Tag Archives: Ratepayers and Residents

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

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

18 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

Fossil fuel divestment : Council fails to recognise opportunities

Election Year : This post is offered in the public interest. -Eds

Received from John Evans
Fri, 29 Apr 2016 at 7:54 p.m.

█ Subject: Why the Dunedin council’s decision on non investment and non support of oil investment is wrong

It is noticeable that the decision makers on the DCC who have made the decision on non oil investment are unaffected by their decision, because they and employees of the council are on fixed salaries, but the ratepayers, business men and women, and working persons in the city are severely compromised.

### theguardian.com Wed 18 June 2014 10.24 BST
Aberdeen, the oil city where boom and bust happen at the same time
By Peter Geoghegan – Aberdeen
OPINION The taxi driver swings his brand-new BMW out of Aberdeen train station. Behind him the sleek glass-fronted £250m Union Square shopping centre, with its Apple store and Hugo Boss shop, glistens in the afternoon sunshine. “Welcome to the oil capital of Europe,” he says with a smile. As we drive past Aberdeen harbour, crowded with cargo ships, he talks about his grandson. A multinational oil company is paying the 17-year-old £12,000 a year to study mechanical engineering at college. He will graduate into a guaranteed job. “He’ll be on £100,000 by the time he’s 25,” the cabbie says confidently. Such stories are common in oil-rich Aberdeen. The Granite City boasts the highest concentration of millionaires in the UK. Three-star hotel rooms can cost upwards of £370 a night. In a city of 220,000, unemployment is just 2% and average annual salaries more than £39,000, around £12,000 more than the UK average in 2013.
Read more

DUNEDIN The citizens should dump their elected body just for failing to recognise possible opportunities for their ratepayers.

This council would not have allowed gold mining had it been in charge in the 1860s.

[ends]

ABERDEEN : Granite City —the buildings sparkle after a rainfall.
aberdeen [isbreading.org] 1

Aberdeen City Garden
Revitalising the centre and reconnecting the city to its natural landscape. http://www.dsrny.com/projects/aberdeen

aberdeen abcitaerial [onsitereview.ca]
aberdeen Learning Garden [metalocus.es] 1

Diller Scofidio + Renfro selected to transform the centre of Aberdeen
archdaily.com Jan 2012
Aberdeen City Garden Trust has announced Diller Scofidio + Renfro (DS+R) as winner of the international design competition. The New York City based firm will be working with the Scottish practice Keppie Design and Philadelphia landscape architects OLIN. The £140m City Garden Project will radically transform the center, raising the nineteenth-century Union Terrace Gardens and covering over the “unattractive” Denburn dual carriageway and railway line.

Evening Express Uploaded on Feb 15, 2012
Walkthrough of Aberdeen City Garden Project
http://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/Article.aspx/2642056
Residents are being given a bird’s-eye view of the planned Aberdeen City Gardens in a new video. Swooping around the pathways of Aberdeen’s Granite Web, the visitor is taken on a two-minute tour of the green spaces, flower beds and woodland.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

21 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Democracy, Dunedin, Economics, Finance, Geography, Heritage, Infrastructure, Innovation, Media, New Zealand, Offshore drilling, People, Politics, Public interest, Resource management, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, Urban design, What stadium

Vandervis emails batch 2 #Dunedin #infrastructure #flood #mudtanks

android__email_by_bharathp666 [bharathp666.deviantart.com]

Batch #2 being 11 of 21 emails
Received from Cr Lee Vandervis on Sun, 24 Apr 2016 from 08:45 AM

See Batch #1 here.
A small number of emails considered objectionable have been withheld.
Where appropriate, all contact information has been removed.
The original emails have been archived by What if? Dunedin.

