Who? 2010 electioneering

References supplied.

Blog entry: Dave Cull for Dunedin City Mayor
Monday, August 23, 2010 at 2:09 PM
TAKING OUR FUTURE BACK
By Dave Cull

Dunedin is wonderful city, with a fantastic future. But right now that future is vulnerable: vulnerable economically, environmentally and socially. Dunedin’s community has never been more disillusioned with how Council makes decisions, how it listens, or not, to the community, how Council takes responsibility, or not, for major spending decisions with long-term consequences. These are consequences that include maxing out Councils [sic] and Council company debt, so that the companies may not be able to pay expected dividends to the ratepayers in the next few years! It is that bad.

The challenges ahead are considerable. But we can achieve that fantastic future. We have to. We can achieve it if we replace secrecy with transparent processes and provide responsible leadership that listens and is up-front with the community about debt and costs. If we do that we can turn disillusion into a shared and inclusive vision for the city.

So imagine what YOU want Dunedin to be like in 20 years.

Imagine Dunedin with:
• a thriving economy featuring high value jobs and businesses that keep families living here
• suburbs of well-built, healthy houses
• streets of beautiful, rejuvenated heritage buildings being put to productive use
• renewable resources being utilized for lower cost energy.
• measures already taken to address climate change and peak oil
• well maintained civic amenities not saddled by a mountain of debt that ratepayers have to repay
• top notch infrastructure including comprehensive Broadband coverage everywhere
• a smooth coordinated public transport system and cycle and pedestrian network
• an accessible and well-protected surrounding environment full of nature’s treasures

Previous Councils and this current one, have not tried to imagine such a future and not planned to achieve it. They have ticked the boxes of bland Council vision statements, reacted to pet ideas dished up by special interest groups, and lurched from one to the next, piling a huge debt on all our shoulders in the process. At the same time some of our suburbs are mouldering from neglect; our digital infrastructure is falling behind other NZ communities; jobs are ebbing away and families are leaving for greener pastures. I and my team want to help turn that all around.
Read more

****

During the 2010 Dunedin Mayoral race the local newspaper ran this:

### ODT Online Tue, 7 Sep 2010
Mayoral Profile: Dave Cull
By David Loughrey
Dunedin city councillor Dave Cull is about to end his first term on the local authority, and has put his hand up for the council’s top job. With nine candidates, including himself, on his Greater Dunedin ticket, success could see him heading a group with a majority, on a council more recently made up of 15 independents. But he says that would be a good thing for a city that needs a “collegial” approach to reining in debt, and attracting business and people to Dunedin.

Dave Cull
Age: 60.
Family/marital status: Married, two daughters.
Occupation: Writer.
Council experience: One term as councillor.
Running for: Mayor and council.

Why are you standing?
I’m standing because when I put my hand up for council in 2007, I realised it was going to be something I was either going to be in for the long haul or not, so I’m in it for the long haul.
I’m standing for the mayoralty because I see the need for far more engaging and inclusive leadership than is being shown at the moment.

Tell me then, how you would go about engaging and including.
Well I think the context is that the current council and mayor …

Of which you’re one …
… of which I’m one, but the majority has not engaged genuinely, has not listened genuinely to the public, and has, worse than that, not got a cohesive, connected view of the projects the council is involved in. They tend to be isolated from one another, and the impact on one another is not fully appreciated till the negatives hit, I suppose. So I see a need for developing a much more future-focused vision for the city that looks at everything in a connected way.
Read more

****

Blog entry: Dave Cull for Dunedin City Mayor
Tuesday, September 14, 2010 at 2:02 PM
Ratepayers Association Questionnaire
By Dave Cull

The Greater Dunedin Team Answers Ratepayers Association Questions.

Greater Dunedin candidates declined to answer the Ratepayers Assoc questionnaire, the answers to which are to be published in D-Scene. Framed as either/or questions, the requested yes/no answers would oversimplify the issues with many of the questions. More importantly Ratepayers chairperson Lyndon Weggery acknowledged the Association would edit and “analyse” longer answers and distribute the results privately to Ratepayers Association and ex-Stop the Stadium members. We have no confidence that would be done in good faith. Mr Weggery (also on the committee of ex-STS) has signed STS newsletters containing untrue claims and misrepresentations about Greater Dunedin mayoral candidate Dave Cull’s views on the new stadium, and endorsing another candidate. Dishonesty and partisan commentary are incompatible with a purportedly independent survey.

