Tag Archives: Loans

Gurglars visits the Delta/Noble JV subdivision at Yaldhurst

Received from Gurglars
14/02/2017 9:07 p.m.

yaldhurst14-2-17-1George Noble Rd, Yaldhurst

yaldhurst14-2-17-2Who wants to live near power lines? They run right through the subdivision.

yaldhurst14-2-17-3No one is working at Yaldy, this glass has been on the road for a long time.

yaldhurst14-2-17-5A digger strategically placed to suggest action – reality, inaction.

yaldhurst14-2-17-4The crowning glory – unbelievable, no ads for Yaldhurst sales but an ad on the property for a subdivision near Pegasus!

whatifdunedin replies:
Nearby subdivisions sold well with power lines and pylons…
Weird mentality at CHC.

That hoarding (not that old… months only) originally featured marketing for the commercial area at the Yaldhurst subdivision. Recently pasted over with Infinity’s other project.

[“Ravenswood, half an hour north of Christchurch, is being offered for sale by developer Infinity Investment Group, which says the project is too big for it.” See last note at (28.3.15) Stuff: Gloomy outlook for solar housing in Christchurch; and (9.8.16) Stuff: Work to begin on Ravenswood development after sale abandoned.]

****

Received from Gurglars
2017/02/15 at 6:51 am

News Flash
The word on the street is that a well-heeled solid respectable group offered $12,000,000 actual cash, money, moolah, for Yaldhurst.
The idiotii accepted a notional nonexistent $13million from a $1000 capitalised company who have subsequently made no moves towards repair, consents, or even inspected their new purchase.
If they have inspected it, one would have thought they would clean glass from the road (been there so long it’s almost fused and embedded). Maybe they would have mowed the grass? Or perhaps they would have found the keys to the lone token digger. Having commenced these $5 dollar cleanups they may have been able to put a sign up advertising the properties.
And why is activity important to a Dunedin ratepayer or councillor?
Because honey, we do not get any money until they sell profitable sections.
That’s why the $12,000,000 cash was the only offer that the idiotii should have accepted and folks that’s why you do NOT elect Greens, flakes and dreamers, because it’s your money they have, and will enjoy wasting.

whatifdunedin replies:
Your point is well made, Gurglars. But. It’s much more complicated than that. Seller was the buyer. And we have Graham Crombie (accountant!) as middle man, we wonder who he is really working for, Gordon Stewart? Justin Prain? Murray Frost? Previously/still, Stuart McLauchlan? Who.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

5 Comments

Filed under Business, Construction, DCC, DCHL, DCTL, Delta, Democracy, Design, Economics, Finance, Geography, Housing, Infrastructure, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Perversion, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Public interest, Resource management, SFO, Site, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, Urban design, What stadium

DCC, Dunedin City Treasury and 3 big banks [Interest Rate Swaps]

WHICH THREE BANKS, DCC ??????

Comments received.

Rob Hamlin
Submitted on 2013/12/17 at 3:02 pm

As some of you may recall I have been very interested in DCTL and its large gains and losses on interest rate swaps. The following article http://nz.finance.yahoo.com/news/comcom-issue-proceedings-against-asb-194400510.html describes today’s announcement by the Commerce Commission to investigate ANZ, ASB and Westpac for mis-selling interest rate swaps to farmers – causing massive losses to these borrowers.

My interest has been further piqued by the arrangement between DCTL and three ‘independent’ banks called a ‘secured multi-option note facility’ within which these swaps are sold to DCTL by said ‘independent’ banks. The ‘secured’ as I have mentioned previously involves an ‘on call’ capital commitment by DCC to DCTL that has been deliberately put in place to circumvent Section 62 of the Local Government Act, which specifically prohibits council guarantees to trading companies. At $850 million of capital (which the DCC does not have), this amounts to some $17,000 for every ratepayer in this city – and you are liable for it.

As I have mentioned before, the very large annual fluctuations in gains and losses reported by the DCC due to interest and currency derivative exposure indicates that the DCC, via its $850 million guarantee to DCTL, is very deep indeed into this particular festering pile of poo.

