Of course on the good ship StS Titanic…

In smooth pond

Garrick Tremain kindly forwarded this view in response to a query. It was published in the Otago Daily Times on Saturday, 28 March 2009.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Channel 9: StS Town Hall public meeting

http://www.ch9.co.nz
Stadium Speeches from Town Hall to be Screened on Channel 9 – Coming soon
Channel 9 will be screening the [unedited] speeches made at the Dunedin Town Hall on Wednesday 1st April at 7.30pm and again on Sunday 5th April at 7.30pm. Link

ODT Mar 31, 2009 page 4
On the box
Coverage will be available at http://www.odt.co.nz from next Monday, April 6, entitled ‘Lifting the lid on the stadium’ [90 minutes].

UPDATE ODT Apr 1, 2009 page 4
The great stadium debate
‘Lifting the lid on the stadium’ will be available at http://www.ch9.co.nz

StS rates revolt – the slip

### ODT Online Tue, 31 Mar 2009
Dean takes issue over rates advice

By Mark Price

University of Otago law school dean Prof Mark Henaghan is suggesting words have been attributed to him that he did not say.

Read More Online Here…

Read more

Stadium decision after Easter

### ODT Online Tue, 31 Mar 2009
Council to make stadium decision on April 20
By David Loughrey
A Dunedin City Council decision on whether to sign a contract with Hawkins Construction to build the stadium – potentially the last major decision before construction – will now be made on April 20.
Read more

==

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

DCC and public consultation…

### ODT Online Tue, 31 Mar 2009
DCC not swayed on stadium

By David Loughrey

The Dunedin City Council yesterday effectively ignored one of two resolutions carried at Sunday’s Stop the Stadium-organised meeting, meaning the Dunedin public will not get a further chance to put their views to the council before a contract to build the stadium has been signed.

Read More Online Here…

Read more

TV news: Town Hall meeting

UPDATE – We understand Channel 9 will screen its recording of the Stop The Stadium public meeting this Wednesday night and on Sunday. Details to follow. Hope they put it online.

### TVNZ Monday March 30, 2009 Updated 18:37 Published: 8:15AM
Rates withheld in protest over stadium

Nearly 2,000 attended a meeting at the Dunedin Town Hall on Sunday night where the Stop The Stadium group outlined its latest strategy, to withhold the average $66 a year the Dunedin City Council has told ratepayers they will have to pay for the stadium.

Read More Online Here…

Link to video

****

### Channel 9 Online News March 30, 2009 – 6:16pm
Opponents Of The Proposed Otago Stadium Hold Meeting At Town Hall

Business leaders, academics, City and Regional Councillors, plus a former Mayor made up a panel of six speakers that gave their thoughts on WHY the stadium should NOT go ahead.

Link to video

Elizabeth…

Before visitors get huffy with some posts, know that the authors are caught in the dire/fun task of bantering on in polar opposite about the very successful public meeting held last night at the Town Hall, which was a series of eloquent speakers presenting on the ensuing debate about the proposed Forsyth Barr Stadium at University Plaza (aka the albatross, silent pebble or heavy anchor).

If you were there it helps.

Real Debate

I love it, all this democracy, taking action into one’s hands etc. The death of Democracy we’ve all heard time and time again, the bemoaning of the lack of debate, the inability of people to be informed or voice opinion. Sure these things conceptually might have happened – I don’t know, personally I feel well informed.

But look at the above picture. What do you see? Concerned ex-Mayor re-splendid in here Scottish heritage outfit. Seated on the left, anti-stadium speakers, in the middle a very considered adjudicator and seated on the right anti-stadium speakers. Is this debate – no? Is this considered opinion, in many cases no.

If the likes of Eckoff et al think that the CST (wrong messenger) has been remiss at conducting public consultation forums, well who the bloody hell are the adult here. Why hasn’t the StS been organising it. If they were genuine about any meaningful debate on the subject they would have taken the time to hire a hall (hmm like last night), invite speakers (hmm like last night) and allowed voices and opinion from all sides to speak – whops so not last night.