However all the Greater Dunedin team recognise voters’ interest in our views and their right to hear them expressed publicly. We wholeheartedly promote transparency and also believe our views and positions on most subjects, while diverse, probably resonate with most of the membership of both the Ratepayers Association and what was Stop the Stadium. To that end we have each fully answered the questions posed by the ratepayers Association and posted them on our website: http://www.greaterdunedin.co.nz/. We encourage readers to read them there.
Greater Dunedin’s aim is to engage with and serve the interests and views of the whole Dunedin community. We welcome feedback, ideas, concerns and comments from all.

Following are the Ratepayers Association questions and my answers.
Continues at greaterdunedin.blogspot

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

D Scene: Dunedin City Council housekeeping

### D Scene 28-7-10

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

Call to liquidate STS (page 3)
By Wilma McCorkindale
[In brief] Dunedin City Council (DCC) has called for the last rites to be said over Stop The Stadium (STS), and applied to have the incorporated society liquidated. The DCC said STS was insolvent, and unable to pay the remaining $9,860.91 court costs owing after STS lost stadium legal battles between the two organisations last year. The application is due to be heard on August 30. STS chairman Dave Witherow said there was nothing fair about the move and STS would defend the action.
{continues} #bookmark

—

Post by Elizabeth Kerr

Thoughts on Sprey

Funny, when the whole “promoters don’t like it” red herring was thrown up middle last year, I was taken by how incredibly short sighted many were on this. When the hell have Kiwis ever been told by 1-2 people that they can’t do something – was there a shift in the Kiwi psyche happening?

Then comes the news from the Otago Daily Times today that the promoter critic of the stadium is working to get the first big act into the stadium.

“Dunedin’s new stadium could host a major international act and several smaller concerts every year, with three to four acts having already expressed interest in the stadium, “

Of course I had some ideas as to what was going on at the time, and it seems that they may have borne some fruit. Because nothing has changed between then and now except the certainty that the stadium is to be built, and the very real possibility that some other promoter might get in first.

My initial reaction was that they were protecting their own ‘Patch” ie Wgtn, and it would appear there seems to be something in this.

I also had concerns over his comments about getting acts to Dunedin (as echoed ad nauseam by ‘anti’ folk here) but suddenly this doesn’t seem to be such an issue. Sure it’s not going to be the easiest thing in the world, but obviously he doesn’t see it as such a big hurdle as some, as he wouldn’t be working on bringing acts to the lower south.

There was no talk of too small a population, no talk of not the right equipment, none of the defeatist stuff. The promoter with the biggest potential losses (as demonstrated by his Heavy Metal Easter event in wgtn) doesn’t see these as issues for concerts big and smaller to be at our stadium.

The other events promoter at the CST media briefing, “Mr Goldsmith said the stadium would be the only covered entertainment venue of its size in the southern hemisphere.

It also turns out that the roofed stadium is also an asset to holding concerts at the stadium, lights etc can be hung from it.

Sprey went on to say “Dunedin can attract the big concerts”. Really, I thought you told us it can’t, could it be it can, and it will so you want part of the money that will be involved?

But at the end of it all, the dear old ODT still allows the stupid to hang themselves with their comments – and good luck to them too.

Submitted by MikeStk on Wed, 13/05/2009 – 11:51am.
So he needs 54,000 attendees to break even – that’s half of Dunedin’s population – but the stadium seats something under 30,000 …. oops!

You arrogant stupid man, this was 54,000 for the TWO concerts, not one. Westpac stadium doesn’t hold 54,000 it has roughly the same capacity as ours will have, and sorry but Ozzy, Kiss and Alice Cooper have a rather narrow appeal, even if it were held in West Auckland it would have struggled to fill a stadium there.

I was accused of ringing the ‘build it and they will come bell’, when I first questioned the motives for their original negative comments, seems that bell is well in tune, and they are coming.

Good on the CST for holding this press conference, they have been criticised for not doing enough of this public information work, not that it satisfies everyone, MichaelA (David’s twin brother?), this public information is now labelled brainwashing. I guess there’s just no pleasing anyone.

Again, full story in the ODT Online

StS withdrawal of appeals?

Council has today been advised by Stop the Stadium that they have withdrawn their appeal against the Stadium Plan Change and also their appeal against the Notice of Requirement for the arterial road. They have also issued a press statement to this effect. It is not, as yet, on their website though!

This from a very good source.

Latest Funding Fight

blah blah blah,

more money raised, more from Bev and of course more rubbish in the ODT comments section.

However my eye’s were a little amazed to see such an Intelligent and Eloquent person such as Cr Michael Deaker state

” he would ignore the idea the project had been given “some kind of permission” from the Crown.

