yeah it's going down big time... but we're in for the long haul and the big fight, thanks mate

Geez I hope these fools don't screw that place up , we elect these turkeys into their seats and they bash ya in return .... shizz for brains

come on,straddie would not have all these perfect waves if it was not for humans installing and operating the sand pumping pipe on the island. without that,straddie would just be another beachie....man did alright on that one

chrispychru said...

come on,straddie would not have all these perfect waves if it was not for humans installing and operating the sand pumping pipe on the island. without that,straddie would just be another beachie....man did alright on that one

this business is going to be one almighty ****up and we, the public wont get any benefit out of it. no study has shown its going to make money. massive disruption to the entire eco system, continual dredging that will cost millions. no straddie surfing or diving that are making the gold coast money, restrictions of public use in the area, no shipping companies contracts to actually use the terminal- all for bob and betty to buy a cup of tea and maybe a koala bear in surfers paradise if they actually leave the their all expenses included why spend money ship


stupid, stupid, stupid and we're the bunnies that will be left will the bills and concrete mess.

at the end of the day,this people don't care about the place we live

$20M a year contribution to the Gold Coast economy from TOS! What does that mean? Does that mean it is $20M a year that would not have been spent if it was not there? Thats about $55,000 a day which seems an awful lot!!

I have been surfing TOS for 20 years (maybe not so much recently) and I am the last person that would like to see it ripped up or changed liked what happened to Kirra. However, I would like to know more about how this figure of $20M a year was derived before I completely condem a plan to improve industry on the Goldie which at the moment is really suffering. I do however think it is worth voicing an opinion in the planning process to reinforce how important TOS is, but $55,000 a day seems hard to comprehend.

If it really is worth $20M to the economy a year, there would be good finacial argument for the council to build another one!

PS I have no vested interest in this

laceys lane said...

chrispychru said...


this business is going to be one almighty ****up and we, the public wont get any benefit out of it. no study has shown its going to make money. massive disruption to the entire eco system, continual dredging that will cost millions. no straddie surfing or diving that are making the gold coast money, restrictions of public use in the area, no shipping companies contracts to actually use the terminal- all for bob and betty to buy a cup of tea and maybe a koala bear in surfers paradise if they actually leave the their all expenses included why spend money ship


stupid, stupid, stupid and we're the bunnies that will be left will the bills and concrete mess.

at the end of the day,this people don't care about the place we live

Yes i agree there is real potential for disruption to the eco system and surfing but to say it won't contribute money to the economy is hard to comprehend. Just the construction alone will create jobs and when finished it will bring tourists to the Goldie that otherwise would not have been there. Some won't spend anything but I'm sure many will, and that is money that would not have found it's way into the Gold Coast economy.

You are correct LL - I know the guy who did the number - total economic benefit - does not take into account the multiplier effect - which would make it substantially more

laceys lane said...

Daneli said...

$20M a year contribution to the Gold Coast economy from TOS! What does that mean? Does that mean it is $20M a year that would not have been spent if it was not there? Thats about $55,000 a day which seems an awful lot!!

I have been surfing TOS for 20 years (maybe not so much recently) and I am the last person that would like to see it ripped up or changed liked what happened to Kirra. However, I would like to know more about how this figure of $20M a year was derived before I completely condem a plan to improve industry on the Goldie which at the moment is really suffering. I do however think it is worth voicing an opinion in the planning process to reinforce how important TOS is, but $55,000 a day seems hard to comprehend.

If it really is worth $20M to the economy a year, there would be good finacial argument for the council to build another one!

PS I have no vested interest in this

pretty sure it means everything- boards, boardies wetties,wax, fins, jet skis, boats, petrol,accommodation, you name it- any money spent in the pursuit of surfing straddie

Is that money that would have be spent anyway? I don't surf TOS much anymore bu still buying all of the above!!

Daneli said...

laceys lane said...

Daneli said...

laceys lane said...

chrispychru said...


this business is going to be one almighty ****up and we, the public wont get any benefit out of it. no study has shown its going to make money. massive disruption to the entire eco system, continual dredging that will cost millions. no straddie surfing or diving that are making the gold coast money, restrictions of public use in the area, no shipping companies contracts to actually use the terminal- all for bob and betty to buy a cup of tea and maybe a koala bear in surfers paradise if they actually leave the their all expenses included why spend money ship


stupid, stupid, stupid and we're the bunnies that will be left will the bills and concrete mess.

at the end of the day,this people don't care about the place we live

Yes i agree there is real potential for disruption to the eco system and surfing but to say it won't contribute money to the economy is hard to comprehend. Just the construction alone will create jobs and when finished it will bring tourists to the Goldie that otherwise would not have been there. Some won't spend anything but I'm sure many will, and that is money that would not have found it's way into the Gold Coast economy.

construction jobs for one terminal is very short term short sighted thinking.

where is the income- that's the multi million dollar question. not one decent pro terminal presentation or case study. remember- its running costs- dredging etc is on -going and will run in the millions. put that against a cup of tea and a toy koala bear

I'm not talking about how it will be funded or the economical viability of the terminal to it's owners.

I'm sure "Bob and Betty" will be spending more than a cup of tea and a chocolate. If surfers are contributing $20M just from surfing TOS, then I would have to think the tourist will be spending as well.

