City parking issues NOT ABATING

Tomorrow’s ODT lines up a story on local businesses considering legal action to rectify the city’s parking fiasco.

Got my letter from Cr Michael Guest yesterday regarding resident parking in Pitt Street…we’ve had meters installed right up to Queen Street corner. A number of residents are owner occupiers, doctors, hospital staff or long-term renters; and a number of properties have no offstreet parking available. There was no consultation prior to the changes.

And serving people (businesses, workers, students or residents) with a generic bloody council letter is worse than pathetic.

DCC Letter – Parking 9-9-09

****

### ODT Sat, 12 Sept 2009 (page 3)
Parking moves ‘choked’ city
By Sarah Harvey

Angry business owners say Dunedin City Council parking changes are killing the city centre, and they are considering legal action against the council if it does not remedy the situation
{continues}

This item is available in print and digital editions of the Otago Daily Times.

122 Comments

Filed under Economics, Politics, Town planning

122 responses to “City parking issues NOT ABATING

  1. Phil

    Interesting situation. As a general rule of contract, any condition that is in place for a minimum period of 3 months during the contract period, and is not objected to by any party in the contract, forms part of that contract. Whether it was originally in or not.

    Now, it’s a bit of a stretch perhaps, but you could argue that, as a ratepayer, there exist a contract between you and the DCC. All the conditions that satisfy the requirements for a legal contract such as genuine consent, exchange of value, and so forth, have been met.

    If you continue down that path, any changes in the agreed conditions to that contract, after the date it was entered into, must be agreed upon by all parties. A failure to object within 3 months of the change implies consent. If not agreed upon then there exists a breach of contract.

    But I imagine that the LGA allows for the above situation to be carried out lawfully. So it’s all hypothetical. I am assuming they are allowing for residents parking for those currently with no off street vehicle access ?

    • Elizabeth

      Hi Phil
      The people who received the (generic) council letter are those who wrote, emailed or phoned the council or logged complaints with the Chamber of Commerce’s chief executive John Christie (John attended meetings of concerned persons at the Leviathon Hotel). That is, their complaints were laid within the 3 month period…

      Resident parking now and before (if no off street parking exists) is achieved by purchase of a parking permit from Council, allowing the permit holder to park (now) at metered parks, where before there tended to be an area allowed on street where the permit holder cars could park.

      It’s now fully possible to not get a park outside or near your residence (of particular concern to our elderly and retired property owners), and don’t expect to be able to monitor your wheeled asset from your house or apartment as the rabble of a party night descend or ascend the street because it had to be parked around the corner out of your visual sightline; or leap into said asset if you’re called out to a medical emergency or returning in the early hours from a call out when the rabble are still around – personal safety is an issue.

      Snags that proper consultation would very likely have sorted to mutual satisfaction, with no loss of revenue to Council… and guaranteeing convenience to people in a mixed neighbourhood (it’s not studentville), where people chose to live for the benefits and concessions they had worked out for themselves. The movers and shakers at council appear to have treated this as a shady desktop exercise.

      Today’s ODT gives a better overview, rather than my shooting off on a small street/residential complaint…

      ### ODT Online Fri, 11 Sep 2009
      DCC too slow on parking: businesses
      By Chris Morris
      Dunedin business owners hurt by parking changes want the Dunedin City Council to speed up efforts to rectify the system.
      Read more

  2. Phil

    I wonder how long it is before someone lodges a claim for a potential loss of property value ? A house that has no guaranteed immediate parking is going to be less attractive than the same property that previously had guaranteed immediate parking. And the owner was not responsible for the changes that led to the change in value.

    Maybe that’s already happened ?

    • Elizabeth

      That is something I’m in discussion about – not just because of the parking situation but the dog accommodation project going up next door that devalues the Heritage Precinct…

  3. Phil

    A boarding kennels in the middle of town ??????? No, say that’s not so.

    • Elizabeth

      Sunless, stacked liveable rooms with no amenity space be that yard (a narrow drive and turntable only provided) or balconies – thus dogged.
      Existing use rights and developer behaviour identified no affected parties. Non notified kennelling.

  4. Richard

    Residents Parking Zones have never guaranteed parking outside any particular property, just a place in the zoned space/s made available in a street.

    The change from Residents Parking Zones to providing a permit to park on metered spaces in the new inner city zones is to be reviewed by the new review team.

    I was as surprised as anyone at the change (and some of the others) but then I was not closely involved. Colin Weatherall and I are not members of Planning and Environment by virtue of our positions as Chair and Deputy Chair of Hearings.

    My understanding of the reasoning to replace the zones with permits to park on metered spaces, is that many of the residents parking zones were “empty” during the day and it was felt that the space could be better utilised. It also presumably intended to offer the chance to park outside one’s property instead of ‘around the corner’. Makes some sense in theory, so I wonder if the problem you outline and that spaces are not readily available is not ‘the permit to park in a metered space’ but the time limit for parking in the area?

    I will certainly be taking an interest in this as it was little ‘ole me who brought back the Resident’s Parking Zone concept following my visit as Mayor to the Westminster Council in 1992 and ‘battled’ with then Transportation Planning to get them introduced here. They have since been under threat more than once.

    It is not correct to state Elizabeth that there was no consultation. There was – twice – as the reports on the DCC website show. The Chamber of Commerce is recorded as one of the participants. I am certain that they were as surprised as councillors have been at the extent of what has happened. Their participation in the review is most welcome.

    Why that failed needs to be pinpointed. That it was inadequate at “street level” is quite obvious. The lack of a retailers’ association and the large number of businesses owned by chains etc maybe on factor.

    As for the “generic” letter. As I read things, it simply outlines/summarises what has been attended to since the changeover and where things go from here. That is appropriate surely given that the individual complaints from most – if not all – of the businesses have been dealt with by direct contact.

    Just some thoughts. I welcome objective comment that offers solutions!

  5. Phil

    Thanks for clearing that up, Elizabeth. I nearly had a moment. Mind you, your description of the proposed activity doesn’t sound a lot more appealing.

    Excellent explanation behind the changes, Richard. I guess the fundamental difference between the residents parking and the metered parking is that the area is no longer for the exclusive use of residents. Obvíously. Which means that residents will now be competing directly with non residents, for the same existing parking spaces. No longer guaranteeing residents a parking space within the original Resident’s Parking Zone. Is that correct ?

    I can see that’s not a lot different from most of us, where you’d be perfectly entitled to park your car outside my house. All day, every day, if you wished. But I would assume that the implementation of Resident’s Parking Zones are for areas where the demand for parking spaces, is higher than the supply. And where the installing of offstreet parking to most residents is not practical.

    On the basis of that, it does seem to be a TOUCH unfair to those residents who have bought their properties in good faith. Hopefully this isn’t the end of things.

  6. Richard

    Phil: in regard to RPZ’s – yes, that is my understanding. The permit to park on an RPZ is, however, granted to a person and does attach itself to a property. My recollection is that the latter is not lawful but I stand to be corrected.

  7. Richard

    Elizabeth has asked (under SH88 re-alignment): “Why does consultation with DCC not mean a letter re options to every affected property and the householders. First. Richard.”

    Seems better to deal with it here.

    Rewind and remember that this all devolved from the Transportation Strategy which, way back in the runup to the 2004 election, I said would be ‘radical’. Prophetic! Maybe.

    My recollection is that the Draft Parking Strategy was detailed in an issue of ‘City Talk’ sometime early last year. Public consultation (at large) certainly took place in April and May. There were also adverts in the newspapers. 34 submissions were received and a public hearing on those was held in June 2008.

    Something like 180-190 letter leaflets etc went to those principally affected or, to use the formal term, “stakeholders” – primarily the businesses in the main street. It seems most of these were disregarded, in the words of one who has been loudly complaining, “I don’t read that sort of stuff”.

    That “gap” would have been picked up if it had been followed up by the individual visits that were planned to occur. Apparently it did not happen.

    Whether letters to households in the area would have been treated any differently is a question I cannot answer.

    Focus groups comprising interested citizens and interest groups have become an integral and important part of council’s wider consultation process. I guess that is because those who make them up do not essentially play ‘a numbers game’.

    While I was never ‘an advocate’ for what is now the FB Stadium, I do not agree with you Elizabeth in regard to the consultation carried out on that. There may, in fact, have been too much! Not that I want to argue about it! It was an unusual situation given that council had appointed the CST as ‘its agent’.

    What that particular debate did underline, however, was the need for council to review its methods and/or means of COMMUNICATION which some of us had been advocating for some time.

    And, I think, that is what you are actually talking about, Elizabeth?

    I am pleased to say that is currently being done.

    Again thoughts on this are welcome – perhaps on a different thread?

    Now I must “fly” as I am compeering the magic show being put on by the Otago Magic Circle for wee Grace at East Taieri this afternoon. Now that is a rewind. I would not be surprised if some of the children in the audience are the grandchildren of some I entertained three/four generations decades ago. That’s MAGIC!

  8. Richard

    Correction to the above: Oh dear! “three/four generations ago” should, of course, be “three/four DECADES ago”.

  9. meg55

    Re residents’ parking: one of the regulations the council has brought in in the past year is that the residents’ parking permits must be affixed to the resident’s car. That means that although the resident has paid for the park, he/she has no jurisdiction over who uses it and when. You can’t, for instance, lend it to your disabled friend or a tradesman. Doesn’t matter what the circs, if they park in a resident’s park they risk getting a ticket. I raised this issue with a ‘help’ person at the DCC and was told like a stuck record that ‘they have to make their own parking arrangements’. Like what? Buy up parks all over town so they can do business here? Work and visit in the middle of the night?

  10. Richard

    So, Meg 55 – you prefer what has been brought in for the ‘metered’ areas? Keep at it and you will sabotage the whole concept!

  11. Stu

    You used to be able to get a trades permit to park in a specific area without having to feed a meter. That seems to have gone – at least there is no mention of it under the schemes/permits on the DCC web site.

