ONH: [Port Adelaide] Newport Quays | $1.2b
A casualty of the Newport Quays Development from today's Advertiser:
Port fish processing alarm
MICHAEL OWEN, Political Reporter
May 10, 2007 01:30pm
THE future of the commercial fishing industry in Adelaide will be devastated unless access is granted to a parcel of waterfront land at Port Adelaide earmarked for future development, a parliamentary committee has been told.
Raptis & Sons, one of the country's largest privately owned harvesters, processors and exporters of seafood, this morning expressed its "extreme concern" about the impact of a deal done between the Land Management Corporation and developers of the $1.5 billion Newport Quays waterfront redevelopment at Port Adelaide.
Raptis & Sons executive director Jim Raptis told the Statutory Authority Review Committee, which is inquiring into the LMC, that his company had been relocated to Docks 13 and 14 on a month-by-month lease.
He said the entire land between the key Dock 1 and Dock 2 area was sold to developer Urban Construct "without any opportunity to purchase the land we required".
Without some access to the land, the commercial fishing industry in Adelaide would be lost and there was "nowhere else to go", he said.
The company employs 60 people in SA, with trawlers catching 3000 tonnes of finfish and 30 tonnes of King Prawns annually.
He also said the LMC had made an error in selling land to Urban Construct "wharf to wharf" and not leaving a 20 metre waterfront zone as required.
Mr Raptis said Urban Construct was sitting on the land between docks 1 and 2, which was needed by the fishing industry for it stay at the port, to try and maximise profits.
"We are now uncertain if Urban Construct will ever sell us the property we need for the Government to provide the infrastructure our industry requires," he said.
"There's no security of tenure, we're on a month by month tenancy.
"We have an investment of $20 million in fishing boats and assets and we need security of tenure on which to base our future decisions."
Port fish processing alarm
MICHAEL OWEN, Political Reporter
May 10, 2007 01:30pm
THE future of the commercial fishing industry in Adelaide will be devastated unless access is granted to a parcel of waterfront land at Port Adelaide earmarked for future development, a parliamentary committee has been told.
Raptis & Sons, one of the country's largest privately owned harvesters, processors and exporters of seafood, this morning expressed its "extreme concern" about the impact of a deal done between the Land Management Corporation and developers of the $1.5 billion Newport Quays waterfront redevelopment at Port Adelaide.
Raptis & Sons executive director Jim Raptis told the Statutory Authority Review Committee, which is inquiring into the LMC, that his company had been relocated to Docks 13 and 14 on a month-by-month lease.
He said the entire land between the key Dock 1 and Dock 2 area was sold to developer Urban Construct "without any opportunity to purchase the land we required".
Without some access to the land, the commercial fishing industry in Adelaide would be lost and there was "nowhere else to go", he said.
The company employs 60 people in SA, with trawlers catching 3000 tonnes of finfish and 30 tonnes of King Prawns annually.
He also said the LMC had made an error in selling land to Urban Construct "wharf to wharf" and not leaving a 20 metre waterfront zone as required.
Mr Raptis said Urban Construct was sitting on the land between docks 1 and 2, which was needed by the fishing industry for it stay at the port, to try and maximise profits.
"We are now uncertain if Urban Construct will ever sell us the property we need for the Government to provide the infrastructure our industry requires," he said.
"There's no security of tenure, we're on a month by month tenancy.
"We have an investment of $20 million in fishing boats and assets and we need security of tenure on which to base our future decisions."
cheers,
Rhino
Rhino
-
stumpjumper
- Legendary Member!
- Posts: 1497
- Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 10:10 pm
The item was on 'Stateline' and was about the boatyards at (hang on...) New Port.
They are to be demolished to make way for housing.
Kingsley Haskett has run the business for decades, but cannot afford the $70,000 per year rent and the relocation costs at Snowden's Beach. Haskett pays around $7,000 annual rent at present.
Parts of the boatsheds and wharf areas date from the 1840's and are still in use as slipways etc.
While similar business in other places around the world have been given new life by the revival of old port precincts as mixed use tourism, commerical and housing areas, the single focus on housing in the Newport Quays development, while very efficient in making money for the joint developers (Urban Construct/State Government/Multiplex) does not allow any tourism development or retention of businesses like Searles Boatyard.
In the 51 ha earmarked for development so far, only 3 heritage listed structures will survive. These strcutures do no include the boatyards. The government made sure that they were not listed several years ago.
The largest of the heritage structures to survive the governments cleanout is Hart's Mill, the world's tallest timber-framed brick structure. Unlike the impression given in the brochures, Hart's Mill will no longer be visible from the water or any part of the Newport development. It will be surrounded by tilt-up concrete walled housing.
In any case, the government has removed the timber framing from inside the strcuture, and it will probably be demolished as unsound.
Foley's personal opinion of the remarkable building where the Captain Hart offered employment to local Aborigines: "It's shit."
Foley said this in my hearing in his office, and went on to express surprise that the buildign had any claim to historical importance anyway. "It doesn't matter," he said regarding Capt Hart's early concern for Aborigines.
This is from the man who said yesterday he was 'insulted' by the claim that he didn't know much about the Port's history.
I can tell you, he doesn't.
By the way, the completion of the opening bridges will not mean closure of the Rosewater loop. That will have to be retained as an emergency in case the bridge malfunctions.
Try googling 'Mystic Seaport' to see what can be done with old port precincts.
Compare the ongoing value in cash, jobs and international fame etc delivered to the forward thinking communities who havebenn able to develop their old docklands without the deadweight of a greedy government led development consortium so keen to turhn a buck and get out that they have ignored the community and its future.
When these ticky tacky houses at the Port are finished, the workers who built them will go home. The developers will go away. The Port will be quiet during the day while the dormitories are empty. A few tourists may visit during the daytime, but there won't be much there for them - no parking, few attractions (museums are either relocating or closing and the few big ships are leaving). At night, well, the Port's pubs were always busy anyway.
Compare this with a vibrant tourism/commercial/residential precinct, operating day and night and employing hundreds and contributing millions to the local economy.
It could have happened. Instead, accountants with no imagination and politicians easily captured by rudimnentary sales techniques have ensured that the Port's future is now as bleak as it ever was.
The Port may yet achieve global fame as an opportunity with the best potential but the worst outcome - a worldwide lesson in how not to develop a disused inner harbor.
They are to be demolished to make way for housing.
Kingsley Haskett has run the business for decades, but cannot afford the $70,000 per year rent and the relocation costs at Snowden's Beach. Haskett pays around $7,000 annual rent at present.
Parts of the boatsheds and wharf areas date from the 1840's and are still in use as slipways etc.
While similar business in other places around the world have been given new life by the revival of old port precincts as mixed use tourism, commerical and housing areas, the single focus on housing in the Newport Quays development, while very efficient in making money for the joint developers (Urban Construct/State Government/Multiplex) does not allow any tourism development or retention of businesses like Searles Boatyard.
In the 51 ha earmarked for development so far, only 3 heritage listed structures will survive. These strcutures do no include the boatyards. The government made sure that they were not listed several years ago.
The largest of the heritage structures to survive the governments cleanout is Hart's Mill, the world's tallest timber-framed brick structure. Unlike the impression given in the brochures, Hart's Mill will no longer be visible from the water or any part of the Newport development. It will be surrounded by tilt-up concrete walled housing.
In any case, the government has removed the timber framing from inside the strcuture, and it will probably be demolished as unsound.
Foley's personal opinion of the remarkable building where the Captain Hart offered employment to local Aborigines: "It's shit."
Foley said this in my hearing in his office, and went on to express surprise that the buildign had any claim to historical importance anyway. "It doesn't matter," he said regarding Capt Hart's early concern for Aborigines.
This is from the man who said yesterday he was 'insulted' by the claim that he didn't know much about the Port's history.
I can tell you, he doesn't.
By the way, the completion of the opening bridges will not mean closure of the Rosewater loop. That will have to be retained as an emergency in case the bridge malfunctions.
Try googling 'Mystic Seaport' to see what can be done with old port precincts.
Compare the ongoing value in cash, jobs and international fame etc delivered to the forward thinking communities who havebenn able to develop their old docklands without the deadweight of a greedy government led development consortium so keen to turhn a buck and get out that they have ignored the community and its future.
When these ticky tacky houses at the Port are finished, the workers who built them will go home. The developers will go away. The Port will be quiet during the day while the dormitories are empty. A few tourists may visit during the daytime, but there won't be much there for them - no parking, few attractions (museums are either relocating or closing and the few big ships are leaving). At night, well, the Port's pubs were always busy anyway.
Compare this with a vibrant tourism/commercial/residential precinct, operating day and night and employing hundreds and contributing millions to the local economy.
It could have happened. Instead, accountants with no imagination and politicians easily captured by rudimnentary sales techniques have ensured that the Port's future is now as bleak as it ever was.