I thought the meaning of the word debate meant it was necessary for there to be two sides to every story. The ability to question, investigate and question again is a uniquely human trait that has been sorely ignored through this whole debate.

If the StS thinks that there was genuine lack of debate on this topic, why hasn’t any of it’s meetings included the actual meaning of debate. I mean I have opened this forum to both sides of the story, and I think you will all agree that there is an intelligent level of debate which up until recently has been missed in this whole story.

Come on StS, put your money where your mouth is and organise a debate, I’ll turn up happily (I mean I really want to see the literature that Prof Harris is holding on to, to confirm her Global Warming doom scenario). I would love someone to actually confront someone over the continue “Poo on our Beaches” rants…

But just like all things, there will be the mad and bad (not pointing the finger at anyone within the StS hammering things to Council doors) who will wish to shout out rational debate – bring one’s boxing gloves?

And still they get it wrong!

So poorly wrong it’s bloody embarrassing.

A packed Dunedin Town Hall last night came out with exactly the same crap time and time again, with seemingly the only major outcome from the evening is the concession is that $66 rates increase average (after months and months of denial and derision) has been settled on as the figure that all along will be the rates burden on the city. So once again like so many other reasons why we shouldn’t build the stadium, the facts have played out to be correct and their myths blown to pieces.

“Mrs Turner complained about what she said was the “obscene haste””. Sorry my dear but this has not been a fast or obscene process. So far at least 18months in the planning. The opposite could happen and take Vancouver WhiteCaps Stadium process, which has been 5 years in the making.

“Dunedin does not need a $200 million temple to rugby to survive as a city.”

WOW – Someone press the fail buzzer. For anyone that continues to believe that this is a rugby stadium and that we are giving money to the ORFU or NZRFU needs their heads read. This illustrates beautifully the Mayoral vision displayed by Mrs Turner, pretty bloody devoid of Vision. If you can not envision the stadium being used for anything that the imagination desires, then you are lacking a vision for this city.

There is a very bloody good reason she is ex-Mayor, precisely this.

Dunedin businessman Alistair Broad “nobody knew what the stadium would cost, most households in Dunedin could not afford the rate rise to pay for it”. Apart from those who have bothered to look at the work done and seen that there is an actual cost. As for the most can’t afford it rubbish, I refute that completely. We are talking about the sum that the StS seems now to concede is the cost $66 a year, or $1.27 a week, I’m sorry but if you can’t afford to find $1.27 a week in living costs, you have serious problems and then there are avenues within the DCC for rates relief. But then he (like so many people) put up the so called opportunity costs from building a stadium, including, “buying the former chief post office”. Awesome, what are we going to do with it? The busses, well the old chicken and egg race there. People aren’t using buses in Dunedin, is because they are old (well some are about as new as you could get)?

“Cr Eckhoff said the the stadium was designed to provide for the New Zealand Rugby Union”

FAIL FAIL FAIL. Enough said, if after 18months that is all you have (and I’m guessing there was a joke or two thrown in), then goodbye failed ex-ACT MP, you have failed.

“The public consultation on the project was a “sham” and the councils should have set up public focus groups and facilitated meetings between the Carisbrook Stadium Trust and those who opposed the project.”

Sham, define that sunshine? What is the point of a council facilitated meeting between the CST and StS. Like so many people Mr Eckhoff has his wires crossed. The CST is not the driver of this project, it is the delivery boy. If my paper is poor, I don’t stand at the street yelling at the poor schmuck sent to deliver the substandard paper. Likewise if I didn’t agree with the poo pipe at St Kilda beach, I don’t go and yell at the workers – what a daft proposition. Seriously is this the kind of mentality that gets on into position of political responsibilty/service – Christ I could nominate my idiot brother for council if this is all you need to get in. Really FFS, once again you are being disingenuous. Mr Eckoff you know that the CST isn’t the correct forum for those opposing the stadium to be confronting – OH I so do dearly bloody well hope you know this.

