After weeks in hibernation on the Adelaide Oval redevelopment, The Advertiser and the Sunday Mail have suddenly gone into overdrive with near on a dozen pieces in just the past few days on the topic. Sounds like somebody is seeking to push people into doing thngis they don’t wish to in order to bail out the Government. Some comments:
First, you have to love the way that every extra concession or dollar sought by the SANFL is fair and reasonable and every equal matter desired by the SACA is an act of the obstinate, standing in the way of the people. No matter that only the SACA has to get member approval.
Second, this idea that Adelaide Oval is owned by the people is a bit rich. The SACA have a long term lease on it to around 2050 and like anybody else is entitled to protect what is theirs until at least then. Their operations are subject to the terms of that lease with the City Council as custodians for the people of the State and the long term interests of us all.
But then it gets interesting. It has now become apparent that both SACA and SANFL require the SMA to own the precinct. That is, this parkland area will become alienated and transferred to an entity owned and run two wealthy organisations, neither of which will put a single dollar into the project, for the benefit of few if any South Australian who are not their paid up members and which entities both need to use those precious parklands for car parking. The bottom line of this is that after Pinky Flat gets paved, we will have no right to complain under this proposal. That whole area will no longer be parklands.
Who decides on this? Well, the Adelaide City Council and it is believed they have meetings this week to decide on their position on such matters relating to the Adelaide Oval redevelopment.
Lord Mayor Yarwood and all elected councillors let South Australians remind you that not one of you went to the people last October advocating the transfer of parklands to private operators, not under lease or other custodial arrangement but holus bolus, in order for this development to go through.
If Treasurer Foley has lost his job (inter alia) for forgetfulness over this project, then one suspects hell will hath no fury like that which will rain down on the Adelaide Town Hall if this council caves into these demands.