Category Archives: South Dunedin

Meanwhile . . . . #SouthDunedin

Received from Douglas Field
Tue, 20 Sep 2016 at 1:06 p.m.

cull-barks

Press Release: Greater South Dunedin Community Group

MEDIA RELEASE
18 September 2016

South Dunedin to grill election candidates this week

South Dunedin has emerged as a significant issue in the upcoming local body elections and as a result two candidate forums for councillors and mayoral candidates have been organised this week by the Greater South Dunedin Community Group, acting chair of the Greater South Dunedin Community Group Philip Gilchrist said today.

The forum meetings will hosted in the Mayfair Theatre on Tuesday 20th and Wednesday 21 September from 6.30pm – 9pm in order to provide all candidates with an opportunity to provide their views on the challenges and opportunities for this important part of the city.

An electronic survey sent out to the candidates before the forums has drawn responses from 34 of the 44 candidates standing for the Dunedin City Council. We believe the large number of responses is a recognition that issues concerning the future of South Dunedin are high on their list of priorities.

At the forums, candidates will be asked a question and then given two minutes to respond, and there will also be about 90 minutes when questions can be asked of the candidates from the floor. Previous meetings that our group has hosted have prompted vigorous and relevant questioning from the public and it is expected that this meeting will provide the similar level of interaction as the people of South Dunedin are now, at last, having their voices heard. The June 2015 flood has certainly brought South Dunedin to New Zealand’s attention.

We are pleased to be hosting the event in the magnificent Mayfair Theatre, which is the significant Heritage Building in South Dunedin, Mr Gilchrist said.

█ We attach a link to the survey responses:
The results are un-edited and can be downloaded or read online.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/5xylrw1b16ciaet/AACcsRBhqCw1XpJRqVecerGHa?dl=0

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

1 Comment

Filed under Business, Democracy, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Finance, Geography, Health, Heritage, Hot air, Housing, Infrastructure, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Site, South Dunedin, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, Urban design, What stadium

Cracking the truth : June 2015 South Dunedin flood

OPINION received from Neil Johnstone
Sat, 10 Sep 2016 at 12:42 a.m.

Richard Stedman produces (below) a succinct review of the causes of, and failures after, the South Dunedin flood of June 2015. His frustrations appear to match those of Hilary Calvert that were published a few hours earlier. My reviews previously published on What if? Dunedin commencing back around February give more detail.

For your readers’ further consideration, Richard has highlighted the ‘200mm increase’ in flood level as a result of Portobello Road pumping station failures. The figure was derived by me, and appears in my review of the first DCC flood report. To my knowledge the only clear comparable DCC concessions have come from chief executive Sue Bidrose who admitted the figure publicly at the 20 June 2016 (yes, 2016) South Dunedin Action Group-organised public meeting, and subsequently.

The first DCC flood report (30 Nov 2015) is adamant that high groundwater was the cause of the flooding, and enough Councillors bought right into that excuse at the following Infrastructure Services Committee meeting. Just go back and view the video, if you’ve forgotten.

Dunedin City Council Published on Dec 7, 2015
Dunedin City Council – Council Meeting – November 30 2015
Discussion of the report starts at 1:09:52

The second (mudtank) DCC report of 26 April this year states: “Although Portobello Road’s performance did explain some of the length of time flooding was evident, much of the flooded area was below road level…” (para 31). No mention of increased depth of flooding there either, you will note.
[View report at Infrastructure Services Committee: Agenda & Reports 26 April (Part A, Item 5) pp 6-27.]

Neither DCC report mentions the additional depth of flooding caused by inaction at the Musselburgh pumping station.

History and ongoing design may rely on written commentaries. For the wellbeing of South Dunedin people, we must therefore continue to counter the misinformation contained in DCC reports, and in the more recent ORC (DCC-backed) South Dunedin “hazards” report. Even if ODT has switched off.

Related Posts at What if? Dunedin
8.3.16 [Review 1] Johnstone independent review of DCC report
19.5.16 [Review 2] Johnstone review of 2nd DCC report

Correspondence supplied
7.3.16 Letter, Chief Executive Sue Bidrose to Neil Johnstone
10.3.16 Response from Neil Johnstone to CE Bidrose

sue-bidrose-south-dunedin-a-changing-environment-radionz-co-nz-detailSue Bidrose at ORC/DCC hazards presentation [radionz.co.nz]

****

OPINION received from Richard Stedman
Fri, 9 Sept 2016 at 8:24 p.m.

The ODT editorial department is peopled by closed minds, a number of whom subscribe to the climate change/rising sea level mantra and therefore manipulate their content to support their distorted view of the world. Mr Morris is captured by the former/present regime at city hall, a fate which befalls every reporter assigned to that round once they get their feet under the table.

Two weeks ago I prepared an opinion piece re the election and South Dunedin, outlining some of the issues as I see them in the hope that it might be published. I thought it was honestly held opinion, but it was rejected because it added “nothing new” to the debate, yet they run to Cull at every turn and run column after column of repetitive nonsense.

The following is my submission submitted on 24/8 and rejected the same day in this message: “Thanks for this submission, but we have had a “deluge” of flood letters and op eds from all sides so I don’t feel the need to highlight the issue again at the moment – certainly if there’s not anything new in it, as such”.

I have seen little evidence of the cited “deluge”.

The South Dunedin flood of June 2015 may be a tipping point during next month’s local body election. Many voters will look at the burgeoning candidates list for the Dunedin City Council and ask “who will provide the cornerstone elements of responsibility, accountability and integrity?”

Residents and business owners in South Dunedin have been sorely tested in recent times through the failure of the DCC to maintain its infrastructure. Among those adversely affected were elderly residents at Radius Fulton Home, including a number of dementia patients, the most vulnerable in our community, who were subjected to floodwaters containing sewage and transferred from the safety of their home in a crisis beyond acceptance. Some were accommodated as far away as Balclutha and Oamaru and three months passed before the facility was re-opened.

Following the flood, obfuscation clouded the failures that led to the inundation of homes and businesses and the investigation and report into the affair was 12 months in gestation. Officials and councillors, captured by the twin mantras of climate change and rising sea level, avoided any suggestion of culpability to limit the likelihood of litigation, and offered no solace that might have been construed as admission of liability.

The mayor and others were quick to blame rising sea level causing increased groundwater, combined with an “extreme weather event”, the result of climate change, and went so far as suggesting that a planned retreat from South Dunedin may be necessary in the future. The rainfall was described as a one-in-100-year event then gradually downgraded, but none of these pretexts are realistic. Questions arise over who is responsible for what, and how serious are the threats of rising sea level, more frequent adverse weather caused by climate change, and the “sinking of South Dunedin”, not to mention “retreat”.

Dunedin and environs have been subjected to much larger weather events in the past. Flooding of the entire city is well recorded and in particular photographs of the 1923 flood depict rowing in floodwaters in the city as well as inundation in South Dunedin. During a storm in 1898 large tracts of St Clair Esplanade were destroyed by the sea which damaged many houses, leaving some partly suspended. More recently, the storms of 1968 were greater than last year’s, delivering 10% more rainfall. In 1968 there were 90 properties invaded by floodwater, whereas last year some 1200 properties were flooded and many contaminated with effluent. Clearly last year’s event was exceptional only for the damage created and lives disrupted.

At a public meeting in South Dunedin on June 20, more than 12 months after the event, those affected had an opportunity to hear an explanation in the hope that someone might take responsibility for the extent of the damage. Despite a good representation of councillors there was no empathy and no likelihood of accountability. What the meeting heard was a long explanation of how the three-waters system works, or doesn’t work, as the case may be, and of failure at the pumping station from chief executive, Dr Sue Bidrose and other staff. The question is “when did the city’s councillors abdicate?”

south-dunedin-flood-june-2015-radionz-co-nzSouth Dunedin June 2015 [radionz.co.nz]

It can be argued that the damage and distress was the result of neglect, but the DCC says problems at the pumping station added only 200mm to the flooding which would have occurred anyway. Which 200mm was it? Maybe the first 200mm flowed across the ground, reached blocked drains then deepened throughout the area, or perhaps the last 200mm increased the depth and entered homes and business premises carrying undesirable flotsam. Without the extra 200mm would the water have stopped at the thresholds rather than flowing inside?

What of the rising sea level threat? Is it as urgent and as devastating as the commissioner for the environment, some DCC councillors and the Green Party say? The Greens proffer that the Government should help to pay for the reconfiguration of South Dunedin. Why? There has been no disaster on the scale of the Canterbury earthquakes and there is no immediate danger condemning South Dunedin, for if sea level were to rise according to some projections, north Dunedin and other areas are also in jeopardy meaning protection on the coast is futile because the flat land would be inundated from the harbour.

Could it be that models of sea level rise around New Zealand are exaggerated and distorted by the multiplier effect have been grossly over stated? And do the $7 million apartment complex at the Esplanade to be completed next year and the DCC’s belated discussion on a South Dunedin hub indicate mixed messages on the subject?

There is no doubt that the infrastructure must be maintained to the highest level and upgrading implemented with haste. The seafront calls for a level-headed approach to protect the sandhills which shelter the city from the ocean. In the past a network of groynes captured the sand, maintaining a broad beach to dissipate the energy of the waves. The network succeeded for nearly 100 years, but without maintenance fell victim to the ocean, so is it time to reinstate a similar system and then plan carefully for the next 100 to 200 years?

Council says that infrastructure will require “tens of millions of dollars” we cannot afford, but plans to spend some $37 million on George Street and the Octagon, followed by development of the harbourside. These “tens of millions” surely must be re-allocated to South Dunedin for infrastructure, to build a second pumping station, and provide realistic coastal protection.

Dunedin needs new councillors who will make hard decisions, reduce spending on fripperies and attend to basics; people who are prepared to drill deep into reports and costings and who are not afraid to make unpalatable decisions when needed rather than govern with slogans and platitudes.

Declaration: Conrad Stedman is my nephew.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

4 Comments

Filed under Business, Climate change, DCC, Democracy, Dunedin, Economics, Education, Events, Finance, Geography, Health, Heritage, Housing, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Site, South Dunedin, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, Urban design, What stadium

Calvert on DCC, ‘We could have a much more democratic and transparent operation of council’

leunig-cartoons-%e2%80%8fleunigcartoons-%c2%b7-aug-21Leunig Cartoons ‏@leunigcartoons · Aug 21

### ODT Online Thu, 8 Sep 2016
Scope for more democracy with checks and balances
By Hilary Calvert
OPINION In the past three years Dunedin City Council has functioned just as central government does, with a government and an opposition. But the problem is that in Dunedin it means central government-style politics without the checks and balances. Because the mayor of the day is allowed to choose the chairs of the council committees, if the mayor anoints those who are similar in their views to him or her, effectively a “government” is formed. Those on the “government” side support each other, forming a version of the “cabinet”, with meetings between themselves alongside senior council staff to discuss the issues of the day. Those who are not part of this grouping are obliged to form a loose “opposition”, because this is the only place where any public challenges and questions are likely to come from.
In Dunedin […] the chairs of committees forming the “cabinet” meet secretly and without any minutes which can be accessed. They may be part of working parties with other groups, which never report back to the council, for example groups meeting with NZTA about cycleways. They may have information either before the rest of the council or outside the rest of council papers, never to be seen by council. […] In Dunedin, the ODT describes what happens in council meetings, talks to the chairs of the meetings, and prints press releases, having clarified the situation with a relevant staff member. There is little chance for any challenge of prevailing views unless a major debate happens during meetings, or unless the issues raised are ones which the ODT chooses to follow up in an in-depth way.
Read more

● Hilary Calvert is a Dunedin City councillor, who is not standing for re-election.

luenig-political-substance-8-9-16Leunig Cartoons ‏@leunigcartoons · Sep 8

****

B L O W N ● O U T ● O F ● P R O P O R T I O N ● B Y ● C U L L

If, for example, the solutions involved “massive urban renewal or massive pumps” then Government help could be sought.