    Meg, as a tradesperson, I can tell you that for many reasons it IS now easier to work after hours in central Dunedin, including the ability to park at/near a workplace. North Dunedin after hours, not so much.

  12. David

    The parking situation is a total shambles. Like many people I know, I now just don’t go into town if I can avoid it.

    Instead of short term free parks that had a high turnover, and a high chance of getting a park, we now have long term pay and display – even when they’re right outside a parking building – duh!

    Some of the changes are so obviously stupid, that you have to question whether they have anything to do at all with trying to make parking better for citizens.

    While they completely ignore what’s best for citizens and businesses, they seem to be solely focused on a desperate attempt to squeeze more money from citizens to pay councils out-of-control debt.

  13. meg55

    ‘They completely ignore what’s best for citizens and businesses.”
    I completely agree. I’ve seen mild-mannered middle-aged library users snarling at each other in the library car park. That’s what happens when you extend the parking to four hours. People who just want to change their books can’t find a park.

    Richard, the logic of your comment escapes me. No, I don’t support the council’s metered parking regime and I can’t see the connection between that and residential parking permits. There isn’t any metered parking near our place.

  14. Richard

    I certainly agree – as do most of my colleagues – that the implementation of the changes is a “bit of a shambles” as you say, David.

    It has been complicated by poor communications and a lot of “loud, self-interest” opinion has not helped the necessary resolution at all.

    It seems to me that – excluding all day commuter parking – most of the complaints boil down to about 4 or 5 things:

    (1) what seem to be excessive time limits in metered areas (indications are that parks in George Street are mainly for 30 minutes so why a 4 hour maximum stay?);

    (2) the removal of Loading Zones for goods service vehicles. Apparently the law now permits only one kind of Loading Zone available for ALL vehicles, hence the 5 minute+5 minute “grace” if you are actively loading or unloading something. This has not been well explained, if at all!

    (3) that the Loading Zones have replaced P5 or P10 spaces that were clearly understood and, it seems, which some business e.g. coffee, pharmacy and fastfood outlets have relied on;

    (4) that the new permits permitting residents to park on metered space outside or near their homes instead of a separately designated parking area is not working possibly because of the time limits.

    The purpose of the whole change, as I understand it, was to ensure access to the inner city on a cohesive basis rather than the ad-hoc-ery (is there such a word?) of the past.

    The hospital and university are special challenges given that, for many years, they did not have to provide off-street parking spaces under the exemptions given to crown-owned entities.

    Again, the simple challenge is/was to provide access. To the hospital for those requiring to attend for treatment as well as visiting patients (hence the mix of time limits) and the university for those wanting to attend lectures on a part-time basis throughout the day.

    And so it goes.

    Focussing on those issues, any suggestions that I can take up would be most welcome.

    As an example: should P5 and P10 replace the Loading Zones and be used by commercial and privately owned vehicles? Or should couriers etc have permits to park for 10 minutes on any metered space?

    One positive thing – after three years of my advocating that payment for Late Night Parking on Friday should go and that the hours for paid parking should end at 6 pm Monday to Saturday has been achieved.

    It really used “to get up my nose” to see tickets being handed out around Moray Place and Princes Street south of The Octagon and most of the blocks in George Street when everything except cafes, bars and cinemas was closed!

  15. Richard

    In the above I say: “The hospital and university are special challenges given that, for many years, they did not have to provide off-street parking spaces under the exemptions given to crown-owned entities. Again, the SIMPLE challenge is/was to provide access.”

    That would be the understatement of the year!

    It is anything but simple!

  16. meg55

    While you’re here, Richard, could you please explain WHY the rule about not lending resident’s parking permits was introduced? It’s not as though there are more vehicles parking overall. If you lend your permit, your own car gets parked somewhere else. The rule strikes me as unnecessarily dictatorial and obstructive to residents’ ability to manage their lives.

    What ARE trademen meant to do? The free parking outside our place is always full up on weekdays. Workers arrive at 7.25am on the dot and those cars stay there all day.

  17. Richard;
    You invite suggestions which you could take up as being welcome.

    Try this: Put the system back as before. Tell all the “bozos” who have caused all the angst to sod off home. Sell all the fancy meters (nearly new) and simply let the people and businesses get on with trying to make a living. There was never a problem that the public was clamouring to have fixed. Nothing in recent times which have been, or that are going to be changed have improved the publics’ position, only got more expensive.

  18. Richard

    Meg55 – I do not know but have a faint recollection of ‘abuse’ being referred to. I do know that when Mum needed homecare (they lived in Smith Street) the healthcare workers could park. That may have changed too. I will check tomorrow.

  19. David

    Richard – here’s some generic suggestions for parking

    1/ If things are working ok, and businesses and people parking are happy – don’t change them.

    2/ Never, ever, ever pay good money to make things worse than they were.

    3/ Make it #1 parking policy to make the city run as smoothly as possible.

    4/ Making money from parking should be the lowest priority in parking policy. It is too an important issue for the city’s businesses to stuff it up, just to bring in a small amount of extra income.

    5/ Pay and Display is the worst type of parking for users.

    a/ It’s pouring down, you’ve got toddlers in the car, and the nearest machine isn’t working. Do you leave the toddlers in the car by themselves (which is illegal) and cross the road to find another machine. Or do you get them out in the rain, cross the road, get a ticket, come back again, bring them around onto the dangerous busy road so you can put the ticket on the driver’s side etc etc.

    b/ You pay for an hour, and after fifteen minutes you realise you will need much longer. If you want to top up the pay and display well before your time is due, you get ripped off as you have to pay twice.

    c/ Because of this inability to top up before the time is due, without getting ripped off, many people will pay for more time than they really need. So people end up paying for a lot of parking that is never used.

    d/ So a space that has been paid for, but someone leaves, and the next person has to pay again. The same space is effectively being paid for twice.

    e/ If you’re zooming around town doing messages, and every single stop takes an extra one or two minutes with pay and display. Multiply that by thousands of people every day, and you have a huge inefficiency.

    Clearly money-wise, pay and display is good for council, because parkers can be ripped off in many ways.

    But when it comes to users, it’s about the most inefficient and costly way to park – it’s probably the worst system available.

  20. Richard

    Thanks, David. All noted. A quick response to some.

    (1) The parking in the central city and around the hospital and university was an absolute hotch-potch. Few disagreed that there was a need for change, especially in George Street. As a retailer, I watched it all develop during 11 years of walking George Street (and occasionally Princes) most business days. Cars continually circling the block etc just to try and get a free park.

    The Strategy documents are worth a read (they are on the DCC website), it is the ‘solutions’ that have gone awry. And some of ‘those’ were not known to councillors.

    In regard to some of the points in (5):

    You can take a pay and display ticket with you and use the unexpired time on any other space in the same zone.

    I am aware that for regular users, a prepaid card system is available which enables flexibility. It is used in Wellington and I have been trying to interest staff in introducing it here.

    As an experienced and rather gifted photographer, don’t you think aren’t the relatively few pay and display machines are better than individual meters cluttering the streetscape? (That incidentally is why the latter were not reintroduced to Princes/George Streets and The Octagon following the 1988-89 upgrades).

    Two things really do not make sense to me, the replacement of many P5 or P10 spaces that were clearly understood with the new all vehicle Loading Zones which few understand and use – for good reason; and the same time limits for every street in a zone. I understand the principle but some streets do have different characteristics and demand that need to be recognised. To have such things as camper vans parking for four hours in streets such as Frederick just does not make sense! In fact, it is DAFT! In saying that, I am not advocating a return to the shambles that previously existed with time limits, e.g. along George Street.

  21. David

    Richard – I agree. The hospital and Uni are quite different cases to the CBD (though on visiting the hospital on numerous occasions in the last couple of years, I’ve always found a park on the same block).

    With the pay and display ticket, using the same ticket for leftover time has a catch (which you mention). It has to be in the same zone.

    The point was a pay and display system has a lot or drawbacks and rip-offs for parkers compared to other types of metered parking.

    Thanks for the photography comments – from this point of view parking meters are probably not a big deal for streetscape images – much worse are power poles and wires, and street lighting poles.

    Over the last three days I’ve shot the settlers museum. courts, railway station and the university, and in all cases there were street light poles that ruined at least some compositions.

    However it’s not an easily solved problem if we want well lit streets and footpaths. Perhaps the best we can expect is simply consideration of views whenever there are redevelopments around our iconic buildings and spaces.

  22. Phil

    I’m going to touch on one of your excellent points, David. Hope you don’t mind the quote.

    “If you’re zooming around town doing messages, and every single stop takes an extra one or two minutes with pay and display. Multiply that by thousands of people every day, and you have a huge inefficiency.”

    I believe this is where we have the problem. Thousands of people driving around the city stopping off here and there for minutes at a time. That’s the very reason why we have the inner city parking problems we have today, and the very thing we need to stop people doing. I believe. That can only happen with a viable alternative, and a big enough disincentive to continue with old habits. I note we have half the solution today.

    I don’t know of another major city where it is easy to pop into town in your car. With the possible exception of Christchurch which has the idea topography for roading infrastructure. Everywhere else they have moved to remove private vehicles. By making it cost a bucketload, AND by offering suitable public transport. Dunedin is very much the exception to modern trends.

    I lived in a city for a while that used those “clock” cards which were placed in the car front window. 30 minutes free parking throughout the retail areas. Parking for 31 minutes meant a 200 dollar fine. I never had any problems finding a vacant park.

    I believe that a huge part of the issue is the poorly planned CBD. Siting the only major retail sector in an area which has no traffic expansion capacity. The legacy of our forefathers. Maybe if we looked at where those commuters are coming from today, we could offer them alternatives that would remove the need for many of them to come near the city centre. For those little erands. As the majority of residents live South of the CBD, the South Dunedin working party has the chance to kill 2 birds with one stone here. Remove half of the existing commuter traffic from the CBD, and it’s almost workable.

