Election over, Canberra Racing Club on track with housing development plans

@Craig Brian Peter Coyle
The “amenities” would not be lost if the ACT and Qbn racing clubs merged and meets were held at Qbn racecourse.

Lol I’m all for green space, but pretending horse racing in Canberra is some form of ‘institution’ is laughable. Most clubs have worked out that prime real estate isn’t needed for the 21st century racing sector…. they could easily form a far stronger regional club based on a greenfield site either here or over the border, with a merger with the QBN racing club, and coming under the racing NSW umbrella.

“oh no, we couldn’t possible give up our integral pillar of our community!” “watching small men beat horses to death around a track is what really brings our Aussie spirit together! That and collectively transferring millions of dollars to the bank accounts of gambling corporations on Melbourne Cup-day!” /s

@Jack D.
Agreed – not a bad suggestion.

Canberrans can still get their gee gee fix in Qbn. Qbn will get to host more meets. And the prime location real estate can be repurposed.

“The land was gifted to the club nearly 100 years ago when it was on the (very) outskirts of Canberra.”

Stop making stuff up Jack.

The club was at Acton in the heart of planned Canberra, it only moved in 1962 to Lyneham because of the construction of Lake Burley Griffin.

And hardly unsurprising that you want to remove even more community land for (yet more) high density apartments, you’ve made you pro-development on every open space position abundantly clear.

Yep, well said. It’s about public interest being served. Cities outgrow earlier private interests.

No chewy I am not making stuff up, maybe I should have chosen my words a little differently for your benefit!

The original Canberra Racecourse sat on Lake Burley Griffin and was bordered by Acton Peninsula. The land was originally privately owned and was acquired by the Commonwealth government early last century in 1910. This precinct was known as Acton Sports Ground and included other sports such as football, golf and hockey. Some of the clubs operating at this time have been moved on to other prime sites in Canberra with the land gifted to them by the Commonwealth government.

There were three horse racing clubs at the time on Acton. Much of the gambling money raised from horse racing went to the local churches. Although the Racecourse was earmarked to move to Lyneham earlier, the then Department of the Interior relocated it to Lyneham in 1962.

The Canberra Horseracing Club has been operating in Canberra since 1910 on sites in Acton and then Lyneham.

“The land was gifted to the club nearly 100 years ago when it was on the (very) outskirts of Canberra”

This was your comment Jack.

It is blatantly false.

The rest of your fluff doesn’t remotely correct your incorrect statement.

Chewy14 was recently in these very pages supporting the ACT’s leasehold system and arguing for the government to get on with the job of exercising its rights over leasehold lands by reclaiming them when needed. Farmers who have benefited financially over the decades from our territory’s leasehold system and clubs who have been gifted large parcels of land in prime locations. Lands whose values have increased significantly over the years and landholders profiting from vast financial windfalls to the detriment of local ratepayers.

I am looking forward to this new and vastly different government considering alternative proposals for Thoroughbred Park. Proposals which provide opportunities and benefits to our citizens on lands that are close to major facilities and transport hubs. Large landholdings that belong to the ACT but were gifted to clubs and the Canberra Racing Club early last century on Acton and then Lyneham.

Rather than propping up gambling, or the ACT’s horse racing industry whose popularity and finances have been dwindling over the last decades!

Jack D,
“Chewy14 was recently in these very pages supporting the ACT’s leasehold system and arguing for the government to get on with the job of exercising its rights over leasehold lands by reclaiming them when needed”

Incorrect, but unsurprising that you didn’t understand my points because you’ve repeatedly admitted a lack of knowledge of planning issues.

Not all leases are the same.

I said that I was perfectly OK with the government resuming rural leases that are typically both shorter in length and have deliberate clauses in them to allow the government to reclaim the land for the growing needs of the city.

I deliberately separated those leases from the typical 99 year leases that exist within the city confines that give leaseholders far greater ongoing tenure over their land.

None of that applies in this case and I specifically said below in this thread:

“I don’t care who suggests it, if their lease conditions give them the right to stay on their land with similar conditions to other 99 year leases with automatic renewal, the government should only consider taking the land in truly exceptional circumstances.”

Funnily enough Jack, the new government actually is in alignment with my position, you’re arguing against the stated ALP policy.

Also still doesn’t hide the original falsehoods in your first comment that you refuse to correct. It’s not a good look for your ability to understand or debate even the most basic of issues.

To be fair Chewy, Acton was effectively on the outskirts of Canberra 100 years ago, because Canberra was tiny….

JS9,
By that definition, almost anywhere can be described as the “outskirts” because of the satellite town design of the city. Most town centres are only a few minutes drive to significant nature parks and reserve areas even now.

The facts are the racecourse was directly in the middle of all current and planned development in the 1920’s and for many decades after that.

Even when it moved to Lyneham, it was hardly in a far flung area as significant levels of development beyond it were occurring and areas like both Gungahlin and Belconnen (and the southern areas) were already included in the town plans.

Sometimes I think people forget how centralised town planning activities were in the government throughout most of Canberra’s history.

In 1920, Acton was on the edge of what was then Canberra – irrespective of whatever might be planned for the future. The actual footprint at the time was tiny. Its a simple fact.

Very strange hill to want to die on.

JS9,
except the formation of the race club and use of the racecourse didn’t happen until 1925 by which stage there was development in both what is now North and South Canberra, surrounding the racecourse. A number of early buildings had been constructed in the current ANU area, city, Braddon as well as the parliamentary triangle, Yarralumla and Kingston.
And under Griffin’s plan, this was the centre of the city area, that was built over many decades afterwards.

Unless you want to define a very subjective view of what the “city” actually was, with literally everywhere being the “outskirts”, the footprint of early city development clearly surrounded the racecourse area from when it was first used.

Yes, I agree it is a very strange hill to die on in denying this.

Chewy14 displays a bombastic attitude in these pages with his constant criticisms and insults directed at those he disagrees with. Snickering at their opinions and twisting their words to align with his worldviews to make a point and claim a bit of one-upmanship.

One wonders what kind of life exists beyond the confines of the RiotAct opinions’ pages for people like chewy.

My original comment drew a few positive responses but has again drawn the ire of chewy. This time he has a bizarre, and it seems ongoing problem with my comment on the length of time the Canberra Racing Club has operated on the lands it currently sits on in Lyneham, gifted to them by the government in the early 1960’s. Quite an insignificant issue methinks in the great scheme of things but significant to chewy. I will wear the criticism knowing quite well that the club has been operating quite successfully and profitably in Canberra since 1921 (not 1910 as I previously stated) in first Acton and then Lyneham thanks to the lands it was gifted. Also relying on gambling revenue and the miserableness that goes with it. Paying little to no taxes thanks to the LNP government over five decades ago, in order to win a few extra votes, legislating to provide clubs and church groups in the ACT ongoing tax benefits to the detriment of ACT residents.

I stand by my original comment for the government to acquire and develop Throroughbred Park for much needed housing and community use beyond horseracing for the benefit of all Canberrans. Prime lands close to major facilities and transport hubs which the Greens, notably Jo Clay to her credit have been pushing for.

Prime lands which the horseracing industry was gifted and has been benefiting from for all these many years.

Jack,
Unable to debate the points once again goes for the ad hominems and personal attacks. It seems par for the course these days for Jack to start in the gutter and work down.

One wonders if this is more representative of the type of rabid partisan stances he inherently takes or is just his own personality showing through?

Probably the latter considering his dislike of community facilities and open space land that he wants to bulldoze for high density apartments wherever they exist.

Any type of social pursuit that doesn’t agree with Jack’s personal opinion is open to government bans and removal because he cannot stand other people liking things which he does not.

None of that changes the fact that physically, within the footprint of the city as it stood at that time, it was what most rational people would suggest was on the edge of it. I don’t understand why you want to argue a simple fact.

It is strange how rationality goes out the window whenever you talk about anything to do with the race club. Almost every other subject you are entirely rational and reasonable, but anyone dare utter a word against the race club, or indeed strange discussions like this one, and the red mist descends. Like a rubbish jockey berating the horse for his incompetent ride.

JS9,
I was arguing similar things about the Phillip Pool site last week, which Jack also wants to turn into high density apartments.

And I find it strange that there’s clearly a concerted effort to downplay the contribution of facilities like the race club because people don’t like gambling and/or horse racing.

I think the same as you around “rationality” whenever this occurs because the same arguments are never used or actively opposed when it comes to other sporting or cultural pursuits.

But on your point, around the bounds of the city in the 1920s, I’m simply stating a fact, there was development surrounding it, so I don’t know how you could claim it to be on the “outskirts”. Particularly when that terminology was clearly being used by Jack D and others to attempt to create a perception of it being remotely located.

The sporting facilities in Acton were put where they were because of their central location, accessibility and location within the flood zone of the river, reducing other potential uses.

In your opinion, where exactly would the bounds of the city extend to in the 1920’s? What buildings and development get included and excluded? How are you attempting to define the city bounds?

Because by the sounds of it, you think the city didn’t actually exist at all in the 1920’s or that every part of it was the edge, making the term meaningless.

Further out of the CBD than Randwick, Flemington and Doomben race tracks.

In my mind this points simply makes a very good case for Randwick, Flemington and Doomben to be turned into housing too. These are massive pieces of prime real estate. Whether they would be more value as housing is a matter of opinion, but I would say at the very least a racecourse is not community green space or public land. Outside of racedays, when are general members of the public able to use them? They should be viewed the same way as a private country club.

Bar hates the Summernats with a passion but shinnys up for photo opps each year, a new housing estate there will be the end of the Summernats “which are nothing to do with what the original mats where established as” with the xtra complaints Barr & the greens are banking on P/S, have no fear Sinbad.

One would hope any future resident of the area signs a document stating that they understand that from time to time this is likely to be a noisy place to live and that they accept that they have no right complain about pollution (noise or otherwise) from the racecourse or Epic

Love that 🩷

You didn’t read it, it’s about using some not all of the land for housing. The Racecourse stays. There’s plenty of land for more houses in the ACT without this.

How about we just stop importing too many people yo house?

If your real objective was to address the housing supply crisis surely you must be supportive of their plan for 3,000+ dwellings that is close to fruition, rather than the alternative that would likely be decades away?

But not in such a prime location with such high potential land values. This is a premium site. There’s no business case for the horse track except a sunk capital argument — easily outbid by the redevelopment windfall.

I agree. Addressing all methods of population growth and foreign investment in our property would go a long way.

When was the racecourse outside the city?

The original racecourse was in the Acton area and was only moved to it’s current site because of the construction of Lake Burley Griffin.

As for what the future of the site is, surely that should be up to the owners?
The current proposal of housing is in-line with what the government wants to achieve with greater densification of the area, and the government is in charge of any planning changes that would allow it to happen.

1) It’s pretty clear that it was outside the town area — show me any surrounding suburbs that date from that time.
2) They are leaseholders, not freehold owners. The government, on behalf of the public, can make a decision on land use of that area, just as they do for road widening etc.

The Greens, on this occasion, are absolutely right. Current land use of the site is inefficient and there are use cases for both economic multipliers and environmental benefits if the area is given over to high and medium density housing development.

Yeahcool, so can we start on all the neighbourhood ovals in Canberra as well? Because those are also not used efficiently? Or is this just another sook about horse racing?

So the taxpayer foots the $2b bill? No thanks.

No comparison. Ovals serve local communities, a part of active lifestyle — and are public. They’re a neighborhood amenity like schools. The racecourse is vast, and is an industry — a niche one at that. It can function the same in another location, it’s not part of anyone’s neighborhood amenity. Oh, and it’s fenced off: private area — no kicking a footy or walking your dog there. It’s a members’ only, virtually dead asset. Really, nothing against punters but it’s better to serve the greater good. Redevelopment would be a huge economic deal for Canberra, in addition to the undoubted benefits the Greens raise. What’s not to like?

What bill? Redevelopment of the full site would be one of Canberra’s biggest profit-spinning ventures of the decade.

1. It was literally in the centre of all areas planned for the city and directly adjacent to the existing developed areas at the time. When it moved in the 1960’s, it was very much in the middle of the city. You show me how it was “out of the city”.

2. Yes, they are leaseholders like everyone else, so what?The government can make choices to resume the land under their powers, but there is no compelling reason to do so and they have to compensate the leaseholder if they choose to.

Weird to see someone who constantly complains about government overreach on this site, promote that kind of action.

The rest of your argument about the “best” or most economically efficient use of the land could apply to almost all areas of Canberra.

How do you think it would affect market perception of the risks of investment in the ACT if the government took that approach regularly?

“The racecourse is vast, and is an industry — a niche one at that. It can function the same in another location, it’s not part of anyone’s neighborhood amenity.”

This shows very little actual knowledge about the racing industry or how you could apply it to pretty much everything.

Every private sporting club is the same. No golf courses, tennis courts, enclosed ovals.

Apparently they provide no amenity.

Artistic venues are also very niche, they can be high density apartments too.

Etc. Etc.

Or perhaps we can recognise that these uses do provide neighbourhood amenity and your personal preference doesn’t get to decide what other people value?

What’s not to like is stealing land out from under a long time established organisation because you don’t like what it’s used for. It’s a community facility that brings millions of dollars in revenue into the ACT. Neighbourhood ovals don’t.

Lordy Ken. This is getting silly.
1) Your assumption about not liking. Argue on what you know not what you’ve pulled from your dark netherregions. It’s based on the huge disparity in current use (low rent, better out on the edge of town) compared to the huge monetary and social potential of the second-to-none site. It’s obviously an asset that in a free market would have been taken over and milkcowed many many years ago.
2) we do industry and labour and sweat and money — all this, so we can have ovals, and kick a footy with the kids, and have barbecues, and all the good stuff of life. Maybe not Ken McScrooge (bah, humbug) but normal people do.

Attempting to justify your land theft dreams is just amusing. You have made no actual point.

The land is currently in use. Go build your commie blocks somewhere else.

Suggest you go to NLA and check the Gregory’s for the 1960s. It was on the edge of town. Just was, I’m so sorry.

It’s about the balance of public vs private interest. If the Club gets as much as that area is worth, there’ll be a queue.

Most areas of Canberra are suited to their use more or less. Some aren’t, but not everything is worth the effort. The racecourse area OTH is a jewel.

I’m guessing your basic problem is it was floated by the greens. Thing is, people can have other agendas too. But hey, complicated.

Rustygear,
“Suggest you go to NLA and check the Gregory’s for the 1960s. It was on the edge of town. Just was, I’m so sorry.”

Yep, I went and checked. Literally the middle of all development in Canberra at that time.

https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-363941873/view

“It’s about the balance of public vs private interest. If the Club gets as much as that area is worth, there’ll be a queue.”

Which will be clearly balanced by the clubs own proposal, which doesn’t need to remove the significant community amenity provided by the current use.

I don’t care who suggests it, if their lease conditions give them the right to stay on their land with similar conditions to other 99 year leases with automatic renewal, the government should only consider taking the land in truly exceptional circumstances.

Simply wanting to build more high density units on reducing open space and recreational land in the city areas doesn’t cut it.

I’m supportive of densification but not at the total loss of local amenity for residents in those areas.

Wrong!!! See in that exact image you are showing, the land which thoroughbred resides was the north outskirts of Canberra. The racecourse relocated there in 1962. Now if we were to apply the same logic, without the stresses of housing crisis and the background of Thoroughbred parks abysmal earnings in the last 3 years, any reasonable individual would agree that the Racecourse needs to get pushed out again.

I would love to see a sentiment poll in Canberra on their attitudes and perceptions of horse-racing and it’s contribution to our cultural identity or the value it provides to society. I’d wager to say I think most Canberran’s don’t give a damn about horse-racing and think its a waste of tax-payer money and land.