The Port may yet achieve global fame as an opportunity with the best potential but the worst outcome - a worldwide lesson in how not to develop a disused inner harbor.
-
stumpjumper
- Legendary Member!
- Posts: 1497
- Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 10:10 pm
You have to laugh...
As our government/developer combine is ripping the guts out of Port Adelaide to provide a bland residential enclave with no room or parking for commercial or tourism development, across the world in Liverpool, at the original Birkenhead, no less, there is a redevelopment underway. Read on...
"The major redevelopment project under consideration is Peel Holdings' 'Wirral Waters'. This would allow for a £4.5bn of investment in the regeneration of the dockland area. This equates with an investment of over £14,000 for each of the 320,000 population of Wirral. At the East Float & Vittoria Dock, the development would include several 50-storey skyscrapers, 5 million square feet of new office space & 11 million square feet for new residential apartments. A retail & leisure quarter at the former Bidston Dock site would encompass another 571,000 square feet of space. The whole project would create more than 27,000 permanent new jobs, aside from the employment required for construction & other peripheral employment. An outline planning application is expected to be submitted during the summer of 2007.[19] The development would be expected to take up to 30 years."
Notice the balance sought between commercial, residential and 'retail and leisure'.
It's a pity that the government and private industry planners around here can still get away with the sort of monoculture developments that the rest of the world ditched years ago.
Have a look at http://www.wirralwaters.com
That's what you get when palnners have imagination and a sense of responsibility to the future.
I'll be in NW England later this year, and will definitely be having a look at this balanced proposal.
Although the Wirral development is on a larger scale than New Port at Newport Quays at Port Adelaide, the lesser scale of our development should not have precluded a mixed and balanced development.
Unfortunately, neither LMC nor the government nor the private partners have anuy interest in a balanced development delivering advantages well into the future.
With them, sadly, it's a case of 'Money. Now. Thank you. Goodbye.'
As our government/developer combine is ripping the guts out of Port Adelaide to provide a bland residential enclave with no room or parking for commercial or tourism development, across the world in Liverpool, at the original Birkenhead, no less, there is a redevelopment underway. Read on...
"The major redevelopment project under consideration is Peel Holdings' 'Wirral Waters'. This would allow for a £4.5bn of investment in the regeneration of the dockland area. This equates with an investment of over £14,000 for each of the 320,000 population of Wirral. At the East Float & Vittoria Dock, the development would include several 50-storey skyscrapers, 5 million square feet of new office space & 11 million square feet for new residential apartments. A retail & leisure quarter at the former Bidston Dock site would encompass another 571,000 square feet of space. The whole project would create more than 27,000 permanent new jobs, aside from the employment required for construction & other peripheral employment. An outline planning application is expected to be submitted during the summer of 2007.[19] The development would be expected to take up to 30 years."
Notice the balance sought between commercial, residential and 'retail and leisure'.
It's a pity that the government and private industry planners around here can still get away with the sort of monoculture developments that the rest of the world ditched years ago.
Have a look at http://www.wirralwaters.com
That's what you get when palnners have imagination and a sense of responsibility to the future.
I'll be in NW England later this year, and will definitely be having a look at this balanced proposal.
Although the Wirral development is on a larger scale than New Port at Newport Quays at Port Adelaide, the lesser scale of our development should not have precluded a mixed and balanced development.
Unfortunately, neither LMC nor the government nor the private partners have anuy interest in a balanced development delivering advantages well into the future.
With them, sadly, it's a case of 'Money. Now. Thank you. Goodbye.'
-
Interested in PA
- Sen-Rookie-Sational
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 1:59 pm
Port Adelaide Redevelopment Declared a Major Development?
Hi
Can anyone tell me if PA redevelopment was declared a major development under the Development Act?
Help greatly appreciated...
I - in - PA
Can anyone tell me if PA redevelopment was declared a major development under the Development Act?
Help greatly appreciated...
I - in - PA
-
stumpjumper
- Legendary Member!
- Posts: 1497
- Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 10:10 pm
Yes - the 50ha Newport Quays development was declared a Major Project by the state government prior to building starting.
It's not surprising given that the 'sponsor' required for Major Project status is LMC - in other words the government itself.
Often, Major Project status follows a large cash donation to the government, or the project occurs in a marginal seat or will create employment.
Supposedly, Major Project status means that the project will be subjected to even more scrutiny than usual, with the government's Development Assessment Commission taking the role of council.