### ODT Online Fri, 9 Sep 2016
Work on South D issues
By Vaughan Elder
Dunedin Mayor Dave Cull says it is too early to make a formal approach to the Government for help with the problems facing South Dunedin. Mr Cull made the comments while outlining the council’s response to its vote last month to “immediately engage” the Government over the threat groundwater and sea-level changes pose to the low-lying area. Mr Cull said that in recent weeks he and chief executive Sue Bidrose briefed local MPs on the situation in South Dunedin and in the past he had spoken to ministers Bill English and Paula Bennett about the possibility of “collaboration” between local and central government in addressing South Dunedin’s issues.
Read more

Animal Cognition @animalcog · Mar 27 [Birdie Cull, the wrecker]

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

13 Comments

Filed under Business, Climate change, DCC, Democracy, Dunedin, Economics, Finance, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Perversion, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Public interest, South Dunedin, Travesty, What stadium

M-alicious treatment dealt to #Wests

M&M 2

Dunedin soft drinks institution subjected to “full-scale assault” from medical officer of health and licensing inspector. (ODT 16.8.16)

Fri, 2 Sep 2016
Scoop: Mayor disappointed by ARLA Wests Cordial Decision
Dunedin (Thu, 1 Sep 2016) – The Mayor of Dunedin, Dave Cull is disappointed the new alcohol legislation has caused South Dunedin company Wests Southern Liquor to lose its licence.

Fri, 2 Sep 2016
ODT: ‘Crazy’ decision to strip Wests of liquor licence, owner claims
A Dunedin soft drinks institution has had its liquor licence stripped in what its owner is calling a “crazy” decision. Wests (NZ) Ltd’s director Alf Loretan said he was “very disappointed” with the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority decision, which will most likely signal the end of his and his wife’s stressful two-and-a-half-year fight for their 140-year-old Bay View Rd business to retain its licence.

Thu, 1 Sep 2016
Stuff: Last call for iconic Dunedin soft drink retailer Wests?
Dunedin’s mayor has lashed out at “ridiculous” alcohol licensing legislation after it cost a local company its licence to sell booze from its factory shop. Wests (NZ) Ltd has lost its fight to keep its liquor licence. The company has been trading in Dunedin for 140 years. […] To qualify for a liquor licence, Wests needed to prove 85 per cent of its sales were for alcohol, which it did not do. The case was heard by the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority (ARLA) earlier this month, after Southern medical officer of health Marion Poore and Dunedin district licensing inspector Martine Cashell-Smith appealed a decision by the Dunedin District Licensing Committee (DLC) to renew Wests’ liquor licence.

Wests logo [wests.co.nz]

WESTS is proud to be New Zealand’s oldest continuous manufacturer of Cordials and Soft Drinks. The Wests brand began back in 1876, the same year another local family, the Speight’s, began their brewing business….

Website: http://www.wests.co.nz/

█ Read about the history of the company and what it does now at http://www.wests.co.nz/history

Related Post and Comments:
5.7.16 #Wests —Councillors ??! Please act. [DCC out of order.]

Posted By Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

*Image: odt.co.nz + whatifdunedin tweaks

12 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Democracy, Dunedin, Economics, Finance, Geography, Health, Heritage, Media, Name, New Zealand, People, Perversion, Politics, Property, Public interest, Site, South Dunedin, Tourism, Travesty, Urban design

Johnstone on ORC report : ‘The Natural Hazards of South Dunedin’ (July 2016)

The Natural Hazards of South Dunedin – July 2016 [read online]
Otago Regional Council
ISBN: 978-0-908324-35-4
Report writers:
Michael Goldsmith, ORC Natural Hazards Manager
Sharon Hornblow, ORC Natural Hazards Analyst
Reviewed by: Gavin Palmer, ORC Director Engineering, Hazards and Science
External review by: David Barrell, Simon Cox, GNS Science, Dunedin

Received from Neil Johnstone
Sun, 29 Aug 2016 at 8:17 p.m.

Message: Misinformation on the causes of the June 2015 South Dunedin flood have abounded since the event. As if the victimised residents haven’t suffered enough from others’ inactions (before and during the event), they are now being subjected to a hazards discovery process whose vigour appears to be exceeded only by its own recklessness. Following are a commentary of the hazards approach adopted by the Otago Regional Council (ORC), and a summary of my investigations into the flood event that I commenced after the publication of Dunedin City Council’s first flood report back in November 2015.

You can download Neil Johnstone’s report or read it below (formatted slightly differently to suit the WordPress template).

█ Download: A REVIEW OF ORC REPORT THE NATURAL HAZARDS OF SOUTH DUNEDIN (1) (PDF, 587 KB)

AN APPRAISAL OF RECENT REPORTING OF SOUTH DUNEDIN HAZARDS

N.P JOHNSTONE, BEng (Civil), MIPENZ

1. Introduction

There is some irony that DCC and ORC should be planning “drop in” sessions for residents in respect of South Dunedin hazard issues during September 2016, some 15 months after the major flood. The prime cause of flooding in June 2015 was DCC’s failure to maintain its infrastructure (not just mudtanks), and its failure to operate its pump stations to their intended capacities. The subsequent spread of misconceptions (i.e. groundwater levels, rainfall significance etc) surrounding the flood causes was at least partly due to inaccurate ORC analyses and reporting.

Repetitive and new doubtful information emanating from ORC via its latest report has been noted. Presentations and an over-simplistic video production have been observed. A footnote covering these observations is included at the end of this appraisal.

Long-delayed DCC reports on causes of the South Dunedin flooding have already been strongly criticised by the author. Specifically discredited are misrepresentations of sea level, groundwater and rainfall ranking. Accepted now by DCC as factors (somewhat grudgingly, and depending on the audience) are mudtank blockage and Portobello Road pump station failures (plural); still to be fully acknowledged are the failures at Musselburgh Pumping Station.

Attention is now turned to significant parts of hazard reports produced by the Otago Regional Council and utilised by DCC.

2. Coastal Otago Flood Event 3 June 2015 (ORC, published October 2015)

This report deals with a wider area than South Dunedin. It is apparent that ORC staff never visited the flooding areas of South Dunedin on 3 June, but took advantage of fine weather to take some water level readings the following day. The opportunity for useful progressive surface water level recording was thus lost. Levels were collected at some 150 points on 4 June. ORC’s main conclusion was that “localised variations in topography were probably the main driver of flood depth”. Or, put another way, water depth was deepest where the ground was lowest. This seems hardly surprising, and even trivial. No attempt was made to explain the photographic images presented of extensive ponding remaining well after the rains had ceased. The phenomena of blocked mudtanks and unutilised pumping capacity went seemingly unnoticed.

The report does usefully reference ORC’s four borehole recorders of groundwater, but makes the somewhat misleading assessment that groundwater levels were “elevated” prior to the rainstorm. This misinformation was seized upon by agencies such as DCC and the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment to highlight climate change impacts.

Having obtained the actual groundwater level data from ORC via the LGOIMA process, the author was able to reveal this “groundwater fallacy” in reviews from February 2016, but it was not until the publication of NZ Listener’s article (June 11-17, 2016) entitled ‘FLOOD FIASCO’ that ORC admitted that pre-flood groundwater levels were in fact “just a little bit above average”. ORC now seems intent on resurrecting this fallacy.

The ORC report fails to address the real and key issues of pumping station failures (Portobello Road and Musselburgh), or comparisons with much lesser flood impacts in the larger rainfall event of March 8/9 1968.

The report states that the 2015 24-hour rainfall was the largest since 1923. This was patently incorrect, but again was utilised by DCC to divert blame from their role in the disaster.

3. The Natural Hazards of South Dunedin (ORC, published July 2016)

The report states unambiguously in its Opening Summary that the major flooding of June 2015 was “a result of heavy rainfall, surface runoff, and a corresponding rise in groundwater”. By now, most people are aware that the causes of the flooding’s disastrous impact were failure to optimally operate pumping stations, failure to clear mudtanks, and failure to deploy staff to key areas during the event. Again, none of these factors is addressed in ORC’s report.

The report presents a table on its second page entitled “Factors Which Can Influence Flood Hazard”. Examples of exaggerated negativity include:

1. Heavy Rainfall:
– Many recorded instances of rainfall leading to surface flooding.
– Heavy rainfall events have occurred frequently over the last decade.

Comment: These conclusions do not appear to be supported by the report’s text, and are vague, factually challengeable and alarmist. Prior to 2015, no major flooding had occurred in South Dunedin since 1968, and even that was minor by comparison.

2. Sea Level:
– Groundwater level fluctuates (by up to 0.5m near the coast) on a twice-daily cycle in response to normal ocean tides.

Comment: All of South Dunedin is near the coast; most of the area does not experience such large fluctuations. This should have been made clear by the inclusion of groundwater data from all 4 ORC sites across the plain, not just from Kennedy Street.

3. Seismic:
– Large earthquakes could result in increased flood hazard on the South Dunedin plain, due to liquefaction-related land subsidence or direct, sudden, changes in land elevation relative to sea level.

Comment: All areas of NZ have some susceptibility to earthquake damage. Dunedin is amongst the areas at lowest risk; no incidences of even minor liquefaction have ever been reported in South Dunedin, and little or no clearly liquefiable materials have been identified (Refer GNS, 2014*). Continue reading

27 Comments

Filed under Baloney, Business, Climate change, DCC, Democracy, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Finance, Geography, Health, Heritage, Housing, Infrastructure, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Site, South Dunedin, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, Urban design, What stadium

Cull’s city council is Not democracy : VOTE CULL OUT

PAINT BOMBERS WANTED. Apply here.
Dave Cull’s marketer, Ms Firebrand, is using LOL “brand” recognition to attempt to Fire up and Win over the Good Voters of South Dunedin. Was it a $7,000 billing on the railway viaduct entry to King Edward Street. Rhetorical. Cull has already LOST South Dunedin. Better spent on Lobotomy. Any mayor who Floods You or lowers Your Private Property Values is Not To Be Trusted EVER. Parade Cull at dawn to the public stocks. YOU OWE Dave Cull NOTHING except Projectile rotten eggs and rancid tomatoes.

Cull paint bombed [scarfyblog.co.nz + mylifemysite.com] tweaked by whatifdunedin

Meanwhile….
A new mayoral candidate, in 2016, with No Previous Experience on the city council thinks he should run the city council like a Rugby Team.

What ‘BUSINESS'(!) does he have representing Ratepayers and Residents for the next trimester —given how Professional Rugby has Rorted Dunedin down to the Last Dollar, multiple times over. We all know how a stadium draws ‘tourism’.

WHO IS HE ?
Solve the mystery.

****

F O R C E D ● L O C A L ● G O V E R N M E N T ● R E F O R M S

Such companies, like Delta or City Forests in Dunedin, would operate along more corporate lines and at arm’s length from the councils that owned them.

so what’s new $$$$$$$$………….. ?