    Personally, I think that Wall Street was a shortsighted mistake. It could have been sited in South Dunedin, and acted as a Council spearheaded drawcard for other retailers to follow. Instead it’s just added to an already unworkable situation.

    But, now we have the Carisbrook land. What a perfect site for a Westfield Mall type complex, or multi retail subdivision with a direct customer bus service, or specialised parking facilities. And with a good roading network surrounding it.

  23. David

    Phil – I think your solution, is actually the problem.

    You want to make it deliberately hard for people to visit the city centre?

    Try to get people to go elsewhere?

    I’m sure that would kill off a few city centre businesses, and then we have the same problems as Christchurch – a dead city centre.

    You hit the nail on the head when you said – “I don’t know of another major city where it is easy to pop into town in your car.”

    This is a major advantage of living Dunedin – a huge advantage – why on earth would we want to throw away such an advantage, and replace it with the same problems as big cities?

  24. Phil

    On the contrary, David. I would like for it to be easy to come into the city. If one must. Just not with their car. Might have been ok 10 years ago. But clearly, it’s no longer a workable situation. The number of cars is now far greater than the number of parking spaces. Hence the problem. The advantage that may once have existed for Dunedin, sadly no longer does. And so we must adapt, in order to keep us attractive as a city.

  25. David

    Phil – you say “Might have been ok 10 years ago”

    Yes it was. And it was also ok just 3 months ago. – at least in my experience. I had a lot of different places around the city where I could almost always get a park.

    It makes sense for long term parking to be in the parking buildings, and short term on the street. The changes seem to have done the opposite.

  26. Phil

    Agree with you in part there, David. The reduction in onstreet parking has not been offset by an increase in offstreet parking. Or by an adjustment in public transport options. As I think has been mentioned here before, the whole process has been carried out back to front. With the final process happening first.

    I recall seeing a car parking building somewhere (don’t ask me where now) which had a variable hire rate. You agreed to a fixed hourly rate when you entered, but that entry rate varied, according to occupancy. In the morning, when the building was empty, it was cheap to park there. So that immediately got rid of a lot of the long term street parkers. Later in the day, when the building was nearly full, the hourly parking rate was more expensive for those arriving. The result of the exercise was that the building was almost always fully utilised.

    I think that, as it stands at the moment, the off street parking rates are too expensive initially, so people opt for them only after there are no onstreet parking spaces left. Meaning that the streets are always full, but the buildings usually only half full. Seems a bizarre backward approach.

  27. Richard

    Phil: parking offstreet in the council-owned parking buildings is now ‘cheaper’ than on-street parking in Zone 1 – or should be!

    That they were not full before was not only due to their being more expensive (odd?) but because Dunedin drivers hanker to park outside the shop where they want to go … and would drive around the block until they found ‘a free one’ in particular!

    Which is, of course, one of the reasons for the change.

    Having said that, the old GC Carpark was always an exception. The YMCA never worked properly until access was gained to The Octagon. ACCESS! The ‘magic word’!!!

  28. Phil

    Well that’s excellent news, Richard. A good positive publicity push on the new “cheaper” alternative wouldn’t go astray. Show people how they can save money now. It’s a bit smoke and mirrors, but I’m sure it can be artfully spun.

    I agree with you entirely on trying to stop the circulating errand traffic. In a city which is championing clean green tourism as the number one earner, it’s not a good look to have tourists met by constant lines of curb crawling cars the moment they step off the bus. They could stay at home and see that.

    And the tree hugger in me says that it’s just not the right thing to do. Not any more. Which is why I support satellite shopping centres for errand shopping. Retain the CBD for specialised attraction shopping, but not for buying new batteries or printer cartridges. I don’t see that as being the death of the central city. London, Sydney, New York, all seem to have retained a vibrant inner city. Christchurch’s Square is always packed with people during the day. Night time is different, but then they did insist on filling the area with pubs. Why most people, sadly, avoid the Octagon at nights.

  29. David

    Richard – surely if they didn’t want lots of cars crawling for parks, they should have kept all the short term street parks.

    A block with say 20 parks on it, will have at least 80 parking spaces become empty every hour hour if there is 15min parking. With 2 hr parking, you might get just ten spaces becoming available every hour.

    It’s pretty obvious which one will mean cars crawling around for a park in the CBD.

    And the new pay and display has caused the opposite problem in outlying areas – lots of unused spaces as they’re all too expensive.

    It all seem to be driven by revenue, with little thought on what is actually good for the city, citizens and businesses.

  30. Richard

    Well, maybe … maybe not. The jury is out on that one. One thing is for certain, there was too much of a hotchpotch mix on George, if not Princes.

    Maybe they should all be 15 or probably 30 minutes with some ‘free’ P15’s or P10’s instead of the new all vehicle P5 Loading Zones. That will all be looked at when the figures come in for the 3 months. There will also be on-the-spot surveys of drivers when they park.

    Same for those ’empty spaces’ you talk about further out. They are/were intended to cater for people going to the University and/or Hospital etc. Maybe the time limit/fee on those needs reviewing.

    One interesting suggestion made to me is that the present 4 hour limit could be left in place but that drivers who e.g. work at the hospital, could purchase a weekly/monthly permit for staying longer than (e.g.) 4 hours. The fee would have to be affordable and fair though.

    I think what everyone is finding is that while the strategy set out to address the problem, it needs some fine tuning. Perhaps more than anyone thought though!

  31. Phil

    Would that be defeating the purpose of the new changes somewhat ? Allowing for people to pay for all day onstreet parking. I thought the purpose was to keep parking spaces circulating. Allowing room for all users.

  32. David

    Richard – there seems to be a lot of “problems” that were ‘fixed” that were never actually problems in the first place. And hence, in many places things have not improved at all – they’re much worse.

    Taking away short term parks where they are most needed, and replacing them with 2 hr parks (right outside parking buildings) is just plain stupid.

    People who have plenty of time to go into a parking building don’t have to, and someone who just needs a minute to drop off something, now has to spend ten minutes driving several storeys up a parking building then back out again.

    Don’t let the parking experts see this –
    http://www.davidwallphoto.com/searchresults.asp?ts=&g=&n=&Lids=&Gids=&c=&t=&tx=ASyd507&phrase=all
    (you may need to copy and paste this link if it is too long and breaks)

  33. Richard

    Phil – re the CBD.

    As you acknowledge, like a lot of things in Dunedin, it is where it is because of the physical features that forced its location. But there are positives going for it. Its ‘human scale is but one. Many visitors, especially from the US, comment on that.

    Its decline and fragility over recent years has escaped most that live here. Traffic was one of the problems. CBD’s need access, it is vital. Especially to small, owner operated shops. June and I know that first hand, we owned and operated one for 11 years.

    Council owned the former Woolworths/Deka site and has for many years. It was underdeveloped. The return certainly inadequate. The opportunity arose to redevelop using Endowment Funds that must be reinvested by law in property. That required an adequate rate of return. The site and the planned redevelopment offered that.

    More importantly, it also offered the opportunity to stabilise the CBD, stop any further chipping away. No-one else but council was going to do it on the scale needed.

    It also fulfilled former Town Planner, Bruce Duder’s proposal to have shopping in the block bounded by St Andrew/George/Hanover and Filleul Streets, totally accessible under cover. That will be achieved when the link between Wall Street and The Golden Centre opens in a few weeks. And the Golden Centre is really starting to look “the part” with its current redevelopment really taking shape.

    South Dunedin was therefore simply not an option.

    As for large scale retail development (or as it is better known, “Big Box”), we have one too many destinations now.

    When the Caledonian in South Dunedin was vacated, a proposal was put forwarded by Ken Warburton (the Architect) for a comprehensive ‘big box’ retail development. That was squashed by interests in the CBD. What happened years later, yes The Warehouse. The learned judge at the Environment Court in upholding their appeal (DCC Hearings had refused consent) said he “hoped it would not lead to King Edward Street moving to Andersons Bay Road” – or words to that effect.

    I don’t need to tell you what has happened.

    My own view is that if the Warburton concept had gone ahead, we would not have ‘big box’ retailers at the southern end of Crawford Street but concentrated in South Dunedin.

    As for one on Carisbrook – you have to be kidding!

    There is the potential for more retail development though between King Edward and Andersons Bay Roads where the sites are, perhaps, not as small and difficult to amalgamate as in Crawford Street.

    It may well be that, 20 years from now, all our ‘big box’ retailing will sit in the South Dunedin area with, perhaps, a mall or something like it alongside and what are now ‘big box’ stores in Crawford Street will be used for manufacturing, light industry etc.

    That would give us something as good as one could get in planning terms and ACCESS for people short of a greenfields development such as Botany Downs in Manukau. There the ‘small shops’ and the ‘big boxes’ sit side by side separated by a giant carpark.

    But Carisbrook for retailing – NO! If it does not remain in use as a sports facility – as I believe it will, its underlying zoning is ‘industrial’ or non-residential.

    But other exciting opportunities beckon in South Dunedin if the wider view is taken! After all it was once a place of character and characters.

    Maybe that won’t return but at the moment, all anyone seems to be looking at is King Edward Street. Oh, and the Gasworks Museum. Now there is an opportunity!

  34. Phil

    Oh to have this sort of funding available. I love the last line “altering the conditions governing where one chooses to work and live”. Live in Christchurch and work in Dunedin. And vice versa.

    Sweden will build high-speed rail connecting Stockholm to Gothenbörg and Malmö. The new lines between the Swedish capital and the next two most populous cities will cost $25 NZ billion, with the state financing about half of the cost. Additional funding will come from local authorities, regions through which the lines would pass, and income from ticket sales. Trains travelling at speeds of 320 kilometres per hour will halve travel time between Stockholm and Gothenburg. Building high-speed rail lines will offer better options for the effective transport of goods and people, while at the same time altering the conditions governing where one chooses to work and live.

  35. David

    Perhaps the parking changes have actually been very successful at meeting their aims.