Election Year : This post is offered in the public interest. -Eds

_____________________________________

android-email-app [carleton.ca]EMAIL 6

From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 18:25:01 +1200
To: David Loughrey [ODT]
Conversation: Mudtanks FYI – ” there has been insufficient effort put in to maintain the level of service requested”
Subject: FW: Mudtanks FYI – ” there has been insufficient effort put in to maintain the level of service requested”

—— Forwarded Message
From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 08:40:32 +1200
To: Sandy Graham, Sue Bidrose [DCC]
Cc: Tony Avery, Doug Hall [DCC]
Conversation: Mudtanks FYI – ” there has been insufficient effort put in to maintain the level of service requested”
Subject: Re: Mudtanks FYI – ” there has been insufficient effort put in to maintain the level of service requested”

Hi Sue and Sandy,

Further to my previous email please note that, contrary to the response below, several suburbs of Dunedin have again become mini-lakes districts as a result of the 5pm rain we have had yesterday.
In one drive to Calvin’s place, many blocked mudtanks creating mini-lakes were evident in Hilary st, Orbell st, Fea st and Ramsey st with rivers running from these mini-lakes all over the roads, proving widespread failure of our mudtank structures.
The claims below that 95% of mudtanks have been properly cleaned or that this might have been due to a particularly severe rain event, high tide, or a lack of capacity down-stream are obviously not the case.
Unpleasant options beckon.

Regards,
Lee

On 15/01/14 3:52 PM, “Sandy Graham” [DCC] wrote:
Dear Lee

Please find below information from staff about the operation of the mudtank structures with specific reference to the rain event on 16 December 2013 as per your enquiry to Sue and Tony of 17 December 2013. Sue has asked that I respond on her behalf noting that Tony is still on leave. In summary, the note explains that there was not a widespread failure of the mudtank system on 16 December 2013. It also details how the system is inspected and maintained. The issue you raise about debris on the roads is also addressed.

{Continues}
See EMAIL 3 at this post.

android-email-app [carleton.ca]EMAIL 7

From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 18:31:57 +1200
To: David Loughrey [ODT]
Conversation: Mudtanks FYI – ” there has been insufficient effort put in to maintain the level of service requested”
Subject: FW: Mudtanks FYI – ” there has been insufficient effort put in to maintain the level of service requested”

—— Forwarded Message
From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 12:31:01 +1200
To: Sandy Graham [DCC]
Cc: Sue Bidrose, Tony Avery, Doug Hall [DCC]
Conversation: Mudtanks FYI – ” there has been insufficient effort put in to maintain the level of service requested”
Subject: Re: Mudtanks FYI – ” there has been insufficient effort put in to maintain the level of service requested”

Dear Sandy,

A DCC department is not a ‘who’.
Can I please have the names of those people who supplied you with the ‘information’ in the response to my mudtanks questions, from both Transportation Operations and Water and Waste.
It is important for me to know who produces such information.

Can you please also advise who is the person in Transportation operations who is ultimately responsible for the audit of contractor performance?

The difficulties I regularly experience in discovering who authors or produces information to Councillors is becoming a serious issue.

Cheers,
Lee

On 17/01/14 12:03 PM, “Sandy Graham” [DCC] wrote:
Dear Lee

In answer to your questions:

1. The response of 15 Jan 2014 was the result of information supplied by staff from both Transportation Operations and Water and Waste. The response is on behalf of the CEO under my signature – I wrote the final response.

2. Staff in Transportation Operations are responsible for the audit of the contractor performance.

Cheers
Sandy

From: Lee Vandervis
Sent: Friday, 17 January 2014 10:21 a.m.
To: Sandy Graham [DCC]
Cc: Sue Bidrose; Tony Avery; Doug Hall [DCC]
Subject: Re: Mudtanks FYI – ” there has been insufficient effort put in to maintain the level of service requested”

Dear Sandy,

I think that you are missing the point that there are blocked mudtanks everywhere in Dunedin.
Again,
Can you please let me know;
1 – who wrote the mudtanks/flooding response below?
2 – who is responsible for the accuracy of the monthly mudtank audits?