Strangely though, developers fight tooth and nail for the coveted Major Development status. Among teh reasons for this are that there is no appeal from a decision of DAC, and unlike the councillors of a council which allows an unpopular or inappropriate development, no-one from DAC is under pressure of losing their job if they screw up or bow to a developer.
It's not surprising given that the 'sponsor' required for Major Project status is LMC - in other words the government itself.
Often, Major Project status follows a large cash donation to the government, or the project occurs in a marginal seat or will create employment.
Supposedly, Major Project status means that the project will be subjected to even more scrutiny than usual, with the government's Development Assessment Commission taking the role of council.
Strangely though, developers fight tooth and nail for the coveted Major Development status. Among teh reasons for this are that there is no appeal from a decision of DAC, and unlike the councillors of a council which allows an unpopular or inappropriate development, no-one from DAC is under pressure of losing their job if they screw up or bow to a developer.
-
Interested in PA
- Sen-Rookie-Sational
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 1:59 pm
Port Adelaide Redevelopment Declared a Major Development?
Thanks Stumpjumper - I had a look on the planning SA website but I couldn't see any reference to the declaration - it lists Holdfast Shores, Le Cornu site NA etc but nothing about PA.
Do you know when the declaration was gazetted?
The Dev Regs 1993 list the DAC as the relevant authority re the PA Centre Zone in Schedule 10 but no word anywhere of it being declared a major development....
Cheers
I - in - PA
Do you know when the declaration was gazetted?
The Dev Regs 1993 list the DAC as the relevant authority re the PA Centre Zone in Schedule 10 but no word anywhere of it being declared a major development....
Cheers
I - in - PA
-
Interested in PA
- Sen-Rookie-Sational
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 1:59 pm
Port Adelaide Redevelopment Declared a Major Development?
Looking into this a bit more, I dont actually think that it was declared a major development or project under the dev act - it looks as though the PCCG contracted with the state government and that there was no EIS, PER or DR done because it was never declared a major development (within the meaning of the act).
Strange!!!! Might give LMC a call tomorrow and ask them just to be sure....
Cheers
I - in - PA
Strange!!!! Might give LMC a call tomorrow and ask them just to be sure....
Cheers
I - in - PA
-
stumpjumper
- Legendary Member!
- Posts: 1497
- Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 10:10 pm
Latest scuttlebutt from the Port, gathered in a couple of phone calls today:
I'm writing an article on the present state of the Port redvelopment, so I thought I'd ask Foley's office a few questions.
I rang this afternoon, intorduced myself as someone writing an article on the Port and politely asked if I could ask the Minister's office some questions about the redevelopment.
The gruff sounding bloke (not Foley) who answered the phone and listened to my question replied "You can ask, but you probably won't get any answers."
Nice, I thought.
'Could I ask you to verify some figures please?' I continued.
'Ring Land Management Corporation,' the bloke said.
'I'd still like the Member's office opinion on...'
'Ring LMC. We haven't got any information.'
With that, Foley's office hung up.
So I rang LMC about the following:
Me: 'Is it true that the soil remediation bill has blown out to $160 million, when Foley said at $72 million that any further wrok would involve pouring 2 feet of concrete on the affected area and landscaping using trees in pots?'
LMC: 'I'm not aware of those figures or Minister Foley's comments.'
Me: 'Is it true that the government has given an undertaking to provide Multiplex and Urban Constrcut with uncontaminated sites with no limit on the cost to the government?'
LMC: 'I'm unaware of any arrangement like that.'
Me: 'Is it true that Minister Foley's offer of $17.2 million in response to the developer's request for marina berths (which were not originally proposed in the PAR and which the consortium said they could not profitably build) has blown out to $60 million for about 580 marina berths?'
LMC: I'm not aware of those figures.
Me: 'Is any money the government has spent giving the developers the marina berths a gift or a loan?'
LMC: 'I'm not aware of any arrangement regarding marina berths.'
Me: 'There were no marina berths in the original proposal. They are there now. Who paid for them?'
LMC: 'I'm not aware of the internal costings of the project.'
Me: 'Is it true that neither Multiplex nor Urban Construct will pay a penny for the land under their development until the buildings are sold, an arrangement similar to the government's arrangement with the Liberman Group at Garden East in the city?'
LMC: 'I don't know af any such arrangement.'
Me: 'To keep Multiplex in the deal, has the Rann government indemnified Multiplex against any loss in this project?'
LMC: 'I'm not aware of that.'
