand it over to them so they hand it over to footy is beyond outrageous."

Mr Conlon says the Stadium Management Authority will be required by a contract to maintain the parklands.

Greens MP Mark Parnell says he will not support the parklands being turned into a huge car park.

Mr Parnell says his support for the legislation is not guaranteed because the focus seems to be on parklands car parking rather than public transport.

"There is always going to be some car parking and we'll look at the legislation when it comes through but we need to make sure that we don't just turn the Adelaide parklands into a car park," he said.

I actually agree with the comment in bold. I can reconcile the state government taking those parks as part of its reserve, but it's another thing entirely for private interests to be controlling public land.

[stumpjumper]

As mentioned here (not just by me) in the past, it's all about the carparks. If they are available for park'n'ride, they will be a goldmine. Short term casual city parking is about $5 per hour, daily about $15, dep on location. 1400 open parks at $8 per day = approx $11,000. That operator will be in a good position to take on other parking associated with AO, say a PPP built multi-storey structure.

I doubt that there will be any ground rent or licence paid to ACC. Well done the Negotiating Team at ACC.

The big question is how the government is going to take control of the land in the first place.

The government has cleared the first hurdle though - the Adelaide Park Lands Authority. This body was set up under the Park Lands Act to guard the Park Lands by advising the government and other parties on their dealings with the Park Lands. But the Park Lands Authority with its impressive membership of paid specialists in environmental and open space management, cultural heritage conservation, landscape design, park management, tourism, financial management and local government, has had no role in this, nor will it ever have a role. The Authority is advisory, and the government hasn't asked for its advice, nor will it ask.

Here's the charter of this expensive waste of time:

http://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/A ... .69.UN.PDF

And here's the Act which the government will have to amend in order to seize control of the land from ACC in order to give it to SMA, and to remove trees and build the carparks, roadways and other facilities needed for the AO project:

http://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/A ... .69.UN.PDF

Here's the preamble: The Park Lands Act is to establish a legislative framework that promotes the special status, attributes and character of the Adelaide Park Lands; to provide for the protection of those park lands and for their management as a world-class asset to be preserved as an urban park for the benefit of present and future generations.

To take control under the Adelaide Park Lands Act 2005, the government might try to use S 16 (b):

"Any variation to the Adelaide Park Lands Plan that has effect pursuant to this Act will, to the extent that the variation removes land from the Adelaide Park Lands, by force of this subsection—
(i) revoke any dedication of relevant land as park lands (including a dedication that has effect under another Act or has had effect under this Act); and
(ii) revoke any classification of relevant land as community land under the Local Government Act 1999."

There's no scope in the Park Lands Act or the Development Act for a private incorporated body to occupy land except under a lease. It looks as thoiugh the government will become the occupier of the land in the first instance, and will immediately sub-lesase the land to SMA.

Then there is the question of who will actually own the physical improvements at AO. Under SACA's old lease, ACC owned all the improvements. When SACA held a members only auction of the seats, bar panelling and other items they were actually selling goods belonging to ACC ratepayers, but everyone looked the other way.

The Development Act prohibits, for good reasons, long leases and Major Projects in the Park Lands. Apart from the long lease sought by SMA, if the AO redevelopment is to be given any of the Major Project protocols, the Development Act will have to be changed to accommodate that too.

http://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/A ... .55.UN.PDF

So there are a few jumps to clear yet, outside politics.

[mattblack]

Speaking of facts, Adelarch:

Mmm, and a small group of residents from a particular suburb of Adelaide having control over not only the entire Parklands but also the Adelaide CBD is of course completely democratic…

The legal position is: Under the Park Lands Act 2005, drafted under the direction of John Hill, then Minister for Environment and Conservation, the Adelaide Park Lands are held in trust by the Adelaide City Council for the residents of the City of Adelaide (ie the 'square mile' and North Adelaide).

And the fact that a small minority of taxpayers elect the members of ACC also means that small, vocal minority groups have a greater sway in how council opperates and who gets elected. I notice that you convieniently keep this out of your responce. The State Gov have all the right in the world to take over the parklands if it feels that the ACC are not acting for the greater good of the City of Adelaide.

[stumpjumper]

I'm trying to be objective here, mattblack.

I agree that the area controlled by ACC - the sq mile and North Adelaide - is different from other council areas because of its importance top the whole state, and that the present structure of ACC doesn't reflect that difference.

And the fact that a small minority of taxpayers elect the members of ACC also means that small, vocal minority groups have a greater sway in how council opperates and who gets elected.

That is precisely correct. ACC councillors are voted into office by and represent the residents and ratepayers of the council's area.

The State Gov have all the right in the world to take over the parklands if it feels that the ACC are not acting for the greater good of the City of Adelaide.

Under the present system, State government has no more right to take over the Park Lands than it has to take over, say, Hazelwood Park from Burnside Council.

This situation is a survival from the days when the ACC area WAS 'Adelaide', a town surrounded by paddocks and villages.

You are implying that because the Park Lands, city centre etc are so important to the wider state, the area should be managed differently.

I agree with you. I'm in favour of a different sort of management for the city too, one which allows the residents proper representation but which also reflects the interests of the whole state in its capital.

There must be templates for this sort of thing elsewhere in the world.

The government has recognised the difference, at least with the Park Lands. Look at the Adelaide Park Lands Act 2005. It's a blueprint for effective management of the Park Lands, taking them away from the control of the ACC and instituting a 'panel of experts', the Park Lands Authority, to guide the future of the Park Lands in the interests of the whole state.

But in the first real test of the management system set up by the Act - the AO redevelopment - the government has ridden straight over its own Park Lands Act and sidelined the Park Lands Authority. It is managing the development ostensibly at least from the office of Department of Transport, Energy and Infrastructure with the Stadium Management Authority, a private incorporated body reporting to the boards of SANFL and SACA as the supreme authority.

