An artist's impression of what the new Allianz Stadium would look like. The stadium is built entirely on SCG Trust lands. The column and petition acted as a lightning rod for visceral public disgust over the issue, a disgust so strong that while the Herald letters page was overwhelmed with letters attacking the whole idea, it has received just one in favour. This is consistent with my experience, where I was simply bowled over by readers decrying such taxpayer-funded largesse going to the elite business of sport while so many other areas of the government's responsibilities are crying out for resources that never come. And yes, of course, there are powerful forces aligned to see that much public money being spent – and of course those forces scrambled to make their case as to why, despite appearances, it really is the most sensible thing, ever. And yet, talking privately to people involved in both the SFS and the Olympic Stadium, while they are sure their stadium deserves it, they are united that the other stadium does not.

ANZ Stadium, one of the two proposed renovation sites. Credit:Anna Kucera Look, in isolation, you can make separate arguments for doing each of those three stadiums. Chris Brown did a piece for the Tele on why the Olympic Stadium should be redone, while the chair of the SCG Trust, Tony Shepherd, penned a piece for the Herald on how the SFS had reached the end of the road and had to be replaced. (If one didn't know better, one would think the people of both stadiums have realised the political reality of this – they might get away with doing one of the remaining stadiums, but they won't get away with two.) A consistent theme of those arguing for redoing the stadiums is the economic benefits that will come with the exercise. No doubt. But there are undoubted economic benefits, and more, of doing as your humble correspondent suggested: dropping 100 x $10 million on sporting projects around the suburbs and regions, building community sporting complexes, which includes basketball, netball and tennis courts, with green fields. What would be the health benefits of revitalising the grassroots sports infrastructure for our kids, two-thirds of whom are overweight? What would be the mental health benefits of getting them involved in team sports? What would be the social benefits of getting teenagers off the street and onto the courts and fields, getting the middle-aged and old moving again? And isn't that the proper business of government, not providing infrastructure for money-making sports?

With that solution, you have a lazy $1 billion left over for all the other things crying out for government funding, and you could modify, not redo, the stadiums in question. Meantime, tell me this, my friends Tony Shepherd and Chris Brown. While you both have the ears of the movers and shakers in the halls of power, where these decisions are taken, who speaks for the non-powerful, "the countless accused, misused, strung-out ones and worse"? Who thumps the table and says the obvious. This is madness! THREE relatively modern stadiums, all within coo-ee of each other, all to be knocked down and rebuilt, in three years, at a cost of THREE-billion dollars? What are we, "government of the developers, by the developers, for the developers"? Or are we here for the people? In the face of the backlash, the government backbenchers are in revolt, as are several cabinet ministers. One of the Libs made the telling point to the ABC's Brigid Glanville: "Labor has a narrative they can use every day until the next election … 'You can't have that money for the school but you can have $2 billion on stadiums.' "

I agree. So let me make a prediction. It is possible, just possible, that this government will go ahead anyway and knock down three fine stadiums and rebuild them for $3 billion. And it is possible it can win another term of government for the coming election. But it cannot do both. How can the rest of us stop this madness in the meantime? My suggestion is we continue to inform friends and encourage them to sign the petition. And we should also write to our local member of State Parliament, whose email address you will find here. All put together, it will mean that when Premier Gladys Berejiklian – a good operator, who is generally open to logic – lands in Sydney on Friday from a visit to China, her choice will be made clear.