Mosgiel Pool site options, survey twists

At Facebook:

****

### ODT Online Mon, 27 Mar 2017
Delay in approving pool site irks trust
By John Lewis
The Taieri Community Facilities Trust has made a decision on the preferred site for the new Mosgiel pool, but will have to wait another two weeks before it is considered by the Dunedin City Council …. [Trust chairwoman Irene Mosley] said the trust voted about 10 days ago to ask the DCC to go with an amended Site A, which was near the existing pool. “The trust had 447 responses; 52% were for Site B (Memorial Gardens), and 40% were for Site A …. However, once the comments were taken into consideration, along with the actual votes, the trust discovered that many of those in favour of Site B were in favour because of concerns about the existing pool being closed during the new pool build, potential parking issues and road safety concerns at the proposed entrance off Gordon Rd. The trust believes by locating the new pool further into the existing caravan park, and moving the park towards the Reid Ave side of the fields, these concerns can be mitigated.”
Read more

****

Old footage / older survey:

Channel 39 Published on Aug 13, 2015
Proposed Mosgiel pool site submissions being analysed
More than three hundred public submissions on the proposed Mosgiel pool site are being analysed. The city council’s earmarked four possible locations for a new swimming complex. And a clash with existing assets is upsetting some residents.

Related Post and Comments:
14.12.16 Mosgiel pool site options —muddy water from mainstreet businesses

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

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

Advertisements

47 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, DCC, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Finance, Geography, Health, Hot air, Infrastructure, LTP/AP, Media, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Pet projects, Politics, Pools, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Site, Sport, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, Urban design, What stadium

47 responses to “Mosgiel Pool site options, survey twists

  1. Gurglars

    The council are evaluating 300 submissions —
    And the trust is rewriting them in their own image???

    Sorry you voted for site B, but you didn’t really want site B, you subliminally wanted site A !!!

  2. Elizabeth

    But we sure as hell don’t want the pool trust to select or push a site option that wrecks, reduces or removes the community’s Memorial Gardens.

    The logical site is near to / alongside the existing pool. To that extent the trust is headed in the right direction IF a new pool (meaning two-pool complex) is needed, rather than an upgrade of the existing.

  3. Jacob

    It has taken the pool trust 4 years to come up with site A. The existing pool site that the majority of the community except the trust wanted. If they hadn’t tried to impose on the community a site that the community didn’t want we may actually have had a new pool up and running. Unfortunately the trust was under the influence of both past and present community board members who took the community board to the brink of extinction; and their presence and influence could now see the trust struggle to meet its financial pool target commitments.
    Now it is time to get the community to financially support a new pool. The first thing that needs to be done is sack the present trust and those associated with it who have spent thousands of ratepayer dollars to come up with an answer that was so obvious to everyone but took the trust 4 years to come up with a site. That was the easy bit. How long will it take to raise the millions required, forever ? The trust has possibly cost Mosgiel any chance of getting a new pool in the near future.

    • Simon

      The call has gone out. Get rid of the pool trust members and start again. Number 1. Trustees must be there for the community, and not for personal gain.
      Number 2.Trustees must be current ratepayers.
      Number 3. All trust books must be open to the public.
      Number 4. All past and present board members and their cronies banned from being trustees.
      Number 5. Money in the bank before construction starts.

  4. Elizabeth

    Simon, you are calling for openness and transparency. That may not be possible using the vehicle of a private trust for the pool project. As a new pool complex would be owned by the Dunedin ratepayers it seems better to have the city council fully manage the proposed build (if deemed an essential project) and fundraising in the community be kept far apart without need for political agendas and lobbying such as we’ve seen at Mosgiel to date. I’m still not clear on whether a new pool is needed, rather than an upgrade to the existing.

    • Jacob

      Elizabeth. You say:
      “Simon, you are calling for openness and transparency. That may not be possible using the vehicle of a private trust for the pool project.”
      I say. Wasn’t that the purpose originally. To have a straw trust who would then be answerable to no one (based on the stadium trust).