Sat, 27 Aug 2016 – Chris Morris
ODT: Fight for local democracy
At their heart, the [National government-led local government] reforms sought to promote greater efficiency through the use of council-controlled organisations (CCOs). […] But, worryingly for some councils, the Local Government Commission would have the power to create and impose “multi-council” regional CCOs that operated across traditional council boundaries. That could include “pre-approved” regional water and transport CCOs, responsible for everything from local roads and public transport to water delivery, such as Auckland’s Watercare. The commission would also have the power to transfer existing council assets — in some cases built up over generations — to the ownership and control of the new entities.

ODT: Criticism ‘just electioneering’

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

*Image: scarfyblog.co.nz + mylifemysite.com – Cull paint bombed
[tweaked by whatifdunedin]

38 Comments

Filed under Baloney, Business, Citifleet, Climate change, DCC, Delta, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, DVL, DVML, Economics, Enterprise Dunedin, Finance, Hot air, Name, People, Pet projects, Politics, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, South Dunedin, Sport, Stadiums, Tourism, Travesty, What stadium

South Dunedin mainstreet Hub : no direct relevance to distant Gasworks

as well as (pre-Election)
DESPICABLE DCC / ORC CLIMATE CHANGE MASSAGE

[click to enlarge]
DCC Webmap - South Dunedin Hub area incl gasworks museum JanFeb2013DCC Webmap – GREAT DISTANCE except by computer or Segway….
South Dunedin | from King Edward St (red) to Gasworks Museum (blue) via Lorne and Braemar Sts (green) – colour overlays by whatifdunedin.

█ DCC doesn’t need Athfield Architects to justify the LONG DURATION need and solution. No disrespect to colleague, the late Ian Athfield —or the current firm (love them heaps).

DCC, DO NOT OVER THINK THIS, FOR CRISSAKES
Give South Dunedin a community facility as was Promised YEARS AGO. Leave the goodie-two-shoes Gasworks Museum lobbyists out of it, or very much to the side. They mean well, but for too long they’ve been praying on the feckless DCC, soaking up Ratepayer dollars with little justification, and they keep wanting more.

COLLECTIVELY, WE HAVE LOCAL SOLUTIONS – WE DON’T NEED TO BE HELD BY THE HAND TO SET UP SOMETHING SO INCREDIBLY SIMPLE AS AN ECONOMICAL WELL-CRAFTED COMMUNITY HUB IN KING EDWARD STREET

How many people is this “out of control” Dunedin City Council wanting to Massage – BEFORE the October Local Body Elections.

VOTE BUYING
The CULL Stench around this is SO DISGUSTING.

Dunedin City Council – Media Release
Drop-in sessions start of community conversation on South Dunedin’s future

This item was published on 22 Aug 2016

A series of drop-in information sessions hosted by the Dunedin City Council and Otago Regional Council early next month are the start of a community conversation around South Dunedin’s future. The sessions will be at the Dunedin Gasworks Museum on Thursday, 1 September and Friday, 2 September.

DCC chief executive Sue Bidrose will be presenting information about what happened in the 2015 flood, how the current stormwater system works, and how the DCC plans to invest and work with the community in the future.

Ms Bidrose said that it was important to plan carefully for South Dunedin’s changing environment. It was also important to take the time to involve the community in the decision making along the way, rather than to just do things on their behalf.

“Addressing the challenges of the future requires the DCC and ORC starting to have conversations with the community about the challenges, and the expectations and options for what can be achieved. The rest of Dunedin’s population needs to be involved as well. There is a great opportunity to turn some of the challenges into opportunities and give confidence for long-term investment in the area. These drop-in sessions are the beginning of the process. The DCC will be actively seeking local people’s thoughts on these issues and working with the ORC on what the long-term responses might be. I’m looking forward to seeing as many people as possible from the South Dunedin area at the sessions.” –Bidrose [employed by ????]

ORC director of stakeholder engagement Caroline Rowe said the drop-in sessions were part of a wider South Dunedin community engagement plan, aimed at developing a conversation with locals and groups about managing the risks associated with the changing environment. Ms Rowe said they follow the recent release of the ORC’s Natural Hazards of South Dunedin report. The [BULLSHIT ORC] technical report pulls together information and analysis gathered over the past seven years on natural hazards facing the area, particularly the increased likelihood of surface flooding associated with rising sea level. [FALSE AND MISLEADING BULLSHIT]

Presentations, with accompanying video, will be at each session and people will have an opportunity to talk individually to staff from both councils. The hour-long sessions will be repeated several times, with Thursday sessions starting at 10am, 11.30am, 1pm, 4.30pm and 7pm. The Friday sessions will start at 10am, 11.30am, and 1pm.

Ongoing engagement planned for the next few weeks also includes briefings for support service agencies and other specific interest groups such as the South Dunedin Business Association, the Otago Chamber of Commerce, and school and early childhood centres.

Contact Sue Bidrose, chief executive DCC on 03 477 4000.

DCC Link

█ Feedback on the proposal can be provided online on the council’s website at http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/council-online/currently-consulting-on/current-consultations/south-dunedin-community-hub

The feedback period runs from Saturday, 20 August until 4pm on Monday, 29 August.

****

Mon, 22 Aug 2016
ODT: South D hub proposal unveiled
The Dunedin City Council is calling for feedback from residents on its preferred option for a library and community hub in South Dunedin before a report is presented to councillors next month. Council services and development general manager Simon Pickford and architect Jon Rennie, of Athfield Architects, presented the council’s preferred option to about 50 people at the Dunedin Gasworks Museum on Saturday morning. Under the $5.25 million proposal, a library would be built in the former BNZ building in King Edward St and the facility linked to the Gasworks Museum through Lorne St. Some facilities, such as a café, would be based at the museum. Mr Pickford said residents had until August 29 to provide feedback to the council on the proposal.

█ For more, enter the terms *south dunedin*, *flood*, *hazard*, *vandervis* (sane) and *cull* (VOTE Cull OUT) in the search box at right.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

40 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Climate change, Construction, Cycle network, DCC, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Education, Events, Finance, Geography, Health, Heritage, Hot air, Housing, Infrastructure, Media, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Perversion, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Site, South Dunedin, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, Urban design, What stadium

Calder Stewart playing games at Carisbrook

S H I F T I N G ● T H E ● G O A L ● P O S T S

█ Site zoned industrial under district plan and proposed 2GP.

█ Company lobbying to evade set condition for 10.5m setback —for own commercial gain.

### ODT Online Mon, 15 Aug 2016
Old stadium site ruling questioned
By David Loughrey
The company that owns the former Carisbrook Stadium site in South Dunedin is calling on the Dunedin City Council to scrap a 10.5m setback suggested for its Burns St frontage. Calder Stewart says the setback will cover 1963sq m of land worth about $600,000, and will not provide the benefits suggested in the second generation district plan (2GP). The company took its concerns to the 2GP hearings last week, as a hearings committee considered what the next district plan will look like. […] Research undertaken by the University of Otago had shown South Dunedin had a low population of native birds because of a lack of habitat, and planting of native or exotic trees there would provide a valuable habitat resource.
Read more

[click to enlarge]
Dunedin Jan-03 [flyinn.co.nz] 1Dunedin Jan 2003. Image: flyinn.co.nz

Carisbrook 26.5.13. Rob Hamlin 1Carisbrook May 2013. Image: Rob Hamlin

DCC Webmap - Carisbrook, South Dunedin JanFeb 2013DCC Webmap – Carisbrook, South Dunedin JanFeb 2013

C A R I S B R O O K

Source: Wikipedia

Broke ground 1881 | Opened 1883 | Closed 2011 | Demolition starting 2013

Former Tenants:
Otago Rugby Football Union | Highlanders (Super 14) (1996–2011)

Carisbrook was a major sporting venue in Dunedin, New Zealand. The city’s main domestic and international rugby union venue, it was also used for other sports such as cricket, football, rugby league and motocross. Carisbrook also hosted a Joe Cocker concert and frequently hosted pre-game concerts before rugby matches in the 1990s. In 2011 Carisbrook was closed, and was replaced by Forsyth Barr Stadium at University Plaza in North Dunedin.
Floodlit since the 1990s, it could cater for both day and night fixtures. Known locally simply as “The Brook”, it has been branded with the name “The House of Pain”, due to its reputation as a difficult venue for visiting teams.
Located at the foot of The Glen, a steep valley, the ground was flanked by the South Island Main Trunk Railway and the Hillside Railway Workshops, two miles southwest of Dunedin city centre in the suburb of Caversham. State Highway 1 also ran close to the northern perimeter of the ground.
Carisbrook was named after the estate of early colonial settler James Macandrew (itself named after a castle on the Isle of Wight). Developed during the 1870s, it was first used for international cricket in 1883, when Otago hosted a team from Tasmania. It hosted rugby union internationals since 1908 and full cricket internationals since 1955.
The stadium was home to both the Highlanders in Super Rugby and Otago in the ITM Cup through each side’s respective 2011 season. It is also the former home of Otago cricket, which moved to the University Oval at Logan Park in the north of the city after the redevelopment in the early 2000s, and also of Otago United Football team in the New Zealand Football Championship, which moved to the lower-capacity Sunnyvale Park for the 2008–09 season.
█ Read more at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carisbrook

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

17 Comments

Filed under Business, Carisbrook, Construction, DCC, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Finance, Geography, Heritage, Hot air, Media, Name, New Zealand, People, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Site, South Dunedin, Stadiums, Town planning, Travesty, Urban design, What stadium

Election Candidates : DCC, ORC and Community Boards

Updated post
Sat, 13 Aug 2016 at 12:50 a.m.

█ Check out election candidates’ names and profiles here:

DCC & Community Boards
http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/your-council/electoral-information/elections-to-be-held-and-nominations-dunedin-city-council

ORC
http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/your-council/electoral-information/elections-to-be-held-and-nominations-orc

### dunedintv.co.nz Tue, 9 Aug 2016 6:52 pm
Nightly Interview: Pam Jordan
Nominations close soon for the local body elections, and it’s a busy time for the officials, especially those at the helm. Dunedin returning officer Pam Jordan, has one of the busiest jobs.
Ch39 Link

Channel 39 Published on Aug 8, 2016

****

Tuesday, 9 August 2016
ODT: Too few standing to fill council roles
Just three and a-half days from the deadline for nominations in October’s local body elections, there are not enough prospective candidates to fill Otago’s councils and community boards. While candidates regularly leave nominations until the last minute, electoral officers across the southern region say for this election the response is particularly slow. Dunedin’s community boards have just 10 nominations for 30 positions, while in the Clutha district there have been only five nominations so far for the 27 positions available. Electoral officers have called on candidates to get cracking and submit their nominations before they close at noon on Friday, 12 August.

****

[older item]

Dunedin City Council – Media Release
Only a week to go

This item was published on [FRIDAY] 05 Aug 2016

Candidates wishing to stand for this year’s local authority elections have a week left to put in their nominations.

Nominations close at 12 noon on Friday, 12 August.

The Electoral Officer for the Dunedin City Council and the Otago Regional Council, Pam Jordan, says the following numbers of nominations had been received by 10am today [Fri, 5 Aug].

