Tag Archives: Stadium Survey

The campaign of lies seems to be working…

So the early results of the stadium survey by two university lecturers opposed to the stadium seem to indicate that the relentless campaign of lies and disinformation by the Stop The Stadium is working.

We’ve heard everything from global warming, ridiculous opportunity costs, university creep, terrorism, bullshit claims of singularity of use, you name it, if it was negative against the stadium it was seemingly valid fodder.

So much of this campaign hasn’t been about the future of Dunedin and the direction that this city should be heading (as should really have been the case), but lies and disinformation about anything and everything that isn’t true or relevant about the development.

You know the only people that will prosper out of this development if it is stopped by spineless Councillors will be the land owners and developers to date. The city will loose and the people will miss out on some of the most marvellous sporting and entertainment opportunities presented to NZ over the next few years.

It doesn’t surprise me at all the survey has gone this way, with the letter a day campaign to the newspaper (sometime printed for god only knows) spreading the lies about the stadium. It’s the classic man in the pub syndrome, of course 90% of the bullshit regurgitated by stadium opponents isn’t true, but repeat it enough without correction and any lie can be believe as true (just ask G W Bush how to run such a campaign). Obviously these people have been studying the methods of that mad man, because any reasoned debate has flown out the window. I mean just last week the letter to the editor complaining about so called University Creep and university not paying rates taking over industrial land. Well open your bloody eyes you insanely stupid trout, the university contributes ONE BILLION DOLLARS to the economy of Dunedin, and considering the manufacturing base of Dunedin is relocating or downscaling at the moment, we need to foster the single largest industry in the cities history. All just smoke screen, bullshit lies and disinformation.

The people of Dunedin do not deserve this place some times and this is a classic case of it.

For pities sake Dunedin don’t let the bloody CAVES win, nobody wins if they do – you all loose.


Filed under Economics, Geography, Hot air, Stadiums

Public Survey still flawed. $7000 sought to undertake survey.

As reported in the ODT today, the two University Marketing lecturers who are planning to conduct a public survey of the proposed stadium have completed their draft of the survey.

I have commented on this previously and made submissions to them with concerns about the neutrality of the survey. They have sought input from all parties involved in the survey, and have responded to my comments in the past, much appreciated. As reported in the ODT “The pair hoped this would produce a survey that would not be subject to endless criticism after it was finished.”

The question is as follows:

The Costs of the Stadium: The DCC has committed $A million and the ORC has committed = $B million to fund the construction of the stadium. This means that someone who pays both DCC and ORC rates will pay an extra $C per year in rates for the next D years if the stadium
goes ahead.

In other words the total cost for each ratepayer is expected to be at least $E. Non-ratepayers are likely to pay indirectly in various ways, for example by way of reduction in household disposable income.

The Benefits of the Stadium: The Carisbrook Stadium Trust has commissioned research that estimates the economic benefits to Dunedin of the stadium will be $F

This goes against the claims made by the two in a previous disclaimer on their site;

“It is not the job of the questionnaire to present information that can be interpreted as being either for or against the construction of the stadium. Only the factual information that all parties can agree to be correct and relevant will be presented to respondents.”

I have a very serious problem with the following statement within the question.

“Non-ratepayers are likely to pay indirectly in various ways, for example by way of reduction in household disposable income.”

This is pure conjecture and can not be included in any serious neutral survey of the stadium. It may very well be the case, but this hasn’t been proven my any economic modelling of the effects of the stadium development. It’s loaded and leading. For someone not a ratepayer (ie the possibly rent), to have suggested to them that because the stadium goes ahead they will be out of pocket, is fully loaded against the stadium. The first and last part of the statement are qualified by statements of fact. The part I have a problem with isn’t.

If that person was to be employed by the stadium, the would indeed actually better off economically, but these are all conjecture. And for someone to include this in what is a very serious undertaking is a little disturbing.

These guys are doing it out of their own time, and we thank them for that, but as they say on their site, they will be able to use this material in their teaching and possible published research at a later date, so it’s not a totally thankless task for them.

“In particular we wish to use this as an example for teaching students about ethical issues in Marketing Research, as well as the technical problems associated with avoiding bias. We also reserve the right to publish academic articles based on this project.”

I just don’t get why they don’t see that the statement in question isn’t biased? Are they being deliberate for further research, are they testing a hypothesis and this will be published, or are they just human and bring their own biases into the equation?

Their planning for the survey can be found here.
And the current draft can be found here.


Filed under Economics, Hot air, Media, Stadiums

Stadium Survey


John Williams and Ben Wooliscroft from the department of Marketing at the University of Otago have kindly accepted the task of conducting an independent survey of the people of Dunedin, re their views for and against the stadium.

At this stage the survey is in it’s draft form (thankfully) and they are asking for input from interested groups. I have made a detailed submission to them over the survey in it’s current form. To their credit they have acknowledged my concerns and have advised that comments such as mine will be soon on the web site for public discussion.

You can download the PDF of the draft survey from their web page here

In it’s current form, I would suggest that this is anything less than an unbiased survey. There is no way that a survey with leading questions devoid of neutrality would be worth taking note of. Continue reading

1 Comment

Filed under Media