    Considering that the DCC 2008-2018 parking strategy actually states it wants to make parks less available and more expensive.

    Making things much more difficult and more expensive for people – what a stuffed up strategy.

    They may as well just put up “GO AWAY” signs around the CBD.

  36. JimmyJones

    The DCC publicly says that there is no real parking problem, all that’s needed is an adjustment in the way it has been implemented. But the problem will persist for as long as they use Travel Demand Management to discourage traffic entering the central city area. They hate to admit that this has been the real purpose of the changes, but it is clear enough to me. In addition to David’s post, here is a quote from a Transportation Strategy report (PEC 2/3/9) – “In addition, the DCC adopted a new Parking Strategy on 18 August 2008, which has a strong emphasis on the use of parking supply and charging to influence travel demand through, for example: removing free time restricted parking in the CBD and replacing it with meter parking; increasing charges for on-street parking in the central area with the most desirable parking the most expensive; installation of cycle lanes to take precedence over on-street parking.”
    The DCC will not willingly choose to make any real changes as long as they are achieving their targeted reductions in parking occupancy. This is the ugly face of Sustainability; the new official religion of the DCC.
    Here is another ODT article describing the plight of the city’s shop-owners.

  37. meg55

    Hi Richard
    Still waiting for an acknowlegement of my letter to the DCC after a council vehicle parked illegally on a residents’ park, handed in 10 days ago now. Am I being unduly impatient?

  38. Ignoring letters or emails or requests for information which may be embarrassing is routine behaviour for the Dunedin City Council and its associated entities. This has happened to me many times.
    Delta responded to D Scene’s request for information on property speculation in Central Otago with ridiculous demands for payment.
    I understand Calvin Oaten has been trying to get the latest business plan to support the Town Hall upgrade. Has he got it yet?
    The DCC’s Propaganda department’s control and dissemination of information would make a communist state proud.
    Remember the ad:
    “Get Smarter with City Parking, you told us.
    Well, your prayers have been answered”.

  39. Richard

    Hi Meg

    It may be on its way. ‘They’ also know that I know.
    More relative though. The Resident’s Parking Scheme is going back to Planning and Environment on Monday 16 November for more detailed consideration than the review team could accord it in the short period they have had to work through the CBD situation.

  40. Hi Alistair;
    Have I got the Town Hall business plan? No, I haven’t. And Mrs. Kate Styles is likely to return to Wellington at the end of December with it, meaning we will never see it. I say this because she is probably the only person on the planet who knows of it. However, we will still get to spend the $50 $60 million in support of it. Good eh?

  41. Richard

    $45m – $46m. Seems you can never get your figures right, Calvin.

  42. David

    Richard – we were originally told that the Town Hall and Dunedin Centre refurbishment would not cost a dollar over $18m….. then not a dollar over $28m.

    At the time, anybody who suggested it would cost $25m or $35m were told they were talking absolute rubbish and had their credibility attacked.

    Now you are saying it will cost $45m, and surprise surprise – another attack on the credibility of anyone who suggests it will costs more.

    In all previous attacks, council figures have been wrong EVERY time.

    If the people who apparently don’t know what they are talkiing about, give figures that prove to be far more accurate than council, what does that say about council figures?

    Richard – it seems you have misdirected your question about who can never get the figures right.

    • Elizabeth

      Richard: I see Pitt St and Frederick St pavements have new paint markings indicating work to be done, presumably council generated – in some cases to reposition new parking meters? or parking signs? (see white rectangle with a ‘P’ in it at the curb), and in others to remedy uneven or holed surfaces. So something’s happening here.

  43. Richard

    David: you are correct that the original concept for the Town Hall/Dunedin Centre which added the Atrium and some relatively minor interior refurbishment had $18m funding provided for in the Draft Annual Plan some six or seven years ago.

    Neither that or the subsequent concept proposals are anything like the now adopted redevelopment costing $45m-$46m being proceeded with, which includes the upgrading of the Town Hall itself to meet statutory requirements in regard to fire safety etc as has been detailed (about $22m-$25m alone), the complete redevelopment of the Dunedin Centre and extensions to the two lower floors of the Municipal Chambers.

    Calvin likes to pretend it is ‘a blowout’ to suits his continual manufacture of ‘own facts’ but it isn’t.

    The whole project changed as a result of extensive consultation and 99% agreement to what is now being proceeded with.

    Calvin, of course, likes to pretend it is the same project. It suits “his own facts”. I am surprised you buy into that line. Cheers!

    • Elizabeth

      The Dunedin Centre redevelopment project is one the people of Dunedin can be proud of.

      There is some out-dated rumble that the development has been designed to attract international conferences.

      The redeveloped facilities might well do that, on occasion. However, the main anticipated user groups are likely to be ‘domestic’ and, of course, not only of the conference kind.

      All this has been discussed, generously and comprehensively, in the lead-up to sign off on the project by the council.

      My opinion doesn’t count, however, I see the project as practically conceived, pro- heritage, pro- contemporary use, pro- code-compliance (at last), pro- Green Star, the list goes on… An exciting, superbly uplifting central city development for citizens to take ultimate pride in. An excellent visitor facility in the making.

      The project has been tightly budgeted to achieve more than we ever imagined could occur all in the one place. The projections don’t give me headaches, based on anticipated increase in use and the historical fact of ratepayer subsidy for public use. I could say a lot more about this one, but it’s already been printed far and wide through council reports and the media. I remain a devoted fan.

  44. Richard;
    Yes, it is in the plan at $45million. I say $50 to $60 million at completion. We will just have to wait and see who is right. Incidentally, do you know Mrs Styles’ business plan for the project? Seemingly it shows conclusively how the increasing patronage will cover the costs of the upgrade. If so how about telling us.

  45. Richard;
    “The whole project changed as a result of extensive consultation and 99% agreement to what is now being proceeded with.”
    What? Consultation with who?
    “I like to pretend it is the same project.”
    So, there is another Town Hall and Conference Centre that you are not telling us about? Come on Richard, you need to do better than that if you are to be convincing.

  46. Richard

    Elizabeth:

    You are observant! It may be a coincidence, it may not. The spray can thing usually denotes areas to be repaired but it could well indicate changes in the kerbisde parking spaces. MAY!

    Whatever, changes are coming! I would expect the recommendations of the Review Team (which have been workshopped with councillors) to go public’ tomorrow in advance of the special council meeting on Thursday next (5th November)!

    Apart from that, I cannot possibly comment!

  47. Richard

    For goodness sake, Calvin. There was a well publicised number of public meetings during 2008 (as Elizabeth can confirm) on the subject.

    You could have (like Elizabeth, Peter Entwisle, Judith Medlicott and many others) attended those as well as the meetings of the Council sub-committee.

    Add to that the focus groups and, of course, the draft LTCCP.

    Need, I say more.

  48. Elizabeth;
    Excellent! So it matters not how much the citizens are impoverished, nor that the whole thing was originally proposed on the premise that it would increase national and international conferences here in Dunedin, with resultant economic benefits to the city of many millions of dollars. So long as it meets your aesthetic criteria all other considerations pale into insignificance. “Exciting, superbly uplifting central city development,” for whom?

    • Elizabeth

      All the people that will use the redeveloped Dunedin Centre for public meetings, events, graduations, seminars, concerts, performances, tours, trade displays, conferences, catering, etc – gee, that’s aesthetic!

  49. Richard;
    I have, as you know tracked this development from the very beginning when it was first mooted at $14.5 million by Peter Brown and staff. It has, metamorphosed through so many incarnations one loses track. All the time on the same premise. This to promote Dunedin as an international conference centre. The Harrop glass clip on was an enormous diversion which gathered the publics’ opprobrium at the same time obscuring the main issue. There has been so many anecdotal scenarios in support at the various cost escalations but none to justify the latest $45 million guess. Another deception is that the existing Town Hall needs $22 to $25 million spent as part of the whole to bring it up to standard. But has any of this been publicly detailed? No. I can remember when it was estimated that it would cost up to $10 million to do just that. So, as always, these things are a moving feast and keep on altering in order to fit the needs of the moment. Just like the stadium this will escalate and become a basket of debt for the rate payers to carry. But at least Elizabeth will be happy.

    • Elizabeth

      It’s important that I’m happy, of course!

      • Elizabeth

        I can’t compare the stadium project with the Dunedin Centre redevelopment project in any real sense (they live in different ‘compartments’ – one is new build, the other redevelopment; one is a lot more expensive…), except that there’s a conundrum around the stadium hosting conferences, these might include sport- or university-related business, and other.

        I’m still not clear how affordable that will be if conference users need to do fitout appropriate to their use of the facility. This is where DVML comes in to drum up the trade. While I have doubts about the extent of business and revenue possible in a small market, I’m in favour of people exploring the opportunity to make the stadium’s construction pay off (ignoring the wrangle over how it is being financed, for a minute ///// the pay-off could take a heck of a long time). The fact of construction now sets a lot more work in motion – and it will cost, to set up the ‘business’ of the stadium in an essentially low population rural region. I hate to think how much. People’s reputations will be on the line, more so than during construction.

        ****

        Conference managers and organisers have already stated keenness to use the redeveloped Dunedin Centre because it’s centre of town and links well to other venues as well as to central city businesses, accommodation and retail. The ability to market the Dunedin Centre as, yes, a “boutique” heritage conference centre is not without loads of opportunity. Although, marketing the mixed use aspect of the Centre has much greater possibility in attracting revenue. The council is the entity, if not one of its companies in future, to work up the balance sheets.

        On the whole, I expect future use of the Dunedin Centre to re-circulate the dollar(s) rather well.

        • Elizabeth

          Any building change to the Dunedin Centre (‘change’ for the reasons deeply, unequivocally stated) immediately trips the switch for bringing the building up to code compliance under the Building Act. The users have asked for change, the property owner has sought change, the building cannot stay as is. It’s changing!

