Only the day before the Winkle tried to “separate” DEBT from the STADIUM. She would do better sentenced to hard labour than try busting the rocks of the Autonomous Crown Entity, Heritage New Zealand —because she sure as hell won’t win.
The Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 makes it unlawful for any person to modify or destroy, or cause to be modified or destroyed, the whole or any part of an archaeological site without the prior authority of Heritage New Zealand. Those wishing to do any work that may affect an archaeological site must obtain an authority from Heritage New Zealand before they begin.
█ http://www.heritage.org.nz/protecting-heritage/archaeology
█ Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014
█ s87 Offence of modifying or destroying archaeological site
—
![Hilary Calvert1 [3news.co.nz]](https://dunedinstadium.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/hilary-calvert1-3news-co-nz.jpg)
### ODT Online
Wed, 26 Nov 2014
Anger at Pol Pot remark
By Chris Morris
A Dunedin city councillor who compared Heritage New Zealand with the leader of the Khmer Rouge has been forced to beat a hasty retreat.
Cr Hilary Calvert made the comment as councillors discussed Heritage New Zealand’s desire to protect the old sea wall running alongside Portobello Rd on Otago Peninsula. […] on hearing Heritage New Zealand would likely want to see older sections of the wall protected, beneath a new one, Cr Calvert said the council should not be “asking their permission”. Read more
“We are being held to ransom by this Pol Pot-ish approach, aren’t we?” —Calvert [The Clueless]
█ Report – ISC – 25/11/2014 (PDF, 86.4 KB)
Peninsula Roading Acceleration Update
—
Posted by Elizabeth Kerr
*Image: 3news.co.nz – Hilary Calvert
What if? Dunedin... 
Talking about walls, that wall which collapsed on the corner of Smith and Stuart Sts, and was ‘modified’ with remnants of the old at each end, is silly. Not sure what was achieved there except an uglier newly prominent wall. I guess that’s what tokenism is all about.
Tokenism?
The end bits are the original. The rest is ugly concrete block. I think this was an unhappy compromise to please heritage advocates. Not sure if they would like the finished product. I don’t.
I ask how can the ‘old sea wall’ can be protected if the project involves widening of Portobello Rd on the Peninsula? Simple, it can’t. It can only be replicated further out. Another one for the “Lunatic Fringe”.
Forget the mullet, the DA and the comb-over. Forget the Bowl Cut whether you’ve got the phone or not.
Get the Dunedin Style, show your support of the stadium with a “Lunatic Fringe” a la Mayor Cull!
Bayley’s carpark is above the wall.
### ODT Online Tue, 27 Nov 2014
HNZ defends position
By Chris Morris
Heritage New Zealand is defending its stance on the protection of Dunedin’s harbour sea walls, but will not be drawn on controversial comments aimed at it by Cr Hilary Calvert.
HNZ Otago-Southland area manager Jonathan Howard …. stressed HNZ was working closely with the council on the project, and was open to discussions about recycling sections of the walls on a “case by case” basis.
Read more
[history and significance in brief]
Heritage New Zealand List No. 4726 Otago Harbour Walls (Category I)
Public NZAA Number I44/302
THERE ARE SEVERAL GOOD REASONS WHY HILARY CALVERT SHOULD NEVER BE MAYOR OF DUNEDIN —Got that, Hils ??!!!!!!!
Well, this is another one. Your lack of logic and not knowing when to keep your trap shut lost you your ACT seat in parliament too. So keep those horizons low or they’ll stay low for you. Not to put too sharp an edge on it.
ODT 28.11.14 (page 12)
I feel so sorry for you.
You and your senile hate towards anybody that doesn’t t agree with you; that has become an embarrassment. Your latest torrent of vitriol, sarcasm and contempt is nothing but that.
Must be sad to see how everybody moves on. No rates revolt, nobody impaled in the octagon, nothing. Who knows, maybe those of us that actually pay taxes and rates, well maybe we don’t mind …I couldn’t agree more with Calvert’s letter.
You have a good day too. Thanks for pumping our view numbers which are already high due to the events of this week and the latest post celebrating an instructive decision by the hearing panel of Dunedin City Council.
For God’s sake, the tenant and the owner are the same crowd – the DCC. What induces Hilary Calvert to think that the stadium more or less covers its operational costs? Can she not read a balance sheet?
I’m afraid her logic if she had any, has gone the same way as the mounting debt – down the drain.
I think it is illuminating that so many different people are now commenting on the stadium and the unconsidered options. Today I took a call from a rural person that is still furious that the ORC contributed to the white elephant, but he too was lamenting the fact that simply shutting the doors and only opening them when someone who is prepared to pay all the costs for use and a small profit was an option that seemed too hard for the feeble minded collective round the DCC table to consider.
Some may remember Hilary was once pro stadium. She wrote an opinion piece for the ODT comparing the building of the stadium to that of the great cathedrals of Europe. Then, to her credit, she thought more deeply and turned against the stadium. Now she has backflipped again.
She went to the election promising more accountability and scrutiny of council finances. Many expected more from her.
Does Hilary know who she is and what she really believes in?
Hilary Calvert has learned nothing from the mistakes of the past: Sue Bidrose’s stadium report continues the long tradition of the Mayor and his favorite councillors colluding with the staff and the Stakeholders to deliberately mislead the public and the other councillors about the stadium and its finances. By promoting this report, Hilary is participating in continuing to mislead the public about how severe are the consequences of the original mistake.
In her ODT letter she follows the Stadium Misinformation Media Plan by talking about DVML as if it was the whole stadium. She says The stadium can be expected to cover its operating expenses~, without recognizing that DVML will continue to rely on ratepayer subsidies and DVL will always make a huge annual loss. The lesson for Hilary is that the losses and subsidies of both DVML and DVL need to be counted when talking about the ratepayer impact – it is dishonest to ignore the losses and subsidies of DVL. Together, DVML and DVL will continue to make huge annual losses and require very large subsidies. Sue Bidrose’s proposals will make no difference to this.
It is useful to compare the DCC Stadium to the Otago Settlers Museum, DPAG and other facilities. The stadium is, by far, the most costly of any of them at over $20 million each year. Most of them lose money, but we keep them because we think that the benefits are greater than the costs. For the stadium the costs exceed the benefits. The question isn’t whether to keep it or demolish it, it is how long should we keep paying for this mistake. Another question for Cr Calvert is: Are you going to help people understand the real ratepayer impact of the stadium, or will you continue to help Dave Cull and Sue Bidrose to mislead the citizens of the City? Answer here please.
Where is the subsidy money coming from if not the usual victims – “The lesson for Hilary is that the losses and subsidies of both DVML and DVL need to be counted when talking about the ratepayer impact” – or did a large meteorite of pure titanium land at the door of the stadium with a note attached, For the Fubar?
Has the makings of a great cartoon by our friend Mr Tremain. If you’re listening Garrick ?!!
They hate answering questions like that and so the official position from the chief spindoctor (Mr Macarena) is that there are no subsidies paid to DVL and DVML. Everyone knows they are lying. In fact last year the city paid $8.983 million in subsidies to DVL and DVML from DCHL in the form of “subvention payments” (another name for subsidy). At a Council meeting (3/11/14) Lee Vandervis questioned Grant McKenzie about this and the reply was ~ the subvention payment of $5.25 million, that is the only subsidy – well it’s not a subsidy, it is the only payment from within the DCHL group that is made. So you can see that he lied to councillors by saying that the payment is not a subsidy and he also lied by saying that this was the only payment and also lied because the actual amount was a lot bigger than $5.25 million. You might think that this is an error, but this “error” is repeated throughout the Bidrose Stadium Report and in the latest DCHL annual report and in the DCC Annual Plan, so I think that this is a policy decision as part of the marketing plan to minimize the public perception of the DCC making exceedingly stupid and expensive decisions. Sue Bidrose gets the blame for this.