Any thought of “putting a plastic roof” on another rugby field was “absolutely, definitely not a prudent financial decision”, no matter who gave permission”

Come on Michael, this might be an expression of your exasperation with this project, but you of all people know that this is not a ‘plastic roof’ and just another ‘rugby field’.

Anything that Cr Gerry Eckhoff has to say needs to be tempered with the fact that his baggage predetermines any sanity coming from his mouth – conservative libertarian rural gentry.

And of course Bev Butler…

Come on Michael, you are an exceedingly well versed and researched person, please don’t play these sound bite games with the public, it’s not helping anyone.

Full ODT link here

Today, Bev to planet Mars…

Well, as good as…

—

Public Forum Speech to ORC
Tuesday March 3, 2009

By Bev Butler

The Otago Regional Council’s mission and purpose is to protect and enhance our natural environment and resources. You should not even be contemplating borrowing $37.5 million to help fund a new stadium. Your own Chair has expressed the view that you should stick to your core business – but only after you fund the rugby stadium. The logic of this defies me! Put simply, you have no business in being involved in this project.

At the last Public Forum, Tony Borick, on behalf of the Ratepayers and Householders’ Association, spoke to you of his concerns regarding the legality of the Otago Regional Council donating $37.5 million to the stadium project. He outlined his concerns referring to sections of the Local Government Act 2002. There has been much debate as to whether the Otago Regional Council is going beyond their mandate of what constitutes core services for a Regional Council. As a follow up to these concerns, Stop The Stadium Inc is currently seeking legal advice from ChenPalmer (specialists in Public Law, Wellington) in relation to the legality of any decision of the Otago Regional Council to commit funding to the stadium project, and that depending on the advice received, Stop The Stadium may take further legal action.

You have ignored the views of the ratepayers who have indicated in the only independent professional survey to date that they do not support ratepayer funding for the project. I would like to now table this survey where 78.3% of citizens with an opinion are opposed to public funding of the stadium. This is overwhelming and the data for this survey was collected four months ago. Since then the economic crisis has worsened and I believe the percentage opposed has probably increased further. You are required by law to be prudent and conservative guardians of our resources. Should you vote to grant $37.5 million to the stadium project you would show yourselves to be the very opposite.

Recently, Stop The Stadium wrote to all leaders of political parties requesting an opportunity to meet with them to present the other side of the stadium story. Responses are just beginning to come in. We received a letter from Mr Peter Dunne, the Minister of Revenue and Leader of the United Future Party. In this letter, Mr Dunne states: “I have noted your comments about local opposition to this proposal the parallel which comes to mind is the development of the Westpac Regional Stadium, which occurred only on the basis of strong regional support. If that kind of support is not forthcoming in this instance, then I think that it would be inappropriate for the Government to be involved.” Mr Dunne rightly recognises that projects need community support, which is so lacking in this instance. It is a travesty of democracy in Dunedin when the overwhelming majority of citizens have persistently told both councils through public submissions during the consultation process, letters to the editor and the University survey that they do not support the stadium.

When I spoke in the public forum on 11 February 2009, I tabled a Stop The Stadium press release outlining that $8.7 million went “missing” from the Carisbrook Stadium Trust’s private funding commitments between May and November last year. This morning we read in the Otago Daily Times that a Dunedin City councillor has heard rumours that some of the private funding contracts are in fact dummy contracts. I wish to add to this rumour the following and in doing so if these rumours are unfounded I will not hesitate to give a full apology. Recently an unnamed Dunedin businessman told me that people were being approached to sign private funding contracts and being told they wouldn’t need to be bound by them – that they just needed to have signatures on the contracts. If this rumour is correct then this is scandalous. One way to lay rumours like this to rest is to insist that all the private funding contracts are independently reviewed. Why hasn’t this already been done? One wonders! Is it the same reason why the independent Davis Langdon peer review was not completed March 2008?

Today this scandalous project should be put to rest. Please, for the financial health of this city, lay it to rest. We are being gripped by a major worldwide economic crisis which is worsening day by day. Many in our community are already facing hardship. This proposal has deeply divided our community – as you well know. It is a localised version of the kind of division that occurred during the ’81 Springbok Tour. Incidentally, they both involve the game of rugby and its politics. Not only will the proposed stadium be a financial drain with predicted annual operating losses – it will drain our community spirit. It will always be a symbol of division if, God forbid, it is ever built. Dunedin does not need this stadium. Dunedin cannot afford this stadium. Please stop.

