Job data reveals massive over-development with job losses

MacroPlan Dimasi has provided estimates of new post-construction jobs for the proposed ASF development which indicate that a new shopping centre twice the size of Marina Mirage is planned.

If true this would seriously impact on existing businesses and jobs in the upmarket Marina Mirage shopping centre...businesses that have been built up over three decades that have consistently served both the local and tourist markets in a unique Queensland-style development.

ASF claims that 2,175 retail trade jobs will be created which when discounted to account for indirect (off-site) jobs equates to twice the number of employees in Marina Mirage implying that their development will be twice as large. There is no doubt that this scale of development would affect jobs and businesses in Marina Mirage.

The Main Beach Association is totally opposed to this scale of development which threatens long-established businesses and jobs on The Spit. We also believe that the extra traffic of a much larger shopping centre will exacerbate the already chaotic traffic situation.

---

Job predictions that take your breath away...but can we believe them?

Here are the employment estimates as  provided by MacroPlan Dimasi upon which we are expected to provided community consultation.

We have used the first three jobs figures to calculate the scale of development proposed.

The last five items appear to be largely unrelated to on-site jobs and seem too unbelievable and unjustified to be seriously considered.

For instance 300 transport jobs refers to taxis, limos, bus drivers, posties, couriers...and warehouse staff? Some amplification of existing jobs is arguable but this number is hard to justify and we don't know what they are based upon.

Maybe these amazing jobs figures have been recycled from the Wavebreak Island concept. All we have to go on is a bunch of artist's impressions. How did MacroPlan Dimasi come up with these impressive figures from a few artist's impressions?

The Main Beach Association has asked the developer and the government for some indication of the scale of the proposed development components and for the MacroPlan Dimasi report but no detailed information has been provided to date.

The developer and the Premier have demonstrated contempt for the public consultation process and have intentionally withheld information upon which the public have been asked to comment.

---

Not only but also...ASF needs an extra 3.4 hectares

It seems as though the site that ASF were "given" was not enough.

The area shaded in white is is what the Queensland Government gave as the site boundaries. The red-shaded areas indicate extra land and seabed leases required to complete the project as drawn.

The additional area required is 3.4 hectares which is 63% more than the "given" site. Will ASF be "given" this land too?


The red-shaded areas indicate the 63% of extra land required to realise the ASF proposal.

Some of the buildings actually extend over the site boundaries and a new marina will compromise the operations of the trawler fleet.

It appears that ASF have been "given" more than the State Government is letting on to.

Could the Premier please explain?

---

Before and after...total disrespect for our beautiful Broadwater


The existing site has a long sandy beach frontage.


In the ASF concept the beach has been replaced with wharves. The continuous footpath is a requirement.

ASF proposes to take a very long beach and give back a very small beach and then claim that they are giving us a new beach as a public benefit. What public benefit?

The prawn trawler basin will also be impacted by a new marina and the area to the west of the site will need to be dredged to accommodate navigable depths for the large vessels shown on the drawings.

The Main Beach Association has done calculations on the building footprint required for the retail and casino components based upon the scale of development generated by the job numbers and have come up with a 4.1 hectare building footprint exclusive of hotel lobbies and vehicular access requirements.

On that basis the site would be almost fully covered with buildings leaving only one hectare available for vehicular access and the public open space that ASF claim to be a major public benefit.

As many have commented the ASF concept is not to scale and is merely an artist's impression that doesn't relate to the list of components and non-existent public benefits.

In the absence of any details about the scale of the components the drawings cannot be trusted to represent the reality as presented by ASF.

What they propose to do with the frontage to the Broadwater by turning the beach into a massive wharf is totally unacceptable and a waste of a valuable piece of Gold Coast waterfront.

---

Celebrities love The Spit...naturally

 Lots of people come to The Spit to have a good time in a natural low-key environment surrounded by water.

In fact our research shows that about half of the people who come here are not locals and some are even celebrities.


This is not a pub quiz but they all stayed on The Spit

These are a few of the celebrities who have chosen to stay at the Sheraton Grand and Palazzo Versace rather than in Brisbane or Surfers when they come to South East Queensland. Many have stayed more than once.

Most recently Bruce Springsteen made The Spit his base for his Brisbane concerts.

---

What do governments think about...what makes them tick?

We keep on asking the question, "What do governments think about?"

The Queensland Government selected ASF to be the preferred developer for an Integrated Resort Development (IRD) incorporating a casino on The Spit and offered a five hectare piece of public land which according to their website will be given "free" to ASF for that purpose. That's what it said last time we looked.

Given that this is a waterfront site with a long beach frontage to the Broadwater and within 100 metres of the beach one would think that this land would be very valuable and that a bevy of major developers (both local and foreign) would bid competitively for the opportunity.

The government could stipulate a range of desirable development opportunities and constraints and the developers could work out what they would pay to secure the development rights, indicative lease figures and reasons why their bid was the best for the people of Queensland.

One would expect to see some of the largest development companies vying for this prestigious opportunity.

The reality is that they have chosen ASF whose latest half-yearly report states that they have working capital of only $6.24 million and made another loss in the half-year to December 2016.

As reported in The Australian...

Audit raises doubts about ASF, firm picked to lead $3bn resort
Auditors have cast doubt on the financial viability of the parent company behind the (ASF) consortium. In a politically embarrassing finding for the state government, which has spruiked the project as a cornerstone economic development, the latest filings by ASX-listed ASF, which is the sole owner of the consortium, reveal that it has lost $92 million of $102 million raised from investors. Its auditors have warned there is "material uncertainty" about its future.

Australian businesses which have a track record in delivering major projects and have sound financial background and expertise seem to have been left out of this giveaway.

Lendlease for instance has a market capitalisation of $4.3 billion and there are other well-capitalised  companies including Gold Coast companies of similar calibre and known probity.

It is not too late for the Queensland Government to pull out of this offer.

---

Queensland...casino capital of Australia

Clubs Queensland commissioned an independent report on the impact of the ASF Integrated Resort Development on community clubs in Queensland.

It highlights the potential loss of viability of community clubs if the project proceeds and the corresponding loss of community services and jobs.

You can read the summary and recommendations but the startling revelation is the number of casinos per capita that this government already relies upon for gambling taxes and what it could possibly expect to gain from another casino.

---

The Public Consultation Questionnaires