Dunedin City Council (DCC):
● Mayor of Dunedin – 1
● Council – 8
● Community Boards (six vacancies for each of six boards) – 5 in total

Otago Regional Council (ORC):
● Dunedin Constituency (six vacancies) – 0
● Dunstan Constituency (three vacancies) – 4
● Moeraki Constituency (one vacancy) – 1
● Molyneux Constituency (two vacancies) – 1

Anyone wishing to stand as a candidate for the DCC (including their local community board) or the ORC can obtain nomination forms and candidate information at www.dunedin.govt.nz/elections or phone 03 4774000.

Candidates can also get further information from Local Government New Zealand at www.lgnz.co.nz/vote2016/candidates.

The names of candidates are put on the DCC website as nominations are received and processed. Candidate profiles will be published once nominations close. The elections are held by postal vote and voting papers will be sent out from 16 September. These must be mailed back in time to be received by 12 noon on Election Day, Saturday, 8 October.

Contact Electoral Officer on 03 4774000.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

124 Comments

Filed under Aurora Energy, Business, Corruption, Cycle network, DCC, DCHL, DCTL, Delta, Democracy, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Finance, Geography, Housing, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, ORC, People, Pet projects, Politics, Pools, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, South Dunedin, Stadiums, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation

ORC, DCC continuing Deceptions : Natural Hazards for #SouthDunedin

W H A T ● P L A N ?

ORC stakeholder engagement director Caroline Rowe said the sessions were part of a wider “South Dunedin community engagement plan”.

### ODT Online Tue, 9 Aug 2016
Sessions on natural hazards
By John Gibb
South Dunedin residents will be able to learn more about natural hazards facing the area through drop-in sessions to be held at the Dunedin Gasworks Museum early next month.
The Otago Regional Council is organising the September 1 and 2 sessions, in collaboration with the Dunedin City Council. The drop-in session on the first day will run from 1.30pm to 7pm, and on the second day from 10am to 2.30pm.
Last month the ORC released a report titled “Natural Hazards of South Dunedin”. This report consolidated information and analysis gathered over the past seven years on the natural hazards facing the area, particularly the “increased likelihood of surface flooding associated with rising sea level”.
Read more

W H A T ● R I S K S ?
Answer ……. M I S I N F O R M A T I O N via ORC Hazard Plans and Maps

F I G H T >>> To Protect Your Property Values

“In a report to be tabled at the ORC’s technical committee tomorrow, Ms Rowe said South Dunedin was “an integral part of the wider Dunedin community” and many people and groups had an interest in how its risks would be managed. The report said the ORC also planned several other communication activities over the hazards plan, this month and next.” –ODT

ORC : Combined Council Agenda 10 August – Public.pdf
● Go to Agenda Item 5 (pp 34-35)
2016/0988 South Dunedin Community Engagement Report
The report outlines the approach management is taking to the community engagement as was verbally communicated at the Technical Committee meeting held on 20 July 2016 where Council received the report entitled “The Natural Hazards of South Dunedin” and made the decision to “endorse further community and stakeholder engagement within a timely manner”.

[screenshot – click to enlarge]
ORC Report 4.8.16 South Dunedin Engagement Plan [ID- A924516]

General reading (Otago including Dunedin City District)
ORC : Natural Hazards

● Information coming to this ORC webpage: ORC committee report – natural hazards of the Dunedin district: technical documents

Natural Hazards of South Dunedin – July 2016

● See also, the DCC second generation district plan (2GP) hazard zone information and maps based on ORC data, via the 2GP Index page.

Related Post and Comments:
6.8.16 LGOIMA trials and tribulations with peer reviews #SouthDunedinflood

█ For more, enter the terms *flood*, *hazard*, *south dunedin* and *southdunedinflood* in the search box at right.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

10 Comments

Filed under Baloney, Business, Climate change, Construction, Corruption, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Finance, Geography, Health, Heritage, Housing, Infrastructure, Media, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, ORC, People, Perversion, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Site, South Dunedin, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, Urban design, What stadium

LGOIMA trials and tribulations with peer reviews #SouthDunedinflood

The following letter has had names removed, except those previously cited by broadcast and print media (public domain). -Eds.

Received from Neil Johnstone
Fri, 5 Aug 2016 at 11:41 p.m.

Subject: DCC and the LGOIMA

Message: I have read concerning comments on your site regarding DCC’s apparent failure to comply with its LGOIMA obligations. You may wish to post my account of my recent experience.

[begins]

Dunedin City Council took ten months to produce its second Infrastructure Report, entitled ‘South Dunedin Public Infrastructure During June 2015 Flood Event Follow-Up’ (Author: R. Stokes). On 28 January 2016 (still three months before the report surfaced), then DCC Group Manager Transport Ian McCabe told the Otago Daily Times “the lengthy timeline was needed to ensure the report was robust, including an external peer review of its findings”. Mr McCabe went on to emphasise that “the report had been widened from an initial focus only on mudtank maintenance, and now also included a fresh look at the network’s design capacity”. That all seemed fair enough.

When the report was ultimately released in late April 2016, it contained no reference to any external (or other) peer review. However, when interviewed by John Campbell on Radio NZ’s Checkpoint programme on April 22, shortly after the Report’s release, Mayor Cull repeatedly referenced “independent” peer review(s) as supporting (“parts of”) the Report’s content. Mr Cull stated that he didn’t know which parts of the report had been reviewed independently. “You would have to talk to her (Ms Stokes) about that,” he said. Presumably, therefore, he hadn’t seen the review(s) either.

On 17 May I sent a LGOIMA request to DCC Chief Executive Sue Bidrose, asking for a copy of the review(s). On 20 May I received an acknowledgement from DCC which rather defeated the purpose of my request but, more importantly, indicated that I would receive a response asap, but within 20 working days. I immediately queried why it should take such a long time to simply send a copy of a recent review, and asked simply for confirmation whether the review actually existed.

This time I received an email from the Group Manager Corporate Services suggesting a “discussion” before they left for overseas. There was no mention of my straightforward query as to whether the review actually existed. I replied immediately, and asked again for a simple yes/no to that question. Again, the question was not answered.

A full month (the maximum allowable period of 20 working days having elapsed since my simple request) later, I received an email from DCC. They were able to report that they had received information from the General Manager Infrastructure and Networks thus: “The response to Mr Johnstone is that we have had a peer review done, however this is still in draft and yet to be finalised (as staff have been focusing on forward work demands, and we have staff away). Once the review is finalised it will be publicly released.” “Therefore we have decided to refuse your request under section 17(d) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act, as the information requested will soon be publically (sic) available.”

I considered that response was unsatisfactory. The review, apparently under belated construction, was clearly not what I had repeatedly requested. I should by then have received the review referenced by Messrs McCabe (“external”) and Cull (“independent”), or received an acknowledgement that it did not exist.

Then on the evening of 6 July I was emailed by the General Manager Infrastructure and Networks, a copy of a new review, seemingly hot off the press, and authored by Opus in Auckland. This obviously was not the review that I had requested back on 17 May, as all DCC personnel involved should have known.

On 9 July I wrote to Chief Executive Sue Bidrose, expressing my concerns. I asked the following key questions:

Why, almost two months after my original LGOIMA request, I had still not received an admission that the peer review sought did not in fact exist?
Or, alternatively, if it did exist, why had it not been provided?
Why it took a month after my initial request for me to be merely told (irrelevantly) that a (different) peer review was being prepared, but with no attempt to satisfy my simple, legitimate request?

Almost a week later, a DCC officer returned to the list of respondents. They advised that my (follow-up) enquiry was being treated as a new request, and (you all know the drill) would be dealt with as soon as possible, but within 20 working days of receipt at the latest.

Nineteen working days later I received an emailed response from a Manager Civic and Legal. None of the three questions (above) were answered. They stated that my enquiries had been answered as soon as possible, given the volume of other requests. But the most interesting part of their response reads as follows: “The reported reference in the ODT (Mr McCabe, cited 28 January) to the external peer review was actually a reference to work the Council was undertaking to investigate the performance of the mudtank maintenance contractor…..”

So external means internal in the DCC, and widening means narrowing?

If the manager had been informed correctly, then there was no external review. Why, in that case, was I not told that nearly three months ago? Why did the Mayor apparently believe there was an external (independent, to use his wording) peer review? Furthermore, why did DCC fail to answer my three questions above.

I could, of course, ask these questions of DCC via LGOIMA, but I could then only expect an interim response followed by 20 more working days of inaction and worse.

Instead I have initiated a series of complaints to the Ombudsman, and decided that the public should view yet another example of how our City Hall is operating.

My intent throughout has been to identify the true causes of the June 2015 flood, so that real solutions can be identified and “political” solutions avoided. I have no intention of stopping, despite DCC’s apparent resistance.

[ends]

Neil Johnstone is welcome to publish emails supporting his story; it appears most if not all of the emails he received pertain under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act and therefore reside in public domain. However, the Ombudsmen are best to advise on these matters. In the meantime DCC is welcome to correct any factual errors, in the interests of accuracy and balance. -Eds.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

7 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Democracy, Dunedin, Economics, Housing, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, Ombudsman, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Public interest, Resource management, Site, South Dunedin, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, What stadium

Labour messing with South Dunedin, like Cull, unbidden

Not Listening [octavehighereast.com]Not Listening [octavehighereast.com]

There is little or no RISING GROUNDWATER at South Dunedin – this is an attack on the local community by Anthropogenic Global Warming (manmade climate change) believers like Curran, Clark, and Cull.

So-called ‘authorities’ are running their Politics over the top of the local Community, Failing to canvass the views of the local residents, property owners, service providers and businesses through agreed consultation methods Before pronouncing upon the area. This is disrespectful, dangerous behaviour. Unwarranted.

A lot of us will remember Labour MP David Clark’s importune speech on climate change at the public meeting held at South Dunedin on 20 June. He completely didn’t register the mood and understandings of the local audience.

Greenie Cull and the Labour Party are deliberately or inadvertently using South Dunedin as a Political Football. There are few votes to be earned from bullying and interference, thank god.

Listening —what is that.

Speaking after the tour, Mr Little said the area was a “prime candidate” for urban renewal under the party’s proposed Affordable Housing Authority.

### ODT Online Tue, 26 Jul 2016
Labour timeline for South renewal
By Timothy Brown
South Dunedin’s renewal will be showing “good progress” within six years of electing a Labour government, party leader Andrew Little says. Mr Little toured South Dunedin with Dunedin Mayor Dave Cull, Dunedin South MP Clare Curran, Dunedin North MP Dr David Clark and list MP David Parker after the area was earmarked by the Opposition as one urgently needing urban renewal. The group walked from Bathgate Park School, in Macandrew Rd, down Loyalty St into Nicholson St and on to Nelson St before returning to the school. They were accompanied by members of various social groups from South Dunedin.
Read more

****

### Dunedintv.co.nz Mon, 25 July 2016
Labour leader tours South Dunedin
Labour Leader Andrew Little has visited South Dunedin today, alongside a contingent of MPs and social service agency stakeholders. The group wandered around the areas hardest hit by last year’s floods, looking at the handful of houses still empty more than a year on. And Little took the opportunity to offer up his party’s plan to fix some of the issues.
Ch39 Link

Channel 39 Published on Jul 24, 2016
Labour leader tours South Dunedin

DUNEDIN – JUNKET CITY FOR LGNZ
“How do we Efficiently capture NZ Ratepayers’ Money for our Comfy Salaries”

### Dunedintv.co.nz Mon, 25 July 2016
Local government conference kicks off
The country’s annual Local Government conference is back in Dunedin for the first time in almost a decade. More than 560 delegates have piled into the Town Hall to discuss how to make New Zealand a better place to live and work. But it’s also serving as a way to address the tension between local and central governments.
Ch39 Video

LAWRENCE YULE GO HOME

█ For more, enter the terms *flood*, *sea level rise*, *stormwater*, *hazard*, *johnstone*, *hendry*, *south dunedin action group*, *debriefing notes*, *listener* or *lgnz* in the search box at right.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

Listening ear-hand [mrhudyma.com]Larry King - Listen [via linkedin.com]

*Images: mrhudyma.com – Listening | linkedin.com – Larry King, Listen

94 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Baloney, Business, Climate change, Construction, Corruption, Cycle network, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Events, Finance, Geography, Health, Heritage, Hot air, Housing, Infrastructure, LGNZ, Media, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Site, South Dunedin, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, Urban design, What stadium

Calder Stewart pay up #Carisbrook

What will Dave and the greenies spend this loot on ?

