Urban Dictionary on the meanings of fringe
Comment from CONCERNED RATEPAYER:
Have you noticed that very recently Daaave’s hairdo has been altered, see photo in latest FYI, and if so have you wondered if this is anything to do with sensitivity about the “lunatic fringe” ?
FYI Dunedin 24 | December 2014 (PDF, 800.6 KB)
FYI Dunedin – back issues
—
Related Posts and Comments:
21.11.14 Stadium Review: Mayor Cull exposed
19.11.14 Forsyth Barr Stadium Review
For more, enter *stadium*, *fubar*, *dvml*, *dvl*, *dcc*, *dchl*, *orfu*, *nzru*, *rugby*, or *davies* in the search box at right.
—
Posted by Elizabeth Kerr
*Image: FYI Dunedin – crazy mixed up Daaave by whatifdunedin text editors
What if? Dunedin... 
Speaking of the stadium hair replacement.
### dunedintv.co.nz December 5, 2014 – 5:49pm
New grass planted at Forsyth Barr Stadium
The first major re-sewing of the turf at Forsyth Barr Stadium has been completed. New grass has been planted and it’s already starting to grow. That’s a win for stadium staff, as they prepare for a number of major events next year.
Video
It’s not the hairdo that bothers me. It’s the hooded eyes, the look of a ‘dodgy second hand car salesman’. But seriously, the man has cause to look disheveled and stressed, he has the immediate post Xmas task along with all councillors, to deliberate on the 2015 Annual Plan. This is going to be an exercise in massaging of facts and figures of daunting proportions.
Particularly if Dave is not to be exposed as the incompetent leader he is.
First there is his declared debt reduction programme, coupled with the firm undertaking to keep rate increases within a maximum range of three per cent. Then his commitment to spend upwards of $37 million to facilitate cycleways throughout the city and the Peninsula Road, both totally dear to his heart.
The ‘core debt’ at $229 million is about to be added to by $30 million of stadium debt being brought back from DVL. The ‘consolidated debt’ will essentially stay the same at around $620 million. That is the result of the Stadium Review recently published, and which Dave and the council (with the exception of Cr Vandervis) conceded that they had no choice but to accept. Of course they had choices, but unfortunately not the gumption to expedite.
Even as late as today we see an admission by DVML CEO Terry Davies that it can’t even promote the Neil Diamond concert without the cash input of private finance. Surely, there is proof of the fact that the stadium is an nonviable operation in a stand alone commercial sense. Privatisation is the obvious answer.
Then there is the ongoing operating losses being incurred by both DVL and DVML which did not seem to be addressed in the Review just concluded. These will be papered over by annual increases in calling up unpaid share capital. This is a point Dave might want to consider when juggling the ‘balls in the air’ and trying not to drop any. Those capital injections can only come from borrowings, so watch the pressure on the ‘consolidated debt’ position.
The other big ‘wet finger in the breeze’ predictions will be the ability of DCHL to maintain its dividend/ subvention payment programme in light of the difficult trading conditions showing through. There is no doubt but that if DCHL sticks to its ‘no debt increases to pay dividends’ policy, then the chances of substantial drops in income for Dave could be the call.
All in all, an interesting scenario which will require many pages of obfuscation, financial engineering and ‘boondoggling’. I feel that the ratepayers are soon to be disillusioned by Dave and there’s gonna be a whole lotta hurtin’ for a lot of poor folks, and it’ll take more than some ‘gigs’ to cover over that.
Calvin
All these people are doing is digging a deeper hole that they can’t get out of. The stadium is the root cause of the ‘many pages of obfuscation, financial engineering and boondoggling’ you speak of. Until that is faced we will only go deeper into the mire.
It is not new – I have added this American example of the situation there:
Take a look:
Does this sound familiar?
America Has a Stadium Problem
By Aaron Gordon • July 17, 2013 • 8:00 AM
Despite every number suggesting they shouldn’t, why do American cities keep building sports stadiums funded with public money?
Over the past 20 years, 101 new sports facilities have opened in the United States — a 90 percent replacement rate — and almost all of them have received direct public funding.
For example, Chester, Pennsylvania has been part of a program for economically distressed communities since 1995. And in 2010, PPL Park, a $117 million soccer stadium, was opened with 97 percent of funding coming from the public, that’s $3,334.90 for every man, woman, and child in Chester.
The typical justification for a large public investment to build a stadium for an already-wealthy sports owner has to do with creating jobs or growing the local economy, which sound good to the median voter.
All in all, building a stadium is a poor use of a few hundred million dollars.
Economists have long known stadiums to be poor public investments. Most of the jobs created by stadium-building projects are either temporary, low-paying, or out-of-state contracting jobs — none of which contribute greatly to the local economy. (Athletes can easily circumvent most taxes in the state in which they play.) Most fans do not spend additional money as a result of a new stadium; they re-direct money they would have spent elsewhere on movies, dining, bowling, tarot-card reading, or other businesses.
