New Report says Garden Island

 

Why does it matter to the military where they're based? The view? The proximity to 'the cross'? Or 'cause "we" got there first?

Further to the above - the same reason any business/employer is based in the city.

A better supply of staff, better access to transport for both staff and parts (defence staff are often travelling domestically/internationally, and obviously technology/parts are often transported in), better access to suppliers, cheaper logistics cost. As they're substantial, these costs and benefits are greater. And they work every day of the year, not just "Summer season" so these benefits compound again compared to the alternative.

The main reason the Navy remains where it is, is the cost to move and the dry dock. Creating the required shore support services to support the Navy in another location would be huge. And if you move them from Garden Island, then the training bases such as at HMAS Watson, Penguin, and Waterhen might as well move, no point training people and then having to move them to where the ships are.

And no one has considered the huge number of families that would have to relocate, away from established support networks. It's not easy for the families when one member is away for months on end every year and you need the support to help with everything. And all the partners that have to move/leave established jobs...just so the cruise industry can have a 'free' (they wont pay) new port.

But how rapt are Joe Public and his mates going to be with your plan for a cruise terminal at Garden Island when they are told they have to cough up more than $40 each? That is every person in Australia would need to contribute through taxes over $40 just to move the Navy out, considering the cruiselines wouldn't be paying for it and only a portion of the population (those working or making an income) pays taxes.

 

It seems like a great idea to move them out but the cost to do it and the loss of revenue they bring to Sydney is unlikely to be exceeded by what it is replaced with. If it was then I have no doubt that the NSW govt and industry would have pushed it through a long time ago. We just have to face it that while we love to cruise out of the harbour with the great view it is going to be limited or we will have to pay for the privilege just like those who live on its foreshore do.

You could easily help fund moving the RAN out of Sydney by land value capture on Garden Island. The land would be worth billions, and by selling parts of it off to private developers, you can easily pay for at least a good portion of moving them out.

You could easily help fund moving the RAN out of Sydney by land value capture on Garden Island. The land would be worth billions, and by selling parts of it off to private developers, you can easily pay for at least a good portion of moving them out.

Sent from my D5503 using Tapatalk

You could easily help fund moving the RAN out of Sydney by land value capture on Garden Island. The land would be worth billions, and by selling parts of it off to private developers, you can easily pay for at least a good portion of moving them out.

The other problem is when Defence moved out of an area for development it is in the expectation that the area is given up at either cents in the dollar or gratis. No one ever pays full price for commonwealth land, we expect to be given a hand out by the govt not the other way around.

You could easily help fund moving the RAN out of Sydney by land value capture on Garden Island. The land would be worth billions, and by selling parts of it off to private developers, you can easily pay for at least a good portion of moving them out.

Right, so as said give away public assets to private gains, so no benefit there.

Right, so as said give away public assets to private gains, so no benefit there.

Not necessarily. Its about finding a balance between public land and private development. I would rather have a smaller scale Barangaroo than have it continued to be all private land owned by RAN.

Not necessarily. Its about finding a balance between public land and private development. I would rather have a smaller scale Barangaroo than have it continued to be all private land owned by RAN.

As for balance, I would rather have the remaining greenery and limited public and industrial land as Sydney has - we've already lost much of it so are imbalanced as it is.

Interesting article in todays Tele on the Bradfield Oration, where Sir David Higgins says "Build a bridge, Sydney — and get building the future" calling on Sydney to move forward with planning to make it a world class city.

I hope the link works

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/projectsydney/bradfield-oration-sir-david-higgins-message-build-a-bridge-sydney-and-get-building-the-future/news-story/d7d3f045ab87ade46ed759f3a89a20c2?utm_source=Daily%20Telegraph&utm_mediam=email&utm_campaign=editorial

Don't expect it will have any effect on the rusted on NO people, who will find a way/reason/excuse for anything to not go ahead. I imagine they were around in Bradfield's time too.

Definitely food for thought. I hope to see a new cruise terminal as part of a redevelopment of GI, which will include public access to a wonderful part of the Harbour, before I expire.