ODT 23.7.16 (page 6)

2016-07-23 22.18.13

Link: http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/391281/dcc-paid-31-million-carisbrook-sale

█ For more, enter the terms *carisbrook* or *orfu* in the search box at right.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

7 Comments

Filed under Business, Carisbrook, DCC, Democracy, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Finance, Highlanders, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, NZRU, OAG, Ombudsman, ORFU, People, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Site, South Dunedin, Sport, Stadiums, Town planning, Travesty, Urban design, What stadium

Cycleway planning at #DUD

T R U E ● O R ● F A L S E

bike cartoon by bob lafay [glendalecycles.com]

First we heard there were resignations via ODT.

http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/389654/fourth-high-profile-transport-department-resignation

Although some might be working out notice.

Online identities and job titles suggest people are still at DCC.

Simple. Not updated at LinkedIn possibly.

What’s your point ?!

“THE SUBSEQUENT NEWS” …. [pregnant pause]

The (friends ?)(professionals ?) have set up in the land of private enterprise.

Good for them.

But wait.

Someone has snaffled new cycleway planning and project management off DCC.

Noooo ! What ?

We thought we heard via SPOKES….. that “they” (the privateers) have ‘won’ (??) er, DCC’s new cycleway planning contracts to STUFF Dunedin roads.

Surely, they’d have had to go through an open tender process ?

Mmm. That remains to be seen.

Our Rates Money will go straight to the NOW Private Contractors in larger amounts probably.

Nah, don’t believe it. Can’t be True.

*Preferred Suppliers*—
Some Councillors know, some don’t.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

*Image: glendalecycles.com – Bob Lafay 12/03

7 Comments

Filed under Business, Construction, Cycle network, DCC, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Finance, Fun, Geography, Health, Infrastructure, Media, New Zealand, NZTA, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Site, South Dunedin, Sport, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, University of Otago, Urban design, What stadium

Sea level change : implications for coastal management

Link and Summary received from Rosemary McQueen
Wed, 6 Jul 2016 at 1:54 p.m.

Hippo2_l_tnb [clipartpal.com] 1

The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition
Commonsense about climate change Link

Two of Our Coalition Members Reveal the True Facts about Sea Levels
Posted Mon, 4 Jul 2016
“In this short and accessible monograph, Willem de Lange and Robert Carter describe and explain sea-level change, including the many remaining uncertainties in our full understanding of what exactly drives this change, and discuss the implications, mainly regarding coastal management. The monograph is intended for policy makers, but it should be informative for any educated reader. De Lange and Carter analyse the causes of sea-level change, and describe how it has been measured – with tide gauges over the past 100 to 150 years and from satellites over the past 30 years. Their key message is to recall that sea-level change is a local phenomenon, with high variability and multiple causes.”
Professor Vincent Courtillot writes this in his foreword to the Global Waming Policy Foundation paper by which our Coalition members, Dr Willem De Lange and the late Professor Bob Carter rebut alarmist propaganda about rises in sea levels and what causes those levels to rise and fall.

SEA-LEVEL CHANGE : Living with uncertainty
By Willem P de Lange and Robert M Carter
Foreword by Professor Vincent Courtillot
http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2014/05/Sea-level-report.pdf

SUMMARY [from the paper]

1. Global sea-level corresponds to a notional world-wide average and is determined by the interaction between the volume of the ocean basins, the volume of water that they contain and the effect of Earth’s gravitational field.

2. Change in global sea-level is caused by:
• a change in ocean basin volume, controlled by geological forces
• a change in seawater density, resulting from variations in ocean temperature or salinity;
• the addition or subtraction of water from the ocean by the melting and freezing of glaciers and ice-caps.

Global sea-level is estimated using averaged measurements from a worldwide network of coastal tide-gauges or from satellite-borne instruments. Because they represent a worldwide average, neither of these figures has any useful application to coastal management in specific locations. Instead, a knowledge of local relative sea-level change, as measured at specific coastal locations, is the basis for practical coastal management. Local sea-levels are rising or falling in different parts of the world, depending upon the direction and rate of movement of the underlying land (tectonic change).

3. Sea-level change is mainly a coastal management issue, but the position of sea-level is only one of several important factors that controls the position and changes in the disposition of the shoreline. Other important forces and controls that have to be considered include:
• the rise or fall of the land
• the supply of sediment
• the weather and climate (short and long-term temperature, wind, rainfall)
• the oceans (waves, tides, storms, tsunami)
• erosion and gravitational collapse (for cliffed shorelines).

4. In its natural state, a sedimentary shoreline may shift landwards or seawards by metres to many tens of metres over periods between days and decades. In the past, coastal inhabitants have adapted to such changes, and trying to prevent them by controlling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is neither practical nor cost-effective.

5. Coral atolls depend upon the interaction of a shallow ocean sea floor(generally the top of a submerging volcano), the growth and erosion of a coral reef, and the natural forces of winds, waves and tides. The integrity of an atoll is constantly under threat from entirely natural erosive forces. On top of this, human activities such as sand mining, construction project loading and groundwater withdrawal all cause local lowering of the ground surface, and thereby encourage marine incursion. It is this human interference, in combination with episodic natural hazards like tides and storms, and not global sea-level change that provides the alarming footage of marine flooding on atolls that from time to time appears on television news screens.

6. Changes in sea-level over long periods of time (millions of years) are inferred from geological evidence. These long-term changes suggest that any sea-level rises in response to temperature increases decelerate rather than accelerate over time. Such changes also indicate a maximum rate and duration of natural sea-level rise of about 30 mm/y over periods of a century or so.

7. Based on these geological studies, it appears that slow global sea-level rise– typically less than 10 mm/y – has been taking place over the last 10,000 y. At specific localities, this rising trend interacts with changing land levels due to a range of geological processes and multi-decadal climatic oscillations to produce different patterns of local relative sea-level change throughout the world – in some places rising, in others static and in others falling.

8. The long-term tide-gauge data record a 20th century average global sea-level rise of about +1–2 mm/y. It is established by many studies, too, that over the last 150 years global sea-level has been rising at an average rate of about 1.8 mm/y, which is inferred to represent the slow continuation of a melting of the ice sheets that began about 17,000 years ago.

9. Based on the same records, the IPCC has estimated an average rate of global rise between 1900 and 2000 of 1.6 mm/y (2007; 4th Assessment Report) or between 1901 and 2010 of 1.7±0.2 mm/y (2013; 5th Assessment Report). This global average ignores both short-term and multi-decadal changes in sea-level that are known to be associated with meteorological and oceanographic oscillations, and the local and regional effects of land movement. These additional factors are likely to continue to be important for future sea levels, and so should be considered in conjunction with projections of global sea level. The dominance of such processes in sea-level change means that for environmental management purposes sea-level changes should be assessed at local to regional scales, and not globally.

10. Satellite measurements of global sea-level have only been available since 1992, and the technology is therefore in its infancy. Complex computation and statistical analysis is required to transform raw satellite measurements into a sea-level curve, including the correction and piecing together of records collected over many years by ageing, and ultimately different, satellite vehicles. In recent years, it has been claimed on the basis of satellite measurements that the rate of sea-level rise since 1992 is greater than 3 mm/y – twice that measured using tide-gauge data for earlier periods, although the IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report considers it likely that similar rates occurred between 1930 and 1950. This apples-to-oranges comparison has formed the basis of claims that the rate of rise is accelerating, as required by the global warming hypothesis.

11. Most policy discussions regarding sea-level change are conducted in terms of computer modelled projections, rather than of factual information. In its 4th Assessment Report in 2007, the IPCC used physics-based computer simulations of the Earth and its climate to project a rise of sea-level of between 18 and 59 cm by 2100. The bottom end of this range corresponds with the 18-cm rise in sea-level predicted by empirical models and matches the long-term tide-gauge rate of rise of 1.8 mm/y.

12. Semi-empirical models produce the highest and most alarming estimates of rates of future sea-level change so far published (between 0.8 and 1.8 m by 2100). Strong controversy exists over the likely accuracy and policy usefulness of these results. Given that both empirical and deterministic modelling yield more modest projec- tions of future sea-level, the semi-empirical models can at best only be viewed as a work in progress.

13. The IPCC estimates that 1.1 mm of the 20th century sea-level rise of 1.8 mm/y can be accounted for by the combined effects of continuing ice melt (~0.7 mm/y) and ocean expansion due to warming (~0.4 mm/y), with the remaining ~0.7 mm/y relating to dynamic oceanographic and meteorological factors. The relatively small contribution from melt water indicates that there is no scientific basis for the claim that global warming will imminently melt so much ice that sea levels will rise dra- matically; by 20 ft in the imagination of Al Gore (Gore, 2006) or by 5 m in that of Jim Hansen (Hansen, 2007; Hansen and Sato, 2012).

CONCLUSIONS

Current global sea-level policy, supported by many governments, is to reduce the quantity of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in order to slow a global warming that is apparently no longer happening, in a vain attempt to reduce the rate of global sea-level rise. This policy attempts to moderate a theoretical environmental variable, ignores local sea-level and coastal management realities, is ineffectual in significantly reducing sea-level rise and is not cost effective compared to incremental adaptation.

Global sea-level policy as currently practiced by governments is therefore scientifically uncertain and both financially and politically unsustainable.

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the material presented in this paper we recommend the implementation of three policy guidelines.

● Abandonment of ‘let’s stop global sea-level rise’ policies: No justification exists for continuing to base sea-level policy and coastal management regulation upon the outcomes of speculative deterministic or semi-empirical sea-level modelling. Even were the rate of global sea-level change able to be known accurately, the practice of using a notional global rate of change to manage specific coastal locations worldwide is irrational, and should be abandoned.

● Recognition of the local or regional nature of coastal hazard: Most coastal hazard is intrinsically local in nature. Other than periodic tsunami and exceptional storms, it is the regular and repetitive local processes of wind, waves, tides and sediment supply that fashion the location and shape of the shorelines of the world. Yes, local relative sea-level is an important determinant, but in some localities that is rising and in others falling. Accordingly, there is no ‘one size fits all’ sea-level curve or policy that can be applied. Crucially, coastal hazard needs to be managed in the context of regional and local knowledge, using data gathered by site-specific tide-gauges and other relevant instrumentation.