Cheers,
Lee

On 17/01/14 9:15 AM, “Sandy Graham” [DCC] wrote:
Dear Lee

Staff will check the Pine Hill areas that you list below today. If following inspection, there is a blocked mudtank it will be remedied. FYI, this is the standard process we follow when we receive advice from a member of the public that there may be an issue with mudtank(s) in a particular area.

Regards
Sandy

android-email-app [carleton.ca]EMAIL 8

From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 18:32:22 +1200
To: David Loughrey [ODT]
Conversation: More mudtank misery.
Subject: FW: More mudtank misery.

—— Forwarded Message
From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 08:40:58 +1200
To: Tony Avery [ODT]
Cc: Sandy Graham [ODT]
Conversation: More mudtank misery.
Subject: More mudtank misery.

Hi Tony,

I have had a verbal and written complaint from the owners of Davies Heat ‘n’ Cool over the flooding of their 1 Donald st premises, and the DCC failure to address the issue of future flooding.
In the past flooding has been so severe that a complete evacuation and insurance claim cleaning of all carpets was necessary.
This because the camber Kaikorai Valley on the intersection with Donald st is so flat that water streaming down the road from the east side of Kaikorai Valley road during extreme rain events crosses the road at the intersection and it all ends up in the two mudtanks on Donald st, which routinely do not cope.
These Kaikorai Valley mudtanks would appear to be have the same problem as those I have previously identified in Roslyn, Pine Hill, central city, and anywhere else I have been in a heavy rain event – namely that they have not been cleaned to the 150mm below outlet pipe as required under the DCC contract.

The ongoing failure of contractors to do the mudtank cleaning for over a year now has escalated to utter abysmal farce.

Both Donald st mudtanks need to be properly cleaned, and a raised subtle berm of asphalt needs to be added to the middle of the Donald st intersection to prevent storm-water from east Kaikorai Valley crossing the intersection at this point and flooding west Kaikorai Valley road/Donald st.

Please let me know how soon both of these issues will take to be addressed.

Kind regards,
Lee
—— End of Forwarded Message

Continue reading

1 Comment

Filed under Business, DCC, Democracy, Dunedin, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Public interest, Resource management, South Dunedin, Town planning, Urban design, What stadium

The complicity of mudtanks and stormwater drains personified

Garrick Tremain – 27 Apr 2016
Garrick Tremain 27 Apr 2016 [screenshot]

Election Year : This post is offered in the public interest. -Eds

The Otago Daily Times has undergone a momentary and unsubtle change this fortnight. The newspaper is allowing near ‘ruthless’ honesty in Letters and Online Comments, including rightful naming and shaming (carefully expressed, within context) of individuals and politicians that should no longer be residing at the local authority. Rush in while the door’s Open —we know it is, for the cartoonist deftly flies his drone again! At our city council. (Was GT threatened from on high prior to Election Year, with blanket censorship too ?).

This sudden rush of print-blood happens belatedly, as debate ensues over the council’s (stadium-ripper) lack of investment and professional engagement with core infrastructure services, city-wide.

Not insignificantly, projects led by “pets” continue under the radar via budget lines in the council’s Long-term Plan (LTP) and associated Annual Plans. Of course, the “pets” feel safe from scrutiny since they’ve built up “such amazing” community rapport and goodwill (a cultural following!). Nope, own castles, own keeps, feathering own nests (*not yours!) —spending money that’s not theirs with weak justification, benefitting minor consortiums of private business (*not the wider swathe of our suburban and rural populations!). Supported handsomely (wink wink) by the odd motley politician who wants “back in”, riding the “pets” like a bar saddle to the next paid trimester. Although…. that gratuitously camp ballet scene at Tuesday’s Infrastructure Services Committee meeting : where the doorstepper was conveniently exposed doing rehearsed Q&A with a scapegoat in a hotseat, was an undoing. The video is coming! Equally, someone else nutted on about the girth of pipes in a soliloquy that will endure many viewings.

