Category Archives: Other

Leave Otago white collar criminals ALONE, and other unfairness

AnneTolley PaulaBennett [3news.co.nz + zimbio.com]Ministers: Anne Tolley & Paula Bennett

### ODT Online Mon, 15 Jul 2013
Proceeds of crime forfeited
By Hamish McNeilly
Police have seized millions of dollars worth of assets – including almost $1 million from criminals in Otago and Southland – since a tough new law came into force. The Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act took effect on December 1, 2009. Assets worth an estimated $29 million have been forfeited, including cash ($10.48 million), properties ($13.67 million) and vehicles ($2 million).
Police Minister Anne Tolley told the Otago Daily Times she was pleased with the impact the Act was having on criminals and their activities. ”We are getting the message across that criminals will be punished for their actions, both by being locked up and by having to hand over any profits from their crimes. I think the public will be satisfied that criminals and gangs are being put out of business.”
Figures released to the ODT under the Official Information Act show 14 assets with an estimated value of $862,105.22 have been forfeited in the Southern district.
Read more

● Whereabouts of Michael Swann assets?
People can contact Dunedin police on (03) 471-4800 or via the anonymous Crimestoppers line, 0800-555-111.

****

### ODT Online Mon, 15 Jul 2013
Thousands hit in welfare shake-up
Source: NZ Herald
Thousands of people are expected to be chopped off welfare benefits as sweeping changes in New Zealand’s social security system come into force today. The reforms, which include reducing all existing benefits down to three new categories, represent the biggest upheaval in the welfare state since the Social Security Act was passed by the first Labour government, 75 years ago this September. All sickness beneficiaries, and sole parents and widows with no children under 14, are now subject to the same requirement to look for fulltime work as other unemployed people, although sickness may be a valid reason to postpone work temporarily.
Other new obligations include drug-testing for job-seekers in relevant industries, which is expected to trigger benefit cuts for up to 5800 people, and a requirement for all beneficiaries to clear outstanding warrants for arrest. About 8000 beneficiaries have arrest warrants outstanding, for issues such as unpaid fines. Unless they clear the warrants within 38 days, their benefits will be halved if they have children, or stopped completely if they do not, in what is likely to be the biggest single purge of the benefit rolls since the system was created.
Read more

****

### brianedwardsmedia.co.nz Mon, 15 July 2013
Confessions of a sentimental socialist and unkind thoughts on Paula Bennett
By Dr Brian Edwards
I generally define myself as ‘a Socialist’. This may seem at odds with living in the most expensive suburb in New Zealand, having no mortgage or other indebtedness, dining out on a regular basis, treating Rarotonga as you might treat a bach and, in general, being what people euphemistically call ‘comfortably off’. If I were a supporter of the National Party, I’d probably argue that being ‘comfortably off’ was the product of more than seven decades of application and hard work and that, if I could do it, every other able-bodied and averagely intelligent Kiwi should be able to do the same. We aren’t a Third World country after all.
Read more

Hilary in reply to Edwards
July 15th, 2013 at 18:59
One of the cruellest changes today is the end of the Widow’s Benefit. Now if your husband dies you are instantly a ‘Jobseeker’ – a welfare bludger who is expected to be ready for full time work. This is regardless of any grief, trauma, distraught teenagers, or complex legal issues you might be dealing with.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Images: 3news.co.nz – Anne Tolley, zimbio.com – Paula Bennett

65 Comments

Filed under Business, CST, DCC, DCHL, DVL, DVML, Economics, Hot air, Media, Name, New Zealand, Other, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums, Stupidity, Town planning, Urban design, What stadium

Public service causing “paralysis of democracy” with OIA requests

The following article is reproduced here in full, in the public interest.

### NZ Herald Online 5:30 AM Thursday Mar 21, 2013
Ombudsman to investigate OIA response
By David Fisher
The agency charged with reining in the power of government is to investigate the way public bodies are releasing information as citizens complain of being shut out. The Office of the Ombudsman is to begin its own investigation into the way the public service is responding to the Official Information Act as allegations are made of a “paralysis of democracy”.

The office is struggling to cope with a large increase in complaints from the public who have sought help. Deputy Ombudsman Leo Donnelly has begun writing to those who have complained saying it doesn’t have enough staff to handle the work load.

In response to a complaint from The Herald, Mr Donnelly said the office had 450 complaints it had been unable to assign to investigators because of the volume of work. He said staff were dealing with 2800 complaints.

In contrast, the Ombudsman’s office told a parliamentary select committee it finished the 2011 year with 1359 complaints and the 2012 year with 1746 complaints. Mr Donnelly said this will be a factor in an investigation into the way the act was handled across the public service.

He said the inquiry would aim to discover if the delay was caused by the way public agencies responded to requests.
He said the law stated information should be released unless there was good reason to withhold it.

A recent investigation into the Ministry of Education’s handling of requests to do with Christchurch schools raised questions about the processes used by government agencies to deal with requests.

Constitutional lawyer Mai Chen said the problems raised questions about how well public servants understood a law intended to give balance to the “David and Goliath” inequality between citizen and government. “I am concerned that officials sometimes reflect their ministers. I’m concerned some of the reticence may reflect the priorities that ministers give to compliance with legislation.” She said the government expected citizens to comply with laws and it should do so with the act. “If they don’t mean to do it, they should repeal it.”

Both the Green Party and Labour Party have spokeswomen for open government – with Labour’s Clare Curran, saying it would become a ministerial responsibility when the party was next in office. “There is an emerging crisis with our watchdog agencies,” she said. “It is a paralysis of democracy.”
NZH Link

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

7 Comments

Filed under Business, Economics, Media, Name, Other, People, Politics, Stupidity

DCC: Council meeting agenda and reports for 25 February 2013

Includes DCC Draft Annual Plan 2013/14

Agenda – Council – 25/02/2013 (PDF, 76.1 KB)

Report – Council – 25/02/2013 (PDF, 105.7 KB)
Statement of Proposal for the 2013/14 Draft Annual Plan

Report – Council – 25/02/2013 (PDF, 3.8 MB)
Statement of Proposal for the 2013/14 Draft Annual Plan – Attachment

Report – Council – 25/02/2013 (PDF, 1.5 MB)
South Dunedin Cycle Network

Report – Council – 25/02/2013 (PDF, 1.7 MB)
Tourism Dunedin 2012-2013 Half Yearly Report

Report – Council – 25/02/2013 (PDF, 750.9 KB)
Tourism Dunedin Statement of Intent 2012-2015

Report – Council – 25/02/2013 (PDF, 3.0 MB)
Statements of Intent of Group Companies

Report – Council – 25/02/2013 (PDF, 3.5 MB)
Resource Management Act Reform Bill Submission

Report – Council – 25/02/2013 (PDF, 76.0 KB)
Recording of Meetings – Proposed Change to Standing Order 3.3.7

Resolution to Exclude the Public
To be moved: “That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely, Items 18 -19.

