The Auswine Forum

Philip White's take on the farcical scenes of the Seaford Heights development announcement by John Rau:

http://drinkster.blogspot.com/2011/05/m ... or_26.html

Cheers,
Ian

Ps. I've altered the thread title as it's drifted enough with McLaren Vale issues other than the ghost of Reynella - that said, with the many shared coincidences of each event, it's probably worth keeping them in the one place.

Philip White details the latest twist in this ongoing saga - with the new Government proposed development boundaries conveniently ignoring the Internationally-recognised McLaren Vale GI:

While the proposed Barossa planning boundary is vaguely similar to its GI, McLaren Vale has an enormous decision to make. The northern third of its GI, the part north of the Onkaparinga Gorge, is not in the new planning proposal.

Instead, McLaren Vale suddenly has an extension that goes north along the eastern side of its GI, across the Mount Bold region and catchment and the hilly, forested bushfire zone, to the freeway at Crafers and Stirling. Land that is virtually useless for vineyards. And housing.

And is in fact part of the internationally-recognised Adelaide Hills GI.

In exchange, that northern portion of the McLaren Vale GI appears to be lost to housing. This includes the highly contentious 206ha Glenthorne Farm, the old Reynella vineyards and homestead, Geoff Merrill’s Mount Hurtle Winery, and several other smaller vineyard and winery holdings.

http://drinkster.blogspot.com/2011/07/r ... -time.html

Like a good old, obsessive compulsive pitbull that won't let go, Whitey has another shot at Constellation, whoops Accolade:

http://drinkster.blogspot.com/2011/07/a ... champ.html

No worries, I still have my list of Constellation (aka Accolade) brands that I refuse to buy.

Mahmoud.

White's follow up article - while it does delve heavily into the SA political climate, it does highlight the attitudes of those in power making the crucial decisions that will effect the South Australian wine industry forever:

http://drinkster.blogspot.com/2011/08/t ... ouses.html

I always try and avoid wineries that are part of the big companies 'Portfolio' and now seemingly for good reason. It's a shame that it takes something like this to justify my reasoning for trying to buy from independent or family owned wineries

We all know that money is essentially the key factor and as another stated - a financial decision is very easilly made in the board room - but I honestly believe that there's a responsibility that comes with wielding such power... (hold on, that was the for Spiderman forum)

As expected, it appears the plan to "protect" McLaren Vale conveniently ignores the internationally recognised GI leaving Glenthorne Farm and what's left of remaining vineyards north of the propsed border under threat. Philip White's latest piece again looks at the way the University of Adelaide is squirming to try and get out of its legal obligation under the trust deed not to allow any residential development of Glenthorne, and its pathetic lack of action to try and honour what it was supposed to do with the land in the first place.

Meanwhile, who knows what "Minister for everything" John Rau (conflicts of interest anyone?) will decide. Maybe we should start calling him Rau the Concreter: he came, he saw, he concreted.

http://drinkster.blogspot.com/2011/10/t ... hreat.html

Go-ahead for 1300 homes at Seaford Heights
Tony Love: The Advertiser
January 11, 2012 12:00AM

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/real-esta ... 6241267167

WORK began yesterday at the Fairmont Homes Seaford Heights housing development.
It has prompted opponents to repeat calls for laws to protect the McLaren Vale district from further encroachment.

The development was hotly contested last year but approved in May, clearing the way for about 1300 homes to be built on 77ha just north of the McLaren Vale wine region.

"It's disappointing to see the ongoing creep of urban sprawl into land recognised for producing some of the finest grapes in Australia," McLaren Vale Grape Wine and Tourism Association chairman Marc Allgrove said.

Philip White's latest article, now raising the rather disturbing threats of a massive motel complex to be built around and under the heritage listed Seppeltsfield family mausoleum, and the State's biggest wind farm to be built near the Hill of Grace vineyard. All of which is somehow immune to the planning moratorium that supposedly has been imposed on development in these regions until legislation protecting the Barossa & McLaren Vale regions is debated and passed.

http://drinkster.blogspot.com/2012/01/l ... ng-us.html

In contrast to WA, by the time these clowns have finished there mightn't be much of anything of historical value left to protect in SA - all we need is phylloxera to sneak in courtesy of the industry's proposed loosening of safeguards, and then everything will be cactus.

n4sir wrote:[While we're at it, why not bulldoze Penfolds' Kalimna vineyard to extend the golf course, the Hill of Grace vineyard to make a scenic hotel, pebble mix Ayers Rock and then strip mine Kakadu because we can make a buck out of it?

