2 thoughts on “The Kiama We Could Build”

  1. Probably a better alternative to the private/public partnerships that Lynne Strong is suggesting in this piece about Kiama Council financially resuscitating itself by creating avant garde, highly utilitarian community assets on its three remaining gold land assets, is leasing. Don’t sell the ratepayers’ assets, or succumb to some developer smartie’s plan in favour of the developer. Instead, build gold community assets on the gold assets Council already owns and then have the Council lease the new built asset/s long term. Council/the ratepayers will still own the land and have a source of revenue long term. Leasing is something I suggested in a letter to the editor of the Kiama Independent many moons ago before that great old newspaper succumbed to shallow commercial interests, but Council did not express one iota of interest or inquiry. I suspect that the current Council will invest the same amount of interest in leasing, not selling, it’s assets.
    – Graham Pike
    Jamberoo

    1. The model you’re describing, where council retains ownership and leases out the built assets for long-term recurring revenue, is genuinely one of the strongest options in principle, and you’re right that it deserves serious consideration. My blog post deliberately mentioned outright sale, long-term ground lease, and development partnership as three different mechanisms, precisely because the right answer probably varies site by site.
      The harder question is whether council should be the developer. In the 21st century construction environment, that has become a very risky place for a council to stand. Builders quote a price, then come back mid-project with variations and escalation claims that can double the original cost. A commercial developer absorbs that risk across a portfolio of projects. A council doing one building absorbs it alone. We’ve already seen what that looks like at Blue Haven Bonaira, where construction cost overruns played a significant part in putting council in the position it’s in today.
      That doesn’t mean ratepayers should miss out on long-term value, which is the real point you’re making and I agree with it. But the right way to capture that value may be through a structured partnership with an experienced delivery party, with council retaining the land and a share of the long-term revenue, rather than council carrying construction risk it isn’t equipped to manage. The principle you’re defending, ratepayer ownership of long-term value, is right. The mechanism is where it gets interesting.

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Clover Hill Diaries - Join Me and Be the Change

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading