Bad news: school mural at stadium defaced


Anti stadium sentiments have been sprayed on a school mural recently added to the stadium wall, upsetting the pupils.

Ravensbourne School pupils were the first group to paint a mural on the wall after an invitation by Keep Dunedin Beautiful.

### ODT Online Wed, 28 Oct 2009
Pupils devastated by mural defacing
By John Lewis
Anti-stadium sentiments spray-painted over a school mural on the Forsyth Barr Stadium construction site fence have left many at Ravensbourne School and the Dunedin City Council “horrified”.
Read more

Related posts:
7.11.09 STS website apology
24.10.09 Stadium: white wall goes ‘community’
31.7.09 ‘Minimalist canvas’

Post by Elizabeth Kerr


Filed under Site, Stadiums, STS

43 responses to “Bad news: school mural at stadium defaced

  1. Peter B

    The TV3 website also has its news story on the vandalism broadcast tonight on the 6pm news. Regardless of one’s views for or against the stadium, this graffiti was the act of a very sad individual.

    • Elizabeth

      Thanks Peter B, found the link:

      ### 3 News Tue, 27 Oct 2009 6:20p.m.
      Dunedin primary school vandalised in possible Carisbrook protest
      A Dunedin primary school has been vandalised in an attack that seems to have been triggered by hostility over the replacement of Carisbrook. Pupils at the school spent last week painting a mural down by the stadium. Today they had to wash it down after it was defaced overnight by anti-stadium protesters, who attacked Dunedin mayor Peter Chin and the $300 million building expense…The vandal then attacked the school, leaving behind a telling clue as to who was responsible; a message on the ground saying “don’t use the kids”.
      Read more + Video

  2. Phil

    That was a bit nasty. It didn’t look to me like there was anything in their artwork that either supported, or condemned, the process behind the fence. Just a group of kids joining together to do something constructive. Maybe the materials have been purchased by the stadium project team, but that’s a separate issue. The wrong way to protest about costs and expenses.

    The response has been organised and planned in advance. Nothing spur of the moment. Which suggests it being group motivated. And, if so, just strengthens criticism of the same people.

    Again, some people just don’t know how to help their cause. A gross miscalculation.

    I would think that the site security cameras might be able to throw a bit of light on this. I’m not a diehard stadium fan, but I think that this person ( or people ) has used the actions of children to attempt to further their cause. Knowing the publicity it would generate. Seems to me that they are just as guilty as those people they left their message to.

  3. I don’t care who or what you are, this is a shitty act, to the point that they even then took the attack to the school.

    All manner of descriptions could be used for these people, with the most polite being low-life.

  4. Richard

    Well, this is ‘a new low’ for Dunedin. Unfortunately this is what happens when “violent rhetoric” is let loose masquerading as “fair comment”.

  5. David

    Phil – you say that such an action must have been organised and planned in advance which suggests that it must have been a group. What?

    Even the most brainless individuals can operate a spray can. Just look around the city for more evidence of that.

    The fact that STS was signed as criminal graffiti on a school strongly suggests that it was not actually them.

    That would be like a thief leaving their business card.

    More likely it was either a disaffected individual (i.e. 80% of the population) or someone who wants to frame STS.

    As Richard says, there’s been a lot of violent rhetoric, including plenty aimed at STS and some of its members.

    There’s clearly a lot of people around who want to put the STS down in any way they can.

  6. Phil
    Apparently Ravensbourne School paid for the mural to the tune of $1000 according to the ODT. The stadium project team didn’t pay anything for the mural. Nor should they do so as it is rate payer money. If I was a parent at Ravensbourne School I wouldn’t be happy with the school spending money on an art project that will not last long. Why didn’t they paint a mural in their own school grounds where the children would at least get some immediate benefit from having an enhanced environment created around them?Better still, spend the money, more wisely, on a teacher aide? Aren’t schools supposed to be cash- strapped? Buying into the stadium controversy was not a wise decision by the school.

