Deal for the 407ha industrial land at Gillman ruled ‘irrational’ by Supreme Court: Chinese developers ramp up property buying sprees

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac America's mortgage-insurance giants are making bigger profits than before the crisis Feb 20th 2015 | LONDON AND NEW YORK | Business and finance FANNIE MAE and Freddie Mac may sound like a couple living in suburban America but they are in fact two of the country’s more unusual listed companies. With a government-backed guarantee, Fannie and its sibling Freddie buy mortgages from lenders and package them for resale. Looking at the headlines, it may seem that both Fannie and Freddie are in financial trouble again. On February 19th Freddie Mac reported a sharp decline in its net income last year, which fell from $48.7 billion to $7.7 billion. The next day Fannie Mae also announced a big fall in earnings. Falling market interest rates forced the pair to declare losses on the derivatives they hold as a hedge against rising rates, although these should recover the lost ground if, as expected, the Federal Reserve starts to raise rates later this year. The fact remains that both Fannie and Freddie have emerged from the financial crisis churning out more profits before tax than they ever have before (see chart). Who benefits most from this is a subject of controversy. The government, having bailed out Fannie and Freddie in 2008, owns most of the pair. Other shareholders own 20%, but Barack Obama’s administration in effect expropriated these stakes in 2012: virtually all earnings now go to the Treasury. Two challenges to this arrangement are before federal courts. Critics contend that the government is sowing the seeds of another crisis at the pair by encouraging them to loosen their lending standards for political reasons. But in the meantime the American government can look forward to some healthy dividends. Australia's property market joins closed-door club

Context News

Australia plans to charge fees to foreign nationals buying residential property and fine those who break foreign investment laws in an attempt to cool one of the world’s hottest property market, the government announced on Feb. 26.

Under the proposed changes, foreigners applying to buy land or newly built homes would have to pay fees based on the value of the investment.

Applications for residential properties worth less than A$1 million ($785,284) would attract a fee of A$5,000, while the levy on properties worth up to A$2 million would be up to A$10,000. For each additional A$1 million in property value, the fee would rise by A$10,000.

Australian law broadly prevents foreigners from buying homes in the secondary market, though enforcement is minimal. Under the government’s new proposal, buyers who breached the rule would be forced to sell and hand over at least a quarter of the property’s value.

Property prices in the country have been rising rapidly, particularly in the cities of Sydney and Melbourne. In first nine months of the financial year ending June 2014, the government received applications for foreign real estate purchases worth A$24.8 billion, up from A$17.2 billion in the whole of the previous financial year.

In 2012-2013, Chinese nationals accounted for the largest group of foreign buyers who received approval for investment in commercial and residential real estate.

The government plans to charge fees to foreign buyers and enforce restrictions on sales of existing homes. After Hong Kong and Singapore, another hot real estate market is cooling to Chinese money. It adds to the political pressure on other countries to become less welcoming

Australia is rolling up its welcome mat for foreign property investors. Faced with soaring house prices and worries about hordes of buyers from China, the government is imposing fees on purchasers from overseas while tightening up existing rules. It’s another case of a red-hot real estate market trying to close the door on Chinese cash.

There’s no question that house prices are rising rapidly down under. Though low interest rates and buoyant bank lending are the main drivers, foreign investors are a force in cities like Sydney and Melbourne. In the first nine months of the financial year ending June 2014, Australia’s Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) approved A$24.8 billion ($19.5 billion) of foreign investment in residential property - 44 percent more than in the whole of the previous year. Of that, Chinese nationals were the largest group.

At first glance, the proposed measures aren’t much of an added deterrent. A fee equivalent to less than 1 percent of the property’s value is unlikely to put off wealthy Chinese seeking a safe haven for their cash. Other hot destinations have taken more drastic steps: Hong Kong and Singapore charge non-resident buyers an extra 15 percent in stamp duty.

Australia’s more potent threat is to enforce existing rules. The country restricts foreigners to buying undeveloped land or newly built property; existing homes are mostly off-limits. However, despite widespread anecdotal evidence that overseas buyers are bending the rules, a parliamentary committee last year found that no foreigner has been penalised for doing so since 2006. The new regime will toughen up inspections and allow the government to keep at least 25 percent of the proceeds from the forced sale of offending properties.