  50. Elizabeth;
    Of course it is important that you are happy.
    “All the people that will use the redeveloped Dunedin Centre for public meetings, events, graduations, seminars, concerts, performances, tours, trade displays, conferences, catering etc – gee.”
    Hey! Aren’t these what take place now? So, are you saying that we should spend upwards of $45 million to continue providing for more of the same? And let’s face it, apart from an entry cube (of dubious value) and some landscaping in Harrop St, externally, nobody will know the difference. Gee, that’s aesthetic.

  51. Richard

    Calvin states: “I have, as you know tracked this development from the very beginning”.

    Really?

    Tell us another one!

  52. David

    Elizabeth – I remember seeing an argument for the redevelopment with a very optimistic view of how many additional conferences the centre would bring to Dunedin.

    However the estimated financial benefit did not come close to covering the interest on the cost, let alone put anything towards the capital.

    It’s like borrowing money at 6% to invest it at a 1% return. The fact that they were boasting of such a good financial return seemed absurd.

    Since then the project has increased by $20m, and we have a second new conference facility being built (if we are to believe the “multi-purpose” aspect of the stadium).

    So we have the council spending masses of money on two projects that both duplicate exisiting facilities, and each other, and will only ever be used on a part time basis.

    When if comes to a financial return on ratepayers money, few projects could be worse.

  53. Richard

    David, you hark back to one of the earlier concepts/proposals when conferences was certainly a major part of the mix.

    As Elizabeth has outlined, the focus has long shifted from that to a rejuvenated complex that will serve the needs of the users and the city for the next half century and hopefully beyond.

    Calvin’s patently selfish attitude would have resulted in the useage of the Town Hall being restricted to some 700/800 persons and a dwindling useage of the entire complex. In short, to have “the doors nailed up”.

    As for the planned facilities. There is no duplication. Both have different primary uses.

    The management of both will be under the venues management company. This means, e.g. there will be only one base kitchen for the FB Stadium, the TH/Dunedin Centre and The Edgar Centre. And so on and so on.

  54. Richard;
    To say that I would advocate a selfish attitude resulting in a restriction to some 700/800 persons and a dwindling usage of the whole complex is arrant nonsense. As David rightly points out, between the proposed Dunedin Centre and the Stadium, collectively, we will have over $300 million of assets which will be neither fish nor fowl. Almost all debt funded with the chances of generating sufficient revenue to service its costs well nigh impossible. To say the alternative is to have “the doors nailed up” is hyperbole of the worst order. Plain irresponsible talk from a councillor.

  55. David

    It would be interesting to compare usage of
    a/ the Dunedin Centre / Town Hall complex – $45m for occasional use – largely empty 300 days per year
    b/ stadium – $200m for very rare use – empty 350 days per year
    c/ Edgar Centre – $2m initial cost for use every day and every night, empty one day per year – so much use in fact that games /events can’t go ahead because there is no space.

    The Edgar Centre is used for cricket, basketball, soccer, futsal, tennis, table tennis, netball, volleyball, concerts, craft shows, womens shows, exhibitions, boat shows, camping shows, seminars, fashion shows, meetings, functions, conferences, conventions, touch rugby etc.

    This is what’s really needed for Dunedin – an enlarged or second Edgar Centre. The current one is bursting at the seams and turns away many sports and events.

    We have the stunning admission from council that they didn’t even to bother looking at what $200m could do for the city – they only looked at a stadium.

    So it would be nice to see the list of options council considered for the $45m, that they decided to spend on the town hall.

    And why they decided that $45m spent on the town hall would be better for Dunedin than any of the other options they considered.

    Or like the stadium, did they simply not bother to look at anything else? (or ask what the people who are actually paying the money what they want?)

    Any half competent citizen would check out various options before putting themselves into debt for 20 years.

    It’s a shame the council doesn’t put anywhere near the same thought and consideration into spending our money.

  56. Richard

    Calvin says: “To say the alternative is to have “the doors nailed up” is hyperbole of the worst order. Plain irresponsible talk from a councillor.”

    It isn’t and shows how poorly you have kept track of the debate and the project itself. My description (which has been reported) was simply one that dramatically underscored what would have been the end result of doing nothing.

    And spending $25m simply to meet safety requirements and maintain the status quo of the Town Hall with declining use was simply not an option to council and the overwhelming majority who were consulted etc.

    David espouses a much wider debate and his opinions. I might not agree but fair enough.

    Same goes for your wider views in regard to debt.

    But you have long strayed from debating that in robust terms and simply taken to getting personal and “dumping” on anyone who does not agree with you.

  57. Phil

    You are quite correct, Elizabeth. Any Building Consent application for a public building must include upgrading of accessibility and fire protection facilities “as much as practicable”. So even putting in a new doorway into the Town Hall would have necessitated remedial work to toilets, stairwells, elevators, and fire protection. Which is about half of the project work anyway.

    I think the Town Hall upgrade is an excellent investment, and long overdue. What it needs most of all is a new roof. The current leaking roof is causing no end of trouble. Hopefully that will be carried out as part of the project, or as maintenance work to coincide.

  58. Richard, you know I will debate the debt situation any time, but when it comes to “dumping” then I bow to you, the master.

  59. Phil

    I’m with you on the issue of the Edgar Centre, David. What that venue has clearly illustrated, is a need for a safe, all weather, community sports venue. It’s well laid out, and well sited close to its client base. But the demand is clearly greater than the supply.

    We discussed here, some time back, about how the new stadium might incorporate community sport and recreation demands. Rather than as primarily a spectator venue. As a way of contributing directly back to the health and wellbeing of the community. In the same way that the new indoor cycle velodrome in Invercargill is open for public use. We didn’t get very far with our options unfortunately, save for the possibility of a single lane jogging/walking track around the perimeter of the pitch.

    I’ve seen cities which are half the size of Dunedin, yet have twice the capacity for indoor sport and fitness activities. We’re definitely lacking there.

  60. David

    I agree Phil – for 1 or 2 % of the stadium cost we could have a second Edgar centre, keeping thousands dry, instead of a paying hundreds of millions of dollars, including $35m for a roof just so on one day every one or two years, 15 or 30 players don’t get a few raindrops on them.

    If you work it out, interest alone for the roof will be nearly $3m per year. On average it rains for LESS than one game per year, but lets call it one game, and 30 damp players. That means ratepayers are paying $3m per rain game, or $100,000 per player, just to keep a few raindrops off these soft players.

    There’s so few people at games these days that you could increase spectator numbers by 10,000 per game and still put them all under exisiting roofed stands (for some games they nearly all fit in the corporate boxes)

    I think any councillor who thought for more than half a second about the costs and benefits of the roof would realise the costs are totally ridiculous for the minimal benefit (in fact it’s quite possible the roof will cause more problems than it will solve, and be an overall negative)

    I think that just shows that the main purpose of the roof is not really to stop rain – it’s for vanity.

    Look at us NZ – we think we’ve become really important because we have a roof!!!!

    • Elizabeth

      What I like about your logic David, it’s totally sparkling. Each post contains more thinking/contestability/clarity than seen at a council table in an afternoon or year of grind.

  61. David

    Elizabeth – that’s all it is though – simple logic.

    With $200m or $300m dollars, Dunedin could choose from a whole range of amazing projects, or even 10 or 20 amazing projects – or 40 – 60 projects the size of the Chinese Garden., or 50 – 100 Edgar Centres.

    The fact that a wide list of projects and ideas was not considered is proof of a complete failure of city leadership.

    Instead we decided to duplicate something we already have, where 90% of the benefit is already gained by what we already have.

    I’ve just visited most of the towns and cities between Wellington and Tauranga, and have been really impressed by how their public spaces have been improved since last time I photographed them 2 – 4 years ago.

    I couldn’t help thinking each time I visited a place how Dunedin seems to have missed the boat compared to all the other towns – stagnating and virtually bankrupting itself to please a small minority for a single, seldom used duplicated facility.

    Sadly, with our mountain of debt, we’re only going to get further and further behind.

  62. Richard

    On the Edgar Centre (with which I have been involved from the time Eion Edgar approached council), you will be pleased to know that the DCC purchased the freehold last year from Chalmers properties. Of course, we had to take out a loan!

    I enquired today in regard to whether usage – which is high – is stretched etc. Seems not although it is very, very busy. Nor has there been any suggestion and certainly no proposal to further expand it. (The Lion Arena was, of course, added about 5 years ago).

    Remember also that the former Indoor Stadium on Victoria Road (which was originally under the same management board) was not needed. It has, of course, since been converted to the Ice Stadium, and very successfully too.

    The usage of sporting and other facilities is kept under regular review by Council. The current focus is, of course, on Logan Park which has been delayed for several reasons. And no, the stadium is not the main one.

    As has already been reported from time-to-time in the ODT, there is likely to be some related use of the stadium by various groups, many related to present and/or proposed Logan Park activity. They will continue to emerge as the construction of the stadium progresses. Some are quite exciting,

    David, so don’t be so quickly dismissive of the benefits of roof. Other venues such as Christchurch and Wellington are just “waking up” to the advantage FB Stadium will offer for all sorts of things.

    Oh yes, something for the record. I was looking back at those who opposed the council buying the woolstore that is now the Edgar Centre. Surprise! Surprise! They feature on the roll of those who would later oppose Council acquiring Carisbrook (the original proposal brought forward in 2005 by the CWP) and, of course, what is now FB Stadium.

    I won’t bother listing them though! What’s the point? It’s historical. Calvin needs some more sleep!

    Much more relevant is what lies ahead.

    In that regard, David, the six-weekly Public Forum and, of course, the more formal draft Annual Plan process, offer plenty of opportunities for you and others to put forward your ideas for consideration.

    Up to you!

  63. Richard

    David: you say: “Instead we decided to duplicate something we already have, where 90% of the benefit is already gained by what we already have.”

    I assume you are referring to an existing rugby ground?