“Mr Stedman said there had been a lack of detail and “non-partisan evidence” on what the stadium would be used for”. Sorry, Mr Steadman seems to not be bothering to read the papers or even call the heads of the other sporting codes. As for “and there were questions over whether the Otago Rugby Football Union would be able to pay to hire the stadium, as it was “failing dramatically””. Wow – where to start? The fluctuating fortunes of professional sports teams, is just that fluctuating. If the Highlanders continue on their fine form, people will go to the games, home crowds will be come more daunting and more home wins are likely – pushing the team further up the table. If they then finish well, or god forbid even get in the playoffs (as is a very real possibility) then sponsor money comes in and good players come south. Like the economy the economic demise of the ORFU and The Highlanders has been dramatically overplayed.

Dr Hamlin seemed (well quoted in the ODT) to be his usual fluffy self. “He said building companies were not insurance companies and could not provide certainties on the cost”. If that were true, and if you people didn’t live with your heads ‘in the sand’, ‘in the air’ or ‘up one’s a…’. GMP is a concept that construction companies understand and adhere to worldwide. It works and gets the job done. The onus thus goes onto the construction company to come within budget and if they don’t they incur the cost and penalties – very simple concept and of course one completely ignored by those opposing the stadium.

“A guaranteed maximum price contract with a very small hole in it is about as useful as a bicycle tyre with a very small hole in it” Yeah, completely fixable and not of too much concern to an intelligent person. Dr Hamlin made some exceedingly disparaging remarks about the work of the CST at the first meeting, stating that “if any of his students had produced such work, they would have failed”. Somewhat ironic that most of the stuff Dr Hamlin has produced on the very same subject has been completely flawed, erroneous or pure conjecture.

Coming out of the Stadium meeting is a couple of resolutions calling (now get this) on Rodney Hide to be the champion of the people – make me laugh. The closest that man will ever get to being champion of the people is in a dancing competition, and as for caring about the people, let me get off the floor laughing my ass off, he is only concerned for business and business only. Has anyone desperately trying to pin their hopes on this man read any of the far right wing literature that is ACT party puts out? This person is not a champion of the people.

As for the Press Release by The Alliance.

Victor Billot. You completely disingenuous sod “city struggles to support basic things like the community hospice and the sewage system”. I’m sorry but like the salt water infused surfers, you have this wrong. There is no BLOODY POO ON OUR BEACHES – SHUT UP WITH THIS CRAP.

I could have almost stomached this rubbish 18months ago, although even then Mr Billot knew that the sewage was in the process of being upgraded. So why is it continually being used as propaganda against the stadium, because those bereft of genuine reasons why the stadium should not go ahead need to cling onto public fear and misconceptions – it’s a very simple ploy in Public Opinion.

“The National Government”… well colour me silly, an Alliance statement having a go at the National Party. The rest of your comment is somewhat gelatinous like.

I have complete respect for anyone with genuine concerns about the viability of the stadium in Dunedin, but do not drape false ad erroneous layers on it and try to call it a pork pie. I mean I have concerns, but I sure as hell don’t try to say “My Road…” or “The Beaches…” blah blah blah.

On local government

When is a stadium core business? Is it when you blatantly offer up your council’s social housing to central government to help pay for a rugby stadium. Is that what the LGF is on about below, not quite but you get the drift…

—

### NewstalkZB 30/03/2009 8:00:25
Councils told: stick to basics
Councils are being told to stick to their knitting. The Local Government Forum – a group lobbying on behalf of businesses – has released a report that tells them to steer clear of forming social policies to even up the distribution of wealth. It says that is the government’s job, and it should stay that way. Mr Finny says local councils should focus on providing public services. Read more

The link to the newly released report will be posted here when available.

****

### Business NZ 14 Mar 2007
Business groups launch Local Government Manifesto
Business groups say local government needs to be more focussed on its core business, to ease the disturbing growth in the country’s rates bill.
Read more

—

Download: Local Government Forum (2007), Democracy and Performance: A Manifesto for Local Government, Local Government Forum, Christchurch.
[First published in November 2008 by the Local Government Forum, Christchurch.]