● Use of planning controls that are flexible and adaptive in nature: Many planning regulations already recognize the dynamic nature of shorelines, for example by applying minimum building setback distances or heights from the tidemark. In addition, engineering solutions (groynes, breakwaters, sea-defence walls) are often used in attempts to stabilise a shoreline. To the degree that they are both effective and environmentally acceptable, such solutions should be encouraged. Nevertheless, occasional damage will continue to be imposed from time to time by large storms or other unusual natural events, and that no matter how excellent the pre-existing coastal engineering and planning controls may be. In these circumstances, the appropriate policy should be one of careful preparation for, and adaptation to, hazardous events as and when they occur.

It is the height of folly, and waste of money, to attempt to ‘control’ the size or frequency of damaging natural events by expecting that reductions in human carbon dioxide emissions will moderate climate ‘favourably’ – whether that be putatively sought from a moderation in the frequency and intensity of damaging natural events or by a reduction in the rate of global average sea-level rise itself.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

*Image: clipartpal.com – Hippo

11 Comments

Filed under Climate change, Democracy, Dunedin, Geography, Inspiration, Leading edge, Media, Name, People, Public interest, Resource management, South Dunedin

Johnstone disputes Opus review #SouthDunedinFlood

### ODT Online Thu, 7 Jul 2016
Flood review clears DCC staff findings
Dunedin City Council staff have been vindicated by peer reviews which backed their findings over the cause of last June’s devastating floods. The reviews, carried out by infrastructure consultancy firm Opus, backed the council’s findings South Dunedin and other parts of the city would have been flooded even if the city’s stormwater system was running at full capacity.
Read more

Opus peer reviews of DCC flood reports received (same day) following a LGOIMA request made on 7 July 2016:

DCC Nov2015 rpt review-final (PDF, 395 KB)

DCC Apr2016 rpt review-final (PDF, 329 KB)

****

A truly independent inquiry into the council’s performance around last year’s South Dunedin floods remains long overdue, writes Dunedin engineer Neil Johnstone.

### ODT Online Thu, 14 Jul 2016
Opinion: Report skims surface of South Dunedin flood saga
By Neil Johnstone
OPINION Readers of the Dunedin City Council-funded independent peer review of its post-flood reporting (ODT, 7.7.16) should be wary. The council’s delight with the review may prove short-lived. In brief, the Opus review:

● Recognises the 1968 rainfall event was bigger than that of June 2015 (contrary to repeated council claims).
● Fails to explore the reasons why the 2015 flood was a disaster, and the 1968 event was not.
● Makes assumptions about groundwater levels without referencing the actual data.
● Appears to consider the council’s assumption of zero ground infiltration has merit (note: the data disproves this).
● Believes mud-tank blockage impacts of the flood were “localised” (too bad if you were a local), but fails to consider the likely widespread impacts on South Dunedin of blocked mud-tanks in the St Clair catchment.
● States council reviews “suggest” its failures at the Portobello Rd pumping station caused an increase in flood levels of about 200mm.
● In fact, the first council review leaves the reader with no more than an opportunity to infer this, while the second council review only states that the failures may have influenced “the length of time flooding was evident”.
● I do not recall the council actually publicly admitting the 200mm figure before the South Dunedin Action Group meeting of June 21.
● Fails to address the flood impacts of the council’s total failure to operate its Musselburgh pumps for stormwater relief.
● Makes general statements to the effect that “primary” flooding would have occurred under any circumstance. South Dunedin residents know that “overwhelming” of stormwater infrastructure was not the concern; the avoidable flooding of our people’s houses and businesses was.

For all of the above reasons, and more, the Opus finding the council report’s conclusions were “robust” is concerning. A truly independent inquiry into the council’s performance pre, during and post-flood, at staff and political levels, is long overdue. ODT Link

Related Posts and Comments:
● 7.7.16 Where is the unreserved DCC apology to … South Dunedin ?
● 4.7.16 Presentations available —a) 4 July USA —b) 20 June SDAG
● 28.6.16 The Star and RNZ on raised flood levels #SouthDunedin
● 27.6.16 CULL commingled #AGWbullsfeatherartists
● 21.6.16 Mayoral Statement to South Dunedin
● 20.6.16 Public Meeting: South Dunedin Action Group #tonight
18.6.16 South Dunedin stormwater pipes —getting past the desktop ICMP
● 17.6.16 So we’re going to play it this way #SouthDunedinFlood
● 16.6.16 Public Meeting: South Dunedin Action Group #AllWelcome
● 6.6.16 Listener June 11-17 2016 : Revisiting distress and mismanagement
6.5.16 South Dunedin Action Group: Notes of meeting with DCC (3 May 2016)
14.4.16 South Dunedin flood risk boosters #ClimateChangeCrap #PissOffPCE
26.2.16 Mudtanks and drains + Notice of Public Meeting #SouthDunedinFlood
● 31.12.15 2016, have mercy !@$#%^&*
10.4.15 DCC: Natural Hazards

*Bullet points indicate comments entered after the public meeting 20 June.

█ For more, enter the terms *flood*, *sea level rise*, *stormwater*, *hazard*, *johnstone*, *opus*, *hendry*, *south dunedin action group*, *debriefing notes* or *listener* in the search box at right.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

4 Comments

Filed under Business, Climate change, DCC, Democracy, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Events, Finance, Geography, Health, Heritage, Housing, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Site, South Dunedin, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, Urban design

Where is the unreserved DCC apology to the Community of South Dunedin ?

Updated post
Thu, 7 Jul 2016 at 5:45 p.m. [link to peer reviews via LGOIMA]

And where are the Opus International ‘peer reviews’ for public scrutiny.

All we have is the self-congratulatory propaganda from DCC and the motley crew, propagated by friends at ODT.

Flood review clears DCC staff findings

SHAME

We hear from inside DCC that the peer reviews are not up to much.

Opus, you say?

Hmm.

News. Farce. Like an incessant rash.

Reasons for political Removal.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

70 Comments

Filed under Business, Climate change, DCC, Democracy, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Finance, Geography, Health, Heritage, Housing, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, South Dunedin, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, What stadium

#Wests —Councillors ??! Please act. [DCC out of order.]

Wests -Dunedin [wests.co.nz]Image: wests.co.nz

Tue, 5 Jul 2016
ODT: Liquor licence appeal baffles Wests
Public Health South and the Dunedin City Council’s decision to appeal the renewal of a Dunedin soft drinks institution’s liquor licence is “bewildering in the extreme”, the company’s director says. Wests (NZ) Ltd was granted an off-licence in April after a battle from November last year by the company to renew its licence.

NAMES
The decision has been appealed by Public Health South medical officer of health Dr Marion Poore and Dunedin City Council licensing inspector Martine Cashell-Smith. The appeal will be heard by the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority next month.

Comment at ODT Online:

What is the Council doing?
Submitted by Challispoint on Tue, 05/07/2016 – 10:14am.

This morning I sent the following letter to each of the DCC Councillors as I am furious they are picking on this great local business.

Dear Councillor –

I read with dismay your Council’s decision to appeal the West’s licence renewal after 139 years of exemplary service to the people of Dunedin. Your action appears to be a further example of the Dunedin City Council’s failure to support local businesses, and confirms a complete lack of appreciation for your voters’ opinion on this issue.

If you are going to argue, as I am sure you are, that you have no choice as you must act within some law which demands shops cannot sell alcohol and lollies then you will have my complete support to shut down Wests after you have taken action against the two main Countdown Supermarkets in Dunedin. In both these operations you cannot enter the stores without passing the highly discounted alcohol on sale. If you are not prepared to act against these stores, then your action against Wests is nothing other than bureaucratic bullying at its worst.

Having made so many negative decisions affecting the people of South Dunedin in recent times, I suggest you do not add this action to your list.

I ask that you immediately withdraw the Council’s appeal against the re-issue of West’s licence and act instead to support this longstanding, excellent, South Dunedin business.

Wests logo [wests.co.nz]

WESTS is proud to be New Zealand’s oldest continuous manufacturer of Cordials and Soft Drinks. The Wests brand began back in 1876, the same year another local family, the Speight’s, began their brewing business….

Website: http://www.wests.co.nz/

█ Read about the history of the company and what it does now at http://www.wests.co.nz/history

Otago Daily Times Published on Aug 26, 2015
Making of a Wests soft drink bottle
The staff at Wests are fizzing with excitement because the company’s own automatic bottle-moulding machine has just produced its millionth bottle.

Posted By Elizabeth Kerr

18 Comments

Filed under Business, Coolness, DCC, Democracy, Design, Dunedin, Economics, Innovation, Inspiration, Leading edge, Media, Name, New Zealand, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Public interest, Resource management, Site, South Dunedin, Tourism, Travesty

DCC encourages Election Candidates

FYI Dunedin Issue 41 July 2016 (PDF, 251.1 KB)

DCC FYI Issue 41 July 2016 Chief Executives Desk

DCC FYI Issue 41 July 2016 Call for Candidates (1)

Read online or source back copies at:
http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/your-council/fyi-dunedin

█ HOT PRESS.— Fees and Charges
Most DCC fees and charges will rise by an average of 3% from 1 July.

IMPORTANT DATES
Nominations for candidates open Friday, 15 July and close 12 noon on Friday, 12 August.

ENROLMENT TO VOTE
Check your enrolment details online at www.elections.org.nz or at any NZ Post Shop.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

*Images: screenshots by whatifdunedin

99 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Democracy, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Finance, Health, Housing, Infrastructure, Name, New Zealand, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, South Dunedin, Town planning, Transportation, What stadium

Presentations available —a) 4 July USA —b) 20 June SDAG

Link received.
Mon, 4 Jul 2016 at 12:29 p.m.

Sam Eagle Uploaded on Jun 27, 2008
Stars & Stripes FOREVER!
I, Sam the Eagle, present a musical salute to America.
(c) 2009 The Muppets Studio, LLC

From: [Dunedin City Council]
Sent: Monday, 4 July 2016 11:55 a.m.
To: Elizabeth Kerr
Subject: Response to Information Request

Dear Ms Kerr,

Official information request for CEO SPEECH SOUTH DUNEDIN

I refer to your official information request dated 27-June-2016 for “a full copy of DCC Chief Executive Sue Bidrose’s speech and overhead slides presented to the public meeting hosted by the South Dunedin Action Group on 20 June at Nations Church, King Edward St.”

The information you have requested is available on our website at:

Click to access SC2200115516062812500.pdf

If you wish to discuss this further with us, please feel free to contact the chief executive and request an appointment.

Yours sincerely

[Dunedin City Council]

Download: Sue Bidrose – South Dunedin and stormwater June 20 2016
(PDF, 1 MB)

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

4 Comments

Filed under Business, Climate change, DCC, Democracy, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Finance, Geography, Health, Heritage, Housing, Infrastructure, Name, New Zealand, Ombudsman, People, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Site, South Dunedin, Sport, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, Urban design, What stadium

Ray Macleod, letter to editor

ODT 2.7.16 (page 30)

ODT 2.7.16 Letter to editor Macleod p30

****

Received from Lyndon Weggery
Tue, 21 June 2016 at 7:29 p.m.

Message: In the light of concerns last night [South Dunedin public meeting] about the effects of the Proposed 2GP on South Dunedin, suggest you extract the Hazard Zone portion and post it on What if?

South Dunedin Hazard Zone (PDF, 2 MB)

The following report by Anna Johnson shows that very little was done [public consultation] in 2014. In fact only 17 people turned up to the DCC workshop in South Dunedin and their Appendices show that less than 10 people commented on their draft natural hazard policy.

