And we let Dunedin residents vote . . .

National quality of life survey… less than half Dunedin residents understand how Dunedin City Council makes decisions

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr


Filed under People, Politics

10 responses to “And we let Dunedin residents vote . . .

  1. Anonymous

    I wonder how many of those polled were sitting councillors. The result would still be less than half.

  2. Peter

    Sadly, the drop in confidence, to 44%, in ‘how the council made decisions in the best interest of the city’, tells them, as Dave Cull says, ‘We’ve obviously got some work to do.’ He could start by not putting himself, and the council, in the same position as that faced by the Chin Council – irresponsible spending, lack of transparency and the perception they are working for vested interests. This figure suggests the Cull Council, so far, is no better than the last – in fact, worse in people’s eyes.

  3. Interesting comment on the likely losses faced by DCHL company, Delta, on its Jacks Point property speculation:

  4. Calvin Oaten

    Alistair, you might want to look at the common denominator in all of this. First, Hanover contracts to purchase a bundle of sections in the Jacks Point development. Then it reneges on the deal. The development company would rely on that money to either finance further development or, more likely to keep it out of the ‘knackers yard’. Solution: find a backup purchaser quickly, preferably a cash buyer. Along comes ‘Delta’ and ‘bingo’ problem if not solved at least delayed. Who had an equity interest in the development and at the same time is a director of DCHL? Also who had an equity position in the Luggate development in conjunction with Mr Boult? Why did Delta buy into the equity of this company? After all, it was also going nowhere with sales. The same DCHL director. He of course declared his interest and withdrew from discussions. At least that is what we are told. The purchase was either in cash or a contra for unpaid development work carried out by Delta. Does anyone think the DCHL directors should be dumped en masse?

  5. Russell Garbutt

    Calvin, there is no doubt that DCHL requires a comprehensive, exhaustive forensic audit along with a full investigation by a body that everyone has confidence in. Not sure who that would be.

    The conflicts of interest that have been revealed over a large number of years are legion, and despite a number of reasoned calls for transparency in the many “deals” done in financing private business deals, the decisions made behind very closed doors always seem to end up benefitting a small number of individuals or entitites. The ORFU is but one. It is unacceptable for those individuals within DCHL to continue to act as though this is a private company – it is owned by US.

    Much more frightening is the level of debt that DCHL has – totally at the behest of the DCC for the new rugby stadium, and it seems that while Cr Hudson doesn’t believe that he has a conflict of interest in being both the Chair of DCHL and a DCC Councillor, many others think that he does.

    Time for DCHL to get a big door opening and a sweep-out, and while the broom is out, I’m sure that it could be kept busy at City Hall.

    • Elizabeth

      ### ODT Online Mon, 23 May 2011
      Editorial: Dunedin – not a bad place to live
      Hard on the heels of a national health survey showing Dunedin residents feel among the healthiest in the country, comes a further fillip to the city’s residents. A Quality of Life survey – a joint exercise involving councils covering New Zealand’s eight largest cities – has Dunedin at the top of several critical lifestyle indicators, including safety in home after dark, access to parks and green spaces and a positive overall quality of life.

      Even accounting for a natural hostility for any body charged with levelling rates, it has been a consistent message that the DCC has to get better at listening to its people, and this survey confirms that.

      Read more

  6. Russell Garbutt

    It is a sad fact however that on the one really big project that this Council, the Otago Regional Council and the Community Trust of Otago has embarked on, that not one chose to consult the community. It is equally a sad fact that despite record numbers of submissions opposed to the new rugby stadium project, that both Councils in particular adopted the position of simply not listening. They simply didn’t want to know.

    They had the opportunity to conduct a resident’s survey, but chose not to.

    The arrogance is outstanding, the lack of governace capability equally outstanding, but judging by this latest survey, is just what is expected by the community.

    More than time for Dave Cull to commit to opening all the books on this project and to reveal what has been really going on.

  7. Peter

    Of course they had the opportunity to contribute financially, when asked, to the university survey on the stadium. The DCC was not interested. The ORC was not interested. The CST was definitely not interested. The Otago Daily Times-the independent voice of the people- was not interested. It’s so inconvenient to have a survey that can’t be manipulated by vested interests and ends up telling you what you don’t want to hear.

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