Sharks fume as MP deserts project

[rednblack]

the public didn't get to vote the bloke in.

mystery solved.

You're plain wrong.

He WAS publicly elected to council. And he WAS elected by the whole council to be the deputy mayor. The actual mayoral ballot is done in much the same way that a party caucus elects the parliamentary leader. That is, you and I didn't vote for julia to be PM. We voted for a local member, representative of our respective local areas. The parliamentary leadership, if you haven't seen any news for the past few years, can be changed at the whim of the party AT ANY TIME. The council mayoral election is exactly the same. The mayor (or her deputy) could be ousted by the rest of council at a vote. They would, however, still remain as a publicly elected member of council.

This is how government works!

 

[betcats]

You're plain wrong.

He WAS publicly elected to council. And he WAS elected by the whole council to be the deputy mayor. The actual mayoral ballot is done in much the same way that a party caucus elects the parliamentary leader. That is, you and I didn't vote for julia to be PM. We voted for a local member, representative of our respective local areas. The parliamentary leadership, if you haven't seen any news for the past few years, can be changed at the whim of the party AT ANY TIME. The council mayoral election is exactly the same. The mayor (or her deputy) could be ousted by the rest of council at a vote. They would, however, still remain as a publicly elected member of council.

This is how government works!

Sounds about right to me.

 

[Miller was a legend]

Full moon today isn't it?

 

[newman]

O.K.

I know a fair bit about this because I am on the "friends of the sharks" committee and have attended several meetings with Sharks management and the developers. Clearly I am pro development, but I will try and clear up a few of the points in discussion as objectively as I possibly can.

FLOODS: The area is NOT classed by local council or the department of lands as a floodplain. Thats a fact. The developer does however have a few hoops to jump trhough with regards to flood mitigation strategies and plans as the area is on a wetland waterfront and this is why there is no underground parking. This is stock standard for any dwelling in the area and the developer has got all the reports completed and filed with the application. If it gets knocked back, it wont be because of a flooding issue.
TRAFFIC: The developer commissioned a report from McClaren Traffic Engineering and that report was tabled at 68 pages in length. It found out that the traffic impact from the development was said to be "minimal". You can talk all you want about conflicts of interest and true "independence" but McClaren have no ties with the developer other than that they were paid to provide them with an independent service. These people are experts and there are the findings. Im sure that if the results werent so positive the developers may not have been so keen to advertise it, but to suggest that this was a "pay off" is bordering on slanderous and there is no way a big developer like Parkview would be in that game. State Govt has also agreed in principal to a new bus route that links the development region to Woolooware station, Cronulla central and Caringbah.
SCALE and SIZE: Currently the playing fields are under a recreational zoning. The developer is hoping on getting a zoning approval from the PAC that allows the density and height of the 16 stories and 8 towers, which is well within State Govt Regulations and wont be the tallest buildings in the shire. They are basing this application on a report by council that was compiled by Cr Kelly and Provan in 2009 (Since been taken down, I cant find a link) that said words to the effect that the Woolooware foreshore was a "prime location" for development and a "key area" in dealing with the problem of a shortage of housing in the shire. It in fact said specifically that height restrictions should be relaxed and densities should be increased as their were almost no immediate neighbours. This was voted on and approved by Capsis and Provan. Capsis and Provan also approved the previous D.A for the carpark site which was 10 stories in height. The actual article is linked in the SharksForver forums but my log-in isnt working for some reason. The ONLY reason council oppose this is that they resent that the Sharks went to State Govt PAC (part 3a) and chose to by-pass councils final determination rights.
DESPAIR: Old mate r2coupe mentioned that his mrs read a letter from the chairman and it reeked of despair. You can read that letter here and make your own determination. www.infoonsharks.com.au click on the community information tab and then click on board 1. I cant copy and paste the content for some reason.

 

[newman]

So to summarise; Every single possible box has been ticked by the developer. Every issue that the detractors are screaming about has been addressed, and addressed thoroughly. It will be approved. (The only sticking point is that the height might get chopped down a few levels, but that wont alter the number of units, they will just adjust the footprint so there will still be 700 units).

Parkview and Capital Corporation have sunk millions into this already and organisations with their track record and experience wouldnt be taking on a project that didnt stand a very strong chance of being approved. Again, they are the experts. The last major project they did as a consortium was the Rhodes shopping centre and that was on a toxic dump site and opposed by just about everyone, and they got that over the line, so this should be a snap. I have spoken to the head of this development and now that he has seen the heavy local support in the media and online, they are almost 99% certain of a positive result. Coles and Woolies are scratching each others eyes out to get the primo real estate in the retail development and there is already a list of interested parties for the residential units. Sorry r2coupe, you might have to get on the phone to Highland Schwarzer to find a new place to live. Maybe you can kill two birds with one stone and get them to find a place for your boys, hell you can probably even save on the conveyancing costs.