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Media coverage Town Hall meeting

### ODT Online Mon, 30 Mar 2009
Stadium rates revolt plan
By David Loughrey and Sarah Harvey
The Dunedin Town Hall echoed to the sound of a clapping and stamping crowd clearly and vociferously opposed to the proposed stadium last night.
Read more

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

StS Town Hall meeting SMART POINTED BRILLIANT

Telling it as it is – Stop the Stadium has done an incredible job.

CONGRATULATIONS.

Dunedin people from all walks of life filled the Town Hall to capacity.

It was the speakers who did all the work tonight – Alistair Broad, Dave Cull, Gerry Eckhoff, Robert Hamlin, Michael Stedman and Sukhi Turner, along with Dougal Stevenson in the critical role of MC. Together they were honest, truthful, pointed, on task, funny, believable and more transparent than anything the Dunedin City Council, the Otago Regional Council or the Carisbrook Stadium Trust has had to offer on the stadium proposal to date as to business feasibility – and potential effects on ratepayers and residents (citizens all), the council ledgers and the Dunedin economy for the extremely long haul ahead IF the “silly” “stupid” “appalling” project goes ahead.

The media has material enough for the largest field day, tomorrow. Since when does an ex-Mayor of Dunedin invite a civic uprising, can I say “ours does”. I say it with utmost pleasure.

The meeting was scandalously GOOD.

And hey, tomorrow, Dunedin City councillors pushing the stadium project – being ever hopeful they can get it over insurmountable odds – will once again see stadium business into non public. HOW LONG can they keep this façade up. Really. Will Crs Cull and Staynes succeed with their Notice of Motion?

Two resolutions were passed at the public meeting. In essence: 1. Hello Mr Rodney Hide, come open the books at DCC and ORC. 2. Oh, procedure: Hello Local Government Act and DCC’s LTCCP, what is due process. [Wording of the unanimous resolutions will likely be cited by the press.]

But here’s what everyone can do, safely, yes actually! {Best consult ODT 31/3/09 for clarification; I did say it was “interesting” in the next sentence; seemed too good to be true, if you’re into rates revolts that is. Elizabeth.}This is the flyer distributed at meeting end, which has interesting confirmation from Dean of Law Prof Mark Henaghan:

****

Finally, thank you DUNEDIN BUSINESS PEOPLE FOR VOICING YOUR VIEWS and for being there on stage and throughout the audience. We waited for this. It has happened. Let’s turn this monstrous DCC/ORC/CST process on its ear.

****

ANOTHER THING: EVERYONE who doesn’t want the stadium and or is not prepared to pay for it please write submissions saying so – in your very own words, with your very own feelings or facts – on the DRAFT Dunedin City Council LTCCP and the Draft ORC Annual Plan. INDICATE in your submissions that you DO WISH TO BE HEARD on your submissions. This is not a frightening process.

Check out the council documents online or contact the councils for more information about how you can participate in the process.

If the councils don’t hear from US, they will continue to falsely assume (the great CHARADE) that we want the stadium and everything that follows… as it sinks the city.

The councillors who oppose the stadium project NEED YOUR HELP. Now.

Don't forget your StS Bingo Card

At the meeting in the town hall tonight don’t forget to have a little fun while the doomeisters are predicting the end of the world as we know it.

Simple Rules.

Cross off a word ever time it is mentioned and of course first line and fill card wins.

And if you think, he’s being bloody facetious again, well yes I am, because for the simple fact that these are neither new voices, with I imagine little or nothing to add – $10 to the charity of your choice if Dr Hamiln basically stands up and say’s “told you so” or “investor entrapment” within 1 min. of the start of his speech.

Unravelling or mystifying public consultation

Public consultation processes used by the Dunedin City Council in providing for services, assets and resources to the community have in many cases been valiant and hugely positive; however, consultation on the stadium project has been found wanting by more than the average few…

Earlier at What if? there were some distinctions made between what consultation means under the Resource Management Act (RMA) and the Local Government Act (LGA), using public reference material available on the web. Here are some more threads, from the Ministry for Environment, Quality Planning, Department of Internal Affairs (via Civil Defence), and Office of the Auditor-General, Audit New Zealand.