The crackdown may not affect prices much. Efforts to deter foreign investors have had little visible impact on real estate values in Hong Kong and Singapore. But Australia is now another place where Chinese buyers will feel less welcome. That will only enhance the attraction of countries like Canada, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and the United States where the welcome mat is still out. In those places, the political pressure to shut the door will only grow.

========== Gillman: Treasury told Weatherill to split land deal David Washington | 18 March 2015 Premier and former Treasurer Jay Weatherill was advised by his department to split the Gillman land sale. Photo: Nat Rogers/InDaily Premier and former Treasurer Jay Weatherill was advised by his department to split the Gillman land sale. Photo: Nat Rogers/InDaily Adelaide | UDPATED: A Treasury document raises new questions about Premier and former Treasurer Jay Weatherill’s involvement in the controversial Gillman land deal. The briefing to Weatherill, dated 2 December 2013, recommends that the Government subject the land to an open market process. However, it also adds that if the Government decides to go ahead with the exclusive deal with Adelaide Capital Partners (ACP), then it should split the land into sections to reduce risks to the taxpayer. The Treasury minute, apparently sent to Weatherill on the day Cabinet was due to consider the deal, raises new questions about whether the South Australian taxpayer will get best value for money from the deal. The advice, from bureaucrat David Reynolds, then the executive director of budget branch within the Department of Treasury and Finance, warns Weatherill that the Government faces the risk of being left holding less valuable land, with ACP “cherry-picking the best parts of the site”. A few weeks after this advice was provided, the Government publicly announced the deal to give ACP exclusive rights to more than 400 hectares of Crown land at Gillman, near Port Adelaide. The deal was touted as offering a massive jobs boost to the state, but soon fell into controversy when an InDaily investigation revealed details of the Renewal SA board’s deep concerns about the Government’s failure to go to tender on the land. This Treasury minute, buried in a mass of documents tabled in Parliament, says that an open market sale would be the best option to go forward with ACP’s proposed Lipson Industrial Estate at Gillman. “This would ensure we maximise value and also reduce any perceived lack of probity associated with a direct negotiation with ACP,” the minute says. “We note that the submission indicates that there are other parties that have expressed some interest in the site. “If the government is inclined to go with the Lipson proposal it should only accept it for Stage 1 (150ha) and not have the options for Lipson to purchase subsequent areas. This would at least provide flexibility for the government to deal with the remaining 257ha rather than having it locked up by ACP for up to 9 years and at a fixed price of $30m2. It also avoids Lipson cherry-picking the best parts of the site and leaving the government with the rest.” Cabinet approved a submission that day from then infrastructure minister Tom Koutsantonis to give ACP exclusive options to acquire the 407ha of land in three tranches over nine years. ACP plans to develop the land in stages, eventually building an “oil and gas hub” which it claims will create thousands of jobs. Liberal deputy leader Vickie Chapman said the document raised new questions about Cabinet’s decision on the deal. “Our key question is did the Premier and Treasurer give that clear information from Treasury to the Cabinet,” she told InDaily. “You have got advice from your senior financial people not to put it to tender but, if you insist on doing it, don’t sell the whole lot. This should have been disclosed to the Cabinet by Weatherill – he needs to answer whether he did.” The Treasury minute also indicates that the Gillman submission was a “walk in” – in other words, it had not been previously circulated to Cabinet members before the meeting. Chapman said the fact the submission was a walk-in raised questions about the “rush job” to push the deal through Cabinet. Weatherill’s office dismissed InDaily’s questions about the latest revelation, instead offering a statement from a “government spokesperson”. “These questions have been asked and answered previously. The decision to enter into the Gillman transaction was made by Cabinet on the basis of all of the information placed before it, including a Treasury costing comment attached to the Cabinet submission. Cabinet considered a range of factors, including the ability to attract jobs to otherwise dormant land in Adelaide’s west.” Concern over the Gillman deal ramped up in January, when Supreme Court justice Malcolm Blue handed down a scathing assessment of the deal. In findings on litigation by a waste company concerned the Gillman deal would damage its business, Blue found “the decision by the (Renewal SA) Chief Executive to enter into the Contract was a decision that no reasonable person in his position could rationally have made”. “The decision … was made in ignorance of matters that were fundamental prerequisites to making an informed, prudent or rational decision,” Blue found. “It was an irrational decision.” A week later, the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption, Bruce