      {Moderated. This is a pseudo-politically dangerous environment just now. -Eds}

  5. Elizabeth

    I see council management of the pool build at Balclutha has become very expensive for CDC ratepayers. It appears from the press coverage that the council was not on top of project management and construction contracts. The Construction Contracts Act 2002 is again shown to be a valuable piece of legislation in its application, and for fairness.

  6. Elizabeth

    When STIFLING is an advantage to ratepayers.

    At Facebook:

    ****

    Site report removed from the meeting agenda yesterday delays site decision until council’s infrastructure committee on April 10.

    Wed, 29 Mar 2017
    ODT: Preferred pool site pleases
    By Shawn McAvinue
    Everyone seems happy with the preferred site for the Mosgiel aquatic facility. But the trust behind the bid for the new pool slammed the Dunedin City Council yesterday for lacking the structure to tackle community projects. The Taieri Communities Facility Trust asked the council to allow a new facility to be built on a site near Mosgiel Pool. The site was preferred as it allowed the existing pool to remain open while a new facility was being built. The proposed site was on land occupied by the 17 sites of Mosgiel Caravan Park. Cont/

    Note:
    The Taieri Community Facilties Trust (aka ‘Pooling Together’) isn’t keeping its website up to date. That’s really helpful!!??!!
    http://www.poolingtogether.org.nz/

  7. Calvin Oaten

    If the DCC is adamant on its insistence that first the Trust should raise the sum of $7.5m before any attempt to put the project out to tender, and then firmly assessing the DCC’s ability to coming up with the balance from within its financial limits, then and only then should the development go ahead. If these criteria are met then I say “go for it”. My biggest worry is the will of the Mayor and Council.

  8. Hype O'Thermia

    “If the DCC is adamant on its insistence that first the Trust should raise the sum of $7.5m” – yeah Calvin, we remember all about promises to raise money (Fubar Stadium) as a condition of going any further with the use of RATES money.
    Yeah… nostalgia alert …. that was back in the days when there still WAS money, actual money along the lines of foldies ($cash), coins, notes, credit balance – not debt the size of a hippopotamus convention owed to the banks.

  9. Elizabeth

    The existing Mosgiel Pool is good enough for the dogs and their owners.
    Magnificent photo by Gerard O’Brien – “15-month-old border collie Indi swims with a ball in her mouth at the doggy paddling session at Mosgiel Pool yesterday.”

    The video at ODT Online shows the pool is probably sufficient for the local population, if upgraded.

    At Facebook:

  10. Trevs brother Trev

    Bow wow wow wow bow bow wow. Translated means Life’s a bitch out at Mosgiel.

  11. {Correction. See this comment by Diane Yeldon for wrong attribution. The correct name is entered by square bracket here. -Eds}

    Infrastructure Services Committee Meeting today with pool site on the agenda. I noticed Public Forum speakers included Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board Chair, Sarah Nitis.
    When questioned by councillors (Benson-Pope and Hawkins, I think) as to whether the size and scale of the new pool might be excessive,
    [Irene Mosley] replied, “Well, that’s what the community has told us they want.” (This is best effort – meeting video will clarify exact wording.)
    In other words, local government by opinion poll. But whose opinion and which community? This was not made clear. If the ‘community of the whole of Dunedin city’ are paying for it, does this ‘outrank’ the ‘community of the Mosgiel-Taieri’ which the Board claims to represent?
    Representative democracy is not supposed to be an opinion poll, although plenty of elected reps will try to ‘please’ in order to get re-elected. But decisions should always be made on best outcomes for the city as a whole, which includes taking into account only justifiable levels of spending on any project. But I fear too many elected reps honestly seem to believe that to please as many as possible (as far as they understand it) is their proper job.

    Edmund Burke on the topic:

    Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

    http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch13s7.html

    • Elizabeth

      Our comments overlapped. I missed her.
      Thanks for picking up on the ludicrous lack of pool project clarity!
      Brilliant quote.

    • Jacob

      {Moderated. Diane Yeldon has made correction following a wrong attribution. -Eds}

      Diane. […paragraphs deleted…] Can you clarify, was Sarah Nitis speaking on behalf of the Community Board, and was she introduced as such. She may have been speaking on behalf of the pool trust when using the words “the community has told us”.

      If one cares to look at the trust’s website, “pooling together”, you will see under the heading “Who We Are” profiles of those on the trust. There is a special section under the heading “Support and Presentation Team”. The first name that appears there is none other than, yes you guessed it, Sarah Nitis.

      There needs to be some clarification here, as to actually who she was speaking on behalf of; as all Community Board members do not support the pool trust. Did she make it clear at the Infrastructure meeting that the Board is split on this pool issue ?

      • Jacob: I made a mistake – just checked my notes and I wrongly attributed Ms Moseley’s words (“That’s what the community has asked for.”) to Ms Nitis. Sorry about that – I must hunt out my voice recorder again. It would have come in handy. Kate Wilson is usually a very good chair and I do remember her saying, “Come on, Sarah,” to ‘introduce’ this speaker and she may have said something like, “You only get five minutes”, rather than the ten minutes a speaker representing a group would get.

        One thing is certain though: Ms Nitis’s written submission should have made it clear that she was not representing the Community Board – rather like identifying a conflict of interest when she speaks as an individual. I certainly assumed that she was speaking as a representative from the way she spoke, and, from some councillors’ questions, I believed that they thought so too. But I may have been mistaken. The meeting video will tell the tale.

        I’m subscribed to the DCC’s YouTube channel and so I get notified by email as soon as meeting videos are posted – but no doubt Elizabeth is too and will flag it here. After the video comes out, I might do a bit of a transcript, to see if there really were any grounds for confusion.

        {Link to comment supplied. Eds}

  12. Elizabeth

    Having listened in at the Edinburgh Room today as the DCC Infrastructure Services and Networks Committee prepared to vote for (new) pool site A, it was apparent that not many elected representatives or the staff concerned knew much about anything relating to the pool complex other than a patch of land being delineated for “it” – whatever “it is”.

    The ODT attempted a story this morning….

    Mon, 10 Apr 2017
    ODT: Mosgiel pool site backed
    By Shawn McAvinue
    Dunedin city councillors will today consider a recommendation the preferred site for an aquatic facility in Mosgiel be approved. The Taieri Communities Facility Trust asked the council to allow a new facility for a site near Mosgiel Pool in Gordon Rd. The site was preferred as it allowed the existing pool to remain open while a new facility was being built. Cont/

    ****

    Later, following my read of ODT, two copies of Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board chair Sarah Nitis’ submission to today’s Public Forum landed on my desk from different senders. ‘Interest-ing’.

    Ms Nitis has travelled paths on/between the Community Board, Mosgiel’s Business Association, and the [Pooling Together] Taieri Community Facilities Trust. Not a lot of independence there, and apparently no declarations of her interest(s).

    Things remain murky around Grant monies sought from the Community Board and the manner in which the Business Assn has spent them.

    Did Ms Nitis receive support by a formal resolution voted on by her Community Board, to cover the political content of her document put before the Council today? Due to the haste of its manufacture before the Public Forum – it appears not.

    For Whom does Ms Nitis speak, which….
    The submission doesn’t explicitly state her role; here is her ‘persuasion’:

    MTCB_Infrastructure meet-April 2017 [scanned document]

    • Jacob

      Sarah reminded the council that it was a community/council partnership. This being the case, why as a community board member, and now the chair of the community board, did she not promote the community board to be part of the partnership. After all they are elected to represent the community in affairs such as a pool development in the Mosgiel/Taieri area.
      There is something very strange with this setup. We see the former board chair now being a mouthpiece for the pool, but as chair of the board guided the board to hand over to the trust, and now the present board chair putting her views forward. There are at least two other past or present board members involved with the trust. With four past or present board members involved with the trust (the board only has 6 members), one has to ask why the board with all the council resources to call on, moved to putting it in the hands of a trust. That being the case the board members should have been hands off, and let the trust get on with the job that the board shied away from.
      Could it be that if the board had run the pool ship it would have had to have acted in a transparent way. Where as the trust, where board members appear to be taking a greater role, is answerable to no one.
      It sounds like, smells like, and quakes like a Carisbrook duck.