_____________________________________
So you can see what a rewarding task it is to get information about Newport Quays from either the govt or the developers.
They must be so proud of what they're doing - you'd think they'd be a bit more forthcoming.
At the end of my phone calls, I was almost feeling suspicious and cynical.
Everything I said or suggested to Foley's office or LMC was, as far as I know, true.
I reckon every response I got was either evasive or a lie.
No wonder people don't trust the government.
'
'
I'm writing an article on the present state of the Port redvelopment, so I thought I'd ask Foley's office a few questions.
I rang this afternoon, intorduced myself as someone writing an article on the Port and politely asked if I could ask the Minister's office some questions about the redevelopment.
The gruff sounding bloke (not Foley) who answered the phone and listened to my question replied "You can ask, but you probably won't get any answers."
Nice, I thought.
'Could I ask you to verify some figures please?' I continued.
'Ring Land Management Corporation,' the bloke said.
'I'd still like the Member's office opinion on...'
'Ring LMC. We haven't got any information.'
With that, Foley's office hung up.
So I rang LMC about the following:
Me: 'Is it true that the soil remediation bill has blown out to $160 million, when Foley said at $72 million that any further wrok would involve pouring 2 feet of concrete on the affected area and landscaping using trees in pots?'
LMC: 'I'm not aware of those figures or Minister Foley's comments.'
Me: 'Is it true that the government has given an undertaking to provide Multiplex and Urban Constrcut with uncontaminated sites with no limit on the cost to the government?'
LMC: 'I'm unaware of any arrangement like that.'
Me: 'Is it true that Minister Foley's offer of $17.2 million in response to the developer's request for marina berths (which were not originally proposed in the PAR and which the consortium said they could not profitably build) has blown out to $60 million for about 580 marina berths?'
LMC: I'm not aware of those figures.
Me: 'Is any money the government has spent giving the developers the marina berths a gift or a loan?'
LMC: 'I'm not aware of any arrangement regarding marina berths.'
Me: 'There were no marina berths in the original proposal. They are there now. Who paid for them?'
LMC: 'I'm not aware of the internal costings of the project.'
Me: 'Is it true that neither Multiplex nor Urban Construct will pay a penny for the land under their development until the buildings are sold, an arrangement similar to the government's arrangement with the Liberman Group at Garden East in the city?'
LMC: 'I don't know af any such arrangement.'
Me: 'To keep Multiplex in the deal, has the Rann government indemnified Multiplex against any loss in this project?'
LMC: 'I'm not aware of that.'
_____________________________________
So you can see what a rewarding task it is to get information about Newport Quays from either the govt or the developers.
They must be so proud of what they're doing - you'd think they'd be a bit more forthcoming.
At the end of my phone calls, I was almost feeling suspicious and cynical.
Everything I said or suggested to Foley's office or LMC was, as far as I know, true.
I reckon every response I got was either evasive or a lie.
No wonder people don't trust the government.
'
'
-
stumpjumper
- Legendary Member!
- Posts: 1497
- Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 10:10 pm
Good luck calling LMC, I-in-PA.
I rang them today - my report's in the thread about the PA development itself.
Planning's Major Development page only covers upcoming MD's and has no list of existing MD's.
I suspect the lucky winners of MD status are usually very keen to scuttle back out of the limelight so they can get on with the serious business of making windfall profits at the expense of the community.
There is another page, part of the Premier's Dept, where the govt can't resist boasting about its MD's.
Here it is:
http://www.majorprojects.sa.gov.au/publ ... p?xcid=691
Follow the links through the alphabetical list of sponsors to get to "Land Management Corporation - Newport Quays"
I'm involved in the property business, and it saddens me to hear people talking about MP status as if its essential to maximum profitability and minimum hassle from say, the community. It's becoming a property version of the Rann government's A-list of big deals and party people. If you're not on the list, you must hardly count.
The Port project was given MP status under teh devlopment act, before things were toughed up ever so slightly. Nowadays you can't get away without an Environmental Impact Study, as the Port development has.
If you think the govt will get its just desserts on that score as teh site proves to be more and more contaminated (and they haven't even started on the boatyards yet!), think again.
After the govt has spent an unfunded $100 million or so more on soil decontamination, the community will eb $100 million poorer, but Foley Rann and the rest will not be worse off by one single cent.
Here's an interesting tit-bit - the world's largest lifting bridge bascule (pivoting deck) of 1600 tons is proposed for the second crossing - will have to open against the prevailing SW and W winds. The bascule type of bridge has a counterweight to the bridge deck, and works best when the counterweight load and the bridge deck load are equal. This won't be the case if the wind is blowing.