Lander, revealed that he was investigating the land sale. “I am investigating the matter to determine if there is any evidence of maladministration,” he said. “This is not a corruption investigation. However, should I find any evidence to suggest that there has been conduct that falls within the ICAC Act’s definition of corruption, then I will pursue it. “At the conclusion of this investigation I will make a statement on my findings. I will proceed as quickly as possible to conclude the investigation. Until that time I do not intend to discuss any particulars related to the investigation, nor do I intend to make any further public statements during the course of the investigation.” Correction: A previous edition of this story said the document was newly released under FOI laws. While that is true, it was also contained in more than 1000 un-indexed pages of documents tabled in Parliament this year. --- This is the sort of revelation that destroys confidence and credibility in this state! What laughable Gov. special ACP treatment? Why not subject the land to an openly fair, competitive market process. Rather than tolerate all the apparent negative downside of the fancied ACP deal? Why wouldn't one accept perfectly sound, logical, expert, best probity treasury advice and try to maximise the land return price, so as to reduce the massive loss from the previous, disastrous MFP. White Elephant? Is there any wonder then, that our state taxes and charges lead the rest, why we've the gloomiest economic outlook and are the country's near bankrupt, basket case? How much more of this nonsense can SA. bare? Hopefully the inquiry will expose the heart of the mess and potential impropriety! △ ▽ • Reply • Share › Avatar Watchman • 6 months ago The only comfort in all of this is that Mr Lander of ICAC, a most thorough judge, is investigating this whole matter to see if there has been 'maladministration'. I for one will trust his judgement △ ▽ • Reply • Share › Avatar Stumpjumper • 6 months ago Too many ******* lawyers in charge. 2 △ ▽ • Reply • Share › Avatar Peter • 6 months ago As if Mr Weatherill , Mr Koutsatonis or Mr Rau really care what is said in a report about the Gillman land sale or any other questionable deal originating from their desk tops . It appears if you are a member of this SA Labor government you are exempt from any responsibility or accountability for any decision that you make and you are above the law as long as you can hide behind parliamentary privilege or their supportive media members with yet another cover up. Once again our noble leader is absent with leave when the growth promoting substance strikes the caged air circulating mechanism. "Honest John Rau" is [according to the Government Gazette], currently in charge of the place. His silence on this topic speaks volumes. Rau should be the Premier. At least he has some credibility The "decision" to not put this out to open tender is just symptomatic of a government who is so full of itself its forgotten that it actually represents us the tax payers. The point is without an open tender no one will ever know if it was a good or bad deal. ................and if it was such a great deal for the taxpayer then the offer by ACP would have won the tender process hands down anyway. ========== Deal for the 407ha industrial land at Gillman ruled ‘irrational’ by Supreme Court Political Reporter Sheradyn Holderhead The Advertiser January 13, 2015 11:27PM The final judgment in a case to overturn the deal for a 407ha industrial site upheld the contract between the State Government and consortium Adelaide Capital Partners but found serious issues with the process. THE controversial sale of prime public land at Gillman has gone ahead despite a Supreme Court ruling it was “irrational”, “unlawful” and did not ensure the best return for taxpayers. The State Government sold 150ha of industrial land at Gillman to private consortium Adelaide Capital Partners for $40 million, just days after a scathing judicial review of the deal was handed down by the court. ACP — which intends developing the site into a resources hub dubbed “Lipson Estate” to service the gas, oil and mining industry — has two exclusive options to buy the remaining 257ha of the former Multi-Function Polis site with a set price of $30 million each. In his December 24 judgment, released yesterday, Justice Malcolm Blue found sacked Renewal SA chief executive Fred Hansen’s decision to sell the land without public tender was “an irrational decision and a decision that no reasonable person in the position of the decision-maker could rationally have made”. EDITORIAL: Deal must be open Justice Blue said there was no basis for the Government to have considered the deal was more beneficial to the state than going out to a competitive marketing and sales process. Former Renewal SA chief executive Fred Hansen. He found that Mr Hansen’s decision to enter into the contract was “unlawful” because it did not comply with the Public Corporations Act and (did not) apply commercial principles to achieve a profit. “The decision-maker did not compare the advantages and disadvantages of entering into the contract with engaging in a competitive marketing and sales process ... nor obtain or seek a reliable relevant valuation of the land,” the judgment stated. Justice Blue also found there was no: REASON why the general principle that the sale be undertaken by a competitive sales process