While ODT meets the temperature of its audience – at the same time, the council offers little that’s honest, immediate or genuine for the people it has ill-advisedly brought flood, damage and distress to. Surely, the worst-affected should see financial re-dress from this (highly indebted) can’t-pay council. Wethinks fixing, maintaining and upgrading council-owned infrastructure is Not Quite Enough to assuage the greater collective conscience…. There could be, however, real satisfaction seeing the council get the deep cut and tuck, a razor slash. Bringing an ungainly end to bully girls’ vanity and sly defective green-tinged parlour acts that buck off without trimming a balance sheet.

Honing to essentials, the art of cartoon mayhem.

ODT 27.4.16 (page 12)

ODT 27.4.16  Letters to editor Menzies Mathieson Greensmith-West Wallace p12 (1)

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

[alternative title for post: ‘that’s not mud, it’s dogshit’]

27 Comments

Filed under Baloney, Business, Climate change, Democracy, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Finance, Geography, Hot air, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, Ombudsman, People, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Site, South Dunedin, Stadiums, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty

Vandervis emails batch 1 #Dunedin #infrastructure #flood #mudtanks

android__email_by_bharathp666 [bharathp666.deviantart.com]

Batch #1 being 5 of 21 emails
Received from Cr Lee Vandervis on Sun, 24 Apr 2016 from 08:45 AM

A second batch will be posted shortly; a small number of emails considered objectionable have been withheld.
Where appropriate, all contact information has been removed.
The original emails have been archived by What if? Dunedin.

Election Year : This post is offered in the public interest. -Eds

_____________________________________

android-email-app [carleton.ca]EMAIL 1

From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 08:45:35 +1200
To: EditorODT, Vaughan Elder, Tim Brown, Nicholas GS Smith [ODT]
Conversation: Flooding Mud-bath
Subject: Flooding Mud-bath

Letter to the Editor

Dear Editor,

Perhaps Mayor Cull only takes showers and does not realise that a bath won’t empty when the plug hole is blocked.
As the Councillor who was filling hundreds of sandbags into the early hours of June 4th in the tremendous community effort to fight back the floodwaters, I had first hand experience of the high water remaining long after the rain had stopped, and well into the next day. Hundreds of South Dunedin and other Dunedin residents took an appalling bath, followed by further property value damage from Mayor Cull ludicrously suggesting sea-level-rise greenwash as requiring a ‘managed retreat’ from South Dunedin. South Dunedin has great investment potential which should be realised, beginning with a big pump that works.

Cr. Lee Vandervis

android-email-app [carleton.ca]EMAIL 2

From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 10:03:40 +1200
To: Ruth Stokes, Sue Bidrose, Sandy Graham, Laura McElhone, Andrew Noone, Andrew Whiley, Chris Staynes, Doug Hall, Hilary Calvert, John Bezett, Jinty MacTavish, Kate Wilson, Lee Vandervis, Mayor Cull, Mike Lord, Neville Peat, Richard Thomson, David Benson-Pope, Aaron Hawkins
Conversation: Questions re June 3rd 2015 floods.
Subject: Questions re June 3rd 2015 floods.

Dear All,

In the interest of Tenders transparency, last month I enquired of staff whether FH had bought City Care, as City Care’s new ownership remained a closely kept secret and rumours circulated.

Given the City Care appraisal of mudtank maintenance in our Infrastructure Services Committee Agenda, knowing the new ownership of City Care now takes on increased importance.

Who are City Care’s new owners, and do Fulton Hogan have any financial or other interest in or influence over City Care?

In Item 5 a number of other questions arise:

1 – why is there no mention of Mayor Cull’s claimed contribution to flooding from sea-level-rise? Has this been contribution been assessed as nil? If not, why not?

