Tag Archives: Awatea Street Stadium

DCC Draft Long Term Plan: more inanity from Cull’s crew pending

DANGER | WARNING SIGNS | DESPAIR
CORRUPTION PET PROJECTS MORE DEBT HIGHER RATES SAME AGAIN

yay

### dunedintv.co.nz January 14, 2015 – 5:41pm
DCC prepares to launch into draft long term plan
The Dunedin City Council is preparing to launch into its draft 2015/2016 long term plan. Councillors will begin formal discussion of the document next week.

The long term plan outlines the council’s financial strategy for the next ten years. It takes into consideration major changes and development, in respect of infrastructure, assets, services and economic development.

The plan also highlights how the council intends to fund work, with information about budgets, financial sources and changes to rates. A final version will be prepared after public consultation, which will begin in mid-March.
Ch39 Link [no video available]

f***

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

22 Comments

Filed under Business, Citifleet, CST, DCC, DCHL, DCTL, Democracy, DVL, DVML, Economics, Enterprise Dunedin, Events, Heritage, Highlanders, Media, New Zealand, NZRU, NZTA, ORFU, People, Police, Politics, Project management, Property, Sport, Stadiums, Tourism, Town planning, Urban design

Stadium Editorial Support strategy —ODT

Received from Bev Butler
Mon, 1 Dec 2014 at 6:48 p.m.

Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 15:31:04 +1300
From: Cushla Turner [ODT]
To: Bev Butler
Subject: Re: Letter to editor

Dear Bev,

Thank you for your letter to the editor received recently. The contents have been noted. However, it was not selected for publication.

Kind regards,
Cushla Turner
Editor’s Secretary
Otago Daily Times

______________________________________

ODT 29.11.14 Letter to the editor Dorney p34On 29/11/2014 2:29 PM, Bev Butler wrote:

[address removed]
Saturday 29 November 2014
Dear Editor
In response to Dennis Dorney’s letter to editor (29.11.14), the editor states: “Saying the stadium was oversold to ratepayers and opposing its building are not the same thing.” True.
The ODT has always supported the stadium.
In fact, the ODT even had a STADIUM EDITORIAL SUPPORT strategy in place long before the final decision for the stadium to proceed. Nick Smith can confirm this.
Yours sincerely
Bev Butler

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

10 Comments

Filed under Business, Democracy, Economics, Hot air, Media, Name, New Zealand, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums, What stadium

Stadium Review: LGOIMA request and 2009 Town Hall speeches

████ 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.
Cheers, Bev

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?

Yours sincerely
Bev Butler

___________________________________

REFRESH
Speeches made to Stop The Stadium public meeting held at Dunedin Town Hall on 29 March 2009:

Alistair Broad
Dave Cull
Gerry Eckhoff
Michael Stedman
Sukhi Turner

Speeches to Otago Regional Council (ORC) public forums for stadium:

Public Forum Speech to ORC by Bev Butler 11.2.09 – stadium meeting
Public Forum Speech to ORC by Bev Butler 3.3.09

___________________________________

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.

[click to enlarge]
Summary of Conditions Butler

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

8 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, CST, DCC, Democracy, Economics, Events, Highlanders, Hot air, Name, New Zealand, NZRU, ORC, ORFU, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums, STS, Town planning, University of Otago, Urban design

Stadium #TotalFail

### ODT Online Fri, 14 Nov 2014
Opinion: Your say
Learning from stadium-related mistakes
By Rob Hamlin
One of the few good things about making mistakes is that you can learn from them, and avoid making the same kind of mistake again.
It is pretty clear that the FB Stadium has been a mistake on the part of the Councillors that voted for it. It has not come close to delivering the economic or social benefits that were predicted by its backers at the time. The figure arrived at in an earlier response to the above article [ODT Online] of $22 million loss per year, appears to be about right for this facility’s current annual cost to the community once all the cross-subsidies and clever fiscal two steps have been eliminated. On the social front, unlike the Moana Pool and Edgar Centre facilities that it is often compared with, the Stadium lies empty 95%+ of the time. Both these failures might just be forgiven if it was an attractive structure – but the Taj Mahal it ain’t.
Read more

****

Another oft-cited council asset…….

New Zealand Division II Swimming, 11 April 2012 Moana Pool | Swimming New Zealand

### ODT Online Sat, 15 Nov 2014
Party to mark long success of sporting and social hub
By Chris Morris
Moana Pool’s golden jubilee is to be marked with a splash, and Mayor Dave Cull is confident the facility has plenty of life still left in it. The 50th anniversary of the pool’s opening on November 14, 1964, was celebrated yesterday with the unveiling of a photographic exhibition of the pool’s early days.
Read more

The ‘convenient’ shonky comparison lives on…….

### ODT Online Sat, 15 Nov 2014
Moana Pool paid off, despite price
By Chris Morris
Forsyth Barr Stadium is not the first controversial building to capture headlines in Dunedin. Fifty years ago, a decade of debate, disagreement and concerns about the cost preceded the opening of Moana Pool.
Read more

█ For more, enter *stadium*, *dvml*, *review*, *terry davies*, *directors* or *rugby* in the search box at right.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

33 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, DCC, DCHL, DCTL, Delta, Democracy, Design, DVL, DVML, Economics, Enterprise Dunedin, Events, Hot air, Media, Name, New Zealand, NZRU, ORC, ORFU, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums, Town planning, University of Otago, Urban design

Stadium: Who is being protected?

Received from Russell Garbutt
15 July 2014 at 4:30 PM

What is an advertisement, and what content of an advertisement needs to be able to be verified?