    If so, do not overlook that “the extra 10%” would have eventually cost the city (the city on its own) $70m in 2005 dollars plus making up annual operating costs etc. It would have remained an updated version of “what we have now”.

    It has all been covered here before so I am not going to do other than post this as a “jog” to collective memories.

    Tomorrow, parking (the original topic on this thread) will take centre stage again!

    Then who knows!

  64. David

    Richard – I don’t know the usage stats of the Edgar Centre, but I’ve heard complaints about unavailability of courts quite often. Do the Edgar Centre keep a record of know how many teams / games / people miss out because there are no courts?

    Richard – if council completely ignore the strong wishes of 80 to 100,000 ratepayers, what notice will they take of a single submission?

    I think council has proved beyond any doubt whatsoever, that consultation with ratepayers is nothing more than window dressing.

    Similarly, previous submissions I’ve made to council about all the issues surrounding the orange eyesore were not just swept under the carpet – they were actively fought against.

    Hence (like much of the city) I now have zero confidence in council processes.

    Besides, there seems to be little point in putting forward any ideas, no matter how fantastic they are – there’s not going to be any spare council budget for any projects except rugby for the next 20 years.

  65. David

    Richard – Carisbrook would only cost $70m if you believe it was useless without a massive makeover.

    We were told that so often that gullible people fell for it.

    We already had new terraces, new pitch, new railway stand, new corporate boxes, new meeting facilities, and new lighting.

    As the head of the world cup stated recently, Carisbrook IS absolutely fine for tests.

    We were conned.

    Yes, it would be nice but not immediately essential to have better player facilities, and a new stand.

    But even if we did build a new stand, it didn’t need to be a $70m stand.

    And we haven’t even got onto the question of why if the ORFU want a new stand, it’s Dunedin ratepayers responsibility to buy it for them.

    The whole issue of what we actually need, and what we can actually afford, has been lost to what is essentially a vanity project for those who think a stadium will be the difference between whether Dunedin is relevant or not.

  66. Phil

    Hats off to the addition of the Lion Foundation Arena. That has made the place so much more of an asset. A genuine dual purpose spectator / participation facility. Even better with the minor ventilation cockup fixed.

    Probably the biggest bouquet has to go to the operators of the Ice Stadium. Following on from the history of the previous facility on Kaikorai Valley Road, it had failure written all over it. I guess it shows what the right location, and a willingness to adapt to the market can achieve. Rather than simply offering a “take it or leave it” service. With the recent worldwide rise in profile of the NZ ice hockey team, and the ability of the venue operators to recognise that, I think that venue is the real unsung hero of the city right now. If the Ice Stadium is to form part of the new venues company, I hope that the skill of those operators are fully utilised to advance the profile of the other facilities within the group.

  67. David

    I agree Phil – I think the whole set up should be held up as a benchmark as to how so much can be achieved, and how useful it can be to so many people, so often, for so little input.

    If council is spending any large amounts of ratepayers money, it’s basic common sense that they should assess costs and benefits of that spending against other possibilities worth similar amounts (or dozens of possibilities that combine to the same amount).

    If they were going into debt for 20 years, I would expect even the most elementary of small businesses would put more effort into considering different options than our council has done.

    What did the council consider doing with $200m of ratepayers money? Anything except a rugby stadium? No. Even the rugby stadium choices looked dodgy – very expensive options for Carisbrook, or the option that was pushed for all along – a roofed stadium at a price that was unrealistically low (until council was so far in they were too embarrased to get out, even though that mean massive price rises and breaking all their own conditions).

    We seem to get incredible variation in value from council spending – so much for so little with the Edgar Centre and so little for so much with the stadium.

  68. Phil

    Something purely for interest’s sake. While not fully enclosed, here is an example of how an existing stadium (built in the 1920s) can be refitted to meet modern demands:

    For the event of the Football World Cup 1990, the Municipality of Milan decided to proceed with the refurbishment of the San Siro stadium, after they turned down the idea of building a new stadium due to reasons of high costs and limited time available.

    The brief: the construction of the third ring and the roof to cover all the spectators. The project consisted of the construction of a third ring of stands, resting on independent supports designed around the existing stadium.

    The structure of the new third ring rests on eleven cylindrical towers in reinforced concrete. These towers also provide access to the stands and various services and are independent from the existing construction. Four of these towers also support the reticular beams of the roof.

    To give maximum comfort all the new seats placed are ergonomic, numbered and coloured in four different colors to identify the four main sectors of the stadium. The 85,700 spectators are all covered with a roof made of curved shelters of polycarbonate. New drainage, heating, and flood lighting systems were installed.

    The cost of the upgrade and increased seating capacity (by about 20,000) was about 85 million NZD, back in 1990.

  69. Richard

    Phil:

    it may well be that, somewhere down the line, DCVL (the “ownership company” yet to be activated) will, as has been outlined in recent Annual/Community Plans et al, own the “bricks and mortar” et al of various council facilities.

    I would envisage them contracting the management and operation of the facilities that come under their ownership, by way of service contract/agreements (just as Council does now) to the groups that run them now for the very good (and obvious) reason you mention.

    DVML as the management company (presently for the FB Stadium and the Dunedin Centre) is likely to have a role to play in the overall promotion and marketing of all council facilities but that is something yet to be determined.

  70. Richard

    David:

    I have no problem at all with your ideas etc, well worth airing and debating. But let’s start from a common base with more than a dash of reality.

    The first is alternatives. Decisions such as the deciding to build a new stadium are not made in a vacuum. They never have been but, since 1990 they have been more formally assessed and their priority determined in the Community and Annual Plan processes as even a casual reading of the extensive (and overwhelming) content shows.

    There are finite limits and disciplines whether you agree with what the funds are being spent on or not.

    Your various options have ranged in CAPITAL spending of $200m to $300m on various projects as though that was sloshing around in a cash box somewhere.

    And making assumptions that Carisbrook could have continued just as it was. Let’s not rehash all that – it is well documented and prior to any thought of a new stadium altogether. I’ll just observe that it might (repeat “might”) be ‘okay’ for the World Cup in two year’s time but beyond that? You have to be kidding!

    Capital Cost is one thing. Operating costs have to be added. The latter go straight to “the bottom line”. And so on.

    I am not putting a damper on ideas. Just that they need to be assessed and costed from the SAME base.

    Take THE EDGAR CENTRE which you and Phil have discussed.

    Both of you have overlooked that seven/eight years ago, there was a proposal mooted (well, it was rather more than that) to build a new indoor sports facility down in the Harbour Basin area (in Ward Street) that would replace The Edgar Centre. The capital cost was about $45m-$50m.

    At that stage the Indoor Sports Trust (the body that runs The Edgar Centre under a service contract or agreement with Council) also had the former (and largely unused) Stadium in Victoria Road on “its plate” and firmly rejected the idea. So did the elected arm of Council. It just did not stack up.

    In addition to servicing the capital cost of property depreciation, maintenance etc of The Edgar Centre, Council makes an annual service level payment of $750,000 to the Trust each year to subsidise its operation. Not “chickenfeed”.

    Now, look at the swimming pools, the Logan Park Redevelopment, the libraries with their $10m+ operating costs – repeat, operating – it is a big and varied list.

    And it is the same across the country.

    The vast bulk of expenditure by local government – around 73 percent – is spending on roads and public transport and the ‘three waters’ – water supply, waste water and storm water and refuse and recycling. They remain the major driver of projected rate increases. The other big ticket item – around 18 percent – is spending on community cultural and recreational assets – libraries, swimming polls, parks, stadiums, theatres and museums. That leaves around nine percent to move on unless you are prepared to accept a reduction in level of service.

    As for consultation, well that doesn’t mean agreement and more often than not those who say “council does not listen” or so on, are those who haven’t got what THEY want!
    As the review of the ‘botched’ Parking Strategy shows, the elected arm of council does listen and respond.

    Keep the ideas flowing. We too easily forget that nearly all the community facilities we have emanated from outside City Hall: our museums, Moana Pool, The Regent, Dunedin Public Art Gallery, The Edgar Centre, the Central Library, and yes, the FB Stadium, all emanated from outside, many because of generous benefactors.

    Indeed, I said during my time as Mayor that there is probably no other city of our size in the world that is so well endowed.

    It reflects our heritage, indeed it is a major part of the “heritage city” that Dr Rodney Wilson is talking about.

    That things will be tight in the next two/three years is a given. Decisions were taken with all the parameters known.

    That should not stop anyone from bring forward ideas. Calvin wants to continually recycle the past, of course, he would have us still watching ‘The Perils of Pauline’.

    It’s the future that commands – or should command – our attention. (Where’s that new site, by the way, Paul)?

    As I have said though, in any discussion, let’s start from same base with more than a dash of reality and less of “own facts”.

    Trust you enjoyed the video clip I sent you this morning!

    Cheers!

  71. Richard

    True! True!

  72. Phil

    Thanks for the info re the Edgar Centre, Richard. I wasn’t aware of the extent of Council funding towards the operation and maintenance of the complex. You are quite right in your comment that it’s not an insignificant amount.

    The consistently high patronage of the Edgar Centre suggests a couple of things. Firstly, it’s well located for its core customers. I would suggest that more than half of the public users are within walking distance of the facility. Part of the reason why the former ice stadium on Kaikorai Valley Road was a bit of a flop. Relocating the Edgar Centre down on Ward Street may have curtailed many of the after school sports activities. Secondly, it’s appropriately priced. Due, I suspect, to the annual Council subsidy. Which, in my opinion, is exactly how Council funding should be used. To make it easier for ratepayers to take advantage of facilities that benefit the community. That’s kind of the point of rates. When you’ve got a facility being used almost 24 hours a day for everything from kids mini basketball through to pensioners Tuesday morning table tennis, that’s a real poster child community asset. A shame it can’t be self funding, but no complaints from me about the money being spent.

  73. Richard,
    “Calvin wants to continually recycle the past, and he would have us still watching ‘The Perils of Pauline.’ Just who or what is Pauline?
    Why you should say that, shows perhaps a paucity of understanding. I would challenge you to show where I have ever been against good sound progress. What I have been, and still am against is profligate debt spending on facilities which plainly do not meet the criteria of being for the public good. It is an indisputable fact that since around 2001 the projected city debt has burgeoned from some $54 million to over $350 million, at the same time as DCHL’s term debt has moved close to $400 million. In that time the city’s water has been substantially upgraded, the sewage outfall pipe line has been completed and moves are on to upgrade the tertiary treatment of the sewage. Laudable projects all, but only requiring a small portion of the spending. The Stadium, the Harbourside Dream and the Dunedin Conference Centre are all capital intensive extravagances not supported in any economic sense. Nor will they provide a public good in any way commensurate to the financial impost imposed on the citizens to sustain them. If being in opposition to these projects is being anti progress, then so be it, and I make no apology. It is indeed a sorry state Richard when you feel the need to disparage anyone who steps up and criticises anything the council does.

  74. David

    Richard – you’ve made a lot of points. I’ll address a few of them.

    If the stadium decision was not made in a vacuum, then what other facilities were also considered and compared to the need of a second stadium?

    The fact that $200m – $300m is not sloshing around in a box, and has to be loaned, is even more reason to be even more careful, and consider as many different options as possible. And with such a very large loan amount and 20 year payback time, particular attention should be focused on financial benefits.

    The point with Carisbrook is that MOST of it had already been done, with tens of millions recently spent on new stands, pitch, corporate boxes, lights, drainage, terraces etc.

    Richard – you say “As the review of the ‘botched’ Parking Strategy shows, the elected arm of council does listen and respond. ”

    Why didn’t it do that BEFORE it made the botched changes? (and it certainly took its time to fix it – some businesses went bust and people lost their livelihoods while the council sat on its hands).

  75. David

    Richard – while you’re asking for ideas, a BMX track is needed out south. Kids in St Clair have to cycle a 28km return trip through the centre of the city if they want to go to Forrester Park BMX track. Not a particularly appropriate commute for kids on bikes. Otematata has a population of just 200 and they have one.

    They’re cheap to build, and there’s a perfect unused piece of council land opposite Forbury Park, below Little Kettle Park beside the tennis courts. It even has a natural start ramp.

    We’ve got Marlow Park for little kids who are learning to ride, and there’s Signal Hill and Forrester / Bethunes / Mt Cargill tracks for experts, but there’s not much for most children in the 5-15 age group.

    NZ recently had 220 riders compete overseas in the age groups BMX world champs (what other overseas world champs would get 220 Kiwis competing?) and we currently have several world champs, including in age groups 5-6 years old, 12 years old, and of course Sarah Walker.

    Unfortunately for many Dunedin kids, a 28km cross town ride or commute means this highly popular sport that NZ is very good at, is not available to them. They have the bikes – they just need some mounds of dirt to ride on.

    • Elizabeth

      David – the BMX track you’re suggesting would get untold use and heaps of community support – it’s something “DCC+Community” could do immediately. Are there any reasons why not at DCC, Richard? This should go to the next public forum with pre-forum in-house lobbying. What would it cost, surely it would attract volunteer help and donated resources – wouldn’t cost DCC much. If DCC can say yes to groups wanting to set up community gardens, then yes to a BMX track too?

  76. David

    The diggers already seem to spend a lot of time parked up around Middle Beach by the tennis courts – less than 100m away.

    All that needs to be done is mould piles of clay into the right shaped mounds at the right distance apart, and hey presto – we have a BMX track.

    Good planning with correct surface falls should avoid expensive drainage (the sandy soil there drains pretty well anyway – Little Kettle Park is a lot drier than most sports grounds after rain).

    I’d happily put some voluntary time in.

  77. Phil

    Good points regarding the BMX track. We have some excellent facilities in the city, but they fall down on locations that are not suitable for the demographic. The skateboard park behind the railway station. Looks brilliant. Well thought out with jumps and ramps and stuff. But probably two thirds of skateboarders in the city would be aged under 13. I’ve got a big grown up boy these days, but when he was an 11 year old skateboard nutter, there’s no way I would have allowed him to make his own way across town, through the biggest commercial traffic areas. The only alternative for him would have been for me to take him there myself. Which immediately limited the time that he could use it. And he’s in the prime user group.

    Ditto for the BMX track at Forrester Park. Looks a top facility. But completely out of reach for 75% of the prime users who don’t have access to a car.

    Having Moana Pool off the beaten track is ok. There is a good safe bus service almost to the door, and you don’t need to clamber on board the bus with a bicycle under your wing.

    If there’s a shortfall in the design of community assets, it’s often not giving enough consideration to the location of the prime users. And the limitations of those users in accessing the facility. Part of the reason why the Edgar Centre works so well is that it is easily accessible by kids, who probably account for 75% of the through traffic.

    Stick a skate park or a BMX track into the main residential areas and you’ll be fighting them off with a stick. And more likely to encourage organised clubs to form and grow at such sites.

  78. Richard

    Calvin –

    I have never had a problem with your opinions. Your OPINIONS. Just your insistence that your “own facts” prevail and the continual recycling of them ad nauseum even when they are wrong. You personally criticise people who do not agree with you and then expect them to show you respect.

    Overall, you just seem to enjoy scaring people. Well every day is not “Halloween”.

  79. Richard

    David: I have responded to your idea re a BMX track on the thread that Elizabeth has opened. Good idea! (Perhaps Elizabeth, it would be a godd idea to copy the relevant posts over to that)?

  80. Richard

    Phil: Right on. There are huge opportunities opening up with the acquisition of Carisbrook to redevelop existing grounds – and create new ones – on “the flat”. I have taken it up in the new thread.

    Certainly agree with you on the principle re “the subsidy” necessary to make certain community facilities affordable. Seems that Rodney Hide now accepts that – or has found it best to change his mind! I wonder if one of his apparent devotees (who blogs here from time to time) will accept as well?

    The Ice Stadium is successful because of those who got behind the project, have driven it and continue to do so. Partnership with council makes all sorts of things happen.

  81. Richard

    David – re parking. Along with Colin Weatherall, I am not a member of Planning and Emvironment because of our respective roles as Chair and DC of Hearings. This is to avoid any involvement by us that could lead to a clash with planning policy matters in matters that go to Hearings.

    So, while I was aware of what was being generally discussed on the parking strategy, I cannot really comment on the detail and what went wrong prior to the changes.

    I do know there was consultation. The list of those who made submissions is in the reports. As Professor Harris has noted, “For whatever reason, the outcome didn’t meet the needs of the people of Dunedin”.

    The need then was to find solutions not harp on what went wrong.

    Hopefully that has, by and large, been done by council working with those most directly involved.

    I probably know the CBD and certainly the main and adjacent streets better than anyone on Council. I have experienced the changes since regularly walking them as a young sales rep in the late 1950s. I have a pretty intimate knowledge of the activity that occurs on these streets, just not what happens on the road. That is what the consultation “missed”.

    The overall need is to ensure access is maintained to the CBD. This involves the rationing of parking space, which is not a finite resource. It will be an on-going challenge because of the physical layout of our streets and the lack of “through streets” on either side of George Street, in particular.

    Amongst the recommendation to Council tomorrow is one that sets up a small team of elected members and staff which will have the authority to respond to needs as they evolve.

    The major problem of the number and length of bus stops in the main street and how they are being used is to be separately investigated.

  82. Richard: What are “my own facts”, and which of them are wrong?

  83. Richard

    Calvin:

    Here you go again. One example – your ‘own facts’ last week on the Town Hall/Dunedin Centre Redevelopment and before that Delta and before that… well, the list goes on and on!

    You are not interested in what others say. All you seem to want to do, is go back and relitigate all the time, take things around in circles, especially when you get a response that does not suit you.

    I would suggest that you go back over the posts for the past year. You do not seem to notice that ‘people tune out’.

    There is no point in it all. Decisions are made every day that you or I might not agree with. At some point, one moves on.

    You enticed me once into one of your ‘wee sideshows’, never again. I was told by many “It is a waste of time responding to Calvin”. It is advice I should have taken.

    On second thoughts, don’t bother going back over your posts. (I have pasted many of them for reference)! It’s too nice a day. Get out and smell the roses and enjoy the day and this city which you and I are privileged to live in.

    And you jolly well know who ‘Pauline’ is.

    • Elizabeth

      In another land, a town hall. Nothing like a comparison or two to firm or open the mind.

      ### The Architectural Review 17 November 2009
      Noain City Hall, Noain, Spain by Zon-E Aquitectos
      This is Spanish practice Zon-E Arquitectos’ completed City Hall in Noain, northern Spain (see photos).
      Due to the site’s location, with a heavily built urban fabric to one side and a park to the other, the architects wanted to create a common ground between the two ‘landscapes’.
      The sustainable features of the building reduced carbon emissions by 60 percent and earned the building an ‘A’ rating for energy consumption.
      Read more

      • Elizabeth

        ### ODT Online Sat, 21 Nov 2009
        Redevelopments clash with users
        By Hamish McNeilly and John Lewis
        The closure of the Dunedin Town Hall coupled with the redevelopment of the Regent Theatre has left several organisations scrambling to find alternative venues.
        Read more

  84. Richard:
    Thanks for the lecture. It does one good to be chastised now and again. But not by one who denies the facts. It may surprise you to know that my “own facts” are only those which are/and have been contained in countless LTCCPs and DCHL reports. Again, show me the wrong ones. It pleases me to know that you would even think that I had the intelligence to concoct them on my own. And no, I don’t know who “Pauline” is. Please enlighten me.

  85. Richard

    Calvin: You really do not know who “Pauline” is? Dear, oh dear. Pearl White, heroine of blockbusting serial thrillers.

  86. Richard: Because I am not familiar with your Mills and Boon trash, does that make me illiterate and backward? Maybe, but not necessarily on your say so.

