Tag Archives: South Dunedin

TOMMYROT from ‘academic’ local authorities…. #SouthDunedin it’s PUNCH BACK TIME

At Facebook:

More in tomorrow’s newspaper.

****

Chairman of the Otago chapter of the Property Council New Zealand Geoff Thomas says policymakers need to be careful not to damage property development opportunities in South Dunedin.

### ODT Online Wed, 10 May 2017
Policy could hold back South Dunedin
By Margot Taylor
Residential property development in South Dunedin could be “squashed” by the Dunedin City Council’s overly cautious natural hazards policies, the Otago branch president of the Property Council New Zealand warns.
Geoff Thomas said a proposal under the proposed second generation Dunedin city district plan (2GP), to require all residential properties in the area to be movable, could stymie the replacement of housing stock. The proposed policy ignored costs associated with residential development, including land, compliance costs and construction materials. “Making residential housing relocatable doesn’t make sense. I, personally, have sold a 1980s house with aluminium joinery for $1 to be moved.” If approved, the proposal would result in either more substandard houses, or houses that would be “very expensive” to build, he said. The natural hazards policies did not adequately consider current and potential technologies to manage sea-level rise and floods. “I think South Dunedin is full of opportunity. A lot of the housing stock is from a day gone by. It is an opportunity to do something with the area and our concern is we don’t want to end up with a caravan park out there.” Water drainage was a clear issue. A more reasonable approach to protect the economic viability of the area could be taken to address it.
Read more

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

16 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Baloney, Business, Climate change, Construction, Corruption, DCC, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Education, Finance, Geography, Health & Safety, Heritage, Hot air, Housing, Infrastructure, LTP/AP, Media, Name, New Zealand, NZIA, NZPI, NZTA, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Perversion, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, SFO, Site, South Dunedin, Stadiums, Structural engineering, Technology, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, University of Otago, Urban design

Dunedin’s second generation district plan (2GP) —notes on Natural Hazards

Received from Neil Johnstone
Wed, 3 May 2017 at 7:19 p.m.

Message: Last Thursday (27 April) I presented the remainder of my submission on Natural Hazards. Notes attached in case they might help anybody’s further efforts.

{The notes from Mr Johnstone are public domain by virtue of the consultative 2GP hearing process. -Eds}

****

2GP PRESENTATION NOTES: LANDSLIDES
Neil Johnstone

I have no property interest in any landslide hazard area (although I did previously), nor in the Water of Leith catchment, nor in South Dunedin. My main purpose in appearing at this stage is to bring to the panel’s attention that the expert (so-called) opinions received from Otago Regional Council’s (ORC) natural hazard analysts are often deficient to the detriment of the 2GP process and the city’s residents.

I am a long-term resident of Dunedin and am highly experienced in flood control issues and solutions. I am appearing here on my own behalf, therefore not strictly as an Expert Witness in this instance, although I have done so in past years both in both the High Court and the Environment Court. I also acted as lead technical advisor to the NZ Govt investigation into the massive 1999 Clutha flood. My detailed investigations have ranged from simple issues such as the Water of Leith (as Investigations Engineer at Otago Catchment Board and ORC) to the entire Clutha catchment (in varying roles). These investigations have often incorporated the construction and operation of accurate, properly verified models.

I am now semi-retired MIPENZ, but still running my own consultancy on a reduced basis. I am a highly experienced expert in flood issues, I am much less so wrt landslide identification and mitigation (but I know a nonsensical report when I read one). ORC hazard analysts responsible for the landslide buffer zones originally imposed across my former property (and many others) need to accept that their approach was seriously flawed, and far from expert. Paul Freeland has mentioned to me in a recent phone conversation that Dunedin City Council (DCC) should be able to have confidence that ORC hazard analysts are expert. I have no strong criticism of Mr Freeland, but those days have passed – in this region at least – when expertise was based on proven performance, and not on a position’s title. A property previously owned by my wife and me in Porterfield Street, Macandrew Bay was quite ridiculously misrepresented in ORC’s landslide report of September 2015. The landslide hazard zone on that property has apparently now been removed, but uncaring damage has been done to us, and no doubt to many others. The Hazard 2 zone was reportedly imposed without site inspection, or without anybody properly reviewing output or checking accuracy of references.

