ODT 9.12.15 (page 14)
Posted with unbecoming tinge of green by Elizabeth Kerr
████ Download: Stadium Review Nov v 15 (585 KB, DOC)
Copy received from Bev Butler
Sun, 30 Nov at 12:17 p.m.
Message: A while back I was told there was Rugby pressure happening behind the scenes to exclude the mothballing option.
From: Bev Butler
To: Sandy Graham [DCC]; Grace Ockwell [DCC]
Subject: LGOIMA REQUEST: Stadium Review/Mothballing
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2014 12:10:47 +1300
Sunday 30 November 2014
Dear Sandy and Grace
Earlier in the year it was announced that the stadium was to be reviewed and that all options would be considered, including mothballing.
Now with the recent release of the Stadium Review only two options are presented, namely, the status quo and the most extreme option of demolition.
1. Why were the options of sale and mothballing not reported on?
2. Did the Stadium Review committee look at the sale and mothballing options? If so, I request a copy of the findings. If not, why not?
3. Whose decision (names) was it to not include mothballing as an option?
4. Did the NZRU and/or ORFU have any input into the Review? If so, I request a copy of all documentation.
5. Who (names) from the NZRU/ORFU was consulted/involved in the Review?
6. Did any member of NZRU and/or ORFU influence/pressure/request that the mothballing option be removed/excluded from the Review? If so, who (names)?
7. Mayor Cull has publicly stated that the demolition option was included in the Review to show the “lunatic fringe” that demolition is not a realistic option.
a) Who (names) are the “lunatic fringe”?
b) If Mayor Cull is unable to name members of the “lunatic fringe” then why was the demolition option considered?
c) Why were the mothballing options not considered when well informed stadium critics had publicly called for this option? ie. Why was the extreme option from an unidentified “lunatic fringe” considered over the mothballing option proposed by identifiable well informed stadium critics, like myself, who have been proven correct in their predictions?
8. What part did Sir John Hansen play in stifling the mothballing option?
9. Will the mothballing options now be reviewed?
Speeches made to Stop The Stadium public meeting held at Dunedin Town Hall on 29 March 2009:
Speeches to Otago Regional Council (ORC) public forums for stadium:
On behalf of ratepayers and residents Dunedin City Council decided on and publicly listed ten conditions (10 lines in the sand) to be met for the stadium project. Unfortunately, this summary table shows the extent of departure!
Received from Bev Butler – Summary of Conditions
Sat, 29 Nov 2014 at 7.44 a.m.
Recent Posts and Comments:
26.11.14 Cr Hilary Calvert, an embarrassment
22.11.14 ODT puffery for stadium rousing ?
21.11.14 Stadium Review: Mayor Cull exposed
19.11.14 Forsyth Barr Stadium Review
15.11.14 Stadium #TotalFail
Posted by Elizabeth Kerr