TOPIC:

Is it state owned land that the Claremont redevelopment is on? I thought it was Council owned land. Council pocketed the money from land sales and the developers pocketed the money from the residential sales.
If thats not the case and it's state owned then fair call.

Senior Seagull wrote:

Is it state owned land that the Claremont redevelopment is on? I thought it was Council owned land. Council pocketed the money from land sales and the developers pocketed the money from the residential sales.
If thats not the case and it's state owned then fair call.

Who owned the land and what they collected from the sale to the developers will be irrelevant and possibly is already. 

Over 750 apartments will be built once the redevelopment is fully complete. At $20k-$60k+ in stamp duty for every apartment sold the State Govt will get a nice initial profit off its $16m investment and will keep reaping in the stamp duty fees. 

Claremont Council also doing very nicely from the extra rates too. 

Yep pretty bloody basic economics compared to the dubious returns on the dodgy east freo and possibly perth and peel and Joondy developments

Fair call boys, but the land was Council land, yeah? In which case the return to tax payers is the one off stamp duty tax?
Tidy sum that should at the very least balance what the state put in, although in the just announced budget by our Emperor, he's continuing the significant reductions to stamp duty for new apartment sales.

Once off stamp duty? 

Or Stamp Duty collected on:

• sale of land to developers 
• sale of individual apartments from developers to individual apartment owners 
• future sale of apartments from owners to owners

Senior Seagull wrote:

Fair call boys, but the land was Council land, yeah? In which case the return to tax payers is the one off stamp duty tax?
Tidy sum that should at the very least balance what the state put in, although in the just announced budget by our Emperor, he's continuing the significant reductions to stamp duty for new apartment sales.

Theres no such thing as once off stamp duty, its paid every transaction.

Senior Seagull wrote:

The article stated that they still haven't settled on a final design option. Once that's done then all the detailed construction documentation needs to be done, then the tender process and once they know the contract sum they will need to get more dollars, so at least a 12 month process just to do that, maybe more given the current overheated construction sector.
Take their time get the best option and do it right the first time.
Given the $40 mill and $25mill being thrown at the 2 Freo clubs ovals, the $8 mill just for the WP members, millions spent on Claremont and Rushton, their should be no reason not to increase the funding for the Lathlain redev.

Chalk and cheese, all the other ovals are entire precinct designs, not just a members stand and facility, sounds like PFC are getting 9 mill just from the tax payers to build a new stand, pretty generous.

Bazza wrote:

Senior Seagull wrote:

The article stated that they still haven't settled on a final design option. Once that's done then all the detailed construction documentation needs to be done, then the tender process and once they know the contract sum they will need to get more dollars, so at least a 12 month process just to do that, maybe more given the current overheated construction sector.
Take their time get the best option and do it right the first time.
Given the $40 mill and $25mill being thrown at the 2 Freo clubs ovals, the $8 mill just for the WP members, millions spent on Claremont and Rushton, their should be no reason not to increase the funding for the Lathlain redev.

Chalk and cheese, all the other ovals are entire precinct designs, not just a members stand and facility, sounds like PFC are getting 9 mill just from the tax payers to build a new stand, pretty generous.

Unfortunately a million dollars doesn’t buy you a whole lot these days. Our new scoreboard cost a few dollars short of half a mill I believe.