[Reason for submitting: Natural Hazards section of 2GP dominated (undermined) by ORC hazards staff input and DCC failure to verify/review; DCC presumption that ORC “experts” do/should have appropriate expertise. We appear to be witnessing a proliferation of Hazard Analysts in NZ Local Government with little relevant experience or skill.]

****

2GP PRESENTATION NOTES: SOUTH DUNEDIN
Neil Johnstone

The comments re South Dunedin flood hazard contained in my original written submission were written prior to DCC’s producing its inaccurate flood reports in respect of the South Dunedin flooding of early June 2015 in which high groundwater levels were held to blame. These DCC reports were eventually released in late November 2015 and April 2016 respectively. My analyses (well after my original submission) demonstrated that the prime cause of widespread flooding in South Dunedin was DCC’s failure (in order of probable significance) to utilise the bypass facility at Tahuna Wastewater Treatment Plant, to fully utilise its stormwater pumping capacity at Portobello Road, and to maintain its stormwater infrastructure (mudtanks etc). Inflow of “foreign” water from the St Clair catchment added to the depth of inundation in some areas. All these can be remedied by a diligent Council. Some have already been remedied, as positively demonstrated in the admittedly rather over-hyped rain event of the subtropical cyclone remnant around this past Easter.

ORC natural hazard analysts were probably responsible for the origin of the groundwater myth as a cause of the South Dunedin flooding in their Coastal Otago Flood Event 3 June 2015 report. Reference was made there to “elevated” ground water levels. They followed up with a contentious report (The Natural Hazards of South Dunedin, July 2016). This opens by stating that the June 2015 flooding was caused by heavy rainfall and high groundwater levels, with no mention of mudtanks, or pumping failures (plural). Such reporting cannot be treated as balanced, nor its authors credible. Elsewhere, ORC essentially conceded the groundwater myth in Rebecca Macfie’s excellent NZ Listener article entitled Flood Fiasco (June 11, 2016).

Shortly after, however, ORC produced the aforementioned South Dunedin Hazards report (backed up by an embarrassingly inaccurate video presentation) that seems to reflect a desire to preach doom rather than convey a balanced defendable scientific analysis of South Dunedin realities and solutions where needed.

One of the worst features of the report and subsequent video was the depiction of projected permanently inundated areas of South Dunedin based on ORC modelling of rising sea level effects. These depictions made front page news in the Otago Daily Times with flow-on reporting nationally. The mapped areas of inundation are actually taken from an earlier ORC report entitled The South Dunedin Coastal Aquifer and Effect of Sea Level Fluctuations (October 2012). The modelling was based on limited information, and the findings would therefore be expected to be of limited reliability. The 2012 report essentially confirms this, noting that modelling of existing conditions overestimates actual groundwater levels (by the order of half a metre in places). Figure 2 (Scenario 0) of that report shows significant permanent ponding for current conditions. None exists in reality. Almost lost (in Section 3.8) are the following (abbreviated, and amongst other) concessions:

• Uncertainty of input data
• Potential inaccuracy of model predictions
• High level of uncertainty
• Groundwater system is poorly to moderately well characterised
• Aquifer properties are poorly understood or quantified
• Each of these uncertainties could have the effect of overestimating the groundwater ponding in the current setting.

The reader is advised to read the full Section 3.8 to ensure contextual accuracy. In my view (as an experienced modeller), a study that cannot even replicate known existing relationships is imperfectly calibrated and unverified. It cannot therefore be relied on. Strictly speaking, it does not qualify as a model. The relationship between possible sea level rise and consequent groundwater impact remains highly uncertain.

Unfortunately, the 2016 ORC South Dunedin Hazards report (and video) chose to reproduce the 2012 ponding predictions using more recent data (but without any better appreciation of aquifer characteristics), but the predictions are similar. It is noted that no Scenario 0 mapping is included in the latter report, nor are the model’s inherent weaknesses described. No admission of the potential modelling inaccuracies is presented other than the following note in Section 4.1: “Further discussion of the original model parameters, model calibration and potential pitfalls is included in the ORC (2012a) report, which can be accessed on the ORC website”. I believe that all parties were entitled to know unequivocally that the modelling was unreliable and unverified.