[ends]

{Link removed when STS website taken down. -Eds}

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

In response to Dougal Stevenson

See, why did he have to do that. Dougal was making perfect sense until he went off on a disingenuous tangent. His argument around cost and debt etc all made sense and of course is perfectly cautionary. However as Mr Stevenson {ed correction hideous spelling mistake, so sorry Dougal} is a very intelligent man, these were not flippant words, they were well chosen and deliberately designed to throw more false barriers to this development.

“As things stand, no pun intended, Rugby is about the only sport that can be played under the stadiums plastic roof, on the field, above the gravel and the mud below. Geology to test an Engineer and confound accurate costing.”

See why did he put that in there? He’s a very intelligent person, astutely following the comings and goings of this saga. I saw him at the crucial Council vote the other week, dictaphone in hand making notes all along.

For a start, yes the ETFE roof is a form of plastic, but to use the word plastic is in itself is designed to be derogatory, invoking imagery of cheap, perishable and possibly prone to failing. After all rubbish bags are made of plastic, cheap things are made of plastic. But lets look at that so called ‘plastic roof’ as so many detesters call it. Ethylene tetrafluoroethylene or ETFE has “high corrosion resistance and strength over a wide temperature”, further “Compared to glass, ETFE film is 1% the weight, transmits more light and costs 24% to 70% less to install. It’s also resilient (able to bear 400 times its own weight, self-cleaning (due to its nonstick surface) and recyclable.”

On engineering risk at Stadium site

He’s not wrong! Further to Paul’s post ‘ODT remiss’ this is where “The Decision” goes on engineering risk for the stadium area.

****

Planning commissioners Roger Tasker, John Lumsden and John Matthews have made the decision to accept, subject to amendments, Plan Change 8 as notified.

This means the Dunedin City District Plan will contain a new Chapter 27, Stadium as it relates to the (new) Stadium Zone and (extended) Campus Zone.

The stadium site is approximately 5.5ha in size and is generally located between Anzac Avenue (SH 88 ) to the north, Ravensbourne Road, Logan Park and the Logan Point Quarry to the east, the Water of Leith to the west, and the Main South Railway line to the south.

The area is intended to provide for a purpose-built regional stadium with a capacity for up to 35,000 spectators, plus a number of associated activities.

****

During the plan change hearings, Dunedin City Council (the Applicant) called on the evidence of consulting engineers David John Hamilton and Roderick (Rod) Keith Macleod.

Mr Hamilton had prepared evidence in relation to stormwater issues and flooding threats, including the existing environment, the effect of development, appropriate mitigation measures and response to submissions.

He used the terminology ‘stormwater’ to refer to water that is generated by rainfall on the site itself, and ‘flooding’ to refer to an external threat from either freshwater or sea water.

In his Executive Summary, he said:
(3.1) The proposed site is subject to flooding threats from three sources: Otago Harbour, Water of Leith and Opoho Creek;
(3.2) In my assessment the proposed minimum floor level for buildings set at 3.7m above mean sea level provides an appropriate mitigation of the impacts of flooding from all three sources including allowances for climate and sea level change; and
(3.3) Stormwater generated from the site is expected to be slightly less than that permitted under the current zoning.

He noted the site is reclaimed land that predates 1909. The existing ground level at the site varies from 2m to 3.8m with much of the site above 3.2m.

Mr Macleod had prepared evidence in relation to natural hazards and sub-surface conditions at Logan Point.

The evidence included a review of ‘Preliminary Geotechnical Investigations Report and Contamination Investigations Report’ prepared by Tonkin & Taylor Ltd (T & T), dated December 2007; the ‘additional information’ prepared by Beca Carter Hollings & Ferner Ltd (Beca), dated 8 and 22 February 2008; and the Statement of Evidence of David John Hamilton regarding District Plan Change 8.

Mr Macleod found that, “Whilst the site is at risk from: foundation liquefaction; foundation lateral spreading; tsunami events; predicted climate change effects upon groundwater levels; storm surge events; and flooding this is no different that [sic] other land in the area and can be appropriately managed.”

Subject to his concerns regarding natural hazards and foundation conditions being addressed at subsequent stages of the development (building consent), he recommended “the zone change application should not be withheld”.

He could see no reason why Plan Change 8 should be declined on geotechnical or engineering risk matters.

Mr Macleod accepted that specific design of building foundations would be required but this was consistent with the site’s current industrial zoning and consistent with that which would be required on adjacent land. Such matters could be appropriately dealt with at the detailed design stage and could be adequately addressed through the building consent process.