I have lodged an LGOIMA request with the DCC for the identity of the three banks who are in the ‘secured variable rate note facility’ swap fest with DCTL. However, my unofficial sources indicate that the membership may be between 67% and 100% in common with the three banks mentioned in the ‘Stuff” report on large-scale interest rate swap mis-selling – Time will tell. But might be an idea to find the hammer and your piggy bank.

****

Russell Garbutt
Submitted on 2013/12/17 at 4:13 pm

Rob, I simply cannot understand the role of the OAG in all of this. The OAG provides auditing services to the Dunedin City Council and is supposedly the watchdog that ensures things are all tickety-boo in City Hall. But as we have already seen in the Kaipara case that the OAG now says that it is terrible that all of this borrowing took place, but that THEY ARE NOT ACCOUNTABLE. Surely to goodness that they have seen the actions of the CFO of the DCC to subvent the point and purpose of Section 62 of the LGA. Equally puzzling is how they have not been warning of the ramifications of these infernal legalised Ponzi schemes as they have been described elsewhere.

I distinctly remember the sacked Athol Stephens explaining to me in his office that many of the financial dealings of the DCC were to avoid tax liabilities. Athol was both a Director of a Council Board and an employee of the Council as I recall at the time.

There is enough smell round this issue to warrant a lot of interest by the OAG and the mainstream media, but sadly it is just too plain in the case of the OAG that they really aren’t interested in pursuing anything that would show that they themselves have been slack and incompetent, nor are they interested in pursuing anything that involves them in any serious work.

In the case of the media, it’s all just too hard. TV simply isn’t capable and is more interested in turning news into entertainment, and the financial reporters in the papers can’t seem to get their heads round anything substantial.

A case of the fox inside the henhouse and another one on the outside, looking out for the farmer.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

5 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, DCTL, Economics, Name, New Zealand, People, Politics, Project management, What stadium

Carisbrook: DCC losses

Ch39 News 3.7.13 Orders Clark Cull 1

Dunedin City Council – Media Release

Carisbrook documents released

This item was published on 03 Jul 2013.

A large number of documents relating to the purchase and subsequent sale of Carisbrook have been released publicly today.

These can be found at www.dunedin.govt.nz/carisbrook-documents

The DCC bought the sportsground, surrounding houses and some vacant land from the Otago Rugby Football Union for $7 million in 2009. With the sale of Carisbrook confirmed last week, all the properties have been sold.

Contact DCC on 477 4000.

DCC Link

Ch39 News 3.7.13 Hands

### ch9.co.nz July 3, 2013 – 6:35pm
Carisbrook sale costs city $2.3 million
The Dunedin City Council’s purchase, then sale of Carisbrook, has cost the city $2.3 million. But that figure, confirmed at a media conference today, is not the only drain on ratepayers. And while the release of costs ends a controversial era for the city, the vagaries of commerce, rather than the decisions of politicians, were blamed in the wash-up.
Video

Ch39 News 3.7.13 Dave Cull 1

### 3news.co.nz Wed, 03 Jul 2013 6:11p.m.
Ratepayers question Carisbrook sale
By Brooke Gardiner
Dunedin’s Carisbrook Stadium has been sold for $3.3 million, which is less than half what the Dunedin City Council paid when it bought the place three years ago. Construction company Calder Stewart bought the former sports ground for almost $4 million less than the council forked out to the Otago Rugby Football Union in 2009. And it could be three years before the council sees any money. The deal went unconditional last month, but the council’s only just released the finer details of the agreement.

“They have three and a half years to pay for it. We’re leaving the finance in and they’re paying us 5.5 percent on that money.”