Jimmy,you are absolutely right about the ‘gerrymandering’ of the figures. In Y/E June 2014 DVML received subvention payments amounting to $1.229m. Capital injection by way of share uptake by DCC of $6.577m to total $7.806 million.
DVL in turn received a subvention payment of $7.754m plus a further sum of $.681m to total $8.435m. Plus a capital injection of $2.0m.
All in all, a total of $18.241m.
The claimed, just $5.25m is an after tax figure were it paid to the DCC as a dividend. As a subvention it does not attract tax therefore it becomes the gross $7.754m. For Grant McKenzie to claim it was the only payment from within the DCHL group is untrue as the DVML’s $1.229m and DVL’s additional $.681m demonstrates. The capital contributions will be an annual event as DVL’s authorised capital of 245,000,000 $1 shares have only been called to 79,688,931 with the balance of 165,531,069 still available.
A hideous finangle if ever there was one.
Calvin: you would hope that a ratepayer bail-out of $18 million for the last financial year would be enough, but the stadium companies still made a loss of $4.6 million ($4.539m + $0.058m). The citizens are responsible for both the losses and the bail-outs, so for the last financial year that adds up to $22.6 million. The changes proposed by Sue Bidrose will make no difference to this figure and so the ratepayer impact should continue at about this amount for future years.
Yes, it is A hideous finangle and it should also demonstrate that Sue Bidrose and her staff can not be trusted to give honest financial information to our councillors. Of course our councillors have the ultimate responsibility for the honesty and accuracy of the staff’s work, but at present the average councillor is too stupid to add a few numbers together and possess a very dangerous flocking instinct. Dangerous to Dunedin, that is.
Jimmy: you’re right again. Months ago Bev and I came up with the real costs at an estimated $22-23 million pa after the DCC Annual Plan nonsense telling us it was just $9.840m (see page 16).
This latest review is really only a re-work of that with a bit added here and there. New total $11.650m. Then they scare the tripe out of us saying it would cost a further $3.760m if it was ‘Closed and Demolished’. A total of $13.600m pa.
So the wankers around the table agreed it would have to stay open as per usual as being the most cost effective option.
Not a thought given to how much revenue could be gathered if it was ‘Closed but Retained’, available on demand, without the expense of DVML. Toughen up and negotiate with the principle user Rugby being made to pay the proper figure or go away. It could then be either onto a better footing to at least ‘break even’. The proof would be in rugby would either come to the party or not, then it would stay closed. As a review it was no more than an exercise in semantics.
And, Calvin, don’t forget about the contribution from local ‘philanthropists’ who, if they had any conscience, would cough up their fair share from what they have already gained financially. OK, they won’t do this without a fight, but they can face the consequences of their actions and be forced into paying compensation for what looks increasingly like fraudulent activity on their part.
Imagine the support the council would have to pursue this course of action.
Peter: in the Bidrose stadium report the land has been valued at $6.6 million ([estimated] “proceeds from land sales” on p26). Some bits of land have been sold and so the current book value is $28.5 million. You can see the level of profiteering.
Yes, Jimmy, the land issue is a big one for the rort that went on. It was blatant…. and still no accountability in terms of compensation and prison sentences.
Jimmy,
Also compare the $6.4 million 50-year capital maintenance fund presented in the STS court case with what is now stated in the latest Stadium Review where the capital maintenance and renewals figure is $51.855 million over the next 20 years.
Bev: Yes, the $6.4 million 50-year capital maintenance fund was severely insufficient. Probably it was fraudulent to claim that it was enough. Anyway, the $6.4 million fund was always fictional – it never existed. I think its purpose was to deceive us into thinking that the renewals were taken care of. They weren’t. Now we are being led to believe that a renewals budget of $1.0m per year for the first 10 years, then $4.1m per year for the next 10 years will be enough, but it won’t.
Normal businesses also need to fund renewals of things that wear out. It is always easy to know how much to set aside each year because, with the miracle of arithmetic, depreciation reasonably approximates what each business needs to provide for renewals. When you provide annual funding at the level of depreciation, then you avoid nasty surprizes when something expensive needs to be replaced. The DCC does not do this for the stadium companies.
The cost of depreciation from DVL’s last annual report was $8.2 million and will be about the same in future years. DVL’s depreciation is not funded because if it was, the DCC creative accountants would have to include it in their fake “Ratepayer Contribution” ($9.8 million per year cost of stadium). About $8 million each year is needed for renewals and so the proposed underfunding of the renewals budget ($1 million and then $4 million per year) will have unpleasant consequences for future ratepayers. What we under-fund today, will need to be over-fund tomorrow ~ this extra burden will be apparent after 20 years. This is another financial deception from Dave Cull, Sue Bidrose and Grant McKenzie.
JimmyJones, “this extra burden will be apparent after 20 years. This is another financial deception from Dave Cull, Sue Bidrose and Grant McKenzie.”
In 20 years they aren’t going to be sitting around here within range of fan-flung merde. The history of “nasty surprizes when something expensive needs to be replaced” and how they originated, will be long buried.
ODT 5.12.14 (page 6)
ODT 10.12.14 (page14)
ODT in passive aggressive BS mode at Letter of the Week
—
ODT 13.12.14 (page 30)
Who does the ODT believe should be forgiven and who does it think is God? Like its April Fools’ Day jokes, it has gone from laughing with its readers to laughing at them.
Basically the “move on, I’m sick of the stadium” people fail to separate the reality of the stadium from seeking accountability for this huge….and fraudulent….mistake.
The point is we are all sick of the stadium, but we first have to make the decision whether we are prepared to write off fraud for the sake of moving on. I’m not and believe we need to have the balls to confront the perpetrators.
In the community and on the council all we hear are protestations and regrets, but no gumption to deal with the crooks. This includes trendy lefties who prefer the luxury of bleating on about social justice, but ignore doing anything in their own backyard. All so much easier to mouth “move on” clichés. It’s much like the head in the sand attitude of ignoring sexual abuse in the church. Too ugly to deal with.
It’s all very well burbling “move on” but where to, and how can we afford to when we’re *shackled* by debt foisted on us by dumbasses & wide boys.
It may not have been an historically relevant purchase, however Daave unintentionally acquired for the city an emblem for the present mess when he got carried away at an auction and bought those camel leg-irons.
Hype. It was reported in the late ’50s that 372 doctors took part in a trial to try Camel [deleted]. I never did find out if leg-irons were used.
{Dubious. Abridged. -Eds}
The ‘hubris’ of the ODT is palpable. Jeez! it’s not the ‘Pulitzer’ for excellence in journalism. It’s simply pandering. As they say, never let the facts get in the way of a good story. Richard O’Mahony expressed his opinions, no more, no less. Good on him for that, but for God’s sake keep it in perspective, the subject is a disaster, is now and always will be, as it bleeds the citizens’ treasure for literally decades ahead. As Peter alludes, the real story is the horrible fraud behind the whole foul deed and that won’t go away just because the ODT thinks it is time to put it all to bed.
Calvin, getting between those dirty sheets is nothing anyone of good health and principle should ever do.
Calvin Oaten
December 14, 2014 at 10:15 pm
As Peter alludes, the real story is the horrible fraud behind the whole foul deed and that won’t go away just because the ODT thinks it is time to put it all to bed.
That is indeed the point Calvin. We all know that we have the stadium, covered in the warts of debt as it is and we also know we will likely keep using it as best we can. But there are many lessons that the council and for that matter the ODT need to learn. The first is for the council to learn and understand good governance. The first principle of good governance is to remember that they are trusted with other people’s money to use and in doing so practice financial prudence.
For the ODT it should remember that it is supposed to be and act as the fourth estate. Unfortunately the ODT seems to have lost sight of that particular function which of course will hasten its decline and ultimate demise.
The take away from all if this is that we should never let it happen again. Fat chance in this council’s term looking at the quality on offer I fear and as for the ODT the Internet will do for soon enough.
It has been said that for evil men to accomplish their purpose it is only necessary that good men should do nothing.