Preferred Options Report (1) (PDF, 2 MB)

Related Posts and Comments:
● 28.6.16 The Star and RNZ on raised flood levels #SouthDunedin
● 27.6.16 CULL commingled #AGWbullsfeatherartists
● 23.6.16 Sa pièce de résistance @ #DUD
● 21.6.16 Mayoral Statement to South Dunedin
● 20.6.16 Public Meeting: South Dunedin Action Group #tonight
18.6.16 South Dunedin stormwater pipes —getting past the desktop ICMP
● 17.6.16 So we’re going to play it this way #SouthDunedinFlood
● 16.6.16 Public Meeting: South Dunedin Action Group #AllWelcome
● 6.6.16 Listener June 11-17 2016 : Revisiting distress and mismanagement
6.5.16 South Dunedin Action Group: Notes of meeting with DCC (3 May 2016)
14.4.16 South Dunedin flood risk boosters #ClimateChangeCrap #PissOffPCE
26.2.16 Mudtanks and drains + Notice of Public Meeting #SouthDunedinFlood
● 31.12.15 2016, have mercy !@$#%^&*
10.4.15 DCC: Natural Hazards

*Bullet points indicate comments entered after the public meeting 20 June.

█ For more, enter the terms *flood*, *sea level rise*, *climate change*, *pce*, *stormwater*, *hazard*, *johnstone*, *hendry*, *south dunedin action group*, *debriefing notes* or *listener* in the search box at right.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered on the public interest.

19 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Climate change, Construction, DCC, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Finance, Geography, Health, Heritage, Housing, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Perversion, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Site, South Dunedin, Structural engineering, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, Urban design, What stadium

STADIUM LOSSES +$20M Ratepayer Subsidy each year : Not a Community Asset while Our Money flows OUT

So DDT, woops ODT, persist with their Stadium Support Policy after months of Nothing of Substance at the LOSS MAKING Stadium.

One feeble rugby test only.
Infrequent visits by grey-haired performers, jaded once-stars.

All this for +$20million each year on your Rates. The sinkhole of all Dunedin GOB stupidities, with a direct line to Mssrs MF and EE, dear friends of Queenstown.

The erstwhile owners of the local newspaper (and was it 23 delectable Rolls Royces and Bentleys later, as if Sunday night marshmellows by the roaring log fire) have the personal wealth to overlook the sheer theft by stealth and duff embellishment that is Dunedin’s LOSS MAKING stadium.

Many of us find our entertainment thrills, according to income or not…. via the tea leaves, payless YouTube, internet TV, Sky, or the treat of flying to venues elsewhere in New Zealand and overseas. Without having to insinuate ourselves into the Dog Stadium of #DUD.

Unless, you’ve a moronic Thugby itch, a weakness, a throwback in your understanding of national identity as brawl and brain injury…. and can live with just one test in a year, or more years…. to justify filching from the pockets of vulnerable citizens bullied into paying for Stadium indulgences of the rustler-wealthy and the toothless eroding upper echelons of the middle class.

Then a little Home Show for the Non-savers amongst us. Glory!

ODT 2.7.16 (page 1) tweaked by whatifdunedinODT 2.7.16 (page 1) | phoneshot by whatifdunedin

Dunedin’s 53,000 ratepayers (the hordes? far from it!) and the power users of Otago (via Aurora Energy, on notice to industry regulator, the Commerce Commission, because the lines company can’t fund sufficient renewals and upgrades to its working assets – not helped by annual subvention payments) are being Robbed Blind year in year out – to subsidise the council-owned Stadium debt servicing and operating costs.

This is a complete INJUSTICE.
All the games of tilted media Sway is the crippling joke landed upon those who dare to live South. More fool us for our obsequious, largely unquestioning gutless surrender.

In the midst of irresponsible property speculation, low-paying tourism-exploitation, and dairy industry shortfalls, no wonder it’s harder for people to meet rates, rents and basic weekly living expenses —or indeed to feed, clothe and home our very young and our school children, or to sympathetically and safely care for our elderly, and our homeless. Hell, just add the LOSS MAKING stadium as sprinkles on top.

New Zealand is now a Social-economic Monster and our Dunedin City Council is the frizzling Limb of that Heathen.

What faith a turnaround in our individual and collective fortunes at Dunedin as the +$20million pa Stadium RORT continues…. ?

The financial betrayal of the Chin and Climate-Change-Cull councils is WRIT LARGE as the hanging noose. The ANNUAL Stadium Subsidy – in raw terms – equals +$20million not available each year for Dunedin business diversity and development sufficient to create jobs as the much needed ratchet to gradually better standards of living for our most vulnerable residents.

So ODT, here’s the middle finger to your soul-destroying misfit editorial, Stadium’s true legacy (1.7.16), its deceitful posturing : an incendiary Insult to honest Dunedin people.

ODT, you socialise the parochial blindness, unquenchable greed and ultimate +$20million (annual) sins of the good old boys and flunky boosters. FO.

****

Reality checks from MikeStk at ODT Online:

The stadium’s true legacy
Submitted by MikeStk on Fri, 01/07/2016 – 10:52pm.

The stadium’s legacy continues to be a litany of broken promises and financial mismanagement. They’ve largely been papered over by raising taxes to pay for all these missteps, this can’t be put behind us because we continue to be forced to pay and pay for these mistakes and lies.

Let’s list a few:

● Mr Farry started off, back during that first council election, promising us a stadium that would be completely privately financed and the ratepayers would simply be a backstop in case of disaster. In the end we’ll have paid more than $400m, $8000 per ratepayer.
● Then we were promised the stadium “would not cost a dollar over $188m”. Turns out they quietly spent more than $250m, forgetting things like toilets, kitchens, turnstiles and scoreboards, and neglected to include the cost of debt servicing. When we’re done it will have cost more than half a billion dollars, not including the ongoing losses from running the thing.
● Rugby promised to raise $50m in capital to pay for the stadium. They failed, then they had the DCC borrow the money and ‘sold’ the best seats cheaply to their own members with the intent that that would pay down those loans (at the same time taking income from DVML). This ended up on the books as ‘rent’ that DVML was paying DVL, crying poor DVML abandoned this plan and the council hit up the ratepayers to pay for rugby’s private fundraising – we’re still waiting for rugby’s promised private fundraising.
● We’ve twice bailed the ORFU out of impending bankruptcy, largly caused by their decision to push for the building of a stadium that grossly devalued their one asset, namely Carisbrook, that secured their bank loans. In a moment of insanity the council bought Carisbrook for twice what it was worth. Having done this once rugby continued to party up big, holding black tie events for which they could not pay the bills. For some strange reason we bailed them out again. Last year the ORFU made $1m – it’s time they started to pay back some of their debts
● Rugby’s CST promised us that the stadium would make a small profit, $175k/year. Wouldn’t that be great? Instead DVML charges too little for using the stadium, losing millions every year that are paid for by the ratepayers as subsidies to create a pretend profit.

It’s been pretty much a disaster, and those responsible have yet to be held accountable. [Abridged]

****

A clarification at What if? Dunedin:

Mike
Sat, 2 July 2016 at 1:00 pm
For the record abridged from my response to this travesty was the final lines “… the various CST actors have mostly left town, the rugby crowd still don’t pay their way and wilfully neglect their promises to help pay for the stadium.”

The ODT also removed my contention that Farry’s original promise that the stadium would be privately financed “turned out to be far from the truth”. They also removed the adjective “their own stupidity” describing ORFU’s decision to push for a stadium resulting in the value of their one asset crashing to 0.

[ends]

****

ODT: Firm has 3 weeks to pay Carisbrook $3.1m debt (2.7.16)
The buyers of Carisbrook have three weeks to pay the Dunedin City Council for the former sports ground after an earlier plan to subdivide and develop the site to meet the $3.1million debt did not eventuate.

This week ODT said the mild winter had produced an increase in rodents. ODT need look no further than the infestation at its own sainted house.

Related Post and Comments:
1.12.14 Stadium Editorial Support strategy —ODT [see recent comments]

█ For more, enter the terms *stadium*, *orfu*, *rugby*, *carisbrook*, *pokies*, *dia*, *martin legge* or *bev butler* in the search box at right.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

11 Comments

Filed under Baloney, Business, Carisbrook, Climate change, Construction, Corruption, Democracy, Dunedin, DVL, DVML, Economics, Events, Finance, Highlanders, Hot air, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, NZRU, OAG, Ombudsman, ORFU, People, Perversion, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Site, South Dunedin, Sport, Stadiums, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, University of Otago, Urban design, What stadium

The Star and RNZ on raised flood levels #SouthDunedin

The Star 23.6.16 (page 9)

[click to enlarge]
The Star 23.6.16 Tense moments at South D meeting p9 [water insert]

### radionz.co.nz 8:45 am on 21 June 2016
RNZ News
Dunedin council concedes flood worsened by faulty pumping station
By Ian Telfer in South Dunedin
Dunedin City Council has admitted a faulty pumping station made last year’s South Dunedin flood 20cm deeper than it would have otherwise been. The Council made the admission at a rowdy public meeting at the Nations Church last night about the flooding a year ago which damaged 1200 homes and businesses. Chief executive Sue Bidrose […] made a major concession, saying the council now accepted a key pumping station was blocked, adding an extra 20cm of water to the area. […] Shortly after the flooding, Mr Cull linked the event to climate change and warned South Dunedin may have to beat a managed retreat. Local woman Kathinka Nordal Stene said she was shocked Mr Cull undermined the community at the time when it most needed his support. She said the future of South Dunedin had become a major election issue, on which Mr Cull would be judged. Mr Cull was not at the meeting because he was visiting China. […] Leaders of the newly formed South Dunedin Action Group accused the council and its leaders of having a secret plan to abandon the suburb and blame it on climate change.
RNZ Link

23.6.16 Ch39: Candidates using flooding for political gain (+ Video)
21.6.15 ODT: Anger about South Dunedin’s future

Related Posts and Comments:
● 23.6.16 Sa pièce de résistance @ #DUD
● 21.6.16 Mayoral Statement to South Dunedin
● 20.6.16 Public Meeting: South Dunedin Action Group #tonight
18.6.16 South Dunedin stormwater pipes —getting past the desktop ICMP
● 17.6.16 So we’re going to play it this way #SouthDunedinFlood
● 16.6.16 Public Meeting: South Dunedin Action Group #AllWelcome
● 6.6.16 Listener June 11-17 2016 : Revisiting distress and mismanagement
6.5.16 South Dunedin Action Group: Notes of meeting with DCC (3 May 2016)
14.4.16 South Dunedin flood risk boosters #ClimateChangeCrap #PissOffPCE
26.2.16 Mudtanks and drains + Notice of Public Meeting #SouthDunedinFlood
● 31.12.15 2016, have mercy !@$#%^&*
10.4.15 DCC: Natural Hazards

*Bullet points indicate comments entered after the public meeting 20 June.

█ For more, enter the terms *flood*, *sea level rise*, *stormwater*, *hazard*, *johnstone*, *hendry*, *south dunedin action group*, *debriefing notes* or *listener* in the search box at right.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

9 Comments

Filed under Business, Climate change, DCC, Democracy, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Events, Finance, Geography, Health, Heritage, Hot air, Housing, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, Ombudsman, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Site, South Dunedin, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, Urban design, What stadium

CULL commingled #AGWbullsfeatherartists

I did wonder.
Jinters gave a bright breezy “Kia ora Elizabeth” as I stepped into the Council Chamber today. A changed woman.
Ah! Daaave was back from China.