****

In regard to resource management, “there is some agreement amongst advocates, council planners and community representatives that the primary purpose of consultation is to ascertain community views and opinions in order to achieve a better project”.

These passages may be found in the Ministry for Environment’s Striking a Balance: A Practice Guide on Consultation and Communication for Project Advocates.

While the guideline is dated and might have been superseded in several ways, the principles it describes are useful:

“There can be considerable variation in interpretation amongst advocates and communities as to the purpose of consultation. Communities may expect that the purpose of consultation is to achieve consensus. In actual fact, the advocate’s operational requirements may overshadow the importance of responding to community views and concerns.”

Properly, the practice of consultation has something of an escape clause to it; as the Court of Appeal indicates, “consultation does not mean consensus or acceptance, nor does it equate to negotiation, although it may result in an agreement to negotiate”.

The guideline continues: “The level of community understanding of the underlying rationale for a proposed development, be it at the national, regional and/or district level, is an important consideration in developing an appropriate consultation process. Communities should be provided with the information necessary to understand the rationale for projects proposed for their neighbourhoods.

“Communities may want to debate the merits of the rationale and it may or may not be accepted, but at the very least the rationale should be explained.”

****

On consultation at the Quality Planning website, in abstract it says:

“Consultation is a process that involves listening as well as talking and providing information. It is a requirement under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). Even when not mandatory, consultation is good practice as a means of identifying/clarifying issues and potentially resolving them early in the process.

“Consultation takes time. It can be hard work and cause costly delays. It requires commitment to communicate effectively with a large community of individuals and groups with different values and concerns. But if done well, consultation will improve the quality of the plan, lead to more community buy-in to the plan and may mean fewer disputes and references in the long term.

“Make sure consultation is an ongoing process, not a one-off event or series of disjointed encounters.”

****

The Department of Internal Affairs notes at its website that the Local Government Act 1974 (LGA) was the main piece of legislation defining the power and responsibility of local authorities.

“The decision to review the Act, and other local government legislation, was made in March 2000. The new Local Government Bill was introduced to Parliament on 18 December 2001, and received royal assent on 24 December 2002.”

Submissions on the review’s consultation document were received from a variety of individuals and organisations, and provide a picture of the range of public and community views of the proposals contained in the document.

“Issues that drew the most comment included:

* the proposed new purpose of local government – to promote the social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being of communities.

* the proposal to give councils a “power of general competence”, allowing them to choose the activities they undertake and how they should undertake them (subject to a public consultation process).

* the relationship between Maori, the Treaty and local government.

DIA Link 1 DIA Link 2

****

This on local government consultation and decision-making from the Office of the Auditor-General, Audit New Zealand (OAG):

“After the Local Government Act was passed, local government sector organisations and the Department of Internal Affairs produced a series of high-level guidance material. A need for more specific advice has emerged as local authorities have gained more experience in implementing the Act.

“Although there has been no significant change in case law for some years, good practice is evolving and legislation changes have reinforced the public’s expectation of greater levels of consultation. We have dealt with a number of complex ratepayer enquiries about local authority decision-making obligations and consider that we now have enough experience to distil and reflect good practice emerging from the sector.”

OAG brought together a working group of local government staff and advisers to provide sector input into identifying the main issues and examples of good practice. It published a report on 12 September 2007 that reflects what local government practitioners consider to be good practice in decision-making and consultation.

“In practice, the responsibility for decision-making and consultation lies with the leaders and senior managers of local government. We expect our guidance to be useful for the sector alongside other material such as that produced by the Society of Local Government Managers and Local Government New Zealand.”

****

“The Local Government Act 2002 sets out principles and obligations for local authorities to use in decision-making and consultation. Decision-making and consultation are important activities by which local government fulfils its purpose of enabling democratic decision-making and promoting the general well-being of current and future generations. The Local Government Act 2002 has also reinforced the public’s expectation of greater levels of participation in decision-making and consultation.

“So far, the courts have had few opportunities to provide judicial guidance about how to interpret these principles. However, good practice is evolving.