The 2016 report also makes reference to the fact that dry-weather ground water levels at the Culling Park recorder are at or below mean sea level. This is attributed by the authors to leakage of ground water into the stormwater and wastewater sewers. If that is correct (I would reserve judgement as to whether there may be other factors), then we are witnessing just one example of how an engineered solution could be utilised to dissipate increasing depth of groundwater. Such solutions are canvassed in the BECA report commissioned by DCC several years back.

To summarise, South Dunedin’s exposure to flood (current or future) is poorly described by ORC hazard analysts. The 2GP process seems to have seen these analysts “adopted” by DCC planners as their experts. I consider that to be an inappropriate approach to the detriment of our citizens.

The proposal to require relocatable housing in South Dunedin seems premature, and based on highly questionable information. The proposal for relocatable housing in South Dunedin also rather pre-empts the currently-planned DCC study of overseas approaches to sea level rise solutions.

Requiring relocatable houses will likely simply mean that aged houses that should in time be replaced will be repaired instead. Who is going to build a new relocatable house if they have nowhere to relocate to and probably insufficient money to acquire the requisite land? The proposal to require relocatable housing is ill-considered and premature in my opinion.

With respect to ground water issues across South Dunedin, the 2016 Hazard Report presents –

The reason for my pointing out these facts is to encourage Commissioners to take a step back from the current hysteria surrounding South Dunedin. Had the 2015 flooding extent been restricted (as it should have been) to that which occurred in a slightly larger rainfall event in March 1968, the event would have already been forgotten. Seemingly, at least partly as a result of that hysteria, the proposal to require relocatable housing in South Dunedin seems premature, and based on highly questionable information. Just as ORC floodplain mapping contradicts its in-place flood protection philosophy, so does the proposal for relocatable housing in South Dunedin also rather pre-empt the currently planned DCC study of overseas approaches to sea level rise.

Requiring relocatable houses will simply mean that aged houses that should in time be replaced will be repaired instead. Who is going to build a new relocatable house if they have nowhere to relocate to and probably no money to acquire the requisite land? The proposal for relocatable housing is ill-considered and premature in my opinion.

****

2GP PRESENTATION: URBAN STREAM HAZARDS
Neil Johnstone

Urban Stream Comment re Leith and Lindsay Streams:

ORC’s mapping is said to be of residual flooding (post-flood protection works of the past 80-plus years), but actually represents what might have been envisaged many decades back in something considerably greater than the record 1929 flood with none of the very significant channel works of the 1930s, 1940s and 1960s; or even those lesser improvement of the 2010s in place. The ORC 2GP mapping includes areas that didn’t get flooded in 1923 or 1929. I agree with some potential dangers of stream blockage (especially in Lindsay Creek, and to a lesser extent at Clyde Street and Rockside Road), but one can only consider locations of feasible blockage in today’s conditions. Furthermore, accepted professional practice for flood plain mapping requires detailed hydrology, probability analyses, climate change allowance, hydrograph routing, in-channel modelling (allowing for stream capacity variability), and overland flow modelling. ORC’s flood mapping incorporates none of these fundamentals; instead, it reads as little more than a colouring-in exercise, when a professionally researched technical document is required. In short, ORC’s hazard analysts have carried out no fit-for-purpose analysis for a District Plan process.

Interestingly, the concerns expressed by ORC hazard analysts re channel blockage are entirely inconsistent with ORC’s own design philosophy and consent application evidence for the recent Flood protection scheme (so called). Design Philosophy minimises the issue.

Very briefly, the mapping is challenged for the following reasons (inter alia):

No descriptions of the effective flood protection initiatives (OHB -1920s and 1930s, DCC -1940s, OCB -1960s) are included. These works have ensured that overtopping is practically impossible in the George Street to Cumberland Street reach, the Clock Tower reach and Forth Street to Harbour reaches. Flood protection in these areas are all built to a much higher hydraulic standard than the so-called ORC scheme of the past decade, and to a far, far higher standard than existed pre-1929.