And this:

Email received from ‘Senior Communications Advisor, Communications and Marketing’, Dunedin City Council

Subject: Media release – DCC welcomes global coalition on climate change
The international Compact of Mayors – which the DCC has committed to – has joined forces with the European Union Covenant of Mayors to tackle climate change. The new Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy will be the world’s largest collation of mayors supporting voluntary action to combat climate change and move to a low carbon economy – a coalition the DCC has welcomed.
More details are in the attached release.
This will also be sent to media shortly.
Best regards

Dunedin City Council – Media Release
DCC welcomes global coalition on climate change

Dunedin (Mon, 27 June 2016) – Dunedin City Council has welcomed the international Compact of Mayors joining forces with the European Union Covenant of Mayors to tackle climate change. The world’s two primary city-led climate change and energy initiatives last week announced they will combine efforts and leadership to accelerate climate action at the local level across the globe. The new Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy will be the world’s largest coalition of mayors supporting voluntary action to combat climate change and move to a low carbon economy.

Dunedin City Council last year passed a series of resolutions aimed at addressing climate change, including a commitment to the Compact of Mayors.

Mayor of Dunedin Dave Cull says, “I am pleased to see the Compact of Mayors join forces with the EU Covenant of Mayors. The coalition recognises the need for significant and urgent action on climate change and allows for greater collaboration between cities across the globe to achieve this. This strong, global agreement also demonstrates that climate change is now a core issue for communities throughout the world. On my recent visit to China, civic leaders from Shanghai, Qingdao and Qingyuan all acknowledged the growing challenges to their cities of climate induced inundation of one type or another.”

As a Compact of Mayors signatory, the DCC has already committed to measuring greenhouse gas emissions, setting and reporting against reduction targets and adopting an action plan. Mr Cull says work is already underway on achieving both first and second year compliance within the first year of commitment. This involves completing a community-wide emissions inventory and identifying vulnerabilities and hazards. The next steps will be meeting third year compliance which involves developing strategic actions to reduce emissions and adapt to climate change.

“The DCC is committed to mitigating the effects of climate change. We’ve taken a number of significant first steps in this direction in recent times including divesting our shares from fossil fuel companies, agreeing to gradually introduce electric vehicles to the DCC fleet, investing in more active transport and adopting an Energy Plan just to name a few. As we move into implementation of our Energy Plan and the setting of our Compact greenhouse gas target, we will be doing so as part of a network of cities committed to action on climate change.”

The Covenant of Mayors was launched in 2008 by the European Union after the adoption of the 2020 European Union Climate and Energy Package.

The Compact of Mayors was launched in September 2014 by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon and UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Cities and Climate Change Michael R Bloomberg.

Both initiatives have supported participating local governments in setting ambitious climate reduction goals, taking ambitious action to meet those objectives and measuring their progress publicly and transparently.

The new single initiative builds on the commitment of more than 7,100 cities from 119 countries and six continents, representing more than 600 million people.

More information about the new initiative is available at http://www.compactofmayors.org

For more information
Dave Cull
Mayor of Dunedin
027 434 6917

The side that is far. Gary Larson [via funnyjunk.com]

Updated post Tue, 28 Jun 2016
Comment at ODT Online:

Mayors
Submitted by Otakou on Tue, 28/06/2016 – 4:43am.

With the proliferation of cycleways around the world and the new conclave of mayors all tilting like Don Quixote at the climate, none of them obviously having read of King Canute’s bureacracy inspired attempts to stop the tide on Hastings beach, I hereby offer a new declension of a group of city mayors.

An inanity of Mayors.

Let us hope we do not get an inane one in October!

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

*Image: funnyjunk.com – the side that is far. Day 14. The penguins still haven’t realized I am in fact a polar bear. Gary Larson.

22 Comments

Filed under Baloney, Business, Climate change, DCC, Democracy, Dunedin, Economics, Finance, Geography, Hot air, Housing, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, Ombudsman, People, Perversion, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, South Dunedin, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, Urban design, What stadium

Cycleways and scattered nails

bike - fixed gear track racing [humancyclist.wordpress.com] 1

### radionz.co.nz 24 June 2016 at 9:23 pm
RNZ News
Cycleway truce called as review set up
By Michael Cropp
Wellington’s beleaguered cycleway programme will not be getting the shot in the arm some were hoping for – instead it will be reviewed, refreshed and recommissioned. The outcome of that process – a ‘refreshed cycleways programme’ – would go to the Wellington City Council’s transport committee in August, the council announced today. Meanwhile, Island Bay Residents’ Association had reached a truce with cycling advocates and councillors, and was planning to start on its own consultation. A New Zealand Transport Agency report this month on the council’s ability to implement its programme stated the fallout from the Island Bay project had jeopardised the council’s other cycleway initiatives, and had eroded the public’s faith in the council. It said the council had lost the confidence of officials and ministers. Today’s announcement was intended to provide a pathway to regaining that trust.
Read more

IDEAS !!!!

nails 1 [hdwires.in]

Earlier this year, nails were scattered on the cycleway and the local residents’ association threatened a rates revolt if it wasn’t dug up.

### radionz.co.nz 1 June 2016 at 6:44 pm
RNZ News
WCC told it let spokes fall off cycleway plan
By Michael Cropp
The way Wellington City Council conducted the rollout of a controversial cycleway in Island Bay has hurt its city-wide ambitions for the bike routes, an independent review has found. The report into the city’s cycleways, which was commissioned by New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA), concluded people felt the path in the southern suburb was a poor solution that was delivered without proper community engagement and consultation. It recommended it be reviewed and modified after further community consultation.
Read more

Read the report commissioned by NZTA (PDF, 1.3MB)

Related RNZ stories:
Legal costs mount in battle over Southland cycleway
Modified Hutt Rd cycleway plans welcomed
Capital cycleway faces strong opposition

****

Meanwhile at Dunedin…. plodding incompetence. A recent series of city council-led (earworms: Spokes Dunedin and NZTA) technical planning and cycleway construction FAILURES, at Exorbitant Expense forced on Ratepayers. All this while South Dunedin core infrastructure maintenance and upgrades received little if no DCC attention, ultimately leading to Council-fuelled multimillion-dollar flood damage. And now, the ODT Editor exhibits gut-wrenching Cheek to devoutly urge DCC to YES, Build Cycleways!

Fri, 24 Jun 2016
ODT Editorial: Learning from cycleway errors
OPINION After a long year of construction, mistakes, remedial work, wasted money and public dissatisfaction the South Dunedin Cycle Network has finally been shunted down the council’s cycleway queue. In an Otago Daily Times report this month council infrastructure networks general manager Ruth Stokes said she could not say when the South Dunedin network would be completed. The new focus, she said, was to employ the limited available resources on fixing the Portobello Rd cycleway and the central city network.

“Build them well, build them smart and build them efficiently.” (ODT)

SPOKES Dunedin speaks out for cycling in Dunedin, New Zealand and represents everyone who rides a bike or would like to ride a bike in the city. SPOKES is a local volunteer cycling advocacy group founded in 1996 as an affiliate of the New Zealand Cycling Advocates Network. SPOKES Dunedin is an incorporated society registered under the Incorporated Societies Act 1908.

bike dog jun co-passage [hbr.org]

We look forward to working with the Dunedin City Council to develop a real cycle network for Dunedin. (Spokes)

God Almighty! Read this:

█ SPOKES DUNEDIN SUBMISSION ON DRAFT 2016-2017 ANNUAL PLAN
Posted on April 6, 2016 by spokesdunedin

Summary
A change of scope is needed for Dunedin’s cycling network, but it is unclear what the DCC’s change in scope actually means, and higher standard cycleways are only part of the story. Spokes Dunedin has a vision for successfully realising the cycle network. We want everyone to be able to cycle from North Dunedin to South Dunedin, out both sides of the Harbour, and through the tunnels to Green Island and Mosgiel on a connected framework of city-spanning arterial routes that are safe, direct, and convenient to use. This will focus work where there is a clear need for improved safety rather than on streets that are already relatively safe, and will create a solid initial network that can grow and develop in response to future demand. The great thing is that there already exists some cycling infrastructure on many of the routes for this initial network. Several things can be achieved by the end of this year that will help Dunedin catch back up to where it should be.

To do in 2016
1. Support NZTA to begin construction of the SH1 separated lanes by the end of this year.
2. Fix Portobello Road – it’s already been two years. We don’t need fancy landscaping, we just need the median barrier realignment so the road looks like a road and the cycleway looks like a cycleway.
3. Complete the Wharf/Roberts intersection as agreed – it’s already been two years. This intersection presents an identified safety risk on a high demand route.
4. Continue the SH88 path through the rail corridor to the railway station, thereby providing an alternative to the cycle lanes on Anzac Ave (heavy freight route and high risk).
5. Create a separated cycle lane from the intersection of Andersons Bay/Strathallan, along The Oval, to Crawford Street in place of the existing cycle lane between two lanes of fast-moving traffic.
6. Develop plans for a separated cycle lane on North Road and safety improvements for the Opoho intersection to tie in with NZTA’s forthcoming separated cycle lanes on SH1. This route is of very high strategic priority.

Introduction
Dunedin is a pro-cycling city, where a significant proportion of the population regularly cycles for recreation, transportation, or both. Year after year, cycling is one of the most strongly supported and heavily submitted-on topics in the annual plan. One of the biggest public consultation events in Dunedin history was held in 2013 regarding the proposed SH1 separated cycle lanes. In addition to widespread media coverage, NZTA and DCC staff solicited input from the public at information booths in busy locations including the Golden Center, Toitu, and the University. With over 2000 written submissions and roughly 800 survey responses, the SH1 separated cycle lanes received one of the highest response rates of any topic ever consulted on. The result was overwhelming support for the proposed separated cycle lanes. Independently, the AA undertook a survey of their local membership, with over 70% of the nearly 1500 respondents supporting the proposed separated lanes. The overwhelming public demand and support for better cycling in Dunedin cannot be denied.
In response to this demand, the City rightly undertook to develop a Strategic Cycle Network. But the South Dunedin portion of the cycle network has not delivered on the ambitions of the cycle network plan adopted in 2011. Nothing has progressed in the last year, leaving half-finished elements scattered around, with other things ripped out without consultation.
Some might argue that we should throw up our hands in despair, abandoning the possibility of future success under the fear of past failures. But others know that setbacks are par for the course when charting new waters and trying new things. Where would we be if the likes of Cook, Columbus, or Magellan had turned around after the first storm and torn sail? Those leaders stayed the course, their sailors gained experience, and they ultimately changed the world.
Read more

“SPOKES, CYCLE-SAIL OFF THE EDGE OF THE WORLD WHY NOT”
Sail wagon [en.wikipedia.org] 1

█ For more, enter the terms *cycle* and *christmas present* in the search box at right.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

*Images: (from top) humancyclist.wordpress.com – fixed track racing | hdwires.in – nails | hbr.org – bike dog jun co-passage | en.wikipedia.org – sail wagon

19 Comments

Filed under Business, Cycle network, DCC, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Education, Finance, Geography, Health, Housing, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, NZTA, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, South Dunedin, Sport, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, University of Otago, Urban design, What stadium