[As relates to the previous and current meeting rounds, Property Matters and FIFA under-20 World Cup 2015.]

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

16 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, DCHL, DVL, DVML, Economics, Events, Other, Politics, Project management, Property, Sport, Stadiums, Town planning, Urban design

DCC: Standard issue for ALL staff and hangers-on

To be worn with corporate wash-and-wear crimplene pants. All heavy neck jewellery is banned, removing distraction from weak chins.

Thanks to Source.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

4 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, DCHL, DVL, DVML, Economics, Inspiration, ORFU, Other, People, Pics, Politics, Project management, Property, Sport, Stadiums, Urban design

The Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill

Comment received.

Anonymous
Submitted on 2012/06/03 at 10:48 pm

Yes and in the face of all these rorts the big trusts, Lion Foundation and Pub Charity are rallying support – encouraging their favoured grant applicants to make submissions to Govt on the new pokie bill which if passed intends doing away with all pokie trusts (and their rorts) within 12 months.

When Francis Weavers, the ex CEO of the Community Gaming Association (CGA), an organisation set up by and for the benefit of Pokie Trusts, submits an official report to the Govt claiming endemic non compliance and corruption within the industry you have got to wonder just how bad it has all become and wonder why this Govt has not shown more leadership with DIA and the industry.

Seriously, this has now grown into a serious law and order issue involving “white collar” criminals – something this Govt said it was tough on.

[ends]

See comment below to read Weavers’ report.

The Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill is a private member’s bill that was proposed by Maori Party MP for Waiariki, Te Ururoa Flavell.

It was drawn from the ballot in September 2010 and concluded its first parliamentary reading on Wednesday 9 May 2012. Parliament voted to send the bill to the Commerce Select Committee for consideration. The committee has six months to consider submissions before it must report back to parliament. The matter is scheduled to be heard in the House on 9 November 2012.

The purpose of the bill is:
a) To prevent and minimise the harm caused by gambling, including problem gambling.
b) To ensure that money from gambling benefits the community.
c) To facilitate community involvement in decisions about the provision of gambling.

Submissions close on Thursday, 21 June 2012
Have your say in creating better gambling laws by making a written submission to the Select Committee.

Submissions can be mailed to:

Secretariat
Commerce Committee
Select Committee Office
Parliament Buildings
WELLINGTON 6011

http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates/Debates/Daily/5/e/e/50HansD_20120509-Volume-679-Week-10-Wednesday-9-May-2012.htm

http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates/Debates/3/9/d/50HansD_20120509_00000024-Gambling-Gambling-Harm-Reduction-Amendment.htm

### 3news.co.nz Thu, 10 May 2012 5:30a.m.
Pokie reduction bill passes first reading
A bill giving local authorities the power to cut back on pokie machines in pubs and clubs, or get rid of them altogether, has passed its first reading in Parliament with strong support.
Read more

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

75 Comments

Filed under Business, Economics, ORFU, Other, Politics

Animal welfare #eqnz #chch

The following services are available. However, it was reported on TV3’s Nightline tonight that Christchurch animal welfare services are overwhelmed by the number of animals – many not microchipped – they have received for care. They are hoping to move some animals to alternative shelters and facilities in other centres.

Animal Control
For lost or found dogs please contact Animal Control on 021 240 8310 or visit 10 Metro Place – Open 8:00am to 6:00pm #eqnz

Microchipped animals
There is now a good microchip register in New Zealand.

Paw Justice
Text “HELP” to 4662 to donate $3 to Paw Justice towards pet food for Chch Animal Quake victims ♥

Pets on the Net
Pets on the Net http://www.petsonthenet.co.nz/ is working with the SPCA to save lives, this is a free community service. Earthquake: Petsonthenet is the nationwide database for lost and found pets, as phone service resumes please report and search for lost, found or deceased pets here. Phone reports will be accepted for those without internet access on 07 868 5581

SPCA animal emergencies
@RNZSPCA Canterbury SPCA animal emergencies 9am-4pm call 03 349 7057 ext 201 or 205; after hours call 03 366 3886 #eqnz

SPCA pet listings
Information about animal welfare and lost/found pets is available on the SPCA NZ website http://bit.ly/he8SKU #eqnz #chch

Trade Me pet listings
Go to the Trade Me home page for information on missing and found pets.

Vets Clinics
The majority of Christchurch vets clinics are now operating #chch
The veterinary clinic in Hornby is operating an After Hours service – the clinic has temporarily relocated to: Hornby Vet Centre, 7 Tower Street, Hornby
Phone 03 366 1052
Weekdays 7pm to 8am
Weekends are Saturday from 12pm thru to 8am on Monday

****

@Baxter_man (RT @OtagoLad) A foto of my new mate Sammyman Sams Nose – new @blipfoto journal entry – http://bit.ly/eWSGJD

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Leave a comment

Filed under Economics, Other, People

In defence of STV

“or How I learned to stop living the past and learned to love the vote.”

This posting is in response to the submission of Jeremy Belcher and Calvin Oaten to the DCC Electoral Review Committee, in February 2005, in which they criticise “Meeks NZ STV” and put forward their own Belcher/Oaten Method, which they claim is better than STV in several ways. A comment from Mr Oaten (with a link to the submission) was posted by Elizabeth Kerr on 22 August.

In his submission, Mr Oaten attacks single-seat STV, on the basis that it is the second preference votes of the least successful candidates that determine the outcome, and that the second preference votes of the highest polling candidates play no part in determining the final result. He calls this a “travesty of representation”.

What he fails to understand is that, under STV (in both the single- and multi-seat cases), second and subsequent preferences are merely contingency choices only; they are not additional votes having the same value (the value of unity) as first-preference votes. The system is called the single transferable vote for a reason – everyone has just one vote, which is transferable if necessary. If second preferences given for all the candidates were taken into account, i.e. if each voter had two votes, of equal value, even though only one vacancy was being filled (that were then merely tallied and the candidate with the highest combined total of first and second preferences was declared the winner), many voters would discover, too late, that their second preferences had served only to help defeat the candidate they had actually voted for, being the candidate for whom they had given their first preference. Now that would be a travesty of representation.