Now now, no need to say things that are only half true. We just put big holes in the place and store the waste in beautiful, man made lakes.

But we do strip mine in the only slightly more scenic East Arnhem Land.

Ian, is there any local group on the ground running a campaign against these astonishing developments?

Whitey is full of the correct amount of rum & vinegar, but surely he's not alone? Can I encourage anyone who deosn't ususally read this links to put 10 minutes aside, and jump in. Anyone that cares about wine in Oz needs to at least be aware of what may be at stake here.

via collins wrote:Ian, is there any local group on the ground running a campaign against these astonishing developments?

Whitey is full of the correct amount of rum & vinegar, but surely he's not alone? Can I encourage anyone who deosn't ususally read this links to put 10 minutes aside, and jump in. Anyone that cares about wine in Oz needs to at least be aware of what may be at stake here.

It's more than that as well.

It just goes to show the utter failure of urban planning in Australia.

The fact there is even competition between wine growing and residential developments shows how badly we have failed.

And unfortunately, I think we've all witnessed, no matter our age, the cultural destruction of assets everywhere in Australia, because of poor planning.

Ranting here generates empathy from we like-minded people but for all of the foregoing, the devastation is, apparently, unstoppable and Constellation Wines no longer exists does it? At this point you'd possibly achieve more by trying to convince the potential suburbanites that their aspirations can only result in the desecration of sacred ground. If vengance is the only, as it so seems, last resort, you could mount a challenge to the current council at the next local government election. Though should your challenge succeed and the new council terminate the development, ratepayers would be mightily pissed off at the compensation awarded to the developers and contactors inflating their rates to almost unsustainable levels.

Isn't it about time to terminate this thread? It has achieved absolutely nothing in prevention of the despised urbanisation of a former vine growing area. Seems to me there used to be many more vineyards nearer the cbd of Adelaide than there are now. We don't all like, let alone embrace "progress" but it is inevitable.

daz wrote:Ranting here generates empathy from we like-minded people but for all of the foregoing, the devastation is, apparently, unstoppable and Constellation Wines no longer exists does it? At this point you'd possibly achieve more by trying to convince the potential suburbanites that their aspirations can only result in the desecration of sacred ground. If vengance is the only, as it so seems, last resort, you could mount a challenge to the current council at the next local government election. Though should your challenge succeed and the new council terminate the development, ratepayers would be mightily pissed off at the compensation awarded to the developers and contactors inflating their rates to almost unsustainable levels.

Isn't it about time to terminate this thread? It has achieved absolutely nothing in prevention of the despised urbanisation of a former vine growing area. Seems to me there used to be many more vineyards nearer the cbd of Adelaide than there are now. We don't all like, let alone embrace "progress" but it is inevitable.

Ian and all the other respondants to this thread please ignore Daz and keep going - as a former South Australian resident I appreciate hearing how the state and local governments keep F@@*ing up the Fleurieu and Adelaide Hills. I happen do love Mclaren Vale reds and I would like to see them continue.

Daz, I think we all wish the vinyards nearer the CBD were still there and if there was a groundswell of opinion against it at the time, such as a informative thread like this, there still might be.

Progress can be good or bad depending on how many vested interests of government donors benefit. As a general rule the less the better. If council rates have to increase to stop a bad deal for residents it might be worth it and unlikely to cost a great deal depending how original deals are structured.

And Daz - keeping posting responses like this as I am sure your comment will inspire others as it has me.

