0
Given the way the election has gone, and the likelihood that either major party is going to need the support of the Nationals, and in turn, commitment to the Royalties for Regions program, the West today has highlighted some of the current projects that may need to be scuttled to pay for it- the rail line to Ellenbrook, the Perth waterfront, the mueseum at East Perth and the Albino-Pachyderm (I've also seen reports that include Fiona Stanley hosptial and the new PMH on the list, though I don't think anyone could sensibly target those).
While the Albino-Pachyderm is an improvement on Subi for all concerned, I would be seriously worried that once $1.1 billion (and factor in some cost blowout, which would surely eventuate by the time the thing is built) is spent on sports infrastructure, it's going to be a loooong time before the electorate is going to tolerate putting a few hundred more million into a dedicated rectangular stadium.
From what I understand of Jehna's conversation with Colin Barnett, the Libs didn't seem to recognise the depth of dissatisfaction with the plan and that non-AFL sports were still being left out in the cold. I don't know if Labor's position in support for stadium is born of the same ignorance, or arrogance that they just don't care.
So my question is- does a commitment to Royalties for Regions give either party sufficient scope to pull back on the Albino Pachyderm and opt for cheaper improvements to existing infrastructure (revisiting MES expansion plans and the WAFC plan for Subiaco Oval). Is that a satisfactory outcome or does WA (and particularly the aerial ping pong) absolutely need a new stadium, now? Or, are we about to find a whole new way to be screwed over- is retractable seating the first thing that will be dropped in an attempt to scale back costs?
The thread is titled 'Pure Conjecture' for a reason- what do you reckon is the way forward from here?