“This guide is the combined view of the OAG and a working party within the sector convened to advise the Office. OAG discusses the principles-based approach in the Local Government Act 2002. The guide also provides examples of local authority practice in areas that the working party and [the Controller and Auditor-General K B Brady] identified as challenges to implement. It does not attempt to define legislative compliance – rather, it is a combined view and discussion on principles and current practice.

Guideline: Turning principles into action: A guide for local authorities on decision-making and consultation

In the guideline, OAG has this to say on decision-making and consultation requirements (Part 4):

“Using the policy on significance:
In our experience, local authorities find it difficult to determine whether decisions or proposals are significant. Although practice is evolving, we continue to receive requests to look at how local authorities have made significant decisions and how local authorities have decided whether a matter is significant. Local authorities need procedures for managing significant proposals and decisions.

“Legislative requirement:
Part of the decision-making framework of the LGA is a “significance” threshold – the decision-making requirements in the Act are generally more onerous for “significant” decisions. This is reflected in the proportionality principle in section 79 – the extent to which a local authority must consider options and community views about a decision should be in proportion to the “significance” of the decision.

“There are some cases where a proposal or a decision that a local authority recognises as “significant”, either because of its own policy or because the Act deems it so, triggers specific statutory decision-making processes. For example: A regional council can start a “significant new activity” only if the activity is included in its LTCCP (section 16).

“Decision-making and consultation requirements:
• A local authority must use the special consultative procedure when proposing to change the mode of delivery of a “significant activity” (section 88).
• A local authority cannot decide to alter “significantly” the level of service for a “significant activity”, or transfer ownership or control of a strategic asset, unless the decision is explicitly provided for in the LTCCP (section 97).

“The Act contains several references to “significant” and “significance”, and defines both of those terms (section 5). The definition of “significance” is the crucial one. It requires local authorities to consider the degree of importance of the issue, proposal, decision, or matter in terms of its likely effect on, and likely consequences for:
• the current and future social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of the district or region;
• any persons who are likely to be particularly affected by, or interested in, the issue, proposal, decision, or matter; and
• the capacity of the local authority to perform its role, and the financial and other costs of doing so.

“The Act requires a local authority to have a policy on significance that sets out the local authority’s approach to determining whether a decision or proposal is significant and any thresholds, criteria, or procedures used to assess this. A policy on significance must also list a local authority’s strategic assets. This list should comprise assets considered by the local authority to be strategic, as well as assets that are strategic under the Act’s definition of that term (for example, shares held in port or energy companies). A policy on significance must be adopted or amended using the special consultative procedure, and a summary must be included in the LTCCP.”

What if? says: To explore the context of these passages we recommend you use the links provided.

Reminder: Town Hall meeting tonight

STOP THE STADIUM
Public Meeting at the Dunedin Town Hall, 29 March 2009, 7pm.
All welcome, including those for and against, and don’t knows seeking entertainment.

Highlanders TOTALLY EXCEL

### ODT Online Sat, 28 Mar 2009
Rugby: Highlanders stun Bulls 36-12

Home is where the heart is but the Highlanders saved their very best for neutral territory, hammering the Bulls 36-12 in a major Super 14 rugby boilover at Palmerston North today.

Read More Online Here…

Read more

****

### stuff.co.nz Last updated 19:21 28/03/2009
Highlanders win in Super 14 boilover

By MARC HINTON – Rugbyheaven

On the field and in the stands, it was a day for southern men to rejoice. Not only did the good folk of the Manawatu, and its environs, come to the party in a big way – with a splendid crowd of just under 10,000 – but the Highlanders honoured them with a massive performance to upset the Bulls who were 5-0 and looking, er, unbeata-Bull before hitting this blue and gold brick wall.