2 – Is it true that City Care applied to do screen clearing prior to the June 3rd flood event, but were not authorised by DCC staff to do so in time for the flood? [28]

3 – Does the statement “a proactive maintenance regime is important to manage and maintain overland flows into the storm water system” mean that without this proactive maintenance, flooding effects will be more damaging due to the restricted ability to drain? [38]

4 – What is the contract specification for cleaning of the mudtank outlet lateral pipes which are compromised when mudtank debris has not been kept “at least 150mm below outlet”? [39]

5 – where/when is the FH ‘30% full proxy’ first recorded in DCC files? [41]

6 – If 26% of draining mudtanks were totally blocked, and a further 36% partially blocked, would this drainage blockage not mean that flooding effects would be made worse as a result? [52]

7 – Does 230T [52] mean 230 tonnes of debris was removed from mudtanks? When was this removed, and by whom, and at what cost to whom? [52]

8 – which ‘water’ “would have been unable to enter the network even if all mudtanks were clear”. Why would this ‘water’ not be able to enter the network? Is this because network screens were blocked or pumps not working adequately? [55]

9 – Was water below road level [57] a major contributor to flooding and damage of houses? Viz, how many houses’ floor levels are below road level in South Dunedin?

10 – What alternative internal management regime is being considered? [61] is an updated resident cellphone-photo-text-alert monitoring system being considered to replace our old fixagram system?

11 – Who have been the successful tenderers for the new separable portion of the Mudtank maintenance contract? And who were the businesses that tendered for this separable portion?

Looking forward to answers that will further inform debate on item 5.

Cheers,
Lee

Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under Business, DCC, Democracy, Dunedin, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Public interest, Resource management, South Dunedin, Town planning, Urban design, What stadium

DCC: Snow White cause of substantial loss + DRAFT Annual Plan

snow-white-and-the-seven-dwarfs [sisterlondon.com] 1Vestiges of Purity for ALL [ethical cleansing HITS town]

‘Some of the unfavourable variance because of divestment losses’

### ODT Online Wed, 30 Mar 2016
City pays cost for divesting
By Timothy Brown
Some of the Dunedin City Council’s divestment decisions have cost the city, it was revealed at yesterday’s council finance committee meeting. […] The council voted last May to scrap any investments the [Waipouri] fund had in the munitions, tobacco, fossil fuel extraction, gambling or pornography industries and to bar future investment in those industries. […] The fund had produced $783,000 in profit during the eight months to February 29. However, this was $1.657million down on the budgeted $2.44million profit.
Read more

Agenda – FIN – 29/03/2016 (PDF, 1.8 MB)
This agenda includes the reports

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Public Forum [page 4]
2 Apologies [4]
3 Confirmation of Agenda [4]
4 Declaration of Interest [5]

PART A REPORTS (Committee has power to decide these matters)

5 Financial Result – Period Ended 29 February 2016 [6]
This report provides a commentary of the financial performance of Council for the period ended 29 February 2016 and the financial position as at that date. The net deficit (including Waipori) for the eight months to February was $5.878 million or $381k worse than budget.

6 Financial Result – Period Ended 31 January 2016 [31]
This report provides the financial results for the period ended 31 January 2016 and the financial position as at that date. The net deficit (including Waipori) for the seven months to January was $6.668 million or $36k worse than budget.

Related Posts and Comments:
26.3.16 Dunedin: Erosion issues at St Clair and Ocean Beach
25.1.16 DCC: South Dunedin Integrated Catchment Management Plan (ICMP)
5.1.16 Hammered from all sides #fixit [dunedinflood Jun2015]
27.12.15 Pop Mashup(s) + Independent UK…on attack to local democracy
21.11.15 Mayor Cull won’t admit lack of maintenance #SouthDunedinFlood
14.7.15 DCC strategies needed like a hole in the head
27.4.15 She’s right: “We are a very poor city.” —Cr Hilary Calvert
6.4.15 Energy, a little picture #wow
25.5.14 Whaleoil: Rodney Hide on Dunedin’s Luddite Council
21.1.14 Jints, this one’s forya
13.1.14 Taking to water like a duck on oil

****

  • Dunedin City Council – Media Release
    Annual Plan consultation begins

    This item was published on 24 Mar 2016

    Should we be spending more on economic development in Dunedin and/or boosting funding for community grants? These are some of the questions the Dunedin City Council is asking residents as part of its 2016/17 Annual Plan and budget consultation, which opens today.