Readers of the Otago Daily Times, and followers of the on-going stadium debate which shows no signs of lessening in its intensity may be intrigued to know just where the sensitivities of the ODT lie.

Let us look at some simple facts which cannot be in dispute.

The Carisbrook Stadium Trust which was acting as an agent of the Dunedin City Council, decided to publish a full page advertisement in the 31 May 2008 issue of the ODT. The advertisement was headed up “The Facts about the New Stadium”.

In this advertisement it was claimed that “The funding target establishes a debt free stadium. On this basis the business plan for the stadium shows that it makes a profit. Unlike nearly all other Council owned facilities it will not need annual funding support. This assessment has been confirmed by two of New Zealand’s leading accountancy firms”.

This is published and accessible and the wording of the advertisement cannot be interpreted in any other way as the heading refers to all that followed as “facts”.

The advertisement also claimed that the Trustees of the CST were “committed to delivering this stadium, under budget, on time and to achieve its financial, social and economic goals”.

Now of course some advertisements for wrinkle cream use all sorts of phrases like “clinical tests prove etc etc”. Many people are ready to pounce on claims that are unable to be substantiated, or are untruthful, or are misleading, or cannot be proven. In other words, the makers of the wrinkle cream need to be able to show that there were indeed “clinical tests”. The fact that the clinic may have been part of the company making the cream is sometimes understood, and in any case, the makers of the cream hardly ever claim that “totally independent clinical trials using double blind processes found what we are claiming is true”.

But this is not some pot of wrinkle cream.

The CST claimed a number of facts in their advertisement that they said were verified by two of New Zealand’s leading accountancy firms.

So, I submitted a very brief letter to the Editor of the ODT that simply asked this:

Dear Sir

In light of the continuing operating losses of the Awatea Street Rugby Stadium, and the on-going debt costs from its construction, it would be interesting to be informed of just who the two leading NZ accountancy firms were that confirmed the Carisbrook Stadium Trust’s claims published in the ODT in 2008 that the stadium would be built debt free and would return an annual operating profit. Maybe these two companies could now tell us how the reality differs so much from the published claims.

Yours sincerely

The ODT has informed me that my letter was noted but not selected for publication. This is newspaper speak for it’s been binned.

Why should this be?

Should the ODT not be interested in ensuring that an advertisement of a major size on a subject that had divided the City was not at all misleading in the same way that claims were made that may not be able to be substantiated, or could be shown to be unfactual?

Is the ODT particularly sensitive to the views of those that decided to publish this advertisement?

Had the ODT entered into any understanding or arrangement that the paper would support the stadium project which may have led to less than stringent standards of advertising being followed in this case?

But perhaps more telling is that to my knowledge, the ODT has not followed up on the obvious story of just who these two leading NZ accounting firms were that supported the claims of a debt free stadium and an annual operating profit. My point is that time and distance show us that these claims were so at odds with the claims made and published, that serious questions remain unanswered on just how the CST and these two companies got it so wrong.

Maybe another newspaper sees the story that the ODT doesn’t?

[ends]

CST advert ODT 31.5.08 detail

odt may 31 2008-1 (pdf cleaned)

█ Legible copy: CST Advertisement, ODT 31 May 2008 (PDF, 200 KB)

Related Posts and Comments:
9.7.14 John Ward, no mention of stadium or CST trusteeship
23.5.14 Stadium | DCC Draft Annual Plan 2014/15 ● Benson-Pope…
9.5.14 DCC Draft Annual Plan 2014/15 Submission by Bev Butler
12.3.14 Carisbrook Stadium Trust: Financial statements year ended 30.6.13
8.3.14 Carisbrook Stadium Trust subject to LGOIMA
24.2.14 Carisbrook Stadium Trust: ‘Facts about the new Stadium’ (31.5.08)
22.2.14 Carisbrook Stadium Trust costs
24.1.14 Stadium: It came to pass… [stadium review]

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

29 Comments

Filed under Business, Construction, CST, Democracy, Economics, Hot air, Media, Name, New Zealand, NZRU, ORFU, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums, Town planning, University of Otago, Urban design

Eion Edgar predicts

Thanks to @ajamesgreen for this tweet:

@10PARK @five15design Eion Edgar predicts in 5 years rugby will be only 20% of (use/revenue?) at stadium http://bit.ly/ed1G0

### RNZ National Monday, 22 February 2010 at 10:09am
Nine To Noon, with Kathryn Ryan
Feature guest – Sir Eion Edgar
Businessman and philanthropist, Sir Eion’s also Senior New Zealander of the year. (duration: 32′02″)
Audio Ogg Vorbis MP3

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

3 Comments

Filed under Business, CST, DCC, DVL, DVML, Economics, Events, Highlanders, Media, Name, New Zealand, NZRU, ORFU, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums

Eion Edgar on ‘stadium haters’

Another Old Boys’ Club member with a closed mind to genuine opposition.

### nbr.co.nz Monday July 6 2009 – 07:56am
Forsyth Barr head confident Dunedin stadium haters will ‘see the light’
By Robert Smith
Any large construction project launched in New Zealand these days will attract criticism from those who can only see the negative, but the head of Dunedin stadium sponsor Forsyth Barr says he pays little attention to the doubters.
Read more

● Mr Edgar is a member of the NBR rich-list and 2004’s NBR New Zealander of the Year.

Forsyth Barr will celebrate its 75th anniversary in 2011, when the stadium is due to be completed in time for the Rugby World Cup.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

4 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, Economics, Highlanders, Hot air, Media, Name, New Zealand, NZRU, ORFU, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums, What stadium