      • There’s a strong fashion for ‘public/private partnerships’ in government at all levels now. It can sound great, a ‘win/win’ situation. However, this approach is not without serious risks. A partnership can involve co-operation but it can just as easily involve collusion. This being the case, public authorities should take great care to ensure that totally transparent mechanisms are utilized for such partnerships. Our local reps on council need to be alert to any advocacy which represents public/private partnerships, ( including those representing themselves as ‘community/council partnerships’) as always an unalloyed public good. Such partnerships will always involve only a segment of the DCC’s whole constituency and, as the speaker below point outs, it is only too easy to confuse and conflate their common ground with the common good.

        • Hype O'Thermia

          Diane: “There’s a strong fashion for ‘public/private partnerships’ in government at all levels now. It can sound great, a ‘win/win’ situation.”
          Big opportunities for heads we win, tails you lose.
          And shifting sands on which “lines in the sand” are drawn.
          Remember the donations / private fund raising for Fubar Stadium? No? They were very very very hard to see, even with a jeweller’s loupe.

  13. Further comment, Elizabeth. When observing this part of the meeting, I didn’t have any of the background which you supply above. But I thought, on listening to Ms Nitis, that she seemed to be strongly advocating for as expensive a pool as possible and unreasonably leaning on the council to make further and further commitment, a matter which was off-topic for that particular agenda item anyway. I wondered at the time whether these were appropriate comments for a Community Board Chair. If she had been addressing the DCC Committee as CB chair and conveying the view of her local community, then I don’t think she could have been doing this in a responsible way without providing some evidence of a local poll or survey to back up her contention. The whole thing was very foggy and confused. Hope the meeting video comes out soon so the whole thing can be scrutinised. Certainly, the chair should always clarify the status of public forum speakers.

  14. Elizabeth

    Diane, I’m hoping the DCC Manager Civic and Legal might have a word with Ms Nitis to expel all haze, conflicts and gross assumptions.

    Community Boards must work in a business-like manner according to standing orders, and All conflicts/interests must be managed.

    Knowing how to chair a Board would help – given standard committee business procedures for starters.

    Ms Nitis seems entirely oblivious.

  15. I’m pretty sure public forum submissions are public documents and so transparency requirements apply – of identifying on the document the exact committee/council meeting, the date and the submitter’s full name, representative status and possibly even their contact details. I will check with DCC Manager Civic and Legal whether this is the case.

    I really do get sick of DCC meetings where everything is held on a first name basis – submitters, staff and even councillors alike. I think this is really improper for a public meeting of a local authority, as it is very hard to identify who’s who and makes the whole meeting feeling like a closed shop, instead of truly public. So will ask the same manager about that too.

    I read about this meeting in the ODT in the city this morning about 10.00 am and then thought it might be interesting to observe. So I went to the DCC Customer Service Centre and asked the person at the desk, ‘Can you tell me whether there are any council meetings on today?’ She looked up the website and then said, “No.” Which I knew very well was incorrect. (Funny, they always seem to get really annoyed with me when I make it clear that I know this.) So I went back and looked through the pile of public display agendas again (legal requirement which the staff member clearly didn’t know about) and finally found the right one at the bottom of the pile. Then I went to the 3rd floor of the DCC City Library and had a talk to one of the very helpful librarians there about it. But, of course, you have to already know that this info is on the 3rd floor before it can be of any use to you. There’s no indication in the Service Centre that this is the case.
    Not everyone uses the internet to access this kind of information and neither should they be expected to.

    I mention this because I would say nine times out of ten when I have gone to the DCC Customer Service Centre and asked the question: “Are there any council meetings on today?”, I have been given incorrect information.

    I have known other councils which have a large, regularly updated whiteboard in the Service Centre prominently displaying this information. At least, something like this (very cheap!) would mean that the Customer Service Centre staff would know.

    Surely, elected reps and council staff are all happy to co-operate with interested members of the public to stamp out sloppiness. Community volunteer quality control!

    -Eds. Council meetings are announced at this DCC webpage:
    http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/events/council_activities/council_meetings

    with Agendas and Minutes at this page:
    http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/your-council/agendas-minutes

    Suggest you bookmark these pages on your iPhone or smartphone.