This isn’t news, by any stretch, but it turns out we’re spending even more money on stadiums than we originally thought.
In her new book Public/Private Partnerships for Major League Sports Facilities, Judith Grant Long, associate professor of Urban Planning at the Harvard University Graduate School of Design, shatters previous conceptions of just how much money the public has poured into these deals.
By the late 1990s, the first wave of damning economic studies came to light, but well afterwards, from 2001 to 2010, 50 new sports facilities were opened, receiving $130 million more, on average, than those opened in the preceding decade. (All figures from Long’s book adjusted for 2010 dollars.) In the 1990s, the average public cost for a new facility was estimated at $142 million, but by the end of the 2000s, that figure jumped to $241 million: an increase of 70 percent.
Economists have also been drastically underestimating the true cost of these projects. They fail to consider public subsidies for land and infrastructure, the ongoing costs of operations, capital improvements.
All the while, American cities, counties, and states continue to struggle. Glendale, Arizona, may actually sell City Hall so they can afford to keep subsidizing a hockey team that few people actually pay to see. Detroit isn’t exactly the paragon of fiscal responsibility, with its Emergency Manager—they have an honest-to-god “emergency manager”—offering a stern warning:
In a report to be presented to Michigan’s treasurer on Monday, Kevyn D. Orr, the emergency manager appointed in March to take over operations here, described long-term obligations of at least $15 billion, unsustainable cash flow shortages and miserably low credit ratings that make it difficult to borrow.
But, they’re somehow on the verge of finding $450 million for a new hockey arena.
Why, then, do we keep paying?
Read more at Pacific Standard
You might well ask that question here in Dunedin.
Mick, when you consider the Forsyth Barr Stadium, what did we learn from the Review? It says at the bottom of page 3, ‘The success of the stadium companies was dependent on the ability of DVML to contribute a certain amount towards interest costs and debt repayment. The financial results to date and the most recent DVML budget have proven that this can now only be achieved with additional financial assistance from the Council and ratepayers.’ A pretty unambiguous summation I would have thought.
It goes on to say that the review process has been comprehensive. The review defined a series of underlying principles to use as a benchmark as they worked through the review process. These were:
* Sustainability – establishing a financially viable and economical operating model that can be maintained over the long term.
* Financial Prudence – setting realistic, financially prudent and achievable budgets.
* Certainty to Council – providing greater certainty to the council, and ultimately ratepayers, about future funding requirements.
* Best Principles in Governance – ensuring appropriate levels of governance accountability are promoted and maintained at the entity and group level.
* Transparency – that the financial model is easily understood and clearly identifies costs, liabilities, opportunities and risks.
* Community Outcomes – the impact on economic and social outcomes for Dunedin city.
Read those six headings and digest them please. Each and every one of them are in breach before the ink has dried on the document debated and accepted by council. Why do I say that? Because the announcement by Terry Davies, DVML CEO that he has sought and received about 40% of the cost to stage the Neil Diamond Concert on 24 October. What!!? This means that DVML is prepared to put the ratepayers at risk for the pleasure of having a concert. Isn’t that what professional promoters do? As I understood, for the venue to be financially sustainable it needed to cover all costs pertaining to any event plus a fee for the use of. The promoter in return took all risks plus the gate takings, paid the entertainers their fee and hopefully showed a profit. That in essence is his risk.
As it is, DVML is covering 60% of whatever the costs are, and make no mistake, we will probably never be privy to that knowledge. And truth be known, DVML has guaranteed the promoter a profit. It’s not sufficient that the ratepayers carry the debt of construction of the stadium but they are also expected to shoulder the burden of underwriting their own entertainment.
“CODSWALLOP”!!!!
The whole premise is a gigantic fraud perpetrated on the citizens by a despotic mayor and council without a modicum of respect for the welfare of its citizens. To add further insult, for a few wealthy poseurs to pledge an unknown amount — which may or may not be honoured — is adding insult to injury. It demonstrates once and for all, that the stadium is not viable for this type of event, as indeed it has been shown for any activities without substantial subsidising.
Once again, the “can has been kicked down the road”, hopefully till the miscreants can all extricate themselves and leave this “best little city in the world” and move to Central Otago or further afield.
Thanks for comments Mick and Calvin. Actually, until the miscreants “kick the bucket” there will be no respite for Dunedin ratepayers. Not far away ~!!?
Well Calvin, I for one was underwhelmed by this financial review and as for these noble headings below:
* Sustainability – * Financial Prudence – * Certainty to Council – * Best Principles in Governance – * Transparency – * Community Outcomes –
They might sound good but are just meaningless words put together by the legions of policy people that staff the council these days; the implications of which that are never understood nor actioned by staff or council in any case. These have never been applied throughout this whole debacle.
Where are the tests of these principles here?
You quite rightly say that they have been ignored and describe it all as ‘codswallop’.
The first thing to realise is that this is a liability not an asset.
The solution to the dilemma found in one American example that I have read of was to recognise this and dispose of it. Its value was written down to a price that someone would pay if they were to make a profit. Written way down. The council was then left with the debt it had incurred to pay off. But that was the end of the matter. Its true value was established.
The ‘takeaway’ from this might be:-
*It provided a valuable lesson in Financial Prudence (for the future).
*It provided Certainty to council in that it knew what it had to pay – no piece of string.
*It demonstrated the path to Best Principles in Governance. Know the outcomes of your actions.
*It is certainly Transparent.
*It would provide a Community Outcome (Whatever that may mean).
*As for Sustainability (don’t make me laugh).
If the ugliest three dinosaurs in the South Island want to back the concert of a jaded aged suede jacket wearing has been singer, that speaks volumes but not enough to overpower the blunt force trauma of appalling stadium acoustics on top of every level of disdain they three ‘magnates’ have independently exploited against the ratepayers of Dunedin year in year out from the time the stadium was a mere figment and connivance of their crude greedy ruthless egos, power games and professional thug-rugby hang ups.
Insurance for attendance at sir’s Xmas party this year.
Terry Davies now rolls in the filthy mud of that same loathsome and despicable pigsty. Wankerfest.
Worse, the DCC love him for it, the utter sellouts. The proof is the stadium review drafted ‘in-house’, no doubt under duress. See next comment.
http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/326286/diamond-fund-model-future
Poor Terence, having to be on hourly report to Nicky. Within days of his arrival in NZ, Terence was marched by JohnTheBaptist into Nicky’s office. From that point, Terence’s doughboy existence began.
If Terence hasn’t bought his Oz wife a house here yet, then Nicky’s control won’t be complete. Watch the stable door.
Mick, you outline the solution to a similar problem for an American city when they came to the realisation that the Arena they had built was an economic disaster. They analysed it, as indeed we here in Dunedin have analysed ours, and came to the conclusion that it was unrecoverable. It was put on the block and when its market value was found it sold. Presumably to some entrepreneur or group who either changed its use or on the lower capital base ran it as intended but presumably for profit.
The ‘takeaway’ from this might be:-
* It provided a valuable lesson on Financial Prudence (for the future). In reality it should, but as history has shown, this council is incapable of learning anything like ‘financial prudence’.
* It provided Certainty to council in that it knew what it had to pay — no piece of string. True if only.
* It demonstrates the path of Best Principles in Governance. Know the outcome of your actions. Oh so true. But oh so ignored by this and recent administrations.
* It is certainly transparent. Yes, transparent to the point of invisibility.
* It would provide a Community Outcome (Whatever that may mean). In this case it would provide an outcome of a poorer community all round. The big question is: would it be any wiser? That would be the joke of the season.
* Sustainability? Well that’s just a term adopted to mean anything you may want it to. A fashion statement akin to: ‘going forward’, ‘robust model’, ‘quantum leap’, ‘economic benefits’, ‘projected returns’, ‘giant steps’, ‘refocus our perceptions’, ‘innovative thinking’, ‘plan for success’, ‘visionary’. And ‘Lunatic Fringe’. They all have a ‘blue sky’ appeal, but like the autumn leaves they all come to the end of their season and disappear underfoot to be replaced with the next crop of meaningless ‘pap’ dreamed up by the ‘boffins’ holding ‘doctorates in irrelevancies’ beavering away in the bowels of the building. It is a mesmerising environment, guaranteed to glaze over the most fervent eyes by the third page.
Calvin
yes to all that!
Do you think the actual *money* will come forth for Neil Diamond’s concert? There’s a bit of track record re certain people promising then not delivering, after they’ve had their names in big letters and been feted for their public spirited generosity.
It works, I guess. If one can get all that result for a simple promise, what’s the point of stumping up with the cash eh?.
What’s this Hype? Are you suggesting that these are not men of their word? Shame on you!
This from a professional turf association publication:
“For depreciation it was assumed that the average life span of the top layer of a natural grass pitch is 15-25 years.”
Four years seems a bit less than this isn’t it?? – No of course not, I’m just an innumerate member of the lunatic fringe!
Click to access prof_turf_newsletter_no2_2012_web.pdf
A second Rod Stewart concert announced for Auckland, competing against Fubar on 11 April. Always nice to get to the City of Sails and sample what’s on at Powerstation.
[No-one in their right mind would fubar or fly out for Stewart, tell me Duddites aren’t that backward or undiscerning in music. Then again, the GOBs like Diamond. What sort of shit are you on DVML ??]