Mr Oaten then launches into multi-seat STV, again not realising that second and subsequent preferences are contingency choices only, not additional votes. He is critical of the fact that, in a three-seat ward, voters do not have three votes (of equal value) under STV, completely overlooking the reason why – if voters had three votes, in a worst-case scenario, the largest minority grouping (perhaps comprising only 35% of all voters), could use their three votes to elect the three candidates they wanted, with the remaining 65% of voters getting nothing. Clearly, Mr Oaten wants STV to, in effect, be the system it replaced – multiple-FPP.

Mr Oaten proposes his Belcher-Oaten Method, that he claims would correct NZ STV’s deficiencies. It is, in fact, a clumsy version of multiple-FPP. In a 3-seat ward, he wants the first three preferences to have the same weight, being the value of unity. As previously stated, this would enable the largest minority grouping to use their three votes to elect the three candidates they want, with everyone else missing out. Taking his example of Cargill 2004 on page 6 of his paper, he has determined that the total number of first, second and third preferences is 5210 + 5178+ 5127 = 15,515. To him, this is the number of valid votes. His Quota formula (on page 5) is 15515 / 3 = 5171.67 times 4 (the number of vacancies, plus 1) divided by 10 (the number of candidates), i.e. 40%, which equals 2068.668, which he has rounded up to 2069.

If the required three candidates have not attained this quota, then the total number of fourth preferences are assigned to the candidates on a pro rata basis according to his formula (on page 7). For Teresa Stevenson, therefore, the calculation is 327 / 4927 = 0.0663689 times 327 = 21.702, which he has rounded up to 22. In other words, voters have multiple votes (value 1), equal to the number of vacancies, plus further votes, if necessary, assigned on a pro rata basis, i.e. at less than the value of unity (327 votes, that he now calls preference votes, become 22 votes).

He calls his method “Proportional STV that reveals the true will of the People”. Surely he jests. First, it is not STV – it is a multiple-vote system (not a single vote system), and no votes are transferred; preferences are merely tallied.

Second, it is not proportional representation, because it is essentially multiple-FPP (with additional pro rata votes beyond the nth preference in a n-seat ward). Taking his example, three people he dislikes, because they share “political, social, lifestyle, or cultural associations or sympathies” (page 4, fourth bullet point), being Stevenson, Doug Hall and Paul McMullen, fill the three seats. In Cargill 2004, under STV, the three winners each obtained 25% of the votes, meaning 75% of the total of votes were effective in helping to elect a candidate, and they were quite different from each other. Under the Belcher-Oaten Method, the three winners are politically / socially aligned (according to him), but are elected with a total of only 7216 votes (plus 217 pro rata votes [22 + 195]) out of a total of 15,515 votes (plus 217 pro rata votes), i.e. on only 46.51% of the total of votes!! This means his Quota formula has no rational electoral basis, which leads to a concomitant conclusion that his method is well short of being mathematically rigorous.

Consequently, third, far from revealing the true will of the people, his method grotesquely distorts that will. He simply hasn’t clicked to the fact that the 987 voters who gave a second preference, and the 876 voters who gave a third preference, to McMullen (for example), would have, in many cases, helped to defeat their most preferred candidate, such as Paul Hudson or Michael Guest. Although it would be transparent, it is hardly fair, accurate or democratic. And once those voters see what they’ve done (because of the transparency), they’ll never express second or subsequent preferences again, and then we’ll be back to FPP – actually, we would have, by default, a close approximation of the Single NON-Transferable Vote in a multi-seat ward (a system, previously used in Japan, that produces unequal representation, or no representation at all, for voters).

Mr Oaten states that the first preferences of the highest polling candidates are never looked at (page 3, paragraph immediately above the table, and in a posting dated 22 August (at 11.35 a.m.)). That is simply not true. For example, once Stevenson attained the quota, her keep value was recalculated (at iteration 3) as 0.98857…, and was recalculated as the count progressed. Her final keep value was 0.66775… That means, at the conclusion of the count, she had kept 66.78% of all her votes, and the remaining 33.22% had been transferred to the second and subsequent preferences on her votes (both her first-preference votes, and those votes she acquired along the way), to help elect other candidates.

I suspect Mr Oaten laments the fact that, in Cargill in 2004, he was excluded from the count at the same time Stevenson was elected (at iteration 2), which meant he was unable to benefit from any second preferences given for him on her 1,313 papers. But, at iteration 3, Alan McDonald only received 104 papers from her (value 1.89 votes), Steve Young only received 156 papers from her (value 1.78 votes) and even Jo Galer and Nicola Holman only received 202 and 200 papers, respectively, from her (value 2.31 votes and 2.28 votes, respectively). The simple fact of the matter is, Mr Oaten was always destined for an early exit, because only 142 people (out of 5,210) voted for him. Not even the Belcher-Oaten Method would have saved him.

In conclusion, I commend the DCC for creating the 11-seat Central Ward. What this means is that any candidate who receives one-twelfth (8.33%) of all votes cast [45% of (say) 65,000 electors = 29,250 x 0.833 = (say) 2,400 votes] will be elected. Any group of voters, comprising 8.33% of all voters, will elect a candidate to represent them, regardless of who larger groups of voters may want.

Click here for a paper that explains how single-seat STV works, and the rationale behind the system. (PDF)

Click here to see a paper that describes multi-seat STV, and the rationale hehind the system. (PDF)

Click here to see a paper that describes how single transferable votes are counted, and how individual voters can work out how their vote was used. (PDF)

Click here to see a paper that explains STV to voters (PDF).

Click here to see a paper that reconstructs in meticulous detail how the votes cast in the Cargill Ward in 2004 were counted. (PDF)

Click here to see the guide prepared for the Department of Internal Affairs, the Society of Local Government Managers Electoral Working Party and Local Government New Zealand (PDF)

Author: Steve.

Posted by Paul Le Comte

34 Comments

Filed under Inspiration, Other, Politics

A timely reminder

For those who visit and/or participate in this public forum on the Stadium, you will appreciate that I will accept a wide range of opinions from both sides of the camp. This is good for a robust conversation about this development.

However this is a timely reminder that although I set this site up as a forum for free and frank discussion, I do not have the time to check every single comment made on this site, and thus it is a place for people to moderate their own conversations – just as you would if you were talking face to face with people.

Unless you have the facts 100% correct about someone in particular (with the result that your comments could be defamatory), I would respectfully request that you keep your comments and thoughts to yourself. If you have checked these facts and continue to believe them to be true, and then in the public interest you wish these to be published, by all means contact me first.

I do not have the time to fend off lawyers because some are prepared to make cheap throw away lines. Unfortunately if we are unable to do so, I will be forced to close comments on this site.