  7. Richard

    Peter: Pathetic!

  8. mouse

    I Agree.

    I think it was a bit of a worry the school choosing to spend$1000 on such a temporary mural. I feel sorry for all of the kids at Ravensbourne School when I think about what good that money could have done for all of them.

  9. David

    Far from pathetic, I also wouldn’t be happy if my kids school took them away from their school work (the school said it took a week ??? to paint), and spent $1000 of school funds to paint a mural on the stadium wall.

    I don’t know many parents – stadium supporters or opposers – that would be particularly happy about that.

    You make some good points Peter.

  10. meg55

    Peter and Mouse appear to be blaming the victim. It’s not a good look.

  11. It’s just another way of looking at the overall situation, Meg, aside from what is immediately apparent.

  12. Phil

    I don’t accept, and I will not accept, that this was some random act. It was deliberate and it was planned in advance. The person, or persons, knew who had painted it, and where they were based. They were coordinated enough to make not one trip, but two trips, to get their point across. You would have to feel pretty strongly about the issue to go to that much effort, and to run the risk of security cameras.

    While there are many people, myself included, who question the wisdom of the project, there are only a small number of people who have shown themselves to demonstrate the level of passion required for this action. And, of those, a large percentage are active within the STS group. So, whether a STS supporter is responsible or not, the fact is that the group will continue to be flagged as a potential suspect for anything like this that happens. It comes with the territory, and they should expect to be suspected. And exactly why the face of the group needs to be level headed and strong. To give credibility to a group which has continued to shoot itself in the foot with ridiculous crusades on tidal waves and terrorist attacks. The rather weak 3 word denial on television by the group spokesperson did not help their case any. That was the perfect “free to air” opportunity to show maturity and common sense, instead of finishing the opening sentence by accusing the local councils of vandalism. That was just dumb. And it showed. At the end of it all, it was that one stupid comment that I remember from the interview. A wasted moment.

    As for the funding issue, I see from the article that the school paid for the art supplies themselves. Presumably from out of their art supplies budget ? They do have such things, at least they did when I sat on trustee boards. To suggest that they chose to paint a wall at the expense of paying teaching staff is, well, a bit of a grasp.

    My comment that the art supplies may have been supplied free of charge as part of the construction project was based on a Keep Dunedin Beautiful request for a similar project for hoarding at the Wall Street site. That request was denied, but it’s not uncommon for developers to pay for artwork coverage for long term site hoardings. The reason behind that is that painted sidings are less likely to be tagged, or covered with event posters.

    Except by nutters.

  13. David

    Phil – It was the school themselves who said it cost them $1000 in materials and additional staff costs (probably most on staff costs if it took a week to design and paint).

    You say a large percentage of the people strongly against the stadium are in STS — I would disagree. I know a number of people strongly against the stadium, but none are in STS.

    If 80% of Dunedin or 100,000 people are against the stadium, that means nearly 99% of those opposed, are not part of STS.

    As I said before – the “STS” graffiti is like a burgler deliberately leaving a business card. That part of it points to someone deliberately trying to make people think it is the STS when it was not.

    As for your reasoning that because there was graffiti in two places it was well organised and planned, therefore it suggests it was group motivated rather than an individual – well that’s an extraordinarily weak argument.

  14. hang on a minute

    “If I was a parent at Ravensbourne School I wouldn’t be happy with the school spending money on an art project that will not last long.”

    Are you kidding me – really? Is this how petty we have become? Of all the money that is spent by schools, and you’re moaning about this?

    I think it was a fantastic initiative by the school, you know the sort of project which not only brings pride in the school, but one that is enhancing the environment – even if the temporal scale is short.

    David, pull your sanctimonious head out of …. I am a parent of two children, so sorry you’ll have to amend that statement. You now know one parent at least who not only thinks this is/was a good project for a school to be engaged in, but would love to see this community/creativity connection enhanced further in curriculum.

    School work – despite what the idiots within the National Govt think, is about the rounded education of the child, not just the three R’s, this includes community engagement, cultural and artistic activities. This was about making the environment of the school district more accessible to the students, something they could be proud of every day as they were going to school.

    I remember being pulled out of school (and yes missing precious lessons – in Primary School no less) for all manner of things, including Royal Visits, cultural and sporting exchanges, day trips OMG the list goes on. It’s called Education.

  15. David

    Paul – If you going to spend a $1000, as well as taking kids out of school for a week, and a week of teacher time on a mural, then you’d be far better beautifying your own school instead of a temporary fence that will be ripped down next year.

    Considering how hard parents work to raise a small amount of extra money for schools, I wouldn’t be happy if our school spent that money to beautify someone else’s temporary construction wall instead of their own facility.

    I thought it was common sense to spend school money on the school, rather than the stadium – apparently objecting to spending school money on the stadium is now sanctimonious.

    Of course education is more than the 3 Rs, but it should be AT LEAST the 3 Rs.

    With 20% of kids failing in 3Rs, the only career school has prepared them for is a criminal one.

  16. Phil

    Ok, I’ll be the one who says it, although I thought we had put this to bed some months back. 80% of people in Dunedin are NOT against the stadium. This is a throwback to another one of those times when the STS publicity machine has just been plain dumb. And foolishly thought that the rest of us were just as dumb. 80% of people who responded to one survey did not want their rates to be used to fund the stadium.

    If we’re going to use the “one equals the other” argument, then there first needs to be an updated question along the lines of “now that your rates are being used to fund a portion of the stadium, do you support the construction of the stadium?”. Then it’s a level playing field. You can’t drag out historical data and use them to justify current actions. In the same way that the Council’s own previous survey should never have been given air once the funding arrangements had been determined. It applies to all.

    If you run a hot rod club, and someone gets run over by a hot rod, expect that people are going to come knocking on your door. STS should have been prepared for the finger pointing, and should have had a better response prepared than the one delivered. All this has shown is a continued lack of control and organisation. Different face, same rudderless ship. The unfortunate part about it all, is that initially the group had valid points. But they got lost in the organisational rabble. Until they can learn to portray themselves in a coherant credible light, they will continue to be viewed as likely candidates for stupid actions.

    And, what I said was, a large majority of the people who have demonstrated themselves to be the most passionately opposed to the stadium construction were active within the STS group.

    My teachers took me to the school sports days too, and the aquarium, even to Forbury Park one time. Although, in hindsight, there may have been an ulterior motive behind that last outing. As Paul correctly pointed out, that’s education.

  17. David

    If you’re going to spend a week and a grand of school money on a mural, it’s basic common sense to do it at your own school, or at the very lease somewhere where it’s going to be around after next year.

    60%, 80%, 70% whatever. Somewhere between 75,000 and 100,000 people don’t want to pay for a second rugby stadium.

  18. Phil

    Well, I don’t know where your figures come from, so I can’t comment on your numbers. I will repeat that 80% of respondants to one survey stated that, given the choice, they didn’t want their rates money used to fund a portion of the stadium construction. What you, me, and everyone else don’t know is how many people are currently in favour, or opposed to, the construction of a new stadium. Now that funding has been determined, and construction is underway. Which is how you initially portrayed those results. The parameters that applied to the original survey are no longer in place.

    I’m one who is not in favour of the level of public funding for this project. Never was. But, now that it’s being built, it’s a pointless exercise to bitch and moan about where we are today. It’s not going to change one single thing. Like it or not, we are stuck with it now. What is important now, what is vital, is that the finished product returns the promised dividends. That’s not to say it’s been forgotten, and I, like many others, will be watching carefully so that we don’t get caught in the same position again.