Read More Online Here…

Read more

Council to discuss ORFU hire agreement

### ODT Online Sat, 28 Mar 2009
Discussion of stadium, Stevenson not public
By David Loughrey
A hire agreement between the Otago Rugby Football Union and the Carisbrook Stadium Trust will be discussed by the Dunedin City Council at its meeting on Monday, as will what is understood to be a report on a code of conduct inquiry into the actions of Cr Teresa Stevenson.
Read more

****

Council Agenda 30/3/09

Agenda Item 17 (Reports) – NOTICE OF MOTION
Notice of motion from Councillors Chris Staynes and Dave Cull.
To be moved (Staynes/Cull):
“That no binding contract to construct the new Awatea Street stadium be signed prior to the recommendations of the Community Plan Hearings Committee on this project being considered and adopted by Council.”

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

2011 RWC: DCC budgets for hosting

### ODT Online Fri, 27 Mar 2009
$200,000 world cup spruce-up

By Chris Morris

Dunedin looks set for a $200,000 spruce-up, paid for by ratepayers, as part of preparations to play host to six Rugby World Cup teams and their visiting fans in 2011.

Read More Online Here…

Read more

Infrastructure's value to economic growth

“The debate over how to fund much needed infrastructure projects is once again centre stage, as the United States and other countries approve stimulus packages that devote significant funds to infrastructure.

Taking the US as an example, many state and local governments have been eager to request funds to create needed jobs in their communities.

But the $100bn or so allocated to infrastructure in the US stimulus plan really is just a first step towards addressing the more than US$2 trillion of US infrastructure needs.

The stimulus money will fund desperately needed shovel-ready projects that should spur immediate activity.

It has brought much needed attention to the state of infrastructure in this country.”

Full story here

This is a great article from the BBC.

Some (like myself) will argue that modern Infrastructure needs to be redefined. A classic definition of infrastructure “basic physical and organizational structures and facilities (e.g., buildings, roads, and power supplies) needed for the operation of a society or enterprise.”

It would be very hard to argue that the arts and entertainment (including sports) isn’t an integral part of a healthy functioning modern western society. Just as traditional concepts of communication in Infrastructure used to mean just Morse and the telegraph line, then the telephone and latterly to include Cellular Networks and Interweb communication, the concept of the houses/arenas of culture and sports must be given consideration.

Others would argue that this is an extravagance, and Stadiums and the like have little or no place in modern infrastructure. I would suggest that these people look at the ‘brand’, economic and social contribution that modern sporting franchises bring to communities in New Zealand. I have witnessed firsthand how much a city will bend over backwards to host a major sporting franchise in North America, with Vancouver recently being granted an expansion of the MLS team to their city. There’s a real civic pride associated with it. Just look at the city when a test match is in town, the ‘cultural and sporting spirituality’ of a community is important today.

Still good story and worthy debate.

DCC exposed

On Friday and Saturday 27-28 March the Have Your Say’ Expo Event 2009 – Sustainability will be held at the Dunedin Town Hall.

As the Dunedin City Council drafts budgets for the next financial year, staff and elected representatives are holding another Expo to explain plans for future projects and how Council delivers current services.

Every Council department will be represented and have displays to explain their operations.

It won’t just be the DCC showing its wares, but all the Council-owned enterprises and city organisations to which the Council makes a substantial contribution, such as the Otago Museum, Tourism Dunedin and the New Zealand Masters’ Games, because they support the Council’s aims and objectives and are partially funded from rates.

Open hours:
Friday 27 Mar 1pm – 6pm
Saturday 28 Mar 10am – 4pm

All welcome. Entry is free and further details will appear in the March issue of ‘City Talk’, and through local media.

Contact Tami Beckingsale on 477 4000.

Horse's mouth: "Let us not stumble"

—–Original Message—–
From: Stop the Stadium [mailto:sts@taniwha.com]
Sent: Thursday, 26 March 2009 7:10 a.m.
To: [Recipient]
Subject: Reminder: Town Hall Public Meeting 7pm this Sunday. Be there!

Dear STS Members

A reminder to attend the Town Hall meeting on Sunday night.

The reaction of Chin, Farry, and Co to this meeting shows very clearly that the stadium is far from being a done deal. One of our speakers – Environment Southland CEO, Ciaran Keogh – was obliged to withdraw after Dunedin mayor, Peter Chin, contacted Ciaran’s boss in Invercargill. Most of our other speakers have also been pressured to withdraw, although none of them intends to.