Ruing the loss of ratepayer funds, Mayor Dave Cull says they should never have bought the stadium. “I opposed it at the time. I don’t think we should have bought it. I think we were buying it for the wrong reasons, but the choice over whether to buy it or not was not this council’s,” says Mr Cull.
Read more + Video

Ch39 News 3.7.13 Carisbrook 2

### ODT Online Wed, 3 Jul 2013
DCC confirms $2.3m Carisbrook loss
By Chris Morris
The Dunedin City Council has confirmed a $2.3 million loss from the sale of Carisbrook, and revealed a complicated financial arrangement with the new owner. Mayor Dave Cull, at a media conference this afternoon, confirmed the council would recoup $4.7 million of the $7 million it paid for the historic sports stadium in 2009. However, Calder Stewart, the company that bought the ground off the council, had only been prepared to pay $3 million up front, Mr Cull confirmed. Instead, a deal had been struck that meant the company would pay at least $3.3 million, but deferred for up to three years, with payments made as the ground was subdivided and sold by Calder Stewart, he said. The sum paid would rise to $3.5 million if demolition was not completed within six months, meaning the council would keep a $200,000 bond paid by the company, Mr Cull said. The deal would also see the company make up any difference at the end of three years, meaning the council was guaranteed its money, he said.
Read more

● Full report in the ODT tomorrow

Related Posts and Comments:
27.6.13 State of the City —DCC or Dunedin?
28.5.13 Carisbrook: Auditor-General #fails Dunedin residents and ratepayers
23.5.13 Carisbrook: Calder Stewart to demo Dunedin’s historic stadium
20.3.13 Carisbrook: Shifting explanations for DCC $7m spend
6.3.13 Carisbrook: Cr Vandervis elaborates
6.3.13 Carisbrook: Question obfuscating mayor and council #rugby
20.2.13 Carisbrook: DScene suggests joint venture Calder Stewart / DCC

● List of Carisbrook posts back to 19 August 2008 [comment]

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Images: Ch39 Dunedin News (3.7.13) – Paul Orders, Robert Clark, Dave Cull [screenshots]

32 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, CST, DCC, DCHL, DVL, DVML, Economics, Heritage, Hot air, Media, Name, ORFU, People, Pics, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums, Town planning, Urban design, What stadium

Carisbrook: Shifting explanations for DCC $7m spend

Register to read DScene online at http://fairfaxmedia.newspaperdirect.com/

### DScene 20 Mar 2013
Rant or rave: your say
Missing million (pages 8-9)
By Terry Wilson – Parkside
We see in D Scene that the Dunedin City Council paid $7 million for Carisbrook while their confidential valuation was for only $2.5m.
Mayor Dave Cull said that the purchase was to shore up the finances of the Otago Rugby Football Union.
If the real purpose of the sale was to donate an overpayment of $4.5m to the ORFU, then the DCC has misled the public during the public consultation on the matter. It might be inappropriate for me to suggest that the $7m non-confidential valuation of Carisbrook was procured by the DCC for the purpose of justifying the undisclosed $4.5m overpayment to the ORFU.
The validity of this valuation seems very questionable to me. Following this $7m payment, the ORFU required a further DCC bailout. One factor in this is that they only received $6m, not $7m.
The DCC has been questioned many times about what happened to the missing $1m, but they won’t say.
I think the public wants to see more honesty from the DCC.

Mayor Dave Cull replies: ‘‘$7 million was paid to the ORFU by way of $5m in cash and a $2m offset of a loan of $2m previously lent from the council to the ORFU.’’ #bookmark

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

12 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Economics, Hot air, Media, Name, ORFU, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums

Carisbrook: DScene suggests joint venture Calder Stewart / DCC

Register to read DScene online at http://fairfaxmedia.newspaperdirect.com/

DScene 20.2.13 page 1### DScene 20.2.13
End of the line? (page 1)
The famed Carisbrook sports ground has found a buyer, but the deal seems unlikely to derail criticism of the sale process. See page 3.

Mayor won’t confirm or deny details of sale (page 3)
By Wilma McCorkindale
Dunedin Mayor Dave Cull will neither confirm or deny the possibility the city has made a deal in lieu of an immediate cash sale for Carisbrook. Cull said he could not comment on reports a joint venture between the Dunedin City Council (DCC) and construction company Calder Stewart is incorporated into a deal for the sale of Carisbrook – the sale of which was announced a week ago.