    • Hype O'Thermia

      Helpful, but not much help to all the people who didn’t know where to look anyway.
      I’m with Diane, a noticeboard in a public place so even other staff know and can answer questions.
      I’m also fed up with first names only *everywhere*. Go back to a store where you made enquiries about a product – Jason said…. Which Jason? Jason A or Jason B? Jason B’s off today and it’s Jason A’s lunch hour. Well if I phone tomorrow? Jason’s on holiday……

  16. Wingatui Flyer

    The pool trust is looking at the option of stainless steel rather than tiled pools.
    That makes it easy to give it a name, “The Sardine Tin”

  17. Elizabeth

    Mrs Mosley said the trust’s goal was to have its share of the money raised by the beginning of the 2018 financial year, at the end of June next year.

    Tue, 11 Apr 2017
    ODT: Fundraising ‘ramps up’ as pool site confirmed
    By David Loughrey
    The Dunedin City Council yesterday gave its unanimous approval to a site for the new Mosgiel pool. Councillors at an infrastructure services and networks committee backed the Taieri Communities Facility Trust’s proposal the pool be built by the site of the existing pool on Gordon Rd. The vote will allow the trust to begin fund raising in earnest to get the proposed four-pool facility built by November 2019. The meeting also heard the trust is looking at the option of stainless steel rather than tiled pools, which it says could save money.

    Trust member Bill Feather said last night the land the existing pool was on would become a car park for the new pool.

    News today, true or false, is that the TCFT chair may be experiencing cold feet towards the trust’s fundraising efforst for Mosgiel pool – in order to position for fundraising campaigns connected to the Hospital Rebuild.

    How likely is that. No idea. I sit on the fence.

    The Neurosurgery campaign has been a false economy and should never have got off the ground, priority-wise, for the betterment of Otago Southland health services. A want was scratched, not significant need.

    • David Loughrey usually gets it right and his report above says the following about Ms Nitis’ public forum submission:
      “At a public forum, Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board chairwoman Sarah Nitis asked the committee to approve the site and get a design confirmed so people knew what funds being raised were for.”
      Actually, I might email Chair Kate Wilson for clarification about this.

      • Sam

        There is an email in circulation to M/T board members, from the chair S. Nitis that should clear the air as to whether the chair was speaking as an individual, part of the pool trust, or as chair of the board.
        This email reads. “Attached is what I propose to say on our behalf at the public forum ………………. Re the Mosgiel Pool.”

        • Elizabeth

          Who is (cite) “our behalf”…. still not clear to me, Sam. If speaking for the MTCB then she should have canvassed opinions of the board members within a reasonable timeframe – not dreamt up something to say on the morning of the public forum, supposedly inviting majority board members’ approval at such very short notice.

          Did the chair hijack the board?

        • Sam

          Elizabeth. The email was sent late on a Sunday night. Fellow board members were given less than 24 hours to respond, if they had read it in that time.
          She then plays the role of the Audit office by advising that she has left one board member off the email list. She perceives that the member has a conflict of interest.

          The only person who can declare a conflict of interest, is the person with the conflict. That is clearly described in Audit Office material.
          As pointed out by Jacob, she is shown on the pool trust website being part of the support and presentation team.

        • Elizabeth

          Thanks for the clarifications.
          The Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board continues to be one the DCC need have concern about.

      • Ooops, no, ODT got it wrong, as the apparently back-dated agenda (!) said that Ms Mosley was representing the Taieri Community Facilities Trust. Well, I’m not surprised David Loughrey got it wrong under the extremely murky circumstances.

      • No, I’m error about this. ODT got it right.

  18. Regarding campaigns in general, it’s easy for them to turn into media panic. Here’s an example: https://www.nzdoctor.co.nz/news/2015/february-2015/09/social-media-storm-over-dunedin-hospital.aspx

    The free speech aspect of it is fine with me, even if people say dumb and unfounded things. It’s up to their listeners/readers to exercise discrimination. But frightening people unnecessarily, especially with false or inaccurate information or claims, is mischievous and unkind. Even more serious is when people with the credibility and the appearance of authority, which being elected to political office give, make alarming public statements not carefully substantiated with facts. Because then there is a real risk that they are just rabble-rousing and hoping to raise their own public political profile.