From an objective point of view, this process (regardless of the pros and cons of the AO project) is a travesty of democratic government.

If you want to complain about the people of SA not being represented, and small minority groups having greater sway in what happens, complain about that.

[stumpjumper]

I have a copy of the Adelaide Oval Redevelopment and Management Bill. This document sets out how the government will deal with the existing legislation and mechanisms protecting the Park Lands.

The Bill describes the land involved:

- a Core Area of Section 1726 and several adjoining pieces of land: essentially the footprint of the Oval with its grandstands plus land adjacent between that footprint and King William Rd and War Memorial Drive. This land may be leased for 80 years.

- a Licence Area comprising land in Section 1626. I do not yet know what exactly what land is in this Section - it's likely to be the northern carparking area and/or the western oval. Note that the description is 'licence' not 'licenced'. The land may be leased for 80 years and the Minister has the right to excavate and to change the form of the land. This overrides the Local Government Act section 11 and the Park Lands Act 2005 section 21.

Here are some pertinent points of the Bill:

Part 2, 4 (1) 'Subject to this Act, the care, control and management of the Adelaide Oval Core Area is vested in the Minister.'

Note: This is quite exceptional. Since their inception, the Park Lands have been owned by the people of Adelaide. Presently, under the Park Lands Act 2005 the owners have vested the care, control and management of the Park Lands in the ACC, guided by the Park Lands Authority. The government has had limited power to claim land for road-widening etc. This Bill ignores the Park Lands Act and simply asserts control by the Minister.

Part 2, 4 (4) Allows building out of the fig-tree/cathedral view on a temporary basis.

Note: What does the Minister have in mind?

Part 2, 5 (1) 'The Minister is authorised to grant a lease over any part of the Adelaide Oval Core Area to SMA.'

Note: 'a lease' is 'any lease' without reference to ACC or Park Lands Authority with respect to terms and conditions.

Part 2, 5 (2) 'A lease granted to SMA under this section may be for a any term up to 80 years.'

Note: This clause overrides the Development Act 1993 which prohibits leases of more than 14 years in the Park Lands.

Part 2, 6 (1) 'Any development undertaken within the Adelaide Oval Core Area associated with the redevelopment of Adelaide Oval, its stands and other facilities is, by force of this section, authorised.'

Part 2, 6 (2) 'An authorisation under subsection (1) (above) is subject to any conditions as the Minister may from time to specify by notice in the Gazette.'

Note: These clauses together comprise a super gold pass to development approval. The Development Act prohibits Major Project status applying to any Park Land development but these clauses are far less limiting than Major Project status. The clauses place development directly under the control of the Minister. These clauses override the Development Act 1993, the City of Adelaide Development Plan and the Park Lands Act 2005.

Part 2, 9 (1) The Adelaide Parklands Management Strategy under the Adelaide Park Lands Act 2005 will not apply to land within the Adelaide Oval Core Area or to land within the Adelaide Oval Licence Area.

Note: That fixes that.

Part 2, 6 (4) 'Any designated land is exempt from council rates under the Local Government Act 1999.'

Note: This will suit the private operator (SMA) of the land who can use the land for any commercial function whether or not related to sport. SANFL pays council rates at AAMI.

General comment: This assumption of power over land held in trust for the public and the handing over of the land to a private commercial entity for a minimum of 80 years is unprecedented in South Australia.

The claim that anyone (eg the Liberals) who opposes the Bill is against bringing football into the city is false. With 38,000 seats at present, AFL football can be played at Adelaide Oval right now.

The project is really about money, monopoly and votes, not Adelaide Oval.

Money: The project is about the payout by the taxpayer of SACA's debt and provision free of cost to SACA of a half share in a billion dollar complex; the ability to sell assets worth at least $200 million by SANFL at West Lakes.

Monopoly: See post below.

Votes: Labor should be able to dine out on this project for months, with a grand opening possible right bang at election time in 2014. If things go well. It is also possible that the project will by then have become, through cost overruns, a millstone around the government's neck, in which case any problems will be attributed to the poor judgment and management of SMA.

[mattblack]

Monopoly: By ensuring the destruction of AAMI stadium and by making it extremely difficult to build a second stadium in Adelaide, the AFL code of football, for no investment at all, achieves a practical monopoly with respect to soccer and rugby.

All this talk of there being no other option to build another stadium close to the city really is laughable. If there was justification (which there is not at the current time) for a new stadium to accomodate Footaball and Rugby (Adelaide doesnt even have state representation in rugby or Union codes), and there was enough political pressure for this to occur maybe 20 years down the line, the Gov. would find the space. Redevelopment of SANTOS is just 1 example. In the meantime Adelaide Oval will be built to such a standard that the ARU is willing to hold 2nd tier international fixtures here with such teams as the Springbox, and Adelaide United is also more than happy to play the odd high profile game. Until the fabled 2nd stadium will be used on a weekly basis there is no need for one.

[Pants]

AO's current capacity is about 36,000. Not big enough for AFL in the city, unless it's Port only, which is pointless.

I'd expect the permission to build out the fig tree/cathedral views on a temporary basis relates to temporary stands in case Australia ever gets a world cup or another event that requires more than 50,000 seats.

I don't care about the rest of it. There are plenty of parklands for me to lay claim to as member of the public. As I'll use the redeveloped ground to watch both football and cricket I'm happy for it to be put in the hands of stadium management.

Rugby and soccer play at the MCG and football and cricket run that. For the millionth time, there's no need for a current major stadium proposal to specifically cater for other sports - the market's not there and won't be for a while yet. An AFL and cricket stadium that allows others codes to use on the 3 or 4 occasions per year when the need might arise is all we need for the foreseeable future.