‘‘I can’t confirm or deny the detail,’’ Cull said. ‘‘There are details in there but as far as I’m concerned it’s a sale. Many sales of property have conditions and this one is no different from that. ‘‘What I’m saying is I can’t divulge those because they are commercially sensitive at the moment, confidential. As far as I’m concerned in the big wash-up this is a sale of that property to Calder Stewart.’’

Two critics of Dunedin City Council have this week laid formal complaints to the Office of the Auditor-General and asked it to incorporate the Carisbrook sale into its current investigation of council-related property deals.

DScene asked Cull if Calder Stewart was paying for the ground upfront in cash once the sale went through. ‘‘I didn’t say that,’’ he said. ‘‘I just said it’s a sale to Calder Stewart. The details of how they pay for it are part of the confidential part of the details. I can’t comment on that.’’
{continues} #bookmark

Editorial: Council secrecy creates bad blood (page 8)
By Mike Houlahan
Announcing a conditional sale to an anonymous buyer for an undisclosed amount was never going to be a sustainable position.
{continues} #bookmark

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

72 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Economics, Media, Name, ORFU, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums

Carisbrook: Channel 9 interviews Cull

### ch9.co.nz February 19, 2013 – 6:59pm
Nightly interview: Dave Cull
The Carisbrook Stadium hit the news last week, when it emerged building company Calder Stewart had put in an offer of $3.3 million for land. All sorts of figures have been bandied about in the media in relation to the sale of the ground, which was bought by the Dunedin City Council as it developed Forsyth Barr Stadium. Mayor Dave Cull joins us to shed some light on the issue.
Video

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Leave a comment

Filed under Business, DCC, Economics, Media, Name, ORFU, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums

Carisbrook: Dear Dave . . .

Received from Rob Hamlin
Saturday, 16 February 2013 10:05 p.m.

Dear Dave

I see that in the ODT today you signed off with the following statement:

“A valuation is not a promise.”

Is it not indeed, Dave. Well if it not a promise, then what is it? A registered valuation costs money, a lot of money and they registered valuers are members of a professional association – that’s why they are called REGISTERED valuers. A registered valuation may not be promise to get a value right to within the dollar, but I would say that such a valuation a professional service on which serious decisions are routinely based and as such it IS a promise to get the value right to within a reasonable margin of error. 100% plus is not a reasonable margin of error – Nossir!

I note however that the ‘registered’ bit is missing off your statement above. This raises a number of interesting possibilities. Let’s deal with them one at a time:

1) —You simply forget to put the ‘registered’ bit into the statement above and you really do hold a registered valuation that is in line with the price that the DCC paid the ORFU for Carisbrook and the adjoining properties. If that’s the case, then I think that you really do need to have a serious word with this individual, and that you may have to get in line with the Valuers Registration Board who deal with complaints. The following is lifted from their website at http://www.linz.govt.nz/valuation/valuers-registration-board#apply

Complaints about a registered valuer
The VRB may discipline registered valuers who do not meet its standards and requirements in carrying out their work. If you are not satisfied with the valuation done by a registered valuer on a property, you can formally apply to the VRB to have your complaint investigated.

Contact
Valuers Registration Board
PO Box 5501
Wellington
Phone +64 4 460 0110 FREE +64 4 460 0110
Fax +64 4 498 9699

If you hold a registered valuation that is for this amount then the registered individual who provided it may be culpable to a major degree in the loss of $3 million plus of ratepayers’ money and a formal complaint is not only recommended, but actually forms a public duty that you MUST perform. If they did indeed tender this valuation to you as a registered valuation, then either this individual was misled in their brief, in which case the nature of the misleading should be clear from their valuation report, or their professional services would appear to fall very far short of reasonable expectations, and they need to be publicly identified and dealt with pronto before they do any more damage of this scale and nature. As I have said previously, a Barbary Ape can value a property to within 20% in a stable market – I think it is very unlikely that the board would have much basis to seriously argue the point if you get the ball rolling now.