  19. Boy, haven’t Paul, Phil and Richard got upset by this widened view of the mural and the wisdom of painting it in the first place! (Hence the long rants – except Richard’s one word debate). Let’s face it. The ‘Keep Dunedin Beautiful’ organisation have got themselves roped into a ‘Let’s Get Behind The Stadium And Feel Good About It’ campaign in order to give the project some ‘endorsement’. The stadium has been overwhelmingly opposed – that is clear – and despite the signing of the contracts to build the stadium the clarion call by councillors, and others, to get behind it has failed miserably. (As people watch their DCC and ORC rates bills come in they see how they have been duped. The $66 per week average – or a $1 pw, including ORC rates, claimed by Cr Michael Guest – was twisted in many peoples’ minds to mean no more). So what do you do to engender enthusiasm for the project? That’s right. You have a happy mural drawing project done by happy kids. We all then feel soooo good! Trouble is the kids are used as pawns to give some kind of credibility for a grubbily conceived and executed project.

  20. Richard

    Peter, absolutely pathetic.

    It was, in fact, the School of Art (Polytechnic) that first proposed painting murals on the fence as a community project. Not the CSCT, not the DCC and certainly not STS.

    Stop making excuses. There are none.

  21. David

    Phil says “What is important now, what is vital, is that the finished product returns the promised dividends.”

    Promised dividends?

    Do you mean $10,000,000 in annual liabilities to pay the loan, offset by $200,000 profit (if optimistic forecasts are met)?

    With the so-called profit covering a mere 2% of the liabilities, a near $10m loss per year doesn’t sound like an attractive dividend to me. The liability is 50 times greater than the optimistic profit.

    Any other benefits to city businesses are offset by the fact that 90% of those benefits already exist with the current stadium.

    This is where so many people totally miscalculate the benefit of the new stadium. They count the benefit of the new stadium vs no stadium, rather than the new stadium vs old stadium.

    And they also leave out the other side of the ledger – costs of the new stadium ($10m per year x20 years) vs costs of the old stadium (one-off payment of $7m for the whole thing).

    Considering a test is supposed to bring in $5m, we’ll need around three tests every single year just to bring it up to the same cost benefit of Carisbrook.

    So the stadium could be wildly successful and make a profit five times (500% greater) than forecast (i.e. $1m) and it would only make the difference to ratepayers of a loss of $9m per year instead of $10m per year.

  22. meg55

    Yes, Peter, blaming the victim is another way of looking at the overall situation, but is this the right time? I suppose STS does actually want to save its reputation and distance itself from this graffiti attack in its entirety. When you blame the victim and parrot the graffiti artist’s sentiments you somewhat weaken that position.

  23. David

    Richard – what’s absolutely pathetic is council performance and leadership (or lack of it) over this whole stadium issue –

    Council has –

    1/ Failed to tell ratepayers the true costs (leading to lack of trust of the council).
    2/ Failed to clearly explain how it will be paid for.
    3/ Failed to keep to their own conditions, repeatedly.
    4/ Failed to hold the private sector to its funding commitments.
    5/ Failed to keep to council’s own spending limits, again and again (“not a dollar over” $89m?, $93m? $198m?).
    6/ Failed to show that benefits will outweigh the costs (because this is impossible?).
    7/ Failed to get ratepayers onboard.
    8/ Failed to keep the DCC within its own self-imposed debt limits.
    9/ Failed to consider if there was any more beneficial ways to spend $200m.
    10/ Failed to take a cautious low risk approach with public money (as will now be required by law).
    11/ Failed to explain who will pay if a multitude of risks eventuate – a/ interest rates go up, b/ city companies don’t have profits to cover loan payments, c/ spectator numbers are lower than forecast, d/ construction costs go up, e/ if it’s not ready on time, f/ if we get fewer tests, lose highlanders etc, g/ if running costs are higher than predicted i.e. pitch problem, h/ if there are higher maintenance costs, i/ if we miss out on the $2m per year from the tax credit we’re counting on (because of lower profits or law change) etc.

    12/ Failed to come up with a plan B for funding, if even just one of the multitude of risks come true.

    Even pro-stadium people I know agree that council performance on the stadium fiasco has been abysmal.

    Council failure in handling the stadium issue has been split the city and been massively negative for Dunedin.

  24. James

    Umm wow.

    1. The wall is on the main road to Ravensbourne. The kids go to Ravensbourne School. The kids, their parents, grandparents etc. are going to see their work on a regular basis.

    2. Murals, especially kids’ murals, have a use-by date. These were Year 6 students, by the time the mural comes down, they’ll be not far off starting high school.

    • Elizabeth

      ### ODT Online Thu, 14 Jul 2011
      Stadium murals returned at thank-you ceremony
      The 66 painted panels surrounding the Forsyth Barr Stadium construction site will soon be returned to their artists, who were thanked for their work at a ceremony in Dunedin on Monday night. Keep Dunedin Beautiful chairwoman Jan Tucker said the organisation started the Community Art at the Stadium project after it realised the “very blank wall… was going to be graffitied”. Ravensbourne School was the first to paint a mural, about 18 months ago, and pieces from groups as varied as Special Olympics New Zealand and the Salvation Army Bridge Programme were added.
      Read more

  25. If you want to get into the victim mentality argument, Meg, how about also considering STS as being the victim of a smear campaign- something you’d be familiar with. (You have your OWN issues with STS, of course, which colour your now familiar, negative STS comments – despite still being a member.) STS has clearly condemned the vandalism. Read the ODT.
    David’s response to Phil’s comments about the ‘promised dividends’ once again puts the viability of the new stadium in doubt. The call to get behind a pup like the stadium is likely to bite those apologists in the bum, sooner or later. The ‘How Do WE Make The Stadium Work?’ plea is easy to answer. We put the onus back on THEM – those who masterminded the project – to find additional private sector funding to keep the show on the road. Not the rorted ratepayers who are already burdened. Will this happen? Not if we have a weak council who goes along with this cover up excuse ‘to get behind the stadium’ with regular, additional injections of ratepayer money when the losses keep flowing in. If – or when – the Highlanders finally shut up shop, after the present two years on life support by the NZRFU, that will be difficult to justify, I’d imagine.

  26. Richard
    You’d be hard pressed to find widespread support for the stadium at the Art School. Where is their art contribution evident on the stadium fence? Are they proposing anything, do you know? No artist worth their salt would willingly have their work censored beforehand, to make sure there are no words (a condition) or anything ‘tasteless’ that sends the stadium fiasco up. Would you like to see – or would you accept – reproductions of Garrick Tremain’s brilliant stadium cartoons? I seem to remember Ralph Hotere’s partner, and artist colleague, Mary, proposing to leave the fence alone as she pointed out the natural beauty of sunlight, and shadows from the trees, playing on the white fence. Seems a good idea to me and it doesn’t cost a bean. (In another example, I liked the idea of the person who wrote a letter to the editor of the ODT concerning the proposed replacement of the northern motorway fence as you approach/leave Dunedin. She simply proposed painting it instead of wasting money on some hideous mesh fence.)

  27. JJ

    It’s got the Stupid Twits Society, written all over it! I note their current President isn’t exactly condemning it rather milking it for cheap publicity off the backs of this disgraceful act. I would agree there is a word for an individual who says “we condemn this action BUT guess what people don’t like the stadium look at us! look at us!” PATHETIC!

  28. Phil

    I’m sorry, but I fail to see the point today of throwing figures around in the air. That achieves what ?

    The fact is that there is a construction contract in place, and the financial management of the project has been determined. Apart from increasing one’s stress levels, what is the purpose behind waving theoretical sums around ?

    It is now in the best interests of each and every ratepayer that the new stadium achieves the highest success. Wishing it doom and failure now is only hurting the ratepayers more financially.

    What is the alternative today? Cancel the contract? With 50 million already spent, another 30 million tied up in subcontracts, service level agreements in place? Let me tell you what would happen now. If it was suddenly decided that a horrible mistake had been made, and that everything should stop right now, there would be no change out of 100 million in costs. And nothing to show for it. In fact, worse than nothing. The site in its current form is unsafe, so someone would have to pay for demolition, waste disposal, and making good. The head contractor, all subcontractors, product suppliers, service providers, would all immediately claim for expenses and loss of profits for the next 18 months. All perfectly legal and acceptable. The borrowing would be exactly the same, but with zero asset. Expend 75% of the contract value and receive nothing in return? I hardly see that as good financial sense. Add into the mix that the land has already been bought, consultants have already been paid. There’s another 75 million. Do you think that the banks will decide to make that interest free because we never built anything?

    So I repeat the question, what are you achieving ?

  29. Phil
    Your question. ‘What are you achieving?’ Answer. Accountability. People want ‘ultimate accountability’ when the proverbial hits the fan. Theoretical figures? You don’t actually specifically contest David’s figures. You seem to basically argue ‘what’s done is done and get over it.’ As if it is that simple. If we do not have accountability, and people are hoodwinked into forgetting the stadium rort, then history has a nasty habit of repeating itself. Along will come another ‘visionary’ with his/her own agenda and with the necessary aggression to go with it. Lo and behold we are lumped with another albatross to join the council colony.
    How easy is it to forget, you may ask? Remember in the CST Feasibility Report 2007 there were two quantity surveyor estimates for the stadium – $188m ( the ‘not one cent over’ one) and $240m. Malcolm, and friends, chose the cheaper one. It does sound better to market to our councillors, and the wider populace, I must admit. (Or so they thought.) People have largely forgotten this. My point is why should we forget? We don’t forget those who died at Gallipoli. We remember and we try to learn some lessons from history.

    What is your view, Richard, on the preferred estimate? Or did you just decide to believe and go along with it?

    ‘Wishing it doom and failure now is only hurting the rate payers more financially’. At least, Phil, you seem to acknowledge they have been hurt so far. More hurt to come, I’m afraid, whether finally built or canned mid stream.

  30. David

    Phil – your reasoning sounds like that of a problem gambler.

    We’ve only wasted $100m, so we really need to put in another $100m, and $100m interest, to give us a good chance of getting our forecast return (of $0.2m).

  31. James

    David — It’s not like problem gambling. It is, however, very much like like the decision-making/behavioural economics concept of sunk costs. Whether it is or not largely depends on one’s estimates of likely benefit if the stadium is completed.

    NB: If the project were to be cancelled now, there would still be interest costs (just proportionately smaller).

  32. David

    It’s obvious we’ve already blown a lot of money.

    So the question becomes do we want to lose $100m, $200m, or $300m?

    The last one comes with a financial benefit of a forecast $0.2m payback.

    As far as other benefits – it’s likely they will rise slightly from the current benefits of Carisbrook.

    But there’s no guarantee this will happen. With a ten year trend for lower spectator numbers, and more people watching rugby at home on their flat screen tvs, it’s quite possible that benefits to the city of a new stadium will be LESS than what we currently get from Carisbrook (which cost us just 2% of what the new stadium will cost us).

  33. meg55

    Peter, why don’t you consider what I have to say instead of conducting your own personal smear campaign against me? This paranoia about the motives of any member who dares to question the executive’s actions has done the organisation more harm than good.

    The theory that some anti-STS person, not an STS member, has done this graffiti to discredit STS would be more credible if STS members like yourself wholeheartedly condemned the actions of the person concerned instead of excusing them. Yes, I read the ODT, but the condemnation needs to be echoed by members like yourself. It doesn’t help that most of your effort so far has gone into agreeing with the graffiti artist.
    STS has no code of conduct for its members. Rabble rousing rhetoric has accompanied the executive’s pronouncements for several months now. I don’t think it’s impossible some STS member might sign his handiwork with pride and expect a pat on the head. I think it’s much more likely, in fact, than a smear campaign which I believe is another example of the STS upper echelon’s paranoia.

  34. Meg, a smear is based on something that is a lie, not on questionable actions that are identifiable. Of course the vandalism that occurred is wrong and stupid. I could equally accuse you of not being vocal enough to even consider that a smear has been intended against STS. The obvious ‘signing off’ by the vandal seems to point increasingly to an attempt to discredit STS which, as a devoted STS member, you are not even prepared to countenance. Instead you announce your own ‘excuse’ for why someone should be so dumb to sign off as STS, with pride being a motive! Would you sign your name with pride, if you wanted to sabotage something? I don’t think so.

  35. ‘So the question becomes do we want to lose $100m, $200 or $300m?’
    I guess the job of the next council, or the one after, will be to decide when do we pull the pin? Or do we give the stadium a permanent lifeline via rates increases?

  36. meg55

    Peter, read my post again. You’ve missed the point and also misrepresented what I said.

    I’m glad you believe the vandalism was ‘wrong and stupid’. Stick to that if you want to distance STS from it and stop blaming the school.

  37. Phil

    Peter, where exactly have I stated that we should “forget” about the process, or that we shouldn’t ensure that the same mistakes are not repeated again? Learning from history. I think that, if you would like to go back and read my rant, you will find that I have stated exactly the opposite, and agree fully with you on those points.

    Where this thread is losing its way now, is in fighting a battle that has already been lost. The stadium is being built, and no amount of wailing about the long term cost is going to change that. There has been enough publicity now, from both sides, about projected costs and incomes. Enough that any reasonable person can make their own informed decision come election time, should they chose that to be a factor.

    To terminate the GMP construction contract now is dumb. The majority of the money has either been spent, or has been committed. That money still has to be paid, with bank interest loans. Factoring back in demolition and making good costs, the total cost for terminating the contract today could well exceed the original contract sum.

    There was a classic case about 5 years ago, when WINZ cancelled a fit out contract to their local office, one week prior to construction starting. The original contract value was $250,000. WINZ had to pay the contractor $175,000 for materials and loss of income. And got what? Nothing. I’m not about to give a $140 million donation to Hawkins. Having something contributing to the repayment schedule, however minor, is better than nothing.

  38. David

    Phil – you say “Having something contributing to the repayment schedule, however minor, is better than nothing.”

    Another quite likely scenario – having something requiring ongoing payments adding to the repayment schedule, is worse than nothing.

    You are jumping to the conclusion that the stadium will actually make money.

    Forecasts from CST show that even with highly optimistic attendances, the stadium is on a knife edge to be fractionally better than break even.

  39. Hi Phil
    I think I was talking, in a general sense, of not forgetting the lessons of the past, not you forgetting as such in particular. Sorry if I confused you on this.
    I agree the immediate battle has been lost, but if we fall for the trap of despair, and remain in a state of silent resentment, the perpetrators have won two-fold. They, in effect, have driven us into silence. It is conceivable that we get to the point where a halt has to be called in further fattening the white elephant we call the stadium. A case of selling off the family silver? If only it was worth that much.

  40. Elizabeth

    GOOD news
    We love this graphic!!!!


    ### ODT Mon 9 Nov 2009
    Artists leave mark on stadium
    Despite being held up by poor weather and the examination period, staff and students from the University College of residence have worked during the past fortnight to create an image of their building on the wall of the Forsyth Barr Stadium construction zone.
    Photo by Peter McIntosh
    Read more


    tweet from ForBarrStadium
    Celia Davies painting:) Great work


    ### NZ Herald 4:00AM Monday Nov 09, 2009
    Study trashes anti-tagging policies
    By Alanah May Eriksen
    Taggers have trashed initiatives aimed at preventing graffiti, saying it just encourages them to keep vandalising private and public spaces. New research aimed at understanding offender motivation may have implications for policy-makers and other agencies.
    Read more

Leave a Reply to peter Cancel reply

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

You are commenting using your 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