It is further noted that ORC’s own Design Philosophy Report (OPUS for ORC, 2005) for the proposed Leith/Lindsay flood protection scheme is adamant that debris traps recently (then) constructed at Malvern Street and Bethunes Gully would further mitigate any debris problems. Refer paras 7.7 and 10.6 of that document.

Ponding is mapped where water couldn’t even reach in 1929 (peak flood currently estimated at 220 cumecs, and predating flood protection measures) in the wider CBD area. Flows along George Street in the 1920s only occurred south as far as about Howe Street, then re-entered the river. Nowadays, the accelerating weir above George Street and the structural high velocity channel immediately downstream provide much more clearance than existed in 1929. [Most outflow then from the river occurred much further downstream.] In those downstream reaches, many of the bridges have been replaced or upgraded. Possible remaining points of interest are the hydraulically insignificant extension (circa 2015) of the St David Street footbridge, the historic Union Street arch footbridge, and the widened (circa 2012) Clyde Street road bridge. The flimsy St David Street bridge would not survive any hydraulic heading up so there would likely be of little flood consequence, and backing up upstream of Union St would be largely inconsequential because of the height of the Clock Tower reach banks immediately upstream. The Clyde Street bridge is acknowledged as being lower than optimum, but it has not created any issues in its half century existence. Any overtopping there could only impact on a limited area between the bridge and the railway line.

Overland lows beyond (east of) the rail line remain highly improbable because of the ongoing blocking effect of road and rail embankments. Flows as far as the railway station to the west of the rail line are also highly improbable nowadays as only the Clyde Street area could conceivably contribute.

The 1923 photograph showing ponding along Harrow Street is presented by ORC with an unfortunate caption stating that the water is sourced from the Leith. Some undoubtedly was, but the whole of the city was subject to “internal” stormwater flooding from Caversham tunnel, across South Dunedin to the CBD and beyond. To illustrate further, a NIWA April 1923 flood summary (accessible online) provides a summary of some of the information more fully described in technical reports and newspaper accounts, including:

• Portions of Caversham, South Dunedin, St Kilda, the lower portions of central and northern areas of the City and North East Valley were completely inundated.
• Water in South Dunedin was waist deep.
• The Water of Leith rose considerably and burst its banks in many places, causing extensive damage along its banks and flooding low-lying areas.

Today’s stormwater infrastructure is rather more extensive and effective (when maintained), and DCC has a continuing legal obligation to provide to maintain that service.

The levels plotted across Lindsay Creek seem highly pessimistic. Levels are shown to be of the order of 2 metres above North Road in some locations at least. I have [no] knowledge of any such levels ever having been approached. Care must be taken not to include unfloodable areas in the mapping. I don’t however discount localised channel blockage, and the channel capacity is substandard in many areas. The valley slope ensures that overland flow will achieve damaging velocities. Such velocities are noted in the NIWA summary.

Of greater concern to me, however, is that ORC’s mapping appears to have seriously underestimated the significance of potential Woodhaugh flood issues:-

The river channel through here is both steep and confined. The influences of Pine Hill Creek (immediately upstream) and Ross Creek (immediately downstream) add to turbulence and bank attack. The area was ravaged in 1923 and 1929, and there have been evacuations in some much lesser events in later decades. These areas are at considerable risk in a 50- to 100-year plus event. Hardin Street, Malvern Street had houses evacuated in the 1960s flood. High velocity, rock laden flows and mudslides can all be anticipated, and difficult to counter. Area below camping ground / Woodhaugh was overwhelmed in floods of the 1920s – a focus for flooding depth and velocity.

If the 2GP process is to include urban flood maps, these should be diligently derived, based on historical record and appropriate modelling. The mapping should reflect the real flood risks (including likelihood, velocity and depth). The decreasing flood risk from Woodhaugh (potentially high impact) through North East Valley (moderate impact) through to the main urban area south of the Leith waterway (localised and of little-to-zero impact) should be reflected in the mapping.