I rang them today - my report's in the thread about the PA development itself.
Planning's Major Development page only covers upcoming MD's and has no list of existing MD's.
I suspect the lucky winners of MD status are usually very keen to scuttle back out of the limelight so they can get on with the serious business of making windfall profits at the expense of the community.
There is another page, part of the Premier's Dept, where the govt can't resist boasting about its MD's.
Here it is:
http://www.majorprojects.sa.gov.au/publ ... p?xcid=691
Follow the links through the alphabetical list of sponsors to get to "Land Management Corporation - Newport Quays"
I'm involved in the property business, and it saddens me to hear people talking about MP status as if its essential to maximum profitability and minimum hassle from say, the community. It's becoming a property version of the Rann government's A-list of big deals and party people. If you're not on the list, you must hardly count.
The Port project was given MP status under teh devlopment act, before things were toughed up ever so slightly. Nowadays you can't get away without an Environmental Impact Study, as the Port development has.
If you think the govt will get its just desserts on that score as teh site proves to be more and more contaminated (and they haven't even started on the boatyards yet!), think again.
After the govt has spent an unfunded $100 million or so more on soil decontamination, the community will eb $100 million poorer, but Foley Rann and the rest will not be worse off by one single cent.
Here's an interesting tit-bit - the world's largest lifting bridge bascule (pivoting deck) of 1600 tons is proposed for the second crossing - will have to open against the prevailing SW and W winds. The bascule type of bridge has a counterweight to the bridge deck, and works best when the counterweight load and the bridge deck load are equal. This won't be the case if the wind is blowing.
-
Interested in PA
- Sen-Rookie-Sational
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 1:59 pm
-
how_good_is_he
- High Rise Poster!
- Posts: 238
- Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:32 pm
Stumpjumper this is all probably 100% TRUE, however have you ever thought unless the govt bankrolled this development it would never happen?
The choice is the govt spend say $200m and create enormous value/a community/jobs etc vs leave it as a wasteland. Tough call.
UNTOUCHED THE SITE WAS INDEPENDENTLY ASSESSED TO HAVE A NEGATIVE VALUE [IE MINUS $0] DUE TO CONTAMINATION ETC AND THE GOVT NEEDED TO SPEND THIS MONEY JUST TO GET IT BACK TO IT BEING A VIABLE DEVELOPMENT.
Further with the size of this site and with remediation of contaminated soil in general it is impossible to get a fixed price to do the job [mainly because you dont know what you will find until you actually dig]....plus any developer [there were only 2 that tendered] insisted they be given a clean site.
Do you really expect a developer to "punt it all" and on someone elses land and hope it comes off?
Would you go to work [and for many years] if you were uncertain you were going to get paid at the end?
Everything you have highlighted while distasteful [as it is us - the taxpayers paying for it] is just commercial reality -
Nobody does nothing for nothing.
The choice is the govt spend say $200m and create enormous value/a community/jobs etc vs leave it as a wasteland. Tough call.
UNTOUCHED THE SITE WAS INDEPENDENTLY ASSESSED TO HAVE A NEGATIVE VALUE [IE MINUS $0] DUE TO CONTAMINATION ETC AND THE GOVT NEEDED TO SPEND THIS MONEY JUST TO GET IT BACK TO IT BEING A VIABLE DEVELOPMENT.
Further with the size of this site and with remediation of contaminated soil in general it is impossible to get a fixed price to do the job [mainly because you dont know what you will find until you actually dig]....plus any developer [there were only 2 that tendered] insisted they be given a clean site.
Do you really expect a developer to "punt it all" and on someone elses land and hope it comes off?
Would you go to work [and for many years] if you were uncertain you were going to get paid at the end?
Everything you have highlighted while distasteful [as it is us - the taxpayers paying for it] is just commercial reality -
Nobody does nothing for nothing.
-
Interested in PA
- Sen-Rookie-Sational
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 1:59 pm
Newport Quays NOT declared a major development
Hi
Just to let you know - I called Planning SA this morning. Although the pA redev is 'major' and it is certainly a 'project', it has not been declared to be a major development/ project under the Development Act.
I-in-PA
Just to let you know - I called Planning SA this morning. Although the pA redev is 'major' and it is certainly a 'project', it has not been declared to be a major development/ project under the Development Act.
I-in-PA
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot] and 26 guests