Come on folks, you are all aware of the rules of life.

Have a great day, cheers

Paul

Leave a comment

Filed under Disinformation, Hot air, Other, Politics, Stupidity

And we love talking

Hi all,

I’m not much into back-room secrets here at What if?, there are some things that go no further than Elizabeth and I who are the only two who administer this site such as email addresses etc (just for your piece of mind), but some stuff I am more than happy to share with you.

The statistics are one thing we are very happy to share with you folk. As you all know I started this as a place for criticism and discussion around the design and architecture of the building. It bubbled along nicely for a long time, then the day politics entered the fray, all hell broke loose. Some time over the last day or two we have reached a milestone for a single issue small city issue – 50,000 visitors.

Some folk can’t believe I haven’t had advertising on this site given the traffic it generates (still pretty small really), others have accused me of being in the pocket of the CST. Unfortunately I haven’t made a single dime from this site, and I’d hate to think of the time Elizabeth and I have put in (not to mention the contributions you have all made).

The chart is generated by WordPress on the statistics of visitor numbers. As you can see over the last few months things really have taken off and this site is now averaging a stunning 7500+ visitors a month (we haven’t yet finished this month either!).

stats

So in the light of reaching 50,000 visitors to a site about a single issue (well not lately) in a small part of the world, cheers all and hope you are getting as much out of it as we are.

Thanks

Paul Le Comte
Founder & co-AdminP

2 Comments

Filed under Design, Disinformation, Economics, Fun, Hot air, Inspiration, Other, Politics, Site, Stadiums, STS, Town planning

Woodlouse bloat + Farry foam

### D Scene 6-5-09 (page 3)
Michael’s boast
By Ryan Keen

If the new stadium gets built and is the rampant success for the city that all its supporters hope it will be, we’ll all know who to thank – Michael Woodhouse, National MP. Let’s just be clear – that’s according to him. In one of the most shamelessly self-serving press releases (and that’s saying something) to be press released in recent memory, Woodhouse heaps plenty of credit on himself for the stadium getting as far as it has.
{continues}

### Media release (Apr 30, 2009) Stadium Great Opportunity for Dunedin

Register to read D Scene online at http://fairfaxmedia.newspaperdirect.com/

### D Scene 6-5-09 (page 8)
Stadium in court again
By Michelle Sutton

Former Queenstown property developer – and stadium opponent – Basil Walker is ready to argue Otago ratepayers have been “conned”. He takes his argument to the High Court in Dunedin today.
{story continues}

### D Scene 6-5-09 (page 9)
The Insider: Interview by Michelle Sutton
Farry’s full steam ahead

Carisbrook Stadium Trust chairman Malcolm Farry has often likened the pursuit of the project to climbing Everest. Despite signing a construction contract last week, he still feels like he’s only halfway to the top.
{interview continues}

Leave a comment

Filed under Architecture, Concerts, CST, Design, Disinformation, Economics, Fun, Geography, Hot air, Inspiration, Media, Name, Other, Politics, Site, Sport, Stadiums, STS, Stupidity

Where to for What if?

First of all I would like to thank every single person who has contributed to this blog/forum on the debate surrounding the development of a new multi-purpose stadium in our town. From those whose opinions I don’t agree with, I thank you for voicing your concerns. For those who have contributed actual expert knowledge, and those who just wanted to put their two cents worth in, again thank you very much, this is your forum. More latterly we must all thank the StS for imploding (several times) and allowing us to have Elizabeth Kerr on board as the resident dissenting voice. I think you will all agree that this site is much richer for the range of material now presented on the topic, and that is in no small part down to the hard work of Elizabeth.

When I first started this blog (and some with their heads up their neither regions won’t remember this), the original intention was to start a discussion around the design and function of the building. I was critical of the form (and thus function) of the thing, and while it is not our Sydney Opera House or even Water Cube, the subsequent refining of the concept has resulted in a much greater product (although still far from my wishes – but then I don’t have half a billion to give to the project). The site was exclusively about the design, I wanted to keep the politics out of it altogether, as I had seen the exceedingly unpleasant fights that take place on the NZ political blog scene. But this didn’t really interest anyone, or perhaps the debate wasn’t hot enough back then, and the site kept turning over with 5-20 interested souls a day visiting the site (bless them). However as soon as I took the bait from Peter Entwisle one day (thanks Peter) and the site took on a political feel, things went a little crazy. I remember looking at the stats one day, thinking 85 people looked at this today – madness. This may also surprise many, but it wasn’t until I was pigeon holed as ‘the pro-stadium guy’ that I actually took on the role, I was for the idea but still wasn’t convinced of the merits of it.

Well that is long in the past, and while the discussions have come and gone, there has been thrust and parry, jibes and compliments, on the whole this site has been one of the main stopping points for reasoned argument on the merits and concerns of the stadium development. Once public opinion really got heated up by the frenzied campaign of the StS, the stats went through the roof, and journalists, experts and politicians also referenced and visited this site, contributing from time to time (thanks Richard).

I guess what I have been most proud of, has been the fact that this site has become a forum for ideas, to be debated, applauded, shot down, chewed through, rejected, acclaimed, and it’s all been about Dunedin. I can’t remember another site like this, about Dunedin exclusively, and many of you may well know that there is another venture on the way. This has enabled Dunedin folk (or concerned and informed citizens of NZ) to contribute a voice, whether I like it or not. Unlike the StS site which has engaged in banning and censoring those whom it doesn’t agree with, this site, despite its obvious Pro Stadium stance, has been a place where free and frank discussions can take place, about the place we love to live in.

This isn’t the end of What if?. It is however me finally having the time to thank everyone for their contribution to this argument, whatever side of the fence you sit on. Below is a chart of the stats for this site. If you are involved in any of the big weblogs in NZ, these are laughable, but to me and for such a single issue site, I think this is pretty bloody impressive. I could hardly see Kiwiblog surviving for over 2 years and actually increasing the numbers on a SINGLE ISSUE only.

Thanks very much everyone, it’s been a blast, I hope you have all taken something from this site, be it that South Dunedin isn’t going to float away (I can honestly assure you all of that), through to the still tight economics of the development.

Site Stats

This graph shows the cumulative monthly ‘unique’ visitors to this site. Going from 155 average visitors in the very first month March 2007, through to an average of 6,500 April 2009. There have been 308 Posts, which were commented on 1,409 times over 21 Categories, using 1,006 Tags.

And what does this all show us, that you want to talk about the town you all live in, that is a great thing, cheers all.