Now again, I think there is real environmental unknowns with the terminal and I am all for protesting on that basis, but to push an argument that TOS would be economically more valuable than the cruiseship terminal......I'm not sure.

bob and betty are most likely to be retired, saved hard, did a lot of homework on what they get for their cruise money. if your retired, your most likely to be careful with your money. if everything is paid for why would they go and blow money on dinners etc.

some don't want to believe documented study, but they're willing to believe bob and betty will spent up. their willing to believe the huge costs in keeping the thing running is no an issue. again not even a contract with the cruise companies

again- show us the money, where's the income- no facts and figures, just a lot of talk.

personally it doesn't ring true. there are other reasons not being revealed imo- maybe when it flops they want a military base for the americans or something- who knows

Daneli said...

Bob and Betty are have realized they have limited time left in this world and are out spending the kids inheritance. A guided tour of the hinterland, visit to Seaworld where you have to spend $20 for a cup of tea and a chocolate Koala, an I love Surfers Paradise T shirt for each of the grand kids. They should bring back the proposal for the giant Bronzed Statue of a clubbie as it would be another souvenir to buy. They may have even brought the Grandkids who will all want to visit the newly constructed wave pool which is now justified with all these extra tourists visiting.

Besides, if it is not making enough money they will just put a Casino in and that will fund everything.

Its environmental grounds it is not justified. We don't want another Gladstone!

i can't remember where i saw this, but a study was done liner passenger spending off ship and it wasn't much.

all that money and eco havoc for a casino!!!!!! nah, they have to come up with a comprehensive expenses and profit report surely. to me its unbelievable that hasn't been done.

i would still be against. the gold coast is built on beautiful beaches, sunshine and surf. take that away and whats left.

shouldn't tate and newman be working getting existing businesses and economies back to something like pre gfc and cutting down on rampant red tape structures and costs instead massaging their ego's

More green thumbs for the video please!

Best beachbreak in the world?!?

Its good but far from the best

doggie said...

Best beachbreak in the world?!?

Its good but far from the best

so the pro's and world class photo hogs have got it wrong- again. consistency is the key- fires up regularly, not just when the planets align on a full moon

laceys lane said...

Mayor Chrispy

The Mayor!

i found this on facebook if any one is interested in reading t


A QUESTION to Mayor Tate... edited post by Laura on the Mayor's fb page... & another way to evaluate the case...

I am hoping that you will post the detailed findings of this "viability" research... you can't reason with a man who is focused on economics, they don't understand the cost-benefit value of the environment as a common, he is just another free rider.
Here is the way that google allows me to sum up a few economic calculations...

The cruise ship terminal in this location is not a "tourism boost" it is a trade off. This is easily understood as the demographic of current users is vastly different to the demographic of the proposed users.
Case in point... one third of current Gold Coast tourists are in the 25-44 age category [Australian Bureau of Stats] (a highly dominant statistic), while the proposed development shows a shift in this tourism age... 57% of cruise ship passengers are aged 65+ and a further 28% aged 55 to 64 years [ret.gov.au/tourism Darwin Cruise Ship Research]. So you will be replacing the younger tourist demographic with the older one.
The reason it is a SHIFT is because of the current industry focus of tourism in the Gold Coast and the seaway uses.
Putting a cruise ship terminal in the seaway will affect the uses in the seaway by many current tourists, such as divers, boaties, surfers, fishermen, and other watersports.
Here's just a few numbers for you... The Australian recreational diving market has been estimated to be worth $1 billion from international visitors and $547 million from Australian divers (tq.com.au Dive Tourism). Add this to the loss of tourism revenue from all the previously mentioned sectors and you start creating a shift in income rather than a boost.
On top of these seaway uses... changing the demographics of tourism on the Gold Coast will affect other HUGE revenue areas such as the night-life and clubbing industry. It's safe to say that people above 55 years of age will not be gracing the dancefloors of the dozens of clubs and pubs frequently. So the shift in demographic will also remove much of the revenue generated by this part of the industry. If young tourists come to enjoy the Gold Coast in its entirety but are unable to utilise the renowned areas during the day time then you will lose the younger tourists and the demographic WILL shift.
On top of this, to put a small part of Jesse's environmental views into an example that an economist can understand...
The Gold Coast's own website recommends that tourists take advantage of the several whale watching businesses in the area (another area of revenue), well... here's some information for you Mr Tate. Many pleasure boat operators are not familiar with the guidelines and frequently interrupt the activities of marine mammals. Multi-year studies of humpback whales showed that whales change their behavior in the presence of cruise ships. The typical reactions of whales to the presence of vessels (up to 4 km away) include avoidance by diving underwater or swimming away, reducing surface time, and changing their breathing rates (Wildwhales.org). The basic point is cruise ships=less whales visible=loss of environmentally embracing tourism income. Just as an example of the value of the environment to the Gold Coast's tourism.
So... the LARGEST cruise ship terminal IN THE WORLD (Port Everglades) claims to generate a total tourism revenue of $18 billion annually... now of course with a significantly lower population, Australia can not even hope of rivalling this number so don't calculate on your $18 billion there. But start to add up all these losses that result from a tourism demographic SHIFT as well as environmental damage and maintenance costs, and I don't think you will be eventually finding a cruise ship terminal too viable.
That's just the way a second year planning student sees it with a bit of help from google on a lazy mid-week afternoon. If you can put out a detailed cost-benefit report, without leaving any chain reaction uninvestigated, and still turn out a large number in the greens, then you will probably sway a fair few people like me.
There's your challenge for approval Mayor Tom Tate.