[ends]

2GP Hearing Topic: Natural Hazards
https://2gp.dunedin.govt.nz/2gp/hearings-schedule/natural-hazards.html

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

Related Posts and Comments
6.6.16 Listener June 11-17 2016 : Revisiting distress and mismanagement #SouthDunedinFlood
10.6.16 “Civic administration” reacts to hard hitting Listener article

[DCC Map differs from what was notified]

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

8 Comments

Filed under DCC, Democracy, District Plan, Dunedin, Education, Geography, Health & Safety, Housing, Infrastructure, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, South Dunedin, Town planning, Urban design

DCC leases space for South Dunedin community hub at Cargill Enterprises

How many years has this taken DCC
It’s still only “temporary” accommodation….

South Dunedin has been waiting for a public library since the time of borough amalgamation.

Dunedin City Council – Media Release
Home found for South Dunedin pop up hub

This item was published on 02 May 2017

A home has been found for the South Dunedin pop up community hub. The Dunedin City Council this week signed a two year lease to set up a temporary hub in part of the Cargill Enterprises premises at 199 Hillside Road.

[screenshot – click to enlarge]
DCC Webmap – 199 Hillside Rd, South Dunedin JanFeb 2013

Group Manager Arts and Culture Bernie Hawke says, “We are delighted to have a confirmed location for the pop up hub. This is a well known, central location and we look forward to providing a range of services on site for local residents.”

The DCC is leasing about 200sq m, which includes space for community activities, meeting areas, DCC service centre and library activities, and kitchen and toilet facilities. The hub will also provide access to Gig wifi for the South Dunedin community. It is hoped the pop up hub will be open about mid year. As well as providing access to DCC services, the hub will provide an opportunity for the community to have input into the development of the permanent South Dunedin Community Hub. While the opening hours for the pop up hub are still to be confirmed, the hub is expected to be open about 25 hours a week, across five days and including one evening and Saturday morning.

Cargill Enterprises Chief Executive Geoff Kemp says, “Cargills are thrilled to be in a position to accommodate the city’s South D interim hub initiative. “A community centre and library adjoining the main facility will give our 94 staff easy access to the many services planned, particularly the opportunity to explore a wide range of reading material and multimedia. We view the hub as complementing our employer-led numeracy and literacy training programme. Very exciting!”

Mayor of Dunedin Dave Cull comments, “The establishment of the pop up hub shows the Council’s commitment to South Dunedin and is a key part of a much wider engagement with the South Dunedin community and agencies working in the area.”

DCC Chief Executive Officer Dr Sue Bidrose says, “When the pop up hub has been established, we will turn our attention to the location and development of the permanent hub. The signing of a lease for the pop up hub is an important step in this process. In addition to the pop up hub development, our Community Development team has been working alongside groups within South Dunedin to look at the social and economic needs and strengths of this community. As part of this, on 18 May we are organising a number of local community-based groups and individuals to meet to see if a collective action plan to support improved social and economic wellbeing can be created within the South Dunedin area.”

Contact DCC on 03 477 4000.
DCC Link

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

6 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Dunedin, Economics, Education, Finance, Infrastructure, People, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Public interest, Site, South Dunedin, Technology, Town planning, Transportation, Urban design, What stadium

#RNZAFBlackFalcons performing over Dunedin’s St Kilda beach today

At Twitter:

[unfortunately Dunedin has fog and low cloud but we still Heard….. the #RNZAFBlackFalcons]

Photos received from Rose McRobie, maxing out her iPhone zoom:

https://www.facebook.com/RoyalNZAirForceBlackFalcons/

At Facebook:

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

3 Comments

Filed under Dunedin, Events, Fun, Media, Name, New Zealand, Public interest, South Dunedin

JimmyJones deflates *mad utterings* of Prof Emer Jim Flynn

Received from JimmyJones
2017/03/17 at 7:43 pm

Prof Flynn, Emeritus Professor in Politics, deserves much criticism for his use of fake facts to support his presentation to the DCC councillors on Monday. He is said to have a good understanding of scientific methodology and so he should have known better than to use spindoctored, hyper-exaggerated data. Perhaps it was deliberate. Remember that he is a red-to-the-core Lefty, having been an initiating member of the New Labour Party and the Alliance Party. He was an Alliance electoral candidate for a few elections and was #4 on the Alliance list near the end. Here is what he got wrong:

● the sea level at Dunedin isn’t the ludicrous 10mm/year, it’s not the fake 3.5mm/yr, it’s only 1.3mm/yr (source- Statistics NZ). That means that 25cm of sea level rise will take 192 years not the 17 years that the panicky professor said.

● the 25cm danger level seems to be his own creation – the ORC LIDAR data shows that South Dunedin is mostly over 1.0 metre above sea level and only a handful of properties are below 500mm. Probably there are no houses within 25cm of sea level; he says there are 1932. For the sea level to increase by 1.0 metre will take 769 years. Put it on your calendar.

● fear-monger Flynn tells us about the “huge erosion of polar ice” that started in 2014 – unfortunately he didn’t check the sea-level data which shows us that nothing unusual has happened to the sea level since 2014.

● Prof Flynn tried to scare us by saying that insurance companies are unlikely to cover sea-level rise in their policies in future (ODT- Flynn’s sea level figures disputed), but it turns out that even now, none of us are insured for sea-level rise. There has never been cover for gradual damage. He’s talking crap.

● The Otago Regional Council has had groundwater sensors at South Dunedin for several years and they tell us that there is no detectable increase in groundwater level (no increasing trend).
In fact, there is no reason for a rising sea to cause rising groundwater. There is no connection, except for some places which are close to the shoreline. Also, the South Dunedin groundwater level is about 600mm above sea level and so it is mostly not affected by the sea, since water doesn’t flow uphill. Have a look for yourself: the ORC has recently given us (almost) live groundwater sensor graphs for South Dunedin and other places – thanks ORC. There are four South Dunedin groundwater sites:

http://water.orc.govt.nz/WaterInfo/Catchment.aspx?r=Dunedin

Of the four groundwater sensors only the one closest to the shoreline shows a tidal influence. Other places similarly close to the sea are likely to have some tidal influence on their groundwater level. Further inland there is no effect.

[ends]

****

At Facebook:

whatifdunedin says: Here is DCC and ORC’s outlandish and mythical project, designed to put Ratepayer Funds into the hands of private sector consultants for no good reason, and on it goes. Your elected representatives agreed to this rort:

Related Post and Comments:
14.3.17 Brightness panicked [#effect]

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

81 Comments

Filed under Business, Climate change, Construction, Corruption, Democracy, Dunedin, Economics, Finance, Geography, Health & Safety, Heritage, Housing, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, People, Perversion, Politics, Property, Public interest, Resource management, South Dunedin, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, University of Otago, Urban design, What stadium

Brightness panicked [#effect]

What we like to see is President Donald J. Trump and his colleagues having a good go to crash the academic anaerobic anthropogenic climate change creepsters. The “effect” lands at Dunedin suddenly, with ODT supporting a septic tank on its front page. Dear old Lacksense Fudgebrain.

At Facebook:

****

Received from Douglas Field
Tue, 14 Mar 2017 7:42 a.m.

Subject: Jim Flynn’s rant in ODT
Message: God – those headlines in today’s paper are incredible. This guy is nothing more than a political activist – scientist he is not. Cull even giving space and having this clown attempt to convince the people of Sth Dunedin and St Kilda are doomed is nothing short of alarmist criminality given the economic condition of those people at present.
Sheesh.

Later this morning . . .

“I’m sorry but I had to draw something on this bloody awful crap.”

“Well – intelligence does not necessarily equate with sense – Flynn seems to be proof of that. Reading the Wiki article he doesn’t seem to have had much of the latter – all over the place politically. But why on earth did Cull give this guy any oxygen. Yep I know!”

“….Richard S. Lindzen, Prof Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences
The following was sent by Lindzen to Trump. As you know, Lindzen is a pretty well versed physicist dealing with earth sciences but in this letter he sets out succinctly all that is wrong with Flynn’s arguments in that presentation written up in the ODT.”

“It is ‘hotting up’ in the US now that Scott Pruitt is in charge of the EPA.
There is a heap of screaming going on – mainly from Democrat senators and congressmen – but also from the tenured folk who will loose funding.
The ‘swamp is being drained’.”

“Ha ha”

“It will have a ‘flow on effect’ here and I think you can already see evidence of that – for example, Flynn’s outburst – but there are others – wouldn’t be surprised if Alan Mark doesn’t add his tuppence worth soon.”

[screenshot]

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/lindzen-personal-paoc-explanation-final.pdf

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

34 Comments

Filed under Baloney, Climate change, Dunedin, Economics, Education, Geography, Hot air, Housing, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, People, Perversion, Politics, Public interest, Resource management, South Dunedin, Travesty, University of Otago

Second candidate meeting at South Dunedin #review

Received from RMN
Tue, 21 Sep 2016 at 11:13 p.m.

A slightly larger crowd of Dunedinites arrived at the Mayfair Theatre tonight, and one or two were even angry.

The group of candidates was much smaller than last night but as a group the candidates were more impressive specimens than last night.

Standout new candidates were Jim O’Malley, Paul Pope, Conrad Stedman, David Murray, Neil Johnstone and Nanette Linklater.

Richard O’Mahony was also OK, if unspecific, but Tony Johnston was uncomfortable with the inevitable self promotion and sound bites that one must engage in as a local body politician. There is the sense that Mr Johnston could have value as a councillor with his background but he needs to study Mike Lord or Mr Stedman as examples of how to relate to a crowd.

Mr Lord tended to be short on specifics but even when on the verboten topic of the Mosgiel Pool came across as credible and with integrity, even when he did not quite answer the question.

Once again Lee Vandervis stole the show, helped in no small measure by the fact that many of the questions were directed to himself and Mr Lord as sitting councillors.

The questions were almost scripted for Mr Vandervis – how to wring results from the DCC bureaucracy, the Citifleet fraud, the awful financial abscess that is Delta and Aurora, the madness of the 2GP planners, the vacuousness of the Cull regime “if you can’t see it they are not going to spend on it” and “every year has been election year”.

With Mr Vandervis’ usual combination of wit, recall of facts and obvious determination, almost every response was greeted with enthusiastic applause.

The best line of the evening came from Mr Murray when he said to the audience – “it’s about priorities” – who do you trust to put South Dunedin as the top priority, and it certainly is not the current council as they have proven this by spending $6M on cycleways for us and underspending on drains.

Mr Murray, Mr Stedman & Ms Linklater made the powerful point that they actually lived in South Dunedin, and are fully committed to it.

Mr O’Malley raised the elephant in the room when he said that there was a north south divide in the city and the two sides retreated to their side of the railway line. He said that South Dunedin had good reason to mistrust the council as they had failed South Dunedin. This was echoed by most new candidates. Mr O’Malley has shown that he is willing to confront the problems that are beyond most of the current crop of councillors and his background in the American corporate world is impressive.

Paul Pope was also impressive and noted that he had spent three weeks visiting local businesses to get their views, something that candidate Linklater had also spent a lot of time in, which went down well.

Mr Stedman was sincere and obviously committed to South Dunedin, and he dealt with some aggressive and illogical heckling very well. His account of his efforts to remove the Hargest Crescent cycleway were well received.

There were only 2 sitting councillors that showed up, being Mike Lord and Lee Vandervis, with chief cycleway apologist Cr Kate Wilson absent, along with new candidates Fraser, Hope and Shepherd.

Interestingly, the ODT chose to feature the question of feral cats in South Dunedin, which may be a sign that election weariness is setting in at ODT.

[ends]

untitled-tqofe-22-9-16TQoFE 22:9:16

Related Post and Comments:
21.9.16 The First of two South Dunedin candidate meetings #review

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

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

5 Comments

Filed under Business, Citifleet, Construction, Cycle network, DCC, Delta, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Education, Finance, Fun, Geography, Health, Heritage, Housing, Infrastructure, Inspiration, Name, New Zealand, People, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Site, South Dunedin, Town planning, Transportation, Urban design, What stadium