should not have been applied. ASSESSMENT of the benefits and prospects of proceeding to market the land in an open and competitive manner as an alternative to accepting the ACP proposal. UNDERSTANDING of the nature and extent of alternative purchasers and developers of the land. RELEVANT or reliable valuation of the land and instead relied on a 2010 valuation. INDEPENDENT advice to assess the alternatives to accepting the ACP offer. Acquista Investments, known as Integrated Waste Service, and Veolia Environmental Services, initiated legal action over the deal in March after expressing interest in the land prior to the Government striking the exclusive deal. But while Justice Blue found significant failings with the sale process, he upheld the contract between the Government and ACP. More than half of the board of government property developer Renewal SA resigned over the private deal after rejecting it twice. The controversy forced the Government to release new guidelines for companies making unsolicited bids to develop public land or build infrastructure, after Premier Jay Weatherill said it had scared away potential investors. Planning Minister John Rau said yesterday he would not comment on the judgment, given that Acquista Investments had indicated that it would appeal against the decision to uphold the contract. “Renewal SA has undergone significant change in the past 12 months, including the appointment of a new Chief Executive and change in senior management,” he said. “I am confident this agency will deliver significant projects for this state into the future.” The Government and ACP signed a $40m deal for the initial 150ha parcel of land on December 29. ACP chief executive officer Andrew Gerlac said taking the first option was a “milestone”. Deputy Opposition Leader Vickie Chapman said it was now clear that the Government failed to undertake due diligence when assessing the ACP proposal. “Dealing directly with one buyer just was not good enough in this instance,” she said. “The Weatherill Labor Government’s decision to enter into this deal without proper commercial consideration may have led to a bad deal for South Australians.” Analysis: Dud deal mars SA’s standing By Cameron England THE scathing judgment released yesterday on the State Government’s controversial Gillman land deal confirms what we’ve suspected since this debacle was brought to light by The Advertiser in late 2013: the public has been dudded. It will also do little to assure businesses competing for development rights in South Australia that there is a level playing field when it comes to having their proposals assessed. Government bodies such as Renewal SA, which is basically the State Government’s land developer, are charged with getting the best bang for the buck out of government assets. It’s unlikely in this case that this has happened, but we’ll never know, as the right to develop up to 400ha of land was handed to Adelaide Capital Partners on a platter. All other interested parties — and there were at least three, with some outlining proposals for the site months earlier — were not given a chance to put in a competing bid. One company found out about the bid and pleaded with the Government to be able to compete — no dice. The responsibility for the decision has been sheeted home by Justice Malcolm Blue to former Renewal SA boss Fred Hansen, who lost his job last year. Justice Blue calls it “an irrational decision and a decision that no reasonable person in the position of the decision-maker could rationally have made’’. But the decision to award the deal to ACP, and the responsibility for that, ultimately lies with the Government. Premier Jay Weatherill and Treasurer Tom Koutanstonis have stood behind the decision to award the potentially lucrative development rights to ACP without putting the proposal out to the market. In February last year the Premier said the Government took “full responsibility for the decision that we made” and “would make it again every day of the week”. I guess we have to assume that those involved in the decision making had something akin to a “pretty good hunch” that this was the best deal they could do for the land. The Renewal SA board appears to have disagreed, with more than half of the board resigning shortly after ACP was handed the deal — against the original advice of Renewal SA’s management. Mr Weatherill last year went so far as to complain that the controversy around the Gillman deal could scare off potential investors in the state. Many in the business community would argue the opposite. How can a business be confident they are getting a fair go if they are not convinced there is an open and transparent process for bidding for development rights, mineral exploration rights, or other potentially lucrative deals in SA? South Australia wants to be known as being open for business, but deals such as this will have investors thinking twice before knocking on the door. =================== A Property Council survey reveals a slump in industry sentiment GIUSEPPE TAURIELLO The Advertiser January 14, 2015 9:48am Adelaide CBD skyline CONFIDENCE within the state’s property sector has slumped to its lowest point in six months, according to an industry survey. The ANZ/Property Council confidence index fell nine points to 114 for the March 2015 quarter, returning to the September result after a brief spike last quarter. The quarterly result was worse only in ACT, where the confidence index fell by 16 points. Property Council state executive director Daniel Gannon said the results showed the industry was battling a tumultuous period of fickle sentiment. ((Fickle: Characterized by erratic changeableness or instability, especially with regard to affections or attachments; capricious.)) “Since last quarter’s results, South Australia’s forward work schedule, staffing level, national and state economic growth, house, office and industrial capital growth expectations have all taken a hit,” he said. “That’s why this industry is calling for the abolition of anti-growth taxes such as stamp duty, and will continue to fight for growth-orientated reforms like repealing outdated regulations, freeing up shop trading hours and growing our state’s population.” According to the quarterly survey, staffing expectations for the year ahead dipped in South Australia to the lowest level in the country. South Australian respondents were also critical of the State Government, ranking it as the worst at planning and managing the state’s economic growth. “The State Government recently committed to reviewing our state’s taxation regime – the right economic shake-up will drive stimulus and create jobs,” Mr Gannon said. “Furthermore, the State Government has an opportunity through the planning review process to drive growth through sensible reform – it’s time to shift the planning power balance in the best interests of progress and development.” In the past 12 months, the South Australian confidence index has fallen by 16 points - worse than every other state and territory apart from Western Australia and now trailing the national average by 18 points. ======== AFR Reports Chinese developers ramp up property buying sprees Who are Chinese Property Buyers A former rice grower and a People’s Liberation Army revolutionary are among the new wave of Chinese developers fuelling a boom in apartment construction. ---- Chinese investment in Australian property set to grow in 2015 Fergus Ryan | Business Spectator | January 15, 2015 1:51PM Amy Chen and Cream Deng examine a model of central Sydney at a property showcase in Shanghai last year. Source: News Corp Australia OVERSEAS investment in Australian residential real estate is unlikely to dampen in 2015 as Chinese buyers continue to snap up property amid flagging domestic demand, a property expert says. Simon Henry, chief executive of international property website Juwai, which focuses on Chinese buyers, expects 15 to 20 per cent growth in international purchases of Australian real estate this year compared to 2014. “The Australian real estate market faces a number of headwinds, but luckily our analysis shows that international investment will make up for some of the loss in domestic demand,” he said. According to the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB), China was the number one source of foreign investment in Australian real estate in 2013. Chinese investors contributed $5.9 billion worth of property in 2013, up 40 per cent from the previous year. Despite widespread concern that foreign investment is causing market distortions in the housing sector, a federal parliamentary committee report into affordable housing and foreign investment released in November found that housing supply issues would worsen if foreign investment was curtailed. Investors ‘locking out homeowners’ “The recent parliamentary inquiry found that foreign investment is keeping prices lower and new supply of homes higher than they would otherwise be” said Mr Henry. “In the context of Australia’s slowing economy and income recession, the construction jobs, spending and tax revenues generated by international investors should be most welcome.” Researchers at Credit Suisse believe Chinese investors will spend $44 billion over the next seven years — an average of $6.3 billion per year to 2020. A more favourable exchange rate is likely to contribute to the growth in investment. Chinese buyers have received a boost to their purchasing power with the drop in the Australian dollar. In December 2009, 1 Chinese yuan bought approximately 16 cents. Today, it buys around 20 cents. “It’s not just Chinese investment. The US dollar is rising, giving the yanks a boost in purchasing power. They are already typically one of the top two or three by total investment” says Simon Henry, co-CEO of Juwai. Brian White, chairman of Ray White, Australia’s largest real estate company, said the outlook on Chinese investment is promising for the Australian property market. “In 2014 it became evident that Chinese investors were serious about Australian property — particularly in Sydney and the Gold Coast. “As the credibility of the Australian property market continues to strengthen in China, the level of investment will undoubtedly increase.” Ray White has opened offices in Beijing and Hong Kong to take advantage of the increased appetite for Australian real-estate of Chinese investors. “Many of our principals are thoroughly aware of the importance of having a Chinese specialist in their business and our offices are increasingly bringing Chinese expertise to their market place,” Mr White said. Business Spectator ====================== Global finance advisor opens Adelaide base BELINDA WILLIS The Advertiser January 15, 2015 12: 19/12/14 - Mark Harrington is a financial adviser who works on international billion dollar projects and bases himself in Adelaide - - pic Mike BURTON INTERNATIONAL firm Project Finance Advisory Limited has established a new Adelaide base after winning work in South Australia. Former global managing director Mark Harrington left his international role to take on establishing the separate Australian business as sole shareholder and director. PFAL works on multibillion-dollar projects in the United States including the Presidio Parkway project near the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, working as the financial arm of a global design and engineering conglomerate. Mr Harrington was financial adviser on the Presidio Parkway in San Francisco – a project that won the Project Finance International Americas P3 Deal of the Year in 2013. But he said the work in Australia was an opportunity to return home. “There’s a lot of infrastructure development opportunities in Australia at the moment and I noticed in Adelaide that experts were being brought in from interstate, I saw a chance to provide some international expertise on the ground in Adelaide,” he said. Mr Harrington, who is originally from Adelaide and worked on the ETSA privatisation when Rob Lucas was treasurer in South Australia, said details of the new South Australian work were confidential. Project Finance Advisory Australia has opened an office in Sturt Street in Adelaide, aiming to specialise in developing and implementing financial solutions for infrastructure and real estate projects. Mr Harrington said the company would take on the big four firms but recognised the size of potential projects could be smaller than the billion-dollar plus projects he had been working on. His plan was to also draw more international expertise to Adelaide, including the global head of urban design at architecture firm Perkins + Wills, the group he had been working with on the Atlanta BeltLine project in the United States. “I want to bring David Green to Adelaide to look at whether there’s potential for us to do some projects like the Atlanta BeltLine multimodal corridor and Innovation Square urban redevelopment at the University of Florida in Adelaide,” he said. The Atlanta BeltLine is an ambitious sustainable redevelopment project aiming to provide a network of public parks, multi-use trails and transit along a historic 22-mile railroad corridor in the American city. Mr Harrington was previously head of project and corporate finance for the Arup group in London and also worked with Morgan Stanley. He studied sustainability leadership at Cambridge University in the United Kingdom while working with global engineering firm Arup, leading to a lunch with patron Prince Charles. ================ New tenant for iconic Gold Coast property Brisbane, 19 January 2015 – The Nerang ex-headquarters of V8 Supercars found its first new tenant with the ground floor being leased to Lantrak, a leading building hire company across Australia. The property located at 34 Nerang St is owned by Terry Morris, a prominent Gold Coast businessman and the owner of Carrara Markets, Sirromet Wines and Good Times Pub Group, CBRE’s Nick Selbie negotiated the lease for 274.5sqm of the property, on a five year term with five year option for an annual gross rent of $420/sqm. Mat Stenham, Lantrak Business Unit Manager said; “The building supported every need to accommodate Lantrak’s growing requirements, with exceptional design and build quality, and an ideal location on the Nerang River to service South East Queensland. Operating in materials haulage and relying on road infrastructure, it is crucial for Lantrak sales representatives to have direct access north and south bound of the M1, and for its contractors to have equal access to the new premises.” The property was originally built for Terry Morris’ own business interests, however V8 Supercars enquired about its availability when it neared completion in 2008. V8 Supercars occupied the property until early this year, at which time the company chose to relocate part of the business to Sydney. The property is an iconic building with finishes that complement the surrounding environment on the banks of the Nerang River. Copper façade features and a natural colour scheme dominate the exterior, with state of the art internal finishes and fit-out. Mr Selbie said; “We were seeking a full building user for the 1,200sqm property, however a recent commitment was made to split the building for multiple users. The landlord made the quick decision in consideration and judgment of the current market. “Upon this decision, we went back through previous enquiry and spoke to Lantrak about the new offering and had an agreement in place within a couple of weeks. We are now fielding good enquiry from a range of business types and can accommodate small to medium size business which is perfect for the location.” Mr Stenham said; “As a leader in its industry and experiencing consistently strong growth, Lantrak had been actively seeking a new corporate premises in QLD for some time. Having been aware of the V8 Supercars building for some time, when the opportunity to lease such a well-known building became available, it was the obvious choice. Lantrak look forward to establishing their Queensland branch in Nerang and eagerly anticipate moving into their new office.” With the majority of the ground floor now committed, there are two remaining floors of standalone space from 250-430sqm and a small ground floor tenancy of approximately 65sqm available at the property. =======

Gary The SA Treasury/ dept Finance did not support this type of process,either, yet Govt proceeded, on their own Yes its has to go to ICAC to suss out real reasons for this type of transaction Peter 1 hour ago @Terry Funny Simon Brown is involved in this? Peter 2 hours ago While we're at it what has been happening on the island opposite this land? It's been having dirt dumped on it for years. now instead of native mangrove it's nothing but a dirt mound? Where's the EPA? What's being planned for it that we've not been told about? Roger 2 hours ago If this land was capable of being sold for $300/400 million, the SA taxpayer has been short-changed big time. That extra money could have alleviated the Emergency Services Levy, paid for road upgrades, helped cover the budget shortfall etc. What gives them the right to abuse the power they were handed by us anyway. These people have no idea about money and the best use of it. By the look of it they are beyond caring as well. There is very little hope for SA with this kind of attitude in government. kym 2 hours ago nothing new here, since Rann these deals have gone on and the current Premier and Minister's are all of the same ilk, jobs for the boys and girls, planning approval overrides, trees cut down when ever they want, land deals for developers that contribute to party coffers, eg Mt Barker , Cheltenham and now Gillman, they say a fish rots from the Head, a lot of stink out of Nth Tce. Wheres the Premiers much lauded ICAC ???? this should be referred. Grant 2 hours ago @kym To be fair it happens on both sides of politics. Remember Motorola? Olsen lot his job over that debacle. Jack 3 hours ago Which organisations submitted valuations for the land? Jack 3 hours ago What is the true market value as is or if rezoned to residential making it another west lakes? Charles 3 hours ago On 12th February 2014, Mr Weatherill said the Government took “full responsibility for the decision that we made” and “would make it again every day of the week”. This morning, his AG John Rau was in full swing blaming Fred Hansen Mr Hansen has previously testified to an Upper House Inquiry that he was "pressured" by the Govt to get the deal done. The ultimate decision was made by Cabinet despite the Board opposing it. Greg 3 hours ago This will be swept under the carpet and Teflon Jay will prevail.......all because the media in this State are too scared to ask the hard questions and to take Jay and his cohorts to account - e.g.. why oh why does the media not hound Jay and Turbo for their continued lies about the "supposed" federal cuts to health (the money of which was never there in the first place)? But no, they let them continue to lie to the SA public without any questioning. Betty 3 hours ago I do hope that finally the television news teams all pick upon this story and really, really run with it. It is of real interest to Australia, not just South Australia. We all thought that NSW was a corrupt state ... I have a feeling South Australia could be the leader of the pack. Charles 3 hours ago @Peter @Betty He's chasing Hamilton-Smith's stepson around Adelaide trying to help him get his car back. What a mob. We get what we deserve Lynda 2 hours ago @tom Well Commissioner Landers is certainly the man with the integrity to get to the bottom of it, but someone has to place the matter before the ICAC in the first instance to get it investigated. I am sure the old adage 'what a tangled web we weave, when first we set out to deceive' might come crawling through the minds of some. Jon 4 hours ago why, SA is "open for business".....Dodgey business.. No rational business would invest in SA in the current climate. No rational invester(mums/dads, small, large)would invest in SA. There is a genuine fear out there that they WILL be shafted. Julie 4 hours ago @Jon So well said John. I would like to know who is really running the show in South Australia, who is behind it all. It's not just large developments- it's 'allegedly' not safe to build a home here either in the current climate - Unfortunately I know from experience .....it is a very sad state of affairs we have here and it's not just the Politicians who are involved many of the State Government departments and local councils are involved, unfortunately 'allegedly' working with some private enterprise associates The public need answers - full exposure, disclosure and a degree of integrity and honesty would be a nice touch. We deserve better. Paul 5 hours ago In December 2013, if I recall, Mark Parnell was widely reported as drawing links between the successful bidder and a lawsuit by the successful bidder's close relative against the state government that was dropped the very next day. Did that issue get resolved? If not, I would have thought it pertinent to the history of this story. Rupey 5 hours ago This is one of the very, very rare times when retrospective legislation is warranted to ensure all of those involved face very, very serious criminal charges. Anything less is not Governing SA, it's allowing Oligarchs to steal from the people. Long live the Soviet state of SA. Charles 3 hours ago @Julie @Terry The two people who were intimately involved (ie) up to their neck in it, who haven't moved on are Weatherill and Koustantonis. Grant 14 hours ago @George You do realise it was ex Valuer General and Independent MLC John Darley who led the call for an immediate enquiry into the Gillman deal last year? And it was Greens leader Mark Parnell who raised serious concerns in Parliament in May last year about whether the sale of such a huge parcel of land without going to tender was linked to other land deals in the area? And it was a Supreme Court judge who today referred to the deal as 'irrational' and 'unlawful' Hardly Liberal Party Hacks. There are many more questions that need to be answered following the Supreme Court decision.

