It’s not often that I agree with Peter Lindsay.
But in his first foray out of the departure lounge since announcing his intention to recontest Herbert in a last-ditch attempt to save the Libs (or the LNP, or whatever they will be calling themselves next year) from what seems will be inevitable defeat in the seat, he has in typical style chosen a State issue to go to the barricades over.
He probably right when in today’s Bully he asserts that the planned Cruise Ship Shed should be built by the State Government and that the proposed 3-way splitting of the $90 million bill between the State, Feds and TCC is a tactic by the State “… to make impossible financial demands on the Council so (it) can blame the council for the project not proceeding” when they rightfully refuse to come to the party. In this last regard, I suspect he’s picked it in one.
I’ve written before about the doubtful logic and benefits of the proposed Ship Shed.
If we are to have the damn thing, my advice to TCC would be to suggest to the State and Feds that we will make do with a measly $60 million Shed, paid for from what they have already put on the table.
Having said that, my advice to the aging Prince of Herbert would be to fess-up and tell us what he thinks about a few Federal issues – like Climate Change and whether he thinks that the Pacific Solution, Temporary Protection Visas and kids behind razor wire should be re-introduced.
After all, Climate Change and not Ship Sheds is the single largest issue that will effect the future of tourism in North Queensland
Showing posts with label Ocean Terminal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ocean Terminal. Show all posts
Monday, 23 November 2009
Friday, 6 November 2009
That Ship Shed again
I see that TEL are at it again - spruiking the benefits of tax-payers building a fancy shed for any cruise ship types who may be sailing past.
"Up to" 30 cruise ships and "up to" 40 military ships will berth here every year we are told - if a pretty enough shed is built. I love the use of "up to" in such statements - it really means they have absolutely no idea of how many would actually berth.
I can understand that possibly more military ships might pull up here if more berthing space was available in the Port. This is a military town and all of the major manoeuvres held in Queensland in some way involve the military establishment here, and anyway the boys and girls prefer to play with their own types when on leave. Of course, whether the town has a port-side shed or not has nothing to do with whether such ships stop here - all they need is a berth.
TEL would have us believe that the presence of a shed will have everything to do with whether the cruise ships stop here or not. Again, the real issue of course is whether such ships have a guaranteed berth or not – the shed just provides somewhere out of the sun while disembarking. Even if such a berth is available, my understanding is that there are no guarantees that any ship will use it – it really depends on the weather, schedules and where the best sunset will be that night.
TEL do have one thing right however – whether any of these ships ever return to the town will depend on their experience when here. Townsville simply cannot compete with Cairns for tourist shopping experiences or the Whitsundays for porthole views – if we could we’d already be a tourism based economy which thankfully we’re not (See DS Economic’s report on the state if the Cairns economy).
If an extra berth reserved for cruise ships and military types were really a profitable venture, the Port Authority would have built one years ago – with the same confidence they and Sugar Terminals Limited had when they built the new sugar shed a few years back.
It strikes me that TEL would do a lot better to look at how we can get major ships to stop here to replenish their larders by for example taking on fresh fruit and veg from the Burdekin rather than entering into “the best shed” competitions with real tourist destinations in Queensland in the hope that we can attract passing souvenir shoppers.
Finally – TEL demonstrate their real confidence in the town when, in the same article, they announce that they’ve engaged a Brisbane based mob (EC3 Global) to prepare local businesses for the expected onslaught of fat American tourists looking for a souvenir experience! In fact, it seems that local consulting firms were never given a chance to even bid for the work as the tender was never advertised!
"Up to" 30 cruise ships and "up to" 40 military ships will berth here every year we are told - if a pretty enough shed is built. I love the use of "up to" in such statements - it really means they have absolutely no idea of how many would actually berth.
I can understand that possibly more military ships might pull up here if more berthing space was available in the Port. This is a military town and all of the major manoeuvres held in Queensland in some way involve the military establishment here, and anyway the boys and girls prefer to play with their own types when on leave. Of course, whether the town has a port-side shed or not has nothing to do with whether such ships stop here - all they need is a berth.
TEL would have us believe that the presence of a shed will have everything to do with whether the cruise ships stop here or not. Again, the real issue of course is whether such ships have a guaranteed berth or not – the shed just provides somewhere out of the sun while disembarking. Even if such a berth is available, my understanding is that there are no guarantees that any ship will use it – it really depends on the weather, schedules and where the best sunset will be that night.
TEL do have one thing right however – whether any of these ships ever return to the town will depend on their experience when here. Townsville simply cannot compete with Cairns for tourist shopping experiences or the Whitsundays for porthole views – if we could we’d already be a tourism based economy which thankfully we’re not (See DS Economic’s report on the state if the Cairns economy).
If an extra berth reserved for cruise ships and military types were really a profitable venture, the Port Authority would have built one years ago – with the same confidence they and Sugar Terminals Limited had when they built the new sugar shed a few years back.
It strikes me that TEL would do a lot better to look at how we can get major ships to stop here to replenish their larders by for example taking on fresh fruit and veg from the Burdekin rather than entering into “the best shed” competitions with real tourist destinations in Queensland in the hope that we can attract passing souvenir shoppers.
Finally – TEL demonstrate their real confidence in the town when, in the same article, they announce that they’ve engaged a Brisbane based mob (EC3 Global) to prepare local businesses for the expected onslaught of fat American tourists looking for a souvenir experience! In fact, it seems that local consulting firms were never given a chance to even bid for the work as the tender was never advertised!
Wednesday, 4 November 2009
The Cruise Ship Shed
The Ocean Terminal rears its head again today with the Bulletin's front-page piece announcing that the talks are on again! Don’t hold your breath though - now that the cyclone-estate canal-estate has been removed from the development equation one wonders how it will ever stack up without 100% tax-payer funding.
That is amazing about all of this is how the "need" for the facility has become unquestioned fact over time.
The facility was proposed by developers as a lure to government to support a tax-payer supported housing development. In the process of course, cost-benefit analyses and return-on-investment arguments were compiled to prove the benefit to the community of supporting the developers' profit plan.
Not once has the comparative benefit of using tax-payers funds on alternative ways of supporting the regional economy been examined.
I suspect that it will eventually be built because it's now the established mythology that it needs to be and would be good for the city.
Given however that it will be an operating lemon (a facility such as this can't survive on 5 or 6 days of trading per year when cruise ships come to port) the really interesting question how it can be used for real productive benefit for the other 360 days of the year.
That is amazing about all of this is how the "need" for the facility has become unquestioned fact over time.
The facility was proposed by developers as a lure to government to support a tax-payer supported housing development. In the process of course, cost-benefit analyses and return-on-investment arguments were compiled to prove the benefit to the community of supporting the developers' profit plan.
Not once has the comparative benefit of using tax-payers funds on alternative ways of supporting the regional economy been examined.
I suspect that it will eventually be built because it's now the established mythology that it needs to be and would be good for the city.
Given however that it will be an operating lemon (a facility such as this can't survive on 5 or 6 days of trading per year when cruise ships come to port) the really interesting question how it can be used for real productive benefit for the other 360 days of the year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)