Didn't I say that I'm like-minded? Perhaps a way to try to limit or cease the urban encroachment on vineyard areas would be to lobby the state government to declare them to be heritage areas? That would be a bit more positive than just blathering and blustering on this thread, achieving nothing more than a vent.

daz wrote:Didn't I say that I'm like-minded? Perhaps a way to try to limit or cease the urban encroachment on vineyard areas would be to lobby the state government to declare them to be heritage areas? That would be a bit more positive than just blathering and blustering on this thread, achieving nothing more than a vent.

Wish it was that easy Daz. I'm assuming you read Philip White's pieces and may have looked at the various links which would paint the dire political picture in this state - the secrecy, incompetence and potential for conflicts of interest defy belief, so it's not surprising we're the last state to create an ICAC (which, when it eventually appears, may be a significantly watered down version at that). I wish I could say a change in government could improve things.

McLaren Vale thought they had an effective ally in local MP Leon Bignell, yet all his talk of protection of the wine regions and fighting for Reynella & Seaford Heights have amounted to little - cynics would say it's just another example of treating the constituents like mushrooms, keeping them in the dark and feeding them bullshit. Declared heritage areas seem to mean little as well if Stony Hill is an example - it didn't take a lot of effort to make that heritage listing disappear without any possible detractors noticing until it was too late, so what is safe?

In a state saturated with lobby groups and local governments with political connections and vested interests, there's little to no chance. At least commentary like Philip's blog and this thread keeps the awareness of this out in the open, so when things are well and truly screwed up you know exactly who to blame. As for that corporate filth Constellation Wines, no one should ever forget what they did in their time here, and it should be never allowed to happen again (although regretfully, it almost certainly will).

My 2c,
Ian

n4sir wrote:In a state saturated with lobby groups and local governments with political connections and vested interests, there's little to no chance. At least commentary like Philip's blog and this thread keeps the awareness of this out in the open, so when things are well and truly screwed up you know exactly who to blame. As for that corporate filth Constellation Wines, no one should ever forget what they did in their time here, and it should be never allowed to happen again (although regretfully, it almost certainly will).

My 2c,
Ian

Show me a democratic state, either a state in Australia or the political 'state' as a concept, that is not captured to some degree by business interests? By reducing all commodities to monetary values, the capitalist system does away with notions of "heritage", public worth, and abstract/romantic value (to the extent that these concepts cannot translate into commodities through higher prices). There ia an unrelenting push for free markets and revulsion against the "nanny state" and regulation. This is supported by much of the media, who unsurprisingly as businesses have a vested interest in free markets and deregulation.

Not having a go at anyone - just using Ian's "corporate filth" as a prompt. It's not just Constellation.

Viva la regulation!

Michael

Actually Michael, show me any state, democratic or other, that doesn't have self interest as part of its core DNA. One of the few universal truths I've come to believe in is that people, corporations and systems are neither intrinsically good or bad but default in their behaviour to what they can get away with. Which is why I also believe strongly in the need for regulatory processes that are transparent, accountable and independent of the major players in the game. Self interest can be a pain in the butt but at least it's a reliable predictor of future behaviour. I was once told that capitalism was man's exploitation of his fellow man and that communism was the exact reverse.

Cheers, Peter

Peter Schlesinger wrote:Actually Michael, show me any state, democratic or other, that doesn't have self interest as part of its core DNA. One of the few universal truths I've come to believe in is that people, corporations and systems are neither intrinsically good or bad but default in their behaviour to what they can get away with. Which is why I also believe strongly in the need for regulatory processes that are transparent, accountable and independent of the major players in the game. Self interest can be a pain in the butt but at least it's a reliable predictor of future behaviour. I was once told that capitalism was man's exploitation of his fellow man and that communism was the exact reverse.

Cheers, Peter

There are examples where corporates have acted sympathetically with the wishes of the winery/community with a view of continued/long term success, not to make a quick buck with dire consequences for the future. The most obvious examples are in Bordeaux (AXA's involvement with Chateau Pichon-Longueville Baron & Suduiraut for example), while locally there's the Hess Group with Peter Lehmann and the Thomas Schmidheiny group with Chapel Hill.

Cheers,
Ian

daz wrote: Seems to me there used to be many more vineyards nearer the cbd of Adelaide than there are now.