  87. David

    Richard – parking.

    I think the problem with DCC and parking, is that they didn’t use basic common sense to find if anything actually needed to be IMPROVED to make parking better or easier.

    Instead they took an approach to deliberately make it WORSE, so they could use parking to enforce their strategy of lowering central city traffic – forcing people onto buses etc.

    I came across a great example today. There was a school sports day at the Caledonian at Logan Park, and there were very few parks. Dozens of cars were parked off the road on weeds and gravel, just down from Logan Park High School, so I parked there too.

    Along came a parking services lady with a mean look, so I asked her if it was ok to park on the verge. Reply “anyone parking on grass will be ticketed”.

    Common sense rating – Zero.
    Problems caused by cars – Zero.

    It wasn’t even a mown grass verge – it was gravel and tall weeds.

    So the nearest park then became somewhere on the far side of the University, kilometres away.

    This attitude from the DCC to cause as much of a problem and cost to citizens as possible, even if they aren’t causing any problems, is not only appalling but all too common.

    I ended up crawling round and round the blocks waiting for a spare park, like lots of other parents who were getting increasingly desperate not to miss their child’s event.

    Imagine the difference living in a city where council parking services paid by ratepayers decided to have a policy of being helpful to citizens, rather than a modus operandus of causing problems where none previously existed.

  88. Richard

    Noted but let’s separate the two things, parking policy and enforcement.

    Parking space in the CBD is finite, it does need to be rationed.

    A uniform solution for all the streets involved is not appropriate, e.g. Frederick Street between the George Street and Great King Street intersections is quite different. For a starter, all the businesses (excluding Westpac) and all the parking spaces are on the north side. Failure to take that factor into account was a error of judgement just as it was for retailers etc not to participate in the leadup consultation which included a public meeting which, I think only about 13 persons attended.

    That there is now no retailers’ association and that most main street businesses are owned “out-of-town” did not assist.

    That might not have mattered if the consultation with the individual shops and businesses had been carried out as approved by council.

    As I have said before, the mish-mash in George Street was not working properly although the ‘no-turn’ change on some intersections of two years ago improved things. The backup of cars that often stretched at times from Hanover Street to The Octagon all but disappeared.

    I walked George Street nearly every business day for the 11 years June and I had our shop. I observed the frustrations et al at first hand. As a driver trying to access a carpark at the rear of shops in Edinburgh Way, I have experienced the backups that occur there every day at busy times.

    As for your experience near Logan Park High School, I really cannot comment. That is an enforcement matter. Parking on road verges of reserves is unlawful but usually enforcement is lenient. I do not know the status of the piece you refer to. Sounds to me like someone complained.

  89. Richard

    Calvin: Mills and Boon? Hardly!

  90. David

    Richard – there’s can be good reason to keep cars of grass verges, although common sense should rule.

    Often it’s during a special event where there’s simply nowhere to park, and if it’s not too wet, and no one has caused any damage, then no problem has been caused – only problems solved. Unless parking services decides to create a problem.

    However this was not a grass verge – it was a derelict weed verge.

    As for George St, did parking actually have anything to do with the congestion? From my experience, most of George St is either bus stops or loading zones, and there’s so few parks there that I haven’t bothered to try to get a George St park for years.

    The short term free parks in Gt King St were very useful. Now with everything pay and display, anyone who wants to stop for just five or ten minutes takes another minute or two (20% longer) just to go backwards and forwards getting tickets, change etc – that is on the now rare occasions when there is actually a park available.

    It seems these days that places that aren’t particularly close to town are completely empty (Smith St this morning had just a solitary car), but it’s become very difficult to get a park close to the shops.

    Hence, I’ve hardly spent any money in the CBD for months now – it’s much easier just to avoid the centre of town. And each time I have gone, the frustration has reminded me why I should stay away.

  91. Richard

    David:

    CARPARKING/CBD: you obviously have not caught up with the proposals before Council tomorrow which sort out the Loading Zone ‘legality’; reinstate 5 minute car parks in several locations (I personally advocate a mix of 5 min/10 min); Smith Street from Rattray to York Place is one of those that will offer all day parking for $5, if a user wants that.

    LOGAN PARK: On any ordinary day, parking around LP is pretty well fully utilised by university staff and students. It would be ununusal for ‘tickets’ to be issued in the circumstance you describe. (But not impossible). I still reckon someone has complained about ‘something’. I will ask if ‘anything’ was going down today when I get the chance.

    It beats me why users of The Caledonian, at this time of year, do not put in a request for parking to be allowed on the grass behind the old art gallery building – where it is hard. It is done for major cricket games at the UO and will be done for similar events at The Stadium.

    As a parting thought, I guess we could solve ‘the problem’ with meters? Joking, joking!

  92. David

    Richard – I don’t know what happened and if they all got ticketed or not – just that I was told by parking services that I would be ticketed if I parked in the weeds with everyone else.

    I ended up miles away so I came back from the other direction. A bit of common sense could have solved problems instead of creating them.

    As for meters – I like them a lot more than pay and display. If you are going to be longer, you can feed in more money (with pay and display when you do that you pay twice).

    And you can always have smart meters like Queenstown where a single meter does 6 or more parks – if anybody is worried about too much “street furniture”.

  93. Richard

    David – re Parking in Butts Road. Ran your comments past the ‘Team Leader’* Parking) asking if anything “was going down” yesterday in the area you described.

    “Yes there was secondary school sports yesterday we did not issue any tickets in the area described
    by your correspondant (sic) however we did move all vehicles off the grass on the opposite side of the road where the fitness training course is located, if officers were asked whether they could park on the grass they were informed that it is illegal to park on any grass plot alongside or forming part of any road and could receive a ticket……no notices were issued.”

    Seems she was not “mean-faced” after all?

  94. Richard

    *Oh the asterisk.

    I hate the trendy (PC) designations of this kind, did you know we have a ‘Team Leader, Cemeteries’?

    Just who does he lead, I have asked on several occasions over the years. Now there is a grudging if erratic return to using ‘Curator’ – for external purposes anyway. Everyone knows what that means, or should.

    Golly, I can even remember when ‘Chief Postmaster’, ‘Stationmaster’ et al were honorable and respected titles! Salesmen (or women) were “reps” and so on. Not that long ago either.

  95. Phil

    Starting my working life as a 16 year old lad with the NZPO, the Chief Postmaster was simply “Sir”. Like my school teachers.

  96. David

    Richard – if they didn’t ticket anyone, they shouldn’t have told us they were going to if we didn’t move.

    There were no cars on the grass by the fitness training course when I was there.

    We were all parked on the opposite side. That’s where we were told we were going to get ticketed.

    Like others I had to trawl round and round the uni and ended up parking miles away and nearly missing my daughter’s event.

    They unnecessarily stressed out a lot of parents. They also made problems where none had existed at the mini world cup at the Oval.

    • Elizabeth

      “I think we all need to be really careful the council isn’t given gold stars here” -Mandy Smart, Frederick St business owner

      ### ODT Online Sat, 7 Nov 2009
      City parking woes remain for some
      By Chris Morris
      The most vocal critics of the Dunedin City Council’s parking strategy say they are not popping Champagne corks just yet, after changes to inner-city parking confirmed this week.
      Read more

      • Elizabeth

        24.5.11 ODT Online Parking tickets polluting Otago Harbour

        27.5.11 ODT Online Car-pool scheme being test driven

        ****

        Contrary to the DCC brains trust thinking it is doing something original with the (less than flash) rideshare system it has… on 11 March 2011, What if? (see comment) provided a weblink to information about rideshare systems launching globally that utilise cell phone and GPS technology.

        Structural engineer Stephen Macknight had emailed the link to our DCC Built Environment leadership group, which includes DCC staff members.

        http://www.avego.com/

        The Avego system isn’t reliant on a large population base to work successfully. It has application for private car users as well as bus and shuttle services (public and private); and it interfaces smoothly between these. The flexibility of the Avego system is appropriate for Dunedin.

        Not too difficult for DCC to buy the Avego software, should ORC delegate the management and administration of city bus services to DCC…

        Oh wait, this council lacks the nous to empower staff use of iPads and tablet systems in the workplace. How much dependence on IT is too much.

      • Elizabeth

        City Parking issue – can’t recycle the tickets…

        ### ODT Online Tue, 24 May 2011
        Parking tickets polluting Otago Harbour
        By Chris Morris
        A wave of plastic-coated parking receipts washing up on Quarantine Island – some almost a decade old – shows something is not right in Otago Harbour, an island resident says. Quarantine Island caretaker Francine Vella has gathered more than 100 of the receipts from the shoreline since she and her family moved to the island in December.

        Concerns about the environmental impact were raised by submitters during this year’s annual plan hearings, after “huge numbers” of the receipts were recovered from harbour beaches.

        Read more

  97. Elizabeth

    From July 2009 to March 2010 and BEYOND for any solution out of council.

    ### ODT Online Fri, 13 Nov 2009
    Inner-city residents parking back on agenda
    By David Loughrey
    The Dunedin City Council is set to take another look at residents’ parking in the inner city, following complaints. The new residents’ parking policy was approved in July last year, at the same time the parking strategy for the wider city was approved. Some of the rules appeared too restrictive and should be reconsidered.
    Read more

  98. Phil

    Great photos. Actually, that reminds me of a public library I once saw. It might have been in Spain also, come to think of it. Or Italy. Anyway, it was located smack bang in the middle of the botanical gardens.

    Now that was inspirational.

  99. Calvin Oaten

    Get used to it. The DCC needs every dollar it can get. Stadiums don’t come cheap. We will get screwed from every avenue in future years. Another $14.6 million for sport will ensure the rort keeps on. This council, like recent past ones demonstrates clearly that it has no idea of where it is taking us. As for staff, ‘Jeez’, monkeys would be cheaper.

  100. Peter

    I had to laugh loud about the dosh going back into ‘general revenue’ to offset rates. Yeah, right.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s