5 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Design, Disinformation, Economics, Hot air, Inspiration, Media, Other, Politics, Stadiums, STS, Stupidity, Town planning

Sports development in limbo following court action

Unbelievably this isn’t Dunedin but in the Hawkes Bay. I had to really watch the news hard, because I thought I was listening to new news about Forsyth Bar Stadium, but no, seems the NIMBYS (yes reductionism for the sake of argument) want their day in court.

http://www.3news.co.nz/News/Region/HawkesBay/Hastings-sports-development-in-limbo-following-court-action/tabid/753/articleID/100573/cat/148/Default.aspx

Go figure. I wonder if these are the same orchardists who wish to dump 10m trays of Kiwifruit?

Leave a comment

Filed under Design, Disinformation, Economics, Hot air, Media, Other, Politics, Stadiums, Stupidity, Town planning

Crs Acklin and Collins not keen to meet

### ODT Online Sat, 11 Apr 2009
Councillors reject stadium meeting

By Chris Morris

Two Dunedin city councillors invited to explain the merits of the planned $198 million Awatea St stadium at a public meeting in South Dunedin have rebuffed the offer, saying their views would not be listened to.

Read more online here;

Read more

****

The Caversham Presbyterian Hall is located at 61 Thorn Street.

7 Comments

Filed under Economics, Geography, Hot air, Inspiration, Other, Politics, Site, Stadiums

"People: work very hard NOW"

MAINTAIN MOMENTUM

YOU SHOULD – everybody for or against the stadium – LOBBY HARD by going public at every opportunity there is to tell DCC, ORC, CST and (maybe) those in central government about the benefits or non benefits of the Otago stadium project.

Some of you are very vocal, you’re writing lots of letters, speaking to lots of people and working on other strategies in the greater city, continuously so. Thank you. Your energy is remarkable.

MORE WORK TO DO, because the stadium project is still fluid.

How does the stadium project affect you and the people you know or have responsibility for?
SPELL IT OUT

Your arguments should not be based on HOT AIR. Your arguments should be well stated: plainly stated and based on FACT or LACK OF FACT you have discovered about the project. Either way you will help to show what the exact status of the project is in your local community.

Do you feel you have been consulted properly on the stadium project?
SPELL IT OUT

If you haven’t stopped reading this, SAY WHY the stadium project will or won’t work practically, economically and or socially for the city.

****

Special note to those against the stadium:
A rates revolt is possibly too slow and too late to make a difference to what will unfold at DCC before and after Easter 2009.

REPEAT QUESTION: StS are you heading to judicial review. If we ask often enough it could happen, right?

2 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Concerts, CST, Design, Disinformation, Economics, Geography, Hot air, Inspiration, Media, Name, Other, Politics, Site, Stadiums, STS, Stupidity, Town planning

StS Public Meeting 29 March Town Hall

### ODT Thu, 19 Mar 2009
Stadium meeting to allow ‘a wider range of perspectives’

By David Loughrey

A line-up of “unscripted” speakers at a meeting staged by the Stop the Stadium group will provide a wider range of perspectives on the stadium issue, organiser Bev Butler says.

Read More Online Here…

Read more

1 Comment

Filed under Economics, Geography, Hot air, Media, Name, Other, Politics, Site, Stadiums, STS, Town planning

Will it float? Anthonie Tonnon on Stadium

### Critic March 17, 2009 16:31
The Forsyth Barr Stadium at University Plaza – more than just a catchy name?

The bitter debate over the proposed Awatea Street stadium has focused on Dunedin’s future. Proponents believe it is a desperately needed boost to save Dunedin from becoming Invercargill. Others believe it will bankrupt the city in a municipal bout of small-person syndrome. But if you’re not from Dunedin, you probably don’t give a shit about the town, right? So, now it looks likely to go ahead, what will the stadium mean to you? And what will Dunedin and the campus look like in three years?

Read more

Leave a comment

Filed under Concerts, CST, Economics, Geography, Hot air, Media, Name, Other, Politics, Site, Stadiums, STS, Stupidity

**A Call to Action**

{Sorry this has nothing (or does it) to do with the Stadium development, but it is too important to not put up on this site.  Here’s hoping that the many visitors to this site each day take the time to email those in power to get them to commit to such a wonderful initiative.}

 

Dear Colleagues, Students and Supporters.

You will know that the Polytechnic and Otago University are bringing their design departments together to form a new Otago Institute of Design. By pooling our expertise and resources we are creating a centre of excellence for design right here in Dunedin. This initiative will also take collaboration between design educators across NZ and the design industry to a new level, for instance, with our high-tech prototype and modeling facility that will be the most comprehensive currently available in Australasia.
The Otago Institute of Design will be sited at the old Wickliffe Site in Albany Street, Dunedin

However, this project is now at risk. Otago Polytechnic’s contribution of $12.5M to construction of the Otago Institute of Design building was to be funded by a Central Government loan.

The suspensory loan had reached its final stages of approval. However, the Government now appears to be reconsidering whether to provide this loan at all. We appreciate that there are many demands for Government support, but our message is that for the sake of design, and for the Otago region industries, and NZ generally, building this Design Institute is a priority.
Without this funding the building cannot go ahead.

By funding this project, the Government will ensure that we can:
. Make the most of all of the money and effort invested in the Otago Institute of Design so far
. Provide an immediate boost for local jobs and the economy through the building of the Institute.
. Produce graduates who have studied within one of NZ’s most innovative design environments and can help drive the long-term future of design in New Zealand.

We urgently need your messages of support to reach key Government Ministers responsible for this decision, encouraging them to fund the project. We need you to act now. We have said that this project has great community support, but we need the Government to know this is not just an assertion by Otago Polytechnic.

If you are willing to help, please spare just a few of minutes to write a letter or an email – we need business and personal support:

Email the Minister of Finance Hon. Bill English
and Prime Minister, Hon John Key
and let them know that this is a must do project for design and for Dunedin City.
Please cc. Hon Anne Tolley, Minister for Education
and bc. to Phil Ker, CEO Otago Polytechnic

Below are some points you might like to draw on, but the key messages which we need to get across are:

  • The building is much-needed infrastructure for the Otago Institute of Design (and will create space to allow important developments in the wider Polytechnic and University campus)
  • The creative industries are important to the economic future of Dunedin and the whole of New Zealand
  • There has already been significant investment by government in the development of design in Dunedin (see attachment: $6.27 million). Dunedin can be a centre of design excellence, and we are well on the way – lets not stop that progress.
  • Dozens of Otago and New Zealand wide businesses and institutions have already given much support to this – we do not want to see them let down

Alistair Regan

Download the PDF “WHY THE OTAGO INSTITUTE OF DESIGN SHOULD GO AHEAD… “

10 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Design, Economics, Hot air, Inspiration, Media, Other, Stupidity, Town planning

StS didn't know the cost all along???

