Carisbrook use: discussion with “interested parties”

Talks with the usual business-boy suspects???

### ODT Online Thu, 18 Mar 2010
Keeping Carisbrook an option
By Chris Morris
The Dunedin City Council may seek to retain ownership of Carisbrook and develop the site, rather than selling it, it has been confirmed. Councillors at this week’s finance and strategy committee – in a section of the meeting held behind closed doors – asked for a staff report with more details on the options available to make best use of the site. The report would be considered at the committee’s next meeting, on April 26.

“It’s a very large site. It’s a significant matter in terms of what people are talking about in Caversham and South Dunedin and it’s not something that should be done on the hoof.”
-Cr Richard Walls

Read more

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr


Filed under Architecture, Design, Economics, Politics, Site, Stadiums, Town planning, Urban design

8 responses to “Carisbrook use: discussion with “interested parties”

  1. Russell Garbutt

    The information I have from the DCC under the provisions of the LGOIMA is that the residential properties are to be sold. It is quite clear and unequivocal on that point. And sold sooner rather than later. So, assume that these properties formerly owned by the ORFU, now by the DCC will be in new ownership in the very near future – unless of course the DCC didn’t know what it was going to do with them either.

    So, the interest or uncertainty is in the Carisbrook ground.

    Of course I’m interested in why the DCC paid $6m of our money to purchase the ground, and a further $1m for the 8 residential properties, although they say that according to reports and a valuation that backs their decision, it made economic sense to do so. But hang on, now it seems that they don’t know what to do with it, so where does that leave their economic assessment?

    The question I have, is why did the DCC purchase the ground in the first place?

    It becomes even plainer that the Ground was purchased to save the ORFU and the interests of the ORFU over the interests of the ratepayer. Is it not a major coincidence that the ORFU needed $7m and the DCC came up with exactly that to get them off the hook?

    Especially now when the purpose of buying it seems to be not able to be identified. More headless chook stuff.

  2. Richard

    For the record, the DCC did not pay “$6m for the ground” and “$1m for the eight residential properties”. The total purchase price for the three properties was – as previously announced – $7m.

    Richard Walls
    Finance and Strategy, DCC

  3. Russell Garbutt

    Richard, so why did the ODT report that the residential properties were purchased for $1m and the ground and carpark for $6m?

    Where did they get that from? Are you saying, for the record, that this is not the case?

  4. Richard

    I can only suggest you ask the ODT Reporter. Yes.

  5. Russell Garbutt

    Richard, you are stating that the ODT report is not accurate. Not like you to hang back, and you have often referred to ODT articles in the past to back your positions.

    As far as the readership of the ODT is concerned, the ground and the empty carpark was purchased for $6m and the residential properties for $1m. But be that as it may, and I have no interest in trying to get you to admit to the public disclosure, but the fact remains that you have purchased the ground but seem to have no idea of what you want to do with it.

    Evidence of headless chook stuff to me.

  6. Richard

    Your answer is in the ODT report above.

    To summarise: Council’s original intention at the time it agreed (in February 2009) to acquire the Carisbrook properties was to eventually sell them. That is provided for in the long-term council community plan and indeed the current Draft Annual Plan.

    Since then other options have emerged. Council believes they should be considered.

    It will further consider the matter at the next meeting of Finance and Strategy on Monday 26 April.

  7. Russell Garbutt

    Richard – so we can now confirm the ODT report – that is at least now plain from your response. We can also presumably confirm that the advice I have received via the LGOIMA that the residential properties will be sold as soon as possible is also accurate.

    That only leaves the issue of the ground and carpark and now it seems that some other options have emerged. We look forward to hearing what those options are, and perhaps more interestingly, we look forward to hearing what the actual purpose of acquiring the ground was in the first place before these other options appeared.

  8. Richard

    You do not reference the date of the OIA response from Council. Whatever, the sale of all the ex ORFU properties is now “on hold”.

    I do not know what you mean by “confirm the ODT report”. It is correct insofar as I have referenced it. That is all.

    The Minutes of Council and Committees are the only confirmed records.

Leave a 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