    In general, members of the public need to be wary of bandwagons and jumping on them without first carefully considering which way they are going. Otherwise, they risk becoming just one of the ‘sheeple’.

    Good timing for a campaign over a long weekend or holiday period like Easter. I guess that’s why the DCC employed extra staff at extra cost to get it done in time.

  19. Hype O'Thermia

    Meanwhile, up the road in Christchurch,

    “………….I have been struck by the staggering volume of correspondence from perturbed residents about last week’s opinion piece, startled at the scope of the city’s pool crazy proliferation and the touted freebies.

    Most ratepayers perceive the draft annual plan rigmarole as a fait accompli and consider the cursory consultation process as a pointless, rubber-stamping farce.

    I received a particularly striking email from Blair and Karen McMillan who own McMillan’s Aquatic Centre and Bumble Bees. They freely admit to having some skin in the game, with respect to the livelihood of their business, “but we are also ratepayers and support having top class council facilities for our children and our society.

    “However, there has to be some serious questioning of fiscal responsibility. As business owners we are naturally concerned at the impact, but as ratepayers we feel outraged.

    “We cannot see any justification for Christchurch to have all of: the new QE2, the New Brighton Salt-water pools (within a few kms of each other), the Linwood pool, the Metro facility (also within a few kms of each other), and a new Hornby pool, in addition to the existing three council pool facilities and all of the private providers.

    “Obviously we cannot choose to run at a loss or we would make no living and wouldn’t be able to pay our staff. It seems to be reckless and decidedly unfair that the council can build, and keep building facilities, while planning to run them at extraordinary losses without any apparent feasibility study…………”
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/business/the-rebuild/91619986/christchurch-city-council-faces-ratepayer-blowback-on-pedestrianfriendly-city-and-lossmaking-pools

  20. Wingatui Flyer

    According to this week’s Taieri Times:
    Another big announcement is to be made at the Mosgiel community board meeting May 3.
    About a freedom camping site on the Taieri. Until then it is Secret.
    Could it be the Memorial Gardens site. Close to the Mosgiel shops and the new swimming pool, and plenty of trees to camp beneath.
    Could it be the Outram Glen. Plenty of room there.
    Could it be on council reserve land, in the new housing development off Wingatui road ? Surely not. They don’t want lowlifes there.

    “What if?” once again leads the pack, and can now break the news for the favoured site to be presented by the board. You heard it first on “What if?”.

    The favoured site is the Puddle Alley picnic site beside the Silverstream.
    Out of sight. Out of mind.

  21. Jacob

    You appear to have hit the bullseye Flyer.
    Drove passed the Puddle Alley site today, and the camping signs are up already.
    What are the council and community board up to. Are we seeing another re-run of the Pool site. Where the community has been treated as mushrooms?
    Having read the article in the Taieri Times, a council staff member is quoted as saying “We are not in a position to confirm sites”. “To reveal the site would be premature and could hamper the public consultation process.”
    If Puddle Alley is not the site. Then why have camping signs gone up at this site recently, without any public consultation ?
    Will the community board go through another charade at the May 3 meeting, and rubber stamp a decision they appear to already have made, when visiting a council owned site last week.

    {Go direct to ODT about this. -Eds}

    • Jacob

      Looks like the DCC keep an eye on this website. The camping signs at the new Puddle Alley site have been taken down since it was exposed on What if?
      It appears to be a rerun of the pool trust, who after deciding without public consultation the site for the new pool in the Memorial Gardens, once exposed, had to backtrack after the public didn’t support destroying the Gardens.
      Now we see the council doing a backtrack after it was reported that there would be public consultation before any camping site was chosen on the Taieri.
      Having made the decision without public consultation on the camping site with the board at a river bank meeting, DCC are now having to wipe the Easter egg off their face, and take the signs down; and go through a charade at the next community board meeting on May 3, pretending no decision has ever been made.

      It is a pity that the local news media have been sucked into false facts, and is going along with the story.

    • Wingatui Flyer

      Another stuff up out at Mossygiel. Deferred announcement at the Community Board meeting about the freedom camping site in the Silverstream river bed. Could it be that the Council has no jurisdiction over the site. Another cockup like the horses on beaches with no jurisdiction below the high tide mark.