Hello…

### ODT Online Tue, 10 Mar 2009
By David Loughrey

Stadium appeal dropped

Stop the Stadium has dropped its Environment Court appeals against the district plan and roading changes necessary for the stadium project, just days before preliminary hearings were to begin. The group’s president, Bev Butler, yesterday said the cost of the appeal would have been at least $200,000, making it “imprudent” to continue.

Read More Online Here…

Full ODT link

****

Fairyland just went crunch. Best rule out the judicial review while we’re at it. AWAIT the public meeting, after all, according to Bev Butler on Newstalk ZB, “Reality must intervene.”

Leave a comment

Filed under Economics, Hot air, Media, Other, Politics, Stadiums, STS, Stupidity, Town planning

Whatever next? Available processes…

Last year and this, speaking with resource management practitioners (planners) at Dunedin and Christchurch, some of whom also act as planning commissioners, it was easily established that the Otago stadium project could not be stopped via the plan change process.

Refer to Dunedin City Council’s Plan Change 8 – Stadium (PC8) and the Notice of Requirement – Harbour Arterial (DIS-2008-3). Link

On reviewing the Council’s applications for PC8 and the NoR, and listening to points of view of potential submitters, the practitioners explained that to participate in the plan change process might alter, most likely for the good, aspects of the plan change documentation and subsequent effects. Fair enough.

This information was made available to several parties within the submission period, including the management committee of Stop the Stadium Inc.

Since the plan change hearings, and following receipt of the commissioners’ decisions for PC8 and the NoR, Stop the Stadium has gone on to lodge appeals with the Environment Court – most properly it seems, not as a ‘delaying tactic’.

Recently, the organisation’s president Bev Butler said an approach had been made to Chen Palmer, the only specialist Public Law firm in New Zealand. There are indications that Stop the Stadium is investigating whether to seek a judicial review at the High Court in relation to council decision-making processes under the Local Government Act. Time will tell. As will finance.

OH DEAR GOD. 9 March 2009. Stop the Stadium has issued a press release to confirm it has withdrawn its appeals to the Environment Court. If intending to seek a judicial review, on who knows what grounds – as yet, or if – then things get interesting. Meantime don’t hold your breath, people.

****

The Environment Court is the primary judicial decision-making body under the RMA, and is at the same level as the District Court. The Environment Court hears appeals from people who disagree with RMA-related decisions made by local councils. The Court can enforce their decision on a person, company or organisation. Link

The Court can be asked to overturn any council decision to do with a plan or resource consent application.

If you disagree with a decision from the Environment Court, you can appeal to the High Court. Any appeal is considered on points-of-law only, rather than a reconsideration of all the matters that were considered by the Environment Court in making its decision.

****

Judicial review is the review by a Judge of the High Court of a decision to determine whether it was according to law, proper procedure, fair and reasonable. Link

Judicial review is not the same as an appeal.

Judicial review is an enquiry into the process by which the decision was made, rather than the merits of the decision itself. The grounds for judicial review include mistakes of law, taking account of irrelevant considerations (or failing to consider relevant matters), or having insufficient information to reach a certain decision.

The judicial review of a decision-making process by a local authority may only be sought if the option of an appeal under the RMA is not available (section 296 RMA).

All judicial reviews heard in the High Court may be appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court will scrutinise the decision-making process and, if it finds errors, usually send the decision back to the decision-maker for correction.

****

The classic theory of judicial review is that it is an important restraint on the exercise of public power. By this theory, judicial review imposes upon all decision-makers standards that are inherent in a democracy and embraced by the rule of law. The role of the courts to uphold the rule of law and restrain the exercise of power has long been articulated.

Link to Judicial Review – An Update by Charles Chauvel, Partner, Minter Ellison Rudd Watts (Thursday, 04 July 2002).

The principal difficulty in determining whether a decision-maker has acted illegally occurs in those circumstances where the decision-maker has been granted a broad decision-making discretion. However, the courts’ jurisdiction is not ousted merely because the statute confers upon a decision-maker a discretionary power.

The courts maintain a reluctance to interfere in the exercise of a discretion that has been granted to a decision-maker. Even so, the courts maintain their right as the ultimate arbiter of what is lawful.

****

Relationship between Local Government Act and RMA
Visit the Quality Planning website here.

The Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) represented the first major revision of local government law for 28 years. This review was also part of a wider legislative reform, which included the reform of earlier legislation to create the Local Electoral Act 2001, and the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 (which replaced the Rating Powers Act 1988).

The reforms encourage local authorities to focus on promoting the social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being of their communities, consistent with the principles of sustainable development. Local authorities in consultation with their communities now have greater discretion in the choices they make about what services will be provided, and the manner in which these services will be undertaken. The very prescriptive provisions of the previous Act have been replaced by a general form of empowerment.

The LGA requires local authorities to consult with their local communities and Crown Agencies to determine what public goods and services the community wants provided. This process leads to the development of ‘community outcomes’. These outcomes are then translated into a plan of action referred to as the long-term council community plan (LTCCP).

This is a ten-year strategic planning document, and covers all local authority functions from financial planning and economic development initiatives, to social service provisions such as libraries, housing and community facilities. LTCCPs must be reviewed triennially.

The Resource Management Act (1991) establishes a hierarchy of policy documents from national instruments to regional policy statements, and regional and district plans. This ‘hierarchy’ and requirement to ensure consistency between plans, is to promote sustainable management and ensure integrated management of natural and physical resources at a national, regional and local level.

The following FAQ were prepared by John McSweeney and Sandra Proctor from the Ministry for the Environment; and peer reviewed by Fiona Illingsworth from the Department of Internal Affairs and Jane Johnston from Local Government New Zealand. More

What regard must be given to the decision-making and consultation principles under the LGA when following specified processes in the RMA?

The decision making and consultation principles (sections 76-82) of the LGA are designed to apply only where no requirements are specified in other relevant local government legislation. For example, a decision about notifying a resource consent application would be made under the processes of the Resource Management Act, not under the LGA.

A general principle of law is that specific provisions contained in one Act override the general provisions contained in another Act. The RMA contains specific requirements pertaining to resource consents and decision making, whereas the LGA has general consultative principles that must be applied when consulting with the local community. As there are no specific processes for carrying out consultation under the RMA about how the community should be consulted when preparing a policy statement or plan, local authorities will be required to apply the consultative provisions contained in the LGA.