2) —You mean what you say and the valuation was not supplied by a registered valuer. Valuers have to undertake a good deal of training before they can become registered valuers. There is a reason for this, as I stated above major decisions are routinely made upon the basis of the valuations that they provide, and for this reason they must be accurate to within an acceptable margin, and many would think that 20% is the outer limits of this.

If for whatever reason a registered valuer was not the source of this information, then this is a serious matter. Paying this much for a property on the basis of a non-registered valuation would appear to be at the least grossly negligent and at worst reckless. The latter would be a perfectly reasonable charge given that the value is grossly out of line with not only the CV of the properties concerned, but also with other professional reports that assessed the value of the properties when budgets for the finding of the Forsyth Barr Stadium were being presented as a justification for approving the project. Incidentally, these valuations (acquired by stripping blacking off censored documents released by the DCC – see What if? Dunedin for details) appear to have been pretty much exactly in line with the price that you have been offered by Calder Stewart. They were presumably supplied by a registered valuer and it might serve you well to attempt to obtain a copy for the purposes of comparison.

Recklessness, of course, also opens up any elected member who voted for the purchase at this price or was in any way implicated in it to personal liability under the Local Government Act. A strong case for personal liability could be made with regard to this purchase if this is the valuation did not come from a registered valuer. If it did, then a Feltex-type defence on the basis of accepting professional advice in good faith may be made – but only if the source of the valuation was a registered valuer – a professional in the eyes of the law.

3) —You may have been misinformed and no valuation of any type was acquired at all before Carisbrook and adjoining properties were purchased for the amount of $7 million.

If this is the case, then all of the comments relating to Option Two above apply, plus it may be possible to add deliberate deceit to the list. The problem with deceit as with perjury is proving intent. However, in this case it is hard to see how an assertion that a registered valuation formed a basis of the decision to purchase could be made inadvertently in the absence of the valuation that is being cited. I seem to recall that a valuation has been cited on multiple occasions as a justification for paying this price.

All in all, Dave, it’s a messy situation that looks likely to get a lot messier. Both you and the ODT are on the back foot here – information is leaking out of the DCC like a sieve, and the wider public who have been largely snoozing through the events of the last four years finally seem to be waking up in numbers to just exactly what has been going on.

So, if you value your political neck and your mayoral chain, I recommend that you release this valuation document forthwith. It is now a historical document and has no current commercial value, so forget about that line of defence if it is offered to you. Ignore privacy claims for the valuer. If it is a registered valuation, then it is a professional document provided for money, and it’s yours to do with as you please. You can post A1 sized copies of it in all the public loos in the City if that’s your fancy – although you may be wise not to comment on its merits, subsequent events will do that more eloquently than anything you or I could produce. If it’s not a registered valuation, then I would be pretty confident that the same rules apply if a fee was charged for it.

If you can produce a registered valuation for $7 million, then I cannot see that either you or any of your colleagues have any sort of a problem. All the problems will be at the door of the valuer and their professional body – which is why I am mystified as to why you have not yet produced it – if you have it.

If it was a verbal valuation, and you can establish that it does not exist, then I suggest you come clean about it, and identify those responsible for making the decision to purchase Carisbrook at this price without it right now. I do not think that you were involved, so why should you sacrifice your political career in an attempt to protect those who are?

If the document has been ‘lost’ then I would suggest that you make vigorous attempts to find it. Failing this, you may wish to establish who provided the valuation – the possibilities within this community are manageable. You may find that the identity of the valuer has been ‘forgotten’ by all involved. OK, these people keep records. Get copies of the Yellow Pages back to 2009 and go through every registered valuer in the region, call them and see if any of them can recall issuing this valuation. Enlist the help of Valuers Registration Board. I am sure that they will be interested if their members’ reputation is being collectively put on the line by a bunch of amnesics.

You may both end up drawing a blank, but at least it will be a decisive one that you can report to the community and allow them to draw their own conclusions.

Think it over Dave, but don’t think too long. This time I don’t think that you have the luxury of leisure.

Rob Hamlin

[ends]

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

37 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Economics, Name, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums