Daily Archives: February 8, 2016

DCC spending + Cycleway redesigns #OutOfControl

ODT 8.2.16 (page 8)

ODT 8.2.16 Letter to editor Dickie p8 (1)

ODT 6.2.16 (page 34)

ODT 6.2.16 Letters to editor Vandervis Smith p34

Received from Lee Vandervis
Mon, 8 Feb 2016 at 10:11 a.m.

FYI The version with attached email that I sent to ODT.

—— Forwarded Message
From: Lee Vandervis
To: EditorODT, Nicholas George S Smith, Julian Smith
Conversation: Councillors kept in the budget dark
Subject: Councillors kept in the budget dark

Dear Editor,

Last year in my letter to the Editor I complained that DCC staff had wasted $500,000 on two incompetent unsafe attempts to turn the 4 lanes of Portobello Road [from the Andy Bay BP to the foreshore] into a massive cycle-lane plus an unworkable 2 lane road. I argued that a $200 spend on signage making the eastern footpath into the desired cycleway would have catered for the few cyclists that use this short stretch. In our Annual Plan opportunity to discuss big budgets last week when I asked our new head of Transportation how much the third attempt to create a Portobello Road cycle lane was costing, budget debate was effectively shut down with the answer that staff had no idea. This was confirmed in an email to me on 2/2/16 which said “Staff do not yet have a formal cost estimate for the works associated with the redesign.” yet the following day the ODT reported “a fresh redesign is expected to cost more than $500,000”, new design costs “about $70,000” with Mayor Cull saying “the community should be confident in its ability to roll out cycleways in the city”!!! I say we should stop throwing good money after bad, stop the $8 million proposed one-way separated cycleway experiment, and stop the obsession with further cycleway spending [which was justified assuming the crock of ever-increasing and unaffordable fossil-fuel prices] until we have clear evidence of the cost/benefit of such expensive projects.

Kind regards,
Cr. Lee Vandervis.

█ 2/2/16 email evidence:

From: Ian McCabe [DCC]
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 01:21:49 +0000
To: Lee Vandervis
Cc: Sandy Graham [DCC]
Subject: RE: Portobello Road (Portsmouth Drive to Timaru Street) Redesign

Hi Lee

My apologies for the delay in coming back to you on this.

Staff do not yet have a formal cost estimate for the works associated with the redesign. The cost will become apparent once staff have evaluated tenders for the construction.

Staff are committed to tendering the works in order to get the best price possible.

Costs associated with the redesign will be met from the existing Strategic Cycle Network budget.

Regards
Ian

Ian McCabe
Group Manager Transport
Dunedin City Council

Related Post and Comments:
22.10.15 Bloody DCC —superlative cost blowout #cycleways #SUCKS

█ For more, enter the term *cycle* in the search box at right.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

32 Comments

Filed under Business, Construction, Cycle network, DCC, Democracy, Design, Dunedin, Economics, Hot air, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, NZTA, People, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Resource management, Site, South Dunedin, Sport, Stadiums, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, Urban design

Douglas Field counters DCC climate change bunkum

Received.
Mon, 8 Feb 2016 at 5:19 pm (GMT+12:00)

Douglas Field Published on Feb 7, 2016
Dr John Christy testimony US House Committee 2 Feb 2016
Comparison between local politicians’ opinions on climate and Professor John Christy’s testimony at US senate committee hearing.

The full text of Christy’s testimony to the Senate Science committee. It really reinforces the little clip above and is so clear and easy to comprehend.

[begins] I am John R. Christy, Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science, Alabama’s State Climatologist and Director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. I have served as Lead Author, Contributing Author and Reviewer of United Nations IPCC assessments, have been awarded NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, and in 2002 was elected a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society.
It is a privilege for me to offer my analysis of the current situation regarding (1) the temperature datasets used to study climate, (2) our basic understanding of climate change and (3) the effect that regulations, such as the Paris agreement, might have on climate. I have also attached an extract from my Senate Testimony last December in which I address (1) the popular notion that extreme climate events are increasing due to humaninduced climate change (they are not), and (2) the unfortunate direction research in this area has taken.
My research area might be best described as building datasets from scratch to advance our understanding of what the climate is doing and why. Cont/

█ Download: https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-114-SY-WState-JChristy-20160202.pdf

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

8 Comments

Filed under Business, Climate change, Construction, Corruption, DCC, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Geography, Infrastructure, Inspiration, Leading edge, Media, Name, New Zealand, People, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, South Dunedin, Town planning, Travesty, Urban design

Rugby Stadium flat passion

Peter De Villiers New Yorker cartoons [sportreview.net.nz] tweaked

Comments at ODT Online:

It’s the finances
Submitted by MikeStk on Sat, 06/02/2016 – 11:26am.

Bones: Once again you misrepresent me – my beef with the stadium and rugby is the way that Otago rugby has ripped off Dunedin, initially promising us a free stadium at no cost to the ratepayers then, without allowing us to vote, changing it to “we’ll raise $50m” and you can pay for the rest, then to “oops we can’t raise a cent” you pay for all of it, to “oops we’re going down the gurgler you must buy Carisbrook for $10m”, to “we’ve had too many black tie dinners and now we’re bankrupt you have to bail us out”, to “we’re not paying enough rent to use it you have to subsidise the running costs by $2m, $5m, $7m, ….”-
Now local rugby is making million dollar profits off our backs but is still not contributing a cent to pay for their rugby stadium – a bunch of wowsers eating at the public trough hoovering my hard earned dollars out of my pockets to subsidised their booze fed events.

I’ll say nice things about your rugby stadium the day I stop having to pay for it and for your fun.

A sad decline
Submitted by MikeStk on Sun, 07/02/2016 – 2:25pm.

Bones: As I said, my issues with the rugby stadium are with the finances, not whether anyone thinks it’s a good stadium or not. Solve the financial issues, have rugby pay what they owe and make the ratepayers financially whole and I’ll be happy.

Remember that the ORFU once owned Carisbrook free and clear – the grandfathers of the current generation of rugby official built and paid for Carisbrook out of their own pockets. That’s the way it should be done.

But over time they started spending more money than they were taking in, rather than doing the financially sensible things like spending less or charging more. They started mortgaging their major asset, with no real way to pay it back, and eventually they owed the DCC $2m, and the bank a few million more – a terrible way to honour the wonderful legacy they had been gifted by their canny, thrifty grandfathers.

Then in a moment of financial lunacy they decided to get the city to build them a new stadium, to replace Carisbrook – the bank must have looked at that and raised their collective eyebrows somewhere over the backs of their heads – Carisbrook, the thing they had mortgaged was now worth less than the loan. You can see why they offloaded it on the city in a deal that cost the ratepayers millions – if they’d sold it themselves their bank account would be in the red. So much for their grandfather’s legacy – squandered to nothing.

There’s no reason for the DCC to have been involved in building the rugby stadium – the ORFU’s grandfathers had already proven that with some thrift, some canniness, reaching into their own pockets and raising money from the public, it was completely possible for rugby to build its own stadium. The current generation seem to be too lazy to try, too willing to force the rest of us to pay for something they should have been saving for themselves over the past generation – very much the Ant and the Grasshopper. [Abridged]

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Image: sportreview.net.nz (Aug 2010) – matching rugby’s favourite nutbar Peter De Villiers’ quote to New Yorker cartoon, tweaked by whatifdunedin

6 Comments

Filed under Business, Carisbrook, Construction, CST, DCC, Dunedin, DVL, DVML, Economics, Highlanders, Hot air, Media, Name, New Zealand, NZRU, ORFU, People, Perversion, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums, Travesty

DCC 2GP further submissions [update]

Updated post
Mon, 15 Feb 2016 at 5:36 p.m. Last updated 10:59 p.m.

Two updates were issued today by DCC on the 2GP further submission process.

In the first, DCC said it had withdrawn the 2GP Summary of Decisions, and the closing date for further submissions would be put back and publicly notified.

The second update made no reference to the closing date or public notification:

DCC says: Error in Summary of Decisions Requested reports
12/02/2016
The Summary of Decisions Requested reports have been temporarily withdrawn from the website due to a technical error in exporting data. In the interim please use the search function on the Search the Submissions page to view the correct Summary of Decisions Requested. Updated Summary of Decisions Requested reports will be distributed online and to libraries as soon as practically possible.

Awaiting clarification and advice from DCC.

2GP logo 2Have your say
IGNORE THIS DATE – The Further submission period is open from Wednesday, 10 February to Friday, 26 February.

What can a further submission cover?
A further submission can only be made in support or opposition to a point raised in an original submission on the 2GP.

Who can make a further submission?
The RMA limits who can make further submissions to:
● any person representing a relevant aspect of the public interest
● any person that has an interest in the proposed plan greater than the interest that the general public has
● the local authority (the Dunedin City Council).

It provides an opportunity for people who may be affected by an original submission to have their views considered. You do not have to have made an original submission to participate. If you have made an original submission you do not need to repeat submission points made in that submission as they will already be considered.

Summary of decisions requested
The Summaries of Decisions Requested are a concise summary of the decisions requested in the submissions on the 2GP which closed on 24 November 2015. It is not the full or exact content of submissions. It is prepared to enable the further submission process which is set out in Schedule 1 of the RMA.

█ The Summary of Decisions Requested and copies of all submissions will be available from midday Tuesday, 9 February.

Hard copies of the Summary of Decisions Requested reports will also be available for inspection at:
● 2GP drop-in centre, 11 George Street, Dunedin, 10am to 3pm, Monday to Friday
● public libraries and/or service centres at Dunedin, Middlemarch, Mosgiel, Port Chalmers, Blueskin Bay (Waitati) and Waikouaiti.

Submissions Map
The submissions map indicates the spatial location of submissions seeking a change to the proposed zoning (management zones only not overlay zones), new heritage precincts, or changes to scheduled items. It reflects the information in the submission point address field of the Summary of Decisions Requested reports. Through pop-ups, the map provides links to relevant submissions.

DISCLAIMER: This map has been prepared as an aid for people wanting to understand the scope of submissions related to an area. The accuracy and completeness of this information is not guaranteed and people should read original submissions. In some cases, the information contained in submissions was not detailed enough to accurately map the scope of the submission. In these cases, the mapping has been either omitted or approximated where possible.

How do I make a further submission?

Online submissions
The RMA requires further submissions to be in a prescribed form (Form 6). An easy way to make a submission is using the 2GP on-line submission system, which ensures submissions are in the prescribed form and allows you to link to specific submission points

Other ways to make a submission
Hard copies of the submission form and submission guidelines can be downloaded below or paper copies can be picked up at the 2GP drop-in centre or from the DCC Customer Services Agency located on the ground floor of the Civic Centre at 50 The Octagon, Dunedin.

For written submissions
Post to: Further submission on Proposed Second Generation Dunedin City District Plan, Dunedin City Council, PO Box 5045, Dunedin 9058

Deliver to: Customer Services Agency, Dunedin City Council, Ground Floor, 50 The Octagon, Dunedin

Email to: districtplan @ dcc.govt.nz

Serving a copy of further submissions on submitters
IMPORTANT: Any person making a further submission must serve a copy of that further submission on the person who made the original submission no later than five working days after lodging the further submission with the DCC. A copy of the addresses for service for all submitters is provided in the Submitter Details Report.

DCC 2GP Have Your Say Page
DCC 2GP Index Page

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

█ For more at What if? Dunedin, enter the term *2gp* in the search box at right.

10 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Climate change, Construction, Cycle network, DCC, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Geography, Heritage, Infrastructure, New Zealand, NZTA, People, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Resource management, Site, South Dunedin, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, Urban design