What are the differences between the decision making processes in the RMA and the LGA?

The RMA has a codified submissions and hearings process, where the Act sets out the process and timeframes to be following, the manner in which hearings must be conducted, and the matters that must be taken into account in making decisions. This quasi judicial process allows for RMA decisions to be challenged on policy grounds to the Environment Court. Any submitter or further submitter can also be a ‘party to proceedings’ in the Environment Court.

RMA decisions can also be challenged in the High Court on points of law and process. For example, decisions relating to whether resource consent applications should, or shouldn’t be notified.

The LGA does not codify the way consultation and decision making is undertaken by local authorities. Each local authority must however ensure that its decision making processes ‘promote compliance’ with sections 76-82. The effect of this is that a local authority’s decision-making processes must:

* involve consideration of all reasonably practical options;
* involve consideration of the views of persons likely to be affected by a decision;
* identify any significant inconsistency between the decision and any policy or plan adopted by a local authority;
* provide opportunities for Maori to contribute to the processes; and
* promote compliance with the principles of consultation, including giving interested persons a reasonable opportunity to present their views.

The LGA contains consultation principles that should be applied when consulting with the public. This is not a mandatory requirement as it is under the RMA.

Members of the public can only challenge LGA decisions in the High Court on the basis that the correct process has not been followed or on a point of law. Legal challenges cannot be made on the merits of the decision. This is the main point of difference between RMA and LGA decisions.

Other sources of information include:
Local Government KNOWHOW guides to the Local Government Act: produced by SOLGM, LGNZ and the Department of Internal Affairs.

****

The High Court, established in 1841 and known as the Supreme Court until 1980, is of pivotal importance in New Zealand’s justice system. It has general jurisdiction and responsibility, under the Judicature Act 1908, for the administration of justice throughout New Zealand. This includes maintaining the consistent application of the rule of law, supervision of other courts and tribunals, and the judicial review of administrative power. It has jurisdiction over both criminal and civil matters, and deals with cases at first instance or on appeal from other courts and certain tribunals.

It comprises the head of the New Zealand Judiciary, the Chief Justice and up to 55 other Judges (which includes the Judges of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal). In addition, Associate Judges of the High Court (formerly known as Masters of the High Court) supervise the Court’s preliminary processes in most civil proceedings, and have jurisdiction to deal with summary judgement applications, company liquidations, bankruptcy proceedings, and some other types of civil proceedings. The High Court Judges and Associate Judges are based in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch, but also travel on circuit to Whangarei, Hamilton, Rotorua, Gisborne, New Plymouth, Napier, Wanganui, Palmerston North, Nelson, Blenheim, Greymouth, Timaru, Dunedin and Invercargill. The Court also has registries in Masterton and Tauranga. Court staff in those centres are responsible for supporting the management of cases before the Court and, as Registrars and Sheriffs of the Court, are responsible for exercising certain judicial powers, and enforcing the Court’s judgements and orders. Link

See comment on definitions

7 Comments

Filed under Other, Politics, Stadiums, STS, Town planning

Support Highlanders or lose them, Reid

### ODT Fri, 6 Mar 2009

By Steve Hepburn

Highlanders chief executive Richard Reid says people in the South need to realise there is a risk they may lose the Highlanders.

Full ODT link

****

So it is too risky to build the stadium

ODT Online comment by dunedinBlogAl on Fri, 06/03/2009 – 9:12am.

If there is a risk that Dunedin may lose the Highlanders, then it is too risky to build the new Stadium. The financial viability of the Stadium relies on large crowds at rugby. But projected crowds are based on those during the golden years of Otago Rugby in the 1990’s. Otago Rugby has now lost its fan base. The fundamental problem expressed by Richard Reid is the same as that expressed by opponents of the Stadium: Dunedin just does not have a big enough population base to support it. It is notable that Richard Reid has waited until the decision has been made to proceed with the Stadium, before expressing these views. Over the last couple of years, Otago Rugby has been very quiet about the crowd numbers at Carisbrook.

Losing the Highlanders franchise

ODT Online comment by bensan on Fri, 06/03/2009 – 9:35am.

As Peter Chin pointed out on TV some time ago, it would make the Stadium more marginal.
There is a complete denial of this statement in the Council since not one member has taken any notice of Peter Chin’s statement.
Do they really know what they are doing, taking this project on when there is so little interest in the Highlanders? The winning streak of this team is not exactly well known and to be frank, having this group of dubious rugby players as a draw card for the stadium is to say the least, being extremely optimistic.

2 Comments

Filed under Economics, Geography, Hot air, Media, Name, Other, Politics, Stadiums

StS appeal found, at Environment Court

### ODT Thu, 5 Mar 2009

By Mark Price

Stop the Stadium’s missing “notice of appeal” against the Dunedin City Council’s rezoning of land for the stadium has been found – at the Environment Court in Christchurch.

Read More Online Here…

ODT link

1 Comment

Filed under Media, Name, Other, Politics, Stadiums, STS, Stupidity

Same time, another place

The city of Regina (Canada) is having its own stadium debate.
Here’s some cold comfort.

Regina was established in 1882 when the transcontinental railroad was constructed. On 19 June 1903, with a population of more than 3,000, Regina was incorporated as a city. Now Regina has about 200,000 inhabitants. It is the capital city of the province of Saskatchewan and is located about 250 km south of the city of Saskatoon. Regina’s most popular daily newspaper is The Leader Post. The city is home to the University of Regina. Regina was the headquarters of the North West Mounted Police for 28 years.

### The Regina Leader-Post February 25, 2009

Exclusive Series: State of the Stadium
Regina needs partners for new stadium: Fiacco

By Ian Hamilton

REGINA — Paying for a new or renovated stadium in Regina may end up being a political football.

The City of Regina is contemplating upgrades to Mosaic Stadium — home of the CFL’s Saskatchewan Roughriders, among others — that could cost up to $120 million. But instead of spending huge money and ending up with a renovated stadium, the city also is contemplating a new facility with a price tag that could reach $350 million.

No matter which project is chosen, the city is looking for a teammate or two to help pay the bills.

“We own the building, it’s our facility, so we have to be a major player,” says Mayor Pat Fiacco. “But we can’t do it alone. I’m not going to do it on the backs of property taxpayers alone.

“There are programs out there, provincially and federally, that allow us to access those funds so that everyone participates. We’ll certainly be looking at what those opportunities look like.”

The idea of government involvement has generated some opposition.

David Seymour, the director of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy’s Saskatchewan office and a senior policy analyst at the think-tank, believes governments shouldn’t fund anything related to entertainment. That allows taxpayers “to make their own decisions and transfer their own revenue to funding something like a stadium.”

Seymour admits there are projects that call for government involvement, but this isn’t one of them.

“It may be true that the only way that Regina will end up with a stadium on that scale is through having a government injection or subsidy, but that very fact is telling you that people by their voluntary choices just don’t value it highly enough,” Seymour says.

“What they should do is look at what is the best stadium they can make a business case for and say, ‘Look, this is what the people apparently want. This is what they’re prepared to pay for,’ rather than ask others to pay on their behalf.”

The Saskatchewan director of the Canadian Taxpayers Foundation also has reservations about the idea.

Lee Harding would like to see the city hold a referendum featuring fully costed options and a set limit on taxpayer contributions. The option the public picks then would be constructed.

While some taxpayers will support a costly project like a domed stadium, Harding would like to see other financial backers get involved.

Fiacco is one of the driving forces behind a new stadium, primarily because of what it can offer Regina.

“We want a thriving community,” he says. “It’s about choice . . . It’s for the public good and we (on city council) have an obligation as an elected group of officials to do what’s right for the public good.”

Read more

Leave a comment

Filed under Design, Economics, Geography, Media, Name, Other, Politics, Stadiums, Town planning

Govt move sways vote on stadium

Use of the word underwriting is interesting.

### ODT Wed, 4 Mar 2009

By Rebecca Fox and Mark Price

The Otago Stadium project got a $52.5 million shot in the arm yesterday after an 11th-hour decision by the Government.

• How they voted

In favour: Stephen Cairns, Crs Doug Brown, Duncan Butcher, Sam Neill, Gretchen Robertson, Stephen Woodhead.
Against: Crs Michael Deaker, Gerry Eckhoff, Bryan Scott, David Shepherd.
Absent: Cr Louise Croot.

Read More Online Here…

Read more

6 Comments

Filed under Economics, Hot air, Inspiration, Media, Name, Other, Politics, Stadiums, Stupidity, Town planning

Today, Bev to planet Mars…

Well, as good as…

Public Forum Speech to ORC
Tuesday March 3, 2009

By Bev Butler

The Otago Regional Council’s mission and purpose is to protect and enhance our natural environment and resources. You should not even be contemplating borrowing $37.5 million to help fund a new stadium. Your own Chair has expressed the view that you should stick to your core business – but only after you fund the rugby stadium. The logic of this defies me! Put simply, you have no business in being involved in this project.

At the last Public Forum, Tony Borick, on behalf of the Ratepayers and Householders’ Association, spoke to you of his concerns regarding the legality of the Otago Regional Council donating $37.5 million to the stadium project. He outlined his concerns referring to sections of the Local Government Act 2002. There has been much debate as to whether the Otago Regional Council is going beyond their mandate of what constitutes core services for a Regional Council. As a follow up to these concerns, Stop The Stadium Inc is currently seeking legal advice from ChenPalmer (specialists in Public Law, Wellington) in relation to the legality of any decision of the Otago Regional Council to commit funding to the stadium project, and that depending on the advice received, Stop The Stadium may take further legal action.

You have ignored the views of the ratepayers who have indicated in the only independent professional survey to date that they do not support ratepayer funding for the project. I would like to now table this survey where 78.3% of citizens with an opinion are opposed to public funding of the stadium. This is overwhelming and the data for this survey was collected four months ago. Since then the economic crisis has worsened and I believe the percentage opposed has probably increased further.You are required by law to be prudent and conservative guardians of our resources. Should you vote to grant $37.5 million to the stadium project you would show yourselves to be the very opposite.

Recently, Stop The Stadium wrote to all leaders of political parties requesting an opportunity to meet with them to present the other side of the stadium story. Responses are just beginning to come in. We received a letter from Mr Peter Dunne, the Minister of Revenue and Leader of the United Future Party. In this letter, Mr Dunne states: “I have noted your comments about local opposition to this proposal the parallel which comes to mind is the development of the Westpac Regional Stadium, which occurred only on the basis of strong regional support. If that kind of support is not forthcoming in this instance, then I think that it would be inappropriate for the Government to be involved.” Mr Dunne rightly recognises that projects need community support, which is so lacking in this instance. It is a travesty of democracy in Dunedin when the overwhelming majority of citizens have persistently told both councils through public submissions during the consultation process, letters to the editor and the University survey that they do not support the stadium.

When I spoke in the public forum on 11 February 2009, I tabled a Stop The Stadium press release outlining that $8.7 million went “missing” from the Carisbrook Stadium Trust’s private funding commitments between May and November last year. This morning we read in the Otago Daily Times that a Dunedin City councillor has heard rumours that some of the private funding contracts are in fact dummy contracts. I wish to add to this rumour the following and in doing so if these rumours are unfounded I will not hesitate to give a full apology. Recently an unnamed Dunedin businessman told me that people were being approached to sign private funding contracts and being told they wouldn’t need to be bound by them – that they just needed to have signatures on the contracts. If this rumour is correct then this is scandalous. One way to lay rumours like this to rest is to insist that all the private funding contracts are independently reviewed. Why hasn’t this already been done? One wonders! Is it the same reason why the independent Davis Langdon peer review was not completed March 2008?

Today this scandalous project should be put to rest. Please, for the financial health of this city, lay it to rest. We are being gripped by a major worldwide economic crisis which is worsening day by day. Many in our community are already facing hardship. This proposal has deeply divided our community – as you well know. It is a localised version of the kind of division that occurred during the ’81 Springbok Tour. Incidentally, they both involve the game of rugby and its politics. Not only will the proposed stadium be a financial drain with predicted annual operating losses – it will drain our community spirit. It will always be a symbol of division if, God forbid, it is ever built. Dunedin does not need this stadium. Dunedin cannot afford this stadium. Please stop.

1 Comment

Filed under Disinformation, Economics, Hot air, Media, Name, Other, Politics, Stadiums, STS

ONE News forgetful

National television avoids talk of social cost. No community reaction.

### ONE News Tuesday March 03, 2009 3:07 PM
Dunedin stadium wins government backing
Source: Newstalk ZB/ONE News

The government will support Dunedin’s new stadium but it’s unclear what strings are attached. [our italics] Rugby World Cup Association Minister Gerry Brownlee has pledged a maximum of $15 million to underwrite the construction of the stadium.

Read more

Leave a comment

Filed under CST, Economics, Geography, Hot air, Media, Name, Other, Politics, Stadiums, Stupidity