Govt land sell-off: $3 billion in prime properties up for grabs

[Litespeed]

Keep the beautiful heritage sites for public use not seel cheap and make billions for untaxed private profit .

 

Start taxing properly and it would not be a problem.

[facthunter]

Who is really going to bother to Look at or USE them? They WON"T be sold cheap or for Private and Untaxed profit .  it would go into Consolidated Revenue and would certainly be closely documented and scrutinised and Maybe pay off DEBT. which this gov't has already DONE a lot of.  . Nev

[onetrack]

The big problem is, that Govt assets are nearly always sold at below market prices to "mates in the know", who promptly turn them over for a massive profit. And the Govt then takes the money they got from the assets and pisses it up against the wall on vastly overpriced, often under-utilised, and generally vastly problematic, Defence purchases. Just look at the exorbitant and ever-increasing pricing of the MD F-35 fighter as an example.

 

I employed a young Scottish bloke many years ago, who had worked for Marconi in the U.K. He said the rip-off profits staggered him when he sighted the figures.

Marconi were supplying radar and navigation aids to the IAF in the late '60's, and he said, typically, a small electrical component that cost Marconi something like £14, was billed out to the IAF at a figure around £1,000!

[facthunter]

I Can't see how that would be easy in this case. Look to submarines, If you want to see Corruption, AND MANUS Island. Nev

[octave]

I don't really think the plan is to bulldoze heritage properties.   

 

I spent 12 years in the RAAF as a musician. We would travel extensively and visit most of these facilities. Many of these buildings, I think, would not be fit for purpose. It is more difficult these days to justify holding onto many of these properties.  Some of these properties could be considered poor value for money from the point of view of the taxpayer.

 

As an example that I have in the past had first-hand knowledge of, I would cite RAAF Glenbrook.  This is the headquarters of Air Command. This property was a Luxury hotel until I think 1949.   When I was in the band, we used to go there (from Richmond) to perform a few times a month for Officer dining in nights and garden parties, etc.

It was more of a country club for elite officers, in my opinion.   In the Google Earth picture, you see the swimming pool, tennis courts, manicured gardens, etc.

The main building (formerly a luxury hotel) is amazingly decadent inside. This facility always seemed to me more of a "country club"

 

I think it is entirely reasonable to question whether this is the best use of the taxpayers' money.

 

The building is protected by a heritage listing and should be preserved and perhaps given a use beyond a small number of elite officers. There is nothing critical about this location in terms of defence.

 

In my opinion, selling off many of these assets is a good idea AS LONG as historic and heritage buildings and sites are preserved. Public access to these historic locations must be assured.  It should also be done slowly and carefully.  I think people are jumping to conclusions and believing that this means bulldozing historic buildings to build brick veneer houses. 

 

[facthunter]

The Sandstone could be re used. Any wood would likely be Useless. They are not suitable for any Practical purpose. Nev

[Jerry_Atrick]

2 hours ago, octave said:

I think it is entirely reasonable to question whether this is the best use of the taxpayers' money.

I absolutely agree. But the frame of the questioning is important. There is a case that these old buildings cost too much [compared to what they bring] For many, it is true. But for some, it is not necessarily true depending on how you ask the question. If we frame it in econcomic return - i.e. does it earn an income and pay for itself? Well, then the answer looking at it like a bean counter is of course no. But that can be said about something we all cherish - probably the vast majority of what was government (now council) GA airfields. If you look at the opportunit cost of these, on their own merits, then the opportunity costs would normally - especially for those around more major conurbations - be much higher than the return provided as a pure aviation facility. The federal government recognsed it and offloaded it to the councils. Many councils either lease them or augment them wit other purposes, where they can. Those, such as Jerilderie (last time I was there) measure movements in a week; a day is too depressing 

 

Yet, while some are vital for the community such as remote regions, aeromeds, etc, they could be rationalised. We need an airline/commercial training facility - pick one of the bigger airfields such as Mooraabin- that is probably all the country needs to chrun out the pilots for commercial ops. The rest can be sold of no money spent on maintenance rather than be the preserve of a hobby for rich folk and those so imbibed by it, they will forgoe a significant strandard of living to participate (RAA stuff doesn't really need airports - people can do what they like with their own money - plenty of private strips - we are talking taxpayer money). 

 

In fact, the opportunity cost of Moorabbin + Essendon - 2 large GA airports in one city - must be astronomical. Why do we need two? Why don't we just shut one down and release the assets for far more profitable purposes?

 

Have I riled you? Yes, because to you, the return is far more than a simple revenue minus expenses equation. The amenity that you (and I) get is far higher. But except for communities that rely on airfields, you would be hard to find too many people that mourn their loss beyond a, "oh, that's a shame". The only time here it impacts those outside aviation is when the council decides a housing estate is better - NIMBYism more than agreement that a GA airfiled is useful. Even councils want to shut them down, stop maintaining them, augment with other uses - commercial and residential. 

 

Looking at it, the cost/benefit analysis for government costs extends beyond pure break-even and into money making points. The returns sought by a govenment are not entirely financial. 

 

And, it is the same for these buildings. As I have said, you keep some stuff, you get rid of the other stuff. The heritage listed stuff gets listed for a purpose - to preserve cultural, historial, environmental (in a human sense) so as to provide an amenity. Why heritage list somethign if you are going to allow it and its curtilage to be materially altered, but just preserving a facade? It may have little resonance to you, but it may have to others. 

 

And let's not forget the stories, especially in Victoria of corruption in the construction industry - from planning, to building inspections, to construction - it is all there to see. Which means sell it off to the private industry, almost all bets, regadless of undertakings, are off.

Edited just now by Jerry_Atrick