#Supporting Victoria Park Development Petition Thread

[Mants]

here is chris mcdermott's column, from adelaidenow

Enough! I'm declaring war

By CHRIS McDERMOTT

December 23, 2007 12:10am

LOOKING for some progress at Victoria Park? Don't hold your breath.
While the debate is far from over as to what will happen with one of Adelaide's iconic locations, one thing appears certain: horse racing at the city venue is finished.

Gone, too, the very successful Christmas twilight meeting that sees about 10,000 partygoers cramming the dilapidated course facilitites to celebrate the festive season.

The minority has spoken for the majority.

The V8s, thankfully, will continue but it comes at a major cost – no new permanent hospitality venue and no major improvements in spectator comfort.

Significantly for motorists, the months of inconvenience around the racetrack will continue. No steps forward and three steps back.

Mike Rann and his team have conceded defeat. Adelaide City Council is claiming victory.

Don't believe everything you read: the spin doctors are at work. There are no winners here. The time is right for the SA Jockey Club to walk away.

With the financial windfall from the sale of Cheltenham, turning Allan Scott Park at Morphettville into a world-class venue must be the focus for thoroughbred racing.

Victoria Park will continue to rot on the vine. The state's biggest eyesore will soon become a desert. No point wasting water on a track that isn't used.

The response from residents will be of interest when their neighbourhood park turns into a dustbowl.

If talkback radio is any indication, the lunacy that frustrates so many South Aussies is that they have no say. The council says it has surveyed 800 residents and 97 per cent are against the redevelopment – but it forgot to mention those questioned already opposed it.

During this time of embarrassing indecision, the WA Government has approved a new 60,000-seat stadium. Local government, business and the AFL have united to build a world-class sporting venue primarily for football but also for a possible World Cup soccer match.

In what seems the blink of an eye in comparison to our epic saga, the deal has been signed, sealed and is certain to be delivered. The cost is estimated at $800 million.

We should hang our heads in shame. Victoria Park should be for every Croweater to enjoy. Six thousand local residents cannot be allowed to hold a state to ransom.

It's time for the majority to speak. It's time the silent majority demanded a better result for all. Don't let Victoria Park become another drawn-out drama like the lights at Football Park and Adelaide Oval.

Many locals argued strongly against them. Thankfully, they lost.

City Council residents and all those opposed to the Victoria Park redevelopment need to wise up – it's in the best interests of the state.
Team before self is every football club's ethos. Residents must embrace a similar attitude.



I make no apologies for wanting Vic Park redeveloped and I am urging everyone to express their support by going to adelaidenow.com.au

It was not long ago during the Socceroos' World Cup campaign that many of you demanded a super-screen at Adelaide Oval to follow the fortunes of our boys.



Your wish was granted and more than 10,000 fans crammed the oval on a magic night.



Time to step up to the plate again.

[cruel_world00]

Just on the comment of the WA Stadium being approved in the "blink of an eye", there was a consortium in place for quite a while. Sure they got the positive end result, but it hadn't been an easy ride.

[Shuz]

Hey guys, just letting you know I sent an email to Chris and notified him of both this website and the online petition. I will let you know if I hear from him. Heres hoping!

Cheers. Shuz

[Wayno]

You could further increase awareness of the vic park petition (and potentially boost the number of people subscribed to the sensational-adelaide website!) by posting comments (with a link to the petition) in response to parkland stories on the AdelaideNow news website (http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow)

Also consider contacting the "Independent Weekly" newspaper and asking them to run an article on the sensational-adelaide website. You would probably need to provide some stats about number of subscribers, topics being discussed on the website, longer term plans, etc...

[stumpjumper]

The 'lunacy that frustrates many South Aussies'...