Speaking of which, is the Marion vinyard still there in suburban Adelaide? Last I knew it was bottled by Hamilton as a Grenache-Shiraz.

Mahmoud.

Mahmoud Ali wrote:

daz wrote: Seems to me there used to be many more vineyards nearer the cbd of Adelaide than there are now.

Speaking of which, is the Marion vinyard still there in suburban Adelaide? Last I knew it was bottled by Hamilton as a Grenache-Shiraz.

Mahmoud.

Yes, I think it's still there. Visited it a couple of years ago (2007 if I remember right). The Marion vineyard wine seems to have disappeared from Richard Hamilton's wine portfolio but as far as I can see the grapes from this vineyard are now used by Patritti Wines for a Marion Vineyard Shiraz Grenache.

"The village of Marion was first settled by Europeans in the late 1830’s. The area's rich soil produced vegetables, almonds and stone fruits and by 1838, the first vineyards were planted. When Giovanni Patritti first arrived in Australia in the mid 1920’s he decided the Marion district was the perfect place to grow grapes and setup his family wine business. It was around this time that Marion was earning the title ‘the Garden of Adelaide’. However, by the 1950’s, population growth and demand for housing meant that much of the land used for food and wine production was converted to residential land. Sadly, at this time, the vineyards surrounding Patritti winery were acquired to meet the needs of the growing community. Today, only a few tiny vineyards remain in the district; the most significant of these is the world famous council-owned Marion Vineyard. Now over 100 years old, the vineyard is an iconic reminder of the history of the district and the quality of the produce for which it was famous. In 2006, the City of Marion council decided that the last operational winery in the district (Patritti Wines) should be given the opportunity to care for the vineyard. At Patritti, the custodianship of this precious vineyard is greatly valued. The fruit is vinified at Patritti's Marion Cellars using traditional winemaking techniques, allowing the true character of the vineyard to shine through." (Patritti Wines webpage)

http://www.patritti.com.au/table-wines/ ... nge#marion

Cheers,
Mario

Thanks Mario, it's good to know that the Marion vineyard is still producing wine.

Cheers........................Mahmoud

Here's another indication from Whitey's blog that the State Government just can't be trusted to protect South Australia's wine regions from the bulldozer, announcing the softening of the planning moratorium that was imposed on development in these regions on the eve of Easter when hopefully nobody's looking/listening:

http://drinkster.blogspot.com.au/2012/0 ... block.html

Constellation's profit falls 63 pct on units sale
Published: April 5, 2012 8:46 AM
By The Associated Press

http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/cons ... -1.3644120

NEW YORK - (AP) -- Constellation Brands said Thursday that its fiscal fourth-quarter net income fell 63 percent as a result of the divesture of its Australian and U.K. wine business. But the company said a new product mix helped boost its North America sales.

A weak outlook for 2013 sent Constellation's stock down sharply. Shares of Constellation fell $2.19, or almost 9 percent, at $24.69 in premarket trading.

For the three months ended Feb. 29, the Victor, N.Y.-based wine and spirits company said it earned $103 million, or 51 cents per share. That compares with a profit of $279.8 million, or $1.32 per share, in the year-ago period.

Barossa wary of urban sprawl protection
ABC News
Updated April 24, 2012 09:04:33

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-04-24/w ... section=sa

The Barossa Council has hired a legal team to review the South Australian Government's planned protection zone.

A reworked interim development plan amendment and two new bills have been introduced to State Parliament.

Henschke slams government for new development 'threat'
by: Rebecca Puddy From:The Australian
May 03, 2012

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/na ... 6345211901

THE owners of the Henschke winery, which produces the world-famous single-vineyard Hill of Grace, have slammed the South Australian government over new zoning laws that aim to exclude the Barossa Valley and McLaren Vale wine regions from any future housing or industrial development.

Stephen Henschke yesterday said it was "ridiculous" his winery and Home Gardens Vineyard were not protected under the proposed laws.

He said the boundary drawn by the government did not follow the geographical indicator for the Barossa wine region, instead following council boundaries.

While the Hill of Grace vineyard was within the protected zone, the winery and other vineyards that produced other world-renowned wines made by the Henschke family were not. "It's the same topography, same geology and same landscape," Mr Henschke said.