    Mayor of Dunedin Dave Cull says recent changes to the law mean the Council is taking a different approach to how it seeks feedback from residents on what should be included in the 2016/17 Annual Plan: “Just last year we went through a rigorous process developing a 10 year Long Term Plan (LTP), which sets out the city’s financial and strategic path. This year we are asking the community to comment largely on things we are proposing to add or change.” Some of the proposed changes are things that have already been discussed with the community and agreed on, but were either not funded in the LTP or not funded beyond the current 2015/16 year. Examples include the funding proposed for GigCity, UNESCO City of Literature and Dunedin’s Arts and Culture and Environment Strategies.

    Mr Cull says the planned increase in economic development resourcing is effectively a return of funding taken out several years ago because of budget constraints: “The proposed $790,000 increase in funding is largely community driven. One of the consistent messages emerging from residents is that job creation and business encouragement are vital for Dunedin. Our business sector is also telling us we need to market the city better to visitors and businesses.”

    Funding has also been provided for investigations into South Dunedin groundwater/ sea level rise issues [WHAT ISSUES – WHERE IS THE SCIENCE ?], and to investigate coastal erosion in other areas. Other proposed funding includes an extra $120,000 for community grants because there are always more requests than money available.

    These suggested changes can be achieved within the proposed 2.9% rates rise.

    The consultation document is now available at www.dunedin.govt.nz/2016AP. Public consultation on the Annual Plan closes at 5pm on 20 April. People are encouraged to provide their feedback early and, if possible, use the online form.

    A snapshot of what is proposed, presented in a map fold newsletter, will be delivered to every Dunedin household. Information will also be available at DCC service centres and libraries and at the Customer Services Agency in the Civic Centre. There will also be a public meeting and workshop, and six drop-in sessions with the opportunity for face-to-face discussion with Councillors. These will be held around the wider city during the consultation period.

    █ Comments on the DCC Facebook page and tweets to @DnCityCouncil using #DunedinAP will also be considered as feedback. The consultation period will be followed by hearings and deliberations in May and a final Annual Plan will be adopted by the Council in June.

    █ A range of supporting documents and an online submission form are available at www.dunedin.govt.nz/2016AP.

    Contact The Mayor of Dunedin on 03 477 4000.
    DCC Link

    Related Posts and Comments:
    23.2.16 Hold on! DCC Annual Plan 2016/17 #CommunityEngagement
    30.1.16 DCC Rates: LOCAL CONTEXT not Stats —Delta and Hippopotamuses
    26.11.15 DCC report: Mosgiel Pool Future Aquatic Provision
    12.9.15 Cr Kate ‘Cycleways’ Wilson —(disingenuous) fails constituents
    22.8.15 DCC cycleway$ now tied to more ‘urban de$ign’ $pend, after reha$h…
    14.7.15 DCC strategies needed like a hole in the head
    22.7.15 DCC Long Term Plan 2015/16 – 2024/25
    24.6.15 DCC Residents’ Opinion Survey (ROS)
    29.5.15 Design alternatives to (pre-selected) bridge not canvassed by DCC
    5.5.15 DCC financial position | DCC reply: “$20M cash on hand” #LGOIMA
    4.5.15 DCC: Draft LTP matter —‘Unfunded Mosgiel Aquatic Facilities’
    28.9.14 “DCC entitlement” about to ramrod change at CBD #manipulation
    5.8.14 DCC staff-led CBD projects that impact… | consolidated council debt
    27.6.14 Stadium costs $23.4144 million per annum
    25.1.12 Waipori Fund – inane thinkings from a councillor
    17.11.13 Cull, MacTavish: (to borrow a phrase) “Have you fixed the debt crisis?”

    Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

    *Image: sisterlondon.com – SW + dwarves, tweaked by whatifdunedin
    (many thanks to Disney)

    33 Comments

    Filed under Business, DCC, Democracy, Design, Dunedin, Economics, Events, Hot air, Media, Name, New Zealand, People, Politics, Project management