There are some points that get lost in all the frustration:

1. 'A permanent stand is a good investment.'
The Clipsal race can run quite well with a temporary stand. Monaco does. Because the exsiting temporary stand is set up and broken down within the time envelope for the whole job, a permanent stand will not save any time. A permanent stand will not save money either. No-one has demonstreated how an investment of $55 million to save $1 million per year' (as claimed by Foley last year) is a good investment. See if your bank thinks a $1 million return on $55 million is good going. It's 1.8% if you're wondering.

2. 'A minority is preventing the majority from getting what they want.'
The last Adelaide City Council elections were open and democratic. Anyone could have stood for election, and any resident or property owner could have voted. Remember that the Parklands are maintained by the ACC at a cost to ACC ratepayers of about $12 million per year. There has been little call for the State to take over the Parklands and to maintain them for the benefit of the South Australian public.
Speaking of numbers, why won't Foley release the results of his expensive public consultation? Why is the Rann government, ever sensitive to voters' opinions, no longer pushing the project? Because there is overwhelming support for the project?

3. 'The poor SAJC needs better, subsidised facilities'.'
How many times has the SAJC been bailed out? When the TAB was sold interstate a few years ago, didn't they say 'With this money, we'll be ok'.? Now they're broke again. Maybe they're running too many racetracks in a town like this where most people watch races on TV and bet on the TAB rather than attend the track. In any case, the proposed corporate facilty is optimised for V8 races (4 days a year while V8 sales hold up) rather than the 12 to amybe 30 races Steve Ploubidis claims to be able to run in addition to Morphettville and the country race programme.
By the way, have a look at the facilities at Vic Park. They are run down, it's true. Then read the lease. ACC to mow the grass, SAJC supposedly to maintain the facilities in a fit and proper condition. To say the facilities at Vic Pak are in bad shape is to point the finger squarely at the SAJC for mismanagement of its leased facilities.

4. I for one am still waiting for a good argument to be put from anywhere for the construction of the corporate facility. There are plenty of reasons not to build it.

[omada]

I'm over this subject.. now lets hope the rest of SA gets onboard.. for god sakes.. it's not as if the race won't happen without the grandstand!

With the greatest respect - move on people!

[Howie]

Not yet cowboy Even though the conclusion seems pretty final, i still think there is something we can learn - in terms of what it says about the culture surrounding progress in Adelaide, who are the key players in the city square and what positive things can be done in the future about this.

This personally believe this still has some steam left in it, and there'll be a spread about this in the Sunday Mail and there will be a mention of us in there i'm told (thanks phoennix.. and hope you post here more often mate).

[stumpjumper]

You cannot win an argument by saying 'move on', no matter how frustrating it is not to eb able to substantiate your position.

There is no powerful elite cabal in Adelaide calling the shots on things like the Vic Park building. The closest we get to an elite like that is Gerry Karidis's chorus of lawyers attending ACC meetings, or Messrs Rice senior and junior bashing away at some government Minister's door trying to get more advatage for Urban Construcrt, but that's another story.

The Vic Park business is about the govt imposing an expensive, little used building for which no business case can be made on public land paid for by taxpyers who won't generally have access to it.

I here and now bet my left b*ll that the Vic Park proposal cannot pass any reasonable finacial risk analysis, even with the cost of land and cost of building entered as zero.

As for representing a culture of anti-progress, I personally am in favour of some very progressive schemes - read some of the other forums here and you'll find them.

Those of you who think the 90% of the time closed, and unnecessary waste of taxppayers money Vic Park building somehow represents PROGRESS and must be built at all costs, think again.

I'd rather keep the park flexible, and spend the $55 million on something worthwhile.

[JamesXander]

Where did you pull 55 million from?

BTW not only would they save $1 million a year, but also time. Less disruptions. Also better facilities, it would entice people to come back. But also our ability to entice new events to come to our city.

Do you ever use Victoria Park. Go over to Vic Park and walk around. See how unused an deralic it is. Then have a look at the site of the builidng. With the demolition of the old grand stand and the replacement of a new first class grand stand, it will make the area more attractive. Hell, people might even go to the park.

[Will]

Those oppossed to the Victoria Park grandstand show the classic symptom of the unfortunate Adelaide NIMBY mentallity which is a lack of vision. Those oppossed fail to understand that in the future, improved facilities at Victoria Park may help Adelaide retain the Clipsal 500 event, and in fact may help attract more motor sport events. Furthermore, improved facilities may also encourage greater use of Victoria Park for horse racing. It is sad, that there are many people here in SA, in positions of power who lack vision and are preventing Adelaide becoming a trully exciting place to live.

[stumpjumper]

Maybe we're the only two still arguing about this...

I didn't pull the $55 million from where you might think. If I could do that I wouldn't be posting here, I'd be in the Carribbean somewhere.

The 'spend $55 million to save $1million' was quoted on the front page of the Advertiser by Kevin Foley in August last year. Even if the permanent structure costs $35 million it still doesn't stack up, especially as the buildign is only to be used for %10 of the year.

It won't save time, because the temp structure can be built and broken in less time than the whole shebang takes to put up and take down.

I've been to Vic PArk. I've seen how run down it is (thanks to SAJC being poor tenants and ACC being careless landlords).

How will building in the middle of Victoria Park a permanent new structure which is generally closed and which offers limited viewing seats entice people to come back (to horse racing, I presume)? The proposed structure is so optimised for car racing that it is not a good building at all for the joint uses of horses and the public.

If the idea is to get crowds back to watch horse racing, then I'm all for it. Let's build something that is designed for that purpose. Good seats and bars, with the horses kept and managed elsewhere except for the track and parade areas in front of the seating.

If on the other hand the idea is to build on public land at public cost a structure for the benefit of an elite who will use it for four days per year (gaining access with their complimentary Clipsal tickets)...well, not with my money.

Did you know that the four principal owners of the privately owned Clipsal race (four of the richest men in Australia - David Coe, Peter Erskine, Basil Scaffidi and Tony Cochrane) each year demand from the SA government and get at least $2,000,000 in cash upfront just to hold their race here? They call it a 'sanction fee'. It's non-negotiable they say. Funnily enough though, when the same four guys had their race kicked out of Shanghai, the first offer they made as they begged to be let back in was '"We'll drop the sanction fee to zero for next year!" It didn't work. But (apart from anything else going on with the Adelaide race) have we heard any offer from these same sanction fee collectors to pay for even some concept drawings for the building in which they hope to consume so many free drinks? Nope. Not a word.

As I said, JamesXander, maybe it's just you and me, but I still disagree that any rational, responsible argument can be made for spending public money or giving up public land for the proposed permanent corporate facility.

[stumpjumper]

Will - so there are at least three of us...

The NIMBY badge works where it really applies. Maybe some people are saying 'don't despoil a square centimetre of MY parklands with even a milliemtre of building.' If they support the same building elsewhere, or daon't care, tehy maight be NIMBYs, or tehy might have some purist notion about the parklands or whatever.

I would support trashing most of the crap buildings in Vic Park. If horse racing can be made to work there, I'd support replacing the demolished buildings with some excellent new constrcutions to accommodate it and other general activities.

However, because motor sport is never likely to be held at Vic Park for more than about the present 4 days per year, the new buildings should be optimised for horse racing and general activites. That does not mean a permanent, inherently inefficient 210 meter long pit straght garage with corporate boxes on top that everyone else will have to live with 361 days per year.

There is unlikely to be more care racing at the venue because there will be objections to the disruption to movement at the city's east (the permanent stand won't shorten the period of disruption by one second) and because if we attracted, say, Moto GP or even F1, Clipsal would not allow another car race anywhere near theirs on the calendar to preserve people's spending power for their race. And the Clipsal owners call the shots, remember?

There is an adage in the facilities business: 'Permanent facilities for permanent events; temporary facilities for temporary events.'

The only way a permanent, car-racing optimised building in the middle of Victoria Park will work is if we have more or less permanent car racing at the venue, or in my opinion at least three major national or international interest fixtures there per year. And because of the disruption, that just won't happen.

We would be better to build a new Nurburgring at Woodside in the Adelaide Hills. The old Australian GP track is still there, all 17kms (I think) of it.

[Howie]

Park's browned off setback
Article from: Sunday Mail (SA)

RENATO CASTELLO

January 13, 2008 12:10am

THE lush turf of Victoria Park left to wither and die stands as a scorched symbol of the death of the proposed grandstand, after an 18-month impasse.
Now some of South Australia's most esteemed leaders of the sporting and business world are publicly ruing the failure of the $55 million redevelopment.

They are calling for immediate action and an end to stagnation at the hands of those determined to resist change.

With Victoria Park not featuring on the SA racing calendar until at least July, the South Australian Jockey Club decided to turn off the sprinklers as it contemplates its 160-year future at the parklands track.

Against the backdrop of its dilapidated heritage grandstand, the racecourse has never looked so miserable.

The situation has angered leading South Australians, including cricket legend Darren Lehmann who believed "passionately" that the new grandstand should have gone ahead.

He said the decision to shelve the project was symptomatic of people being "afraid of change".

"That plan that the Government put together was as good as you could have hoped for," the greyhound owner said.

"Get rid of the old stand. I love heritage stuff but at the same time we have to move on, change is good.

"With Cheltenham gone (horse) racing needs it, V8 needs it and functions need it. How many people do you know that run around the park and walk their dogs around there? Not too many.

"I can't believe we are so backward in coming forward."

He said criticism that the stand was a "corporate box" could have been overcome by making the stand "bigger" to include more public seating.

"Why not make it bigger to cater for the public? There is nothing wrong with that at all," he said.

His comments echo those of Bank SA managing director Rob Chapman, who earlier this month lamented that the 18-month debate over the grandstand was a chance to "make a statement". "It's mainly business people who share a vision of a South Australia that wants to be prosperous and bold, and we cannot understand rejection of the proposals," he said.

Lease discussions between the SAJC and the council continue after the council refused a 25-year lease for the grandstand.

SAJC chairman John Naffine had said if the SAJC committee agreed the club would stay and had flagged plans to upgrade the existing stand with funds from the $80m Cheltenham sale. Adelaide Crows premiership captain and SA Great chairman Mark Bickley has also weighed into the debate saying he was "disappointed" no compromise on a grandstand was achieved.

"There is a real danger that if we do nothing and don't continue to improve the facilities for the (V8) race . . . it's something other cities will want," he said.

"It is important we continue to build upon the infrastructure and the way we put the race on.

"At the moment it is one of the best races, but if we stand still we go backwards.

"This is bigger than the Adelaide City Council and I have been a bit surprised the Government hasn't said that this is bigger than the electors of the city council as it affects so many people."

Treasurer Kevin Foley backed down on his threats to legislate for the Victoria Park redevelopment, something the State Opposition is still pursuing.

Instead, a $20m portable grandstand will be used for future Clipsal 500 races, starting next month. The situation has angered members of a pro-development website, Sensational Adelaide, who blamed "nostalgic minorities" for the council's decision to vote down the $55 million development.

Last month the 1500-member website launched an online petition lobbying to change the decision. "It is a short-sighted decision based on fear and not reason," the petition states.

But the Parklands Preservation Association chairman Jim Daly said critics of his organisation should just "get on with life".

"The SAJC can get by upgrading the existing facilities," he said.

[frank1]

Well done sensational adelaide users. I hope we have influenced the decision and make this project move forward for the better.

[Will]

I am very pleased that the Sunday Mail has mentioned the name of the forum. This will undoubtedly generate extra publicity for the website and hopefully encourage extra people to sign the petition.