If phylloxera doesn't get them then a bulldozer will. Is there a conspiracy to destroy some of our most precious wine making regions?

Closure of Accolade Wines' Reynella bottling plant in South Australia to cost 175 jobs
Meredith Booth
The Advertiser
July 24, 2012 10:08AM

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/closure-o ... 6433674368

ABOUT 175 staff at Accolade Wines' Reynella winery in South Australia have been told the bottling plant will be closed and operations moved to the Wolf Blass Winery at Nuriootpa.

An Accolade spokeswoman said staff were briefed at 10am and quickly moved offsite.

The deal between Accolade and ASX-listed Treasury Wine Estates sees both companies using each others facilities with brands, including Hardy's, Leasingham, Banrock Station and Starvedog Lane among others, to be packaged at Treasury's Wolf Blass Winery in Nuriootpa.

In return, Treasury's European-destined wines will be shipped to Accolade's packaging facility at Avonmouth in the United Kingdom for bottling "in-market".

Accolade is owned by Sydney private equity firm CHAMP Ventures which bought South Australian family business Gerard Lighting last week.

Cheers,
Ian

Wine firm cutting 175 SA jobs
ABCnews
Updated July 24, 2012 11:33:10

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-24/m ... section=sa

Accolade Wines, which has range of Australian wine labels including Hardys, says it will shed 175 jobs at Reynella in southern Adelaide.

Accolade CEO Troy Christensen said it would boost efficiencies of both Accolade Wines and TWE.

"This agreement is important for the thousands of people in Australia and globally who rely on our business, including employees, customers, grape growers and other suppliers," he said.

Mr Christensen said it meant 175 employees at Reynella will be made redundant.

"All employees made redundant will receive their full redundancy entitlements and further support in the form of outplacement services to help find new jobs," he said.

He said about 20 of the redundancies were due to a separate arrangement for Accolade Wines to outsource its Reynella warehousing and distribution to MacKenzie Hillebrand facilities at Outer Harbor in Adelaide.

"We are working with Treasury and separately with MacKenzie Hillebrand on plans that we anticipate will see us fully transitioned by January 2013," he said.

"It will allow us to put more effort into growing the sales of Australian wine in Asia and North America."

Mr Christensen said a changing market had created surplus bottling capacity, which was hampering the Australian wine industry.

"For a number of years we have researched alternatives to avoid outsourcing our Reynella bottling and distribution facility, including relocating assets within the business," he said.

"No other option delivered such long-term benefits."

Too late for Stony Hill, too late for Seaford Heights, and there are still question marks over just where the boundary lines are and how serious the Government is this time:

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sout ... 6477471453

Upper House MPs vote through McLaren Vale protection laws
Political Reporter Lauren Novakad
adelaidenow September 19, 2012
4:17PM

LAWS to protect the character of the McLaren Vale area have passed Parliament's Upper House but there are concerns over how soon the government can review the protections.

The Government introduced legislation to protect McLaren Vale and the Barossa Valley from urban sprawl in September last year.

Under the Bills, no new residential development would be allowed outside town boundaries in both districts.

This afternoon Upper House MPs passed the McLaren Vale protection Bill with some changes.

The Barossa Valley Bill is still being debated.

During debate today Family First MLC Robert Brokenshire asked Minister Gail Gago if a requirement in the Bill to review township boundaries within five years could mean the Government could start a review within a year.

Ms Gago replied this was "possible but it would be highly unlikely".

Mr Brokenshire said this showed protection of township boundaries was "only paper thin".

"Parliament has to sign off on any boundary change but a future government with its numbers can force it through," he said.
Mr Brokenshire tried to move an amendment that would prevent a review for 20 years.

Approved changes to the Bill included:

BARRING the local MP in McLaren Vale from also becoming the Minister responsible for administering the laws, to avoid a conflict of interest

REQUIRING the Government to review whether landholders adversely affected by the laws are properly compensated

ALLOWING landholders to readjust property boundaries for business purposes as long as this does not create a new allotment
The changes must now be approved by Parliament's Lower House before becoming law.