 

[carcharias]

You're plain wrong.

He WAS publicly elected to council. And he WAS elected by the whole council to be the deputy mayor. The actual mayoral ballot is done in much the same way that a party caucus elects the parliamentary leader. That is, you and I didn't vote for julia to be PM. We voted for a local member, representative of our respective local areas. The parliamentary leadership, if you haven't seen any news for the past few years, can be changed at the whim of the party AT ANY TIME. The council mayoral election is exactly the same. The mayor (or her deputy) could be ousted by the rest of council at a vote. They would, however, still remain as a publicly elected member of council.

This is how government works!

Ok I admit that I am wrong on this issue.
The way I read it , it appeared to me he was voted in by his council mates
who seemed all over the shop during their own internal voting process .

Still not a floodplain.

 

[KiamaSaint]

@ Newman - for what it is worth is doesn't strike me as a letter of despair by DI. It would be unprofessional of him not to fully disclose the Sharks financial situation. He seems to be painting it how it is.

I read with interest you comments on Traffic concerns. Happy days if that is right. As I have said all along, imo traffic and "wetlands" considerations will be the big factors. If you see any unusual frogs down there, you better get rid of them real quick.

The one point I would question would be a reduction in the size not impacting the number of units. A reduction would surely reduce the number of units and leave the sharks out of pocket?

 

[KiamaSaint]

Ok I admit that I am wrong on this issue.
The way I read it , it appeared to me he was voted in by his council mates
who seemed all over the shop during their own internal voting process .

Still not a floodplain.

For what it is worth, I understood what you meant.

 

[Ausguy]

Thought id ask again.

Coupe serious question

if it was 6 or 8 floors max would you be ok with the development going ahead in conjunction with the developers providing plans to avoid flood issues?

 

[newman]

@ Newman - for what it is worth is doesn't strike me as a letter of despair by DI. It would be unprofessional of him not to fully disclose the Sharks financial situation. He seems to be painting it how it is.

I read with interest you comments on Traffic concerns. Happy days if that is right. As I have said all along, imo traffic and "wetlands" considerations will be the big factors. If you see any unusual frogs down there, you better get rid of them real quick.

The one point I would question would be a reduction in the size not impacting the number of units. A reduction would surely reduce the number of units and leave the sharks out of pocket?

Change of footprint. There is heaps of green-space in the current configuration. Going up means you dont have to go out. If they have to chop levels down they would reduce the number of 3 bedders and widen the footprint. The sharks are pushing hard for 700.

 

[Perth Red]

After all is said and done does this development boost the Sharks income by the required $4-5million a year to make them a player rather than an also ran?

 

[newman]

Yes.

 

[Russell Crowe's Band]

Straight and to the point.

I'd go with this as an example.
Debt lower means that without blowing the budget we should be able to increase spending on footy operations, recruiting etc.

Meanwhile....it's likely that with increased confidence in the sharks as a brand because of this. We will be more attractive to potential sponsors and as a result our general footy turnover would be greater.

From this...if we could spend more money of footy operations,recruiting,rehab etc than we currently do I could see the club being better on the field.

And with a better team we will get better gameday crowds and more members.

If the development happens. That is.

 

[bad boy bubby]

The 8 towers should be named:

The Sludge
The Pierce (Greg the Captain)
The Miller
The ET
The Peach
The Bishop
The Hatch
and The Unnamed (until HE retires)
:alcho:

 

[Ausguy]

Gallens Ghetto....

i mean thats what it will be wont it coupe?

 

[Quigs]

The 8 towers should be named:

The Sludge
The Pierce (Greg the Captain)
The Miller
The ET
The Peach
The Bishop
The Hatch
and The Unnamed (until HE retires)
:alcho:

And I hope they don't stop there. They should consider naming certain areas and facilities around the public space area after the rank and file.

I suggest that they name the public amenities block on the esplanade "The Redders". Afterall he gives everyone here the sh!ts.

 

[Miller was a legend]

Watch out quigs, Redders might cry you a river and flood Shark Park. Coupe would have a field day with that one.

 

[bad boy bubby]

The Leagues Club should just be renamed The Cliff

 

[Quigs]

And the boardwalk could be called 'The Bad Boy Bubby' They tell me it will be a magnificent erection the way it cuts through the bush.

 

[bad boy bubby]

And the boardwalk could be called 'The Bad Boy Bubby' They tell me it will be a magnificent erection the way it cuts through the bush.

there aint no lights when you head down that path