============== A few tips to keep in mind if you’re considering subdivision Thursday, 25 September 2014 A few tips to keep in mind if you’re considering subdivision Could subdivision be the right choice for you? We look at some of the considerations when it comes to devising your plan. If you are considering different investment strategies, subdivision is highly logical choice. It involves splitting a large sized block of land or property in two or more properties, potentially earning twice the profit as you would get for a single property or piece of land. Although subdivision makes perfect sense on paper, the reality can often be more complicated. There's a certain degree of red tape involved, and not all properties are eligible for a profitable subdivision. Signs of a good candidate for subdivision On the most basic level, a property needs to be in an area where subdividing is allowed according to local town planning council legislation. It's also best to choose a property in a popular area if you want the venture to be profitable. There has to be a high enough level of demand that renters or buyers would be willing to pay for a subdivided property. One way to suss this out is by determining whether or not there are similar subdivided properties nearby. Inner city properties tend to be good choices for strata subdivision, with land limited. However, the outskirts of a city give you more room for creativity in your design. As you're assessing the property, keep these tips in mind: •Pay for a survey of the land for an accurate record of land size and easements. Get a diagram of the sewer, so that you can determine whether it would be cost effective to extend it to a new lot. This will also depend on the site's slope, for drainage purposes. •Compare the market value of similar properties nearby, as well as vacant land in the area. •Research all zoning regulations in the area, and find out what the local council's subdivision guidelines look like. •Properties in areas with existing service connections will require less investment. It's difficult to conduct all of the necessary checks on your own, so don't hesitate to contact a professional solicitor or surveyor for advice regarding the local regulations. Costs to be aware of There are a number of factors that can impact the cost of a subdivision. You may have to pay for new service connections, along with surveys and zoning reports. If your land is in a rainy area, you may need a report from a hydrological engineer, which can cost up to $5,000. Older lots may also be subject to heritage issues, along with the cost of demolishing an existing property. Some councils levy contribution fees for infrastructure costs as well. Be sure to budget for all these possibilities, including the costs for legal fees, surveyor services, stamp duty, and civil works. The Bottom Line Whether or not subdivision makes sense in your case depends on a variety of factors, including location and zoning laws. Some states require roads or utilities to be installed before the land can be sold, which can bring up the cost involved. It's helpful to do your research and consult with a local attorney who is well-versed with zoning and subdivision laws. =====================================