That the stadium-pushers have resorted to such coercive tactics demonstrates that, far from being a done deal, the stadium project remains uncertain and, as more negative information surfaces, highly vulnerable.

Now is not the time to be apathetic. The stadium can still be stopped, and the best way to ensure this is to attend the Town Hall meeting.

The DCC and ORC have, so far, ignored every demonstration and public survey showing the clear wishes of Dunedin’s people. Malcolm Farry continuously denigrates the only scientifically-conducted survey so far carried out – which showed almost 80% against the stadium. The ODT has grossly underestimated the number of people at both Stop the Stadium marches, and continues to present an extremely biased picture of the stadium debate. And the Carisbrook Stadium Trust has access to a bottomless purse (of ratepayers money) to broadcast its propaganda.

Despite all this, and the endless ignorance of a majority of our city and regional councillors, there is still no guaranteed maximum price, hardly any private funding, and a troubling host of questions surrounding the feasibility of the project. (No foundations, numerous “escape clauses”, dubious contracts for “products”). This is why the Chin/Farry crowd are so keen to torpedo the public meeting.

It is up to you to defeat their efforts. The meeting will go ahead as planned, with Sukhi Turner, Mike Stedman, Alistair Broad, Rob Hamlin, Gerry Eckhoff, Dougal Stevenson, and Dave Cull giving the lie to the so-called “vision” touted by the snake-oil salesmen behind the stadium.

The DCC – ORC have been able to belittle and set aside all evidence of public opposition so far. They will not be able to ignore a Town Hall full of concerned and responsible citizens, addressed by speakers of such calibre. But the hall must be packed – half-full won’t do.

This may well be the last major effort required of stadium opponents. Let us not stumble at this ultimate test. Tell people about the meeting. Phone around; distribute leaflets, and, above all, be there on Sunday evening for seven o’clock.

Bev Butler, for Stop the Stadium.

Stakeholder group less ORC

### ODT Online Thu, 26 Mar 2009
ORC to leave group

By Rebecca Fox

The Otago Regional Council has decided to withdraw from the Otago Stadium stakeholder group following its decision to part-fund the project.

Read More Online Here…

Read more

Busy caller

### ODT Online Thu, 26 Mar 2009
Chin called Stedman over meeting

By David Loughrey

NHNZ chief executive Michael Stedman’s name can be added to the list of those contacted by stadium proponents in the lead up to Stop the Stadium’s March 29 meeting.

Read More Online Here…

Read more

London 2012 Stadium legacy plan

### SI.com Updated: Tuesday February 10, 2009 4:19PM
London 2012 team unveils post-Olympics stadium vision
STRATFORD, England (AP) – The main stadium for the 2012 London Olympics will be used after the games to house a secondary school and stage annual track meets.

The 80,000-capacity stadium will be scaled back to a 25,000-seat venue after the games. Besides the school for about 500 students, it will also house the National Skills Academy for sports and leisure industries and the English Institute of Sport.

The London Development Agency said revenue from the rest of east London’s Olympic Park would subsidise the stadium.

“If you take the stadium as a single standalone project it will not break even or make money, it will require level of public subsidy.”
-Tom Russell, chief of LDA’s Olympic Legacy Directorate

Read more

****

### sportinglife.com February 10, 2009
Holmes calls for post-games legacy
By Helen William, Press Association Olympics Correspondent
Dame Kelly Holmes feels it would be wrong if athletics does not benefit as part of the legacy of the London 2012 stadium.

A six-week local public consultation on the legacy masterplan has now started. The aim is to plan for legacy early and to ensure the Olympic Park is sustainable.

Natural England welcomed plans for the Olympics to regenerate the deprived district including the creation of London’s biggest new park for more than 100 years.

“We believe that green infrastructure is critical to regeneration projects. With green space at its heart, the Olympic legacy plan should set a precedent for future urban regeneration projects across England.”
-Alison Barnes, Natural England’s director for London

Read more

Post by Elizabeth Kerr