  22. Elizabeth

    What if? Dunedin is under surveillance most days by them at the Civic Centre. Both by fans and the legally inclined. Some days the cross we bear is heavier than others.

  23. Jacob

    A new approach at the Mosgiel pool meeting last night. The Mosgiel pool has now become Dunedin’s pool based in Mosgiel. Not many at the meeting considering they believe they cover a 30,000 population. Poor Cr Lord looked more concerned with the amount of water on his farm than about the pool. They did put on good cupper, and feathery bill was there handing out info.

  24. Elizabeth

    The Mosgiel Pool Trust thieves. They don’t deserve Dunedin ratepayer help. They were supposed to raise the cash in their area !!!!

    Wed, 2 Aug 2017
    ODT: Appeal to Dunedin residents
    By Shawn McAvinue
    The team behind the bid to build a new aquatic facility in Mosgiel is asking Dunedin residents to splash some cash and support to make their plans a reality. About 100 people attended a meeting at Coronation Hall in Mosgiel last night about the progress of the bid. At the meeting, Taieri Communities Facility Trust chairwoman Irene Mosley revealed two possible concept plans for the new facility at the Silverstream end of Memorial Park. […] The Dunedin City Council had committed $6 million and had indicated if the community succeeded in raising $7.5 million, it would consider a top-up, she said.” Cont/

    THE BULLSHIT : “This is a pool – for the city – based in Mosgiel.”

    ****

    At Facebook:

  25. Wingatui Flyer

    Cull has been reported about the flooding problems on the Taieri. That solutions will come at a significant cost to the DCC, ORC and the city’s residents. At the end of the day all costs of the DCC and ORC come back and hit the city’s residents through inventive charges and rate increases. Questions have to be asked. Why is council supporting a vanity protect, such as a new pool, to the tune of $6 million plus dollars, when the basics of infrastructure, such as flood protection are being denied through ignorance, arrogance and lack of money. $6 million dollars would go a long way in protecting the hundreds of homes, businesses and farms that have been flood affected by the neglect of both the DCC and ORC over many years.

  26. Rob Hamlin

    “The $7.5 million community share would be raised in three chunks – $3.5 million from trusts, grants and pub charities; $2 million from sponsorship, business partnership and major gifts and $2 million from fundraising and general giving, Mrs Mosley said.”

    How interesting. Now I seem to recall that the BS fundraising research report commissioned by these bods that cost so much of our cash a year or so back, and which took me so much effort to extract from DCC and post here, stated that there were large-scale donors with cash standing by and ready to go for the full amount – including one (unidentified) individual with 1.5 million in a briefcase if I recall correctly.

    Now a year or so on we’re down to between 2 & 4 million, with 2 million of this being diverted from other charitable community giving by pokies (if that activity can be charitably described as such). What’s your betting that it WON’T be other pro-sports that will be displaced by this new pool pokie funding campaign? One can imagine the scenario – with a pokie fund funding three out of four candidates….

    1) Mosgiel pool (new)
    2) Bullshit pro-rugby academy bogus charity (untouchable)
    3) Horsey prize money (ditto)
    4) Mosgiel food bank (discretionary)

    Let the losers eat cake will be my predicted outcome!

    If the pool donations are plotted on a graph, this rate of decline means that the zero point of ‘general giving’ will be reached in a year or so – a bit like the amazin’ shrinking private Stadium funding if you recall that. This fell from 188 million to pretty much zero over the course of the extensive and publicly funded CSCT fundraising campaign. A truly astonishing achievement. While the Mosgiel Pool Trust cannot achieve an outcome of this scale (we hope!), they might reasonably aspire to an execution on a smaller scale that is equally perfect in every way. They certainly seem to be heading strongly towards this objective.

    So,

    Where have all these donors gone?

    What have the Pool Trust done to turn them off? Apparently these fat cat donors were as keen as mustard a year or so back when the case was presented to Council and the funding commitment extracted from them.

    Where did our research cash go – did we have a guarantee?

    I already know the answers to these questions, but it amuses me to ask.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s