****

The commissioners referred to Council policy planner Paul Freeland’s evidence in which he said, “Issues in respect of this matter [engineering risk] have been covered in the evidence of Messrs Hamilton and McLeod [sic]. From a planning perspective there remains little comment beyond noting that I am satisfied that the effects of these issues have been adequately considered and mitigated.”

The commissioners agreed with Mr Freeland that the expert evidence provided dealt suitably with these issues.

****

In regard to Stop the Stadium Inc’s submission (see 10.0 Specific Matters Raised in Submissions), the commissioners observed that while the submission clearly indicated a list of specific concerns [including engineering risk] with the provisions of the Plan Change, “the submitter did not call evidence that dealt specifically with these issues. Accordingly, and in the absence of any further consideration by the submitter, we prefer the evidence presented by Mr Freeland, on behalf of the Council.”

****

In section 8.9 (para 55) of the decision, the commissioners had this to say about site contamination: “We noted that the documentation that accompanies Plan Change 8 recognises the likelihood of contamination of the stadium site, and that this issue is controlled and managed by the provisions of the Regional Plan: Waste for Otago. We are satisfied, therefore, that any work occurring on a contaminated site would require a resource consent from the Otago Regional Council.”

Postscript: Appeals to Environment Court on the decision must be lodged by 23 February 2009.

OK, state of play?

I’ll try to lay it out for you, but the crux of the matter, despite the sustained efforts of the StS and councillors opposing the development, Council today decided to continue with the project, voting 10-5. This is more or less the green light (read Peter E’s cautions below and media confusion), although as you learn in life nothing is determined until the first people go through the turnstiles of the first event at the stadium.

TV3 News summary of impending decision

Who is the eloquent writer for the StS now?

I almost didn’t want to dignify Hayden or the StS with a jibe at the anti-stadium lot, but who the hell is writing their material now.

Militant and aggressive are understatements. Take for instance the latest froth coming from them;

“petrified councillors”
“who have forfeited all claim to moral legitimacy”
“we want this bloodsucker buried”
“The only thing now that can defeat us is apathy”
“Mobilise your own battalion and reclaim your city”

Holly Crap, will Pinky* be there, will there be uniforms, well considering Hayden Meikle’s description of Dave Witherow’s attack on him, not a lot seems to surprise me from this lot any more.

* Who is Pinkie

Fact or Fiction

Just for Fun

9 Reasons the StS is winning…

the ignorant or illinformed hearts and minds of the masses, it seems.

Take for instance the latest uninformed letter to the editor in the ODT this Saturday (20 Dec 2008) by Brian Smith, “Nine Reasons for Dunedin to say ‘No'”. Mr Smith may as well be called Joe Blogs, for Mr Smith represents the woefully uninformed (or worse ignorant) masses who have been fed lies and disinformation for too long now for what he states in his letter he honestly believes to be the truth. Like G W Bush telling us over and over about WMDs in Iraq (which of course wasn’t true and known to be so by British Intelligence before the fact), the StS and it’s cohorts have managed to manipulate the media and the public into believing any rubbish, even if it’s not true.

1. The burden on the Dunedin City Council and the Otago Regional Council ratepayers will cripple this city.

I’ve always stated that this is possibly the only argument that I could not argue against without deep investigation and economic modelling. However he is of course wrong, it will not cripple the city. It may put a strain on budgets etc, but just as those who claim not going ahead will be the death nail of the city, this is pure conjecture.

2. The world recession with job losses and people not spending, is the worst since the great depression.

Apart from being wrong, this argument is very weak. Global economic cycles involve recession and growth. This may be the deepest recession since the depression, for the US and Europe, however for NZ, this recession isn’t as deep as the Asian downturn recently. Unemployment is expected to peak at 7%, that is considerably less then the peak of 1992 at 10.4%. We managed our way out of that economic cycle, and considering treasury and the reserve bank both predict growth of 4.1% by 2011, this is a relatively shallow recession for NZ. Also, people are spending. The rural areas have actually experienced year on year growth in consumer spending, this is something not many analysis’s predicted, but disproves the argument above.

3. Location – such a large building on a reclaimed lake next to the mouth of a waterway next to rising sea levels.

Wrong, flat out wrong. I’ve only lived in Dunedin for the past 11 years, however I can’t remember the last time the Water of Leith flooded the Fonterra cool stores and other business currently located on the site. Has Mr Smith forgotten about the Water of Leith flood protection scheme? It seems that the geotechnical experts know less about the structure of the ground than Mr Smith. It is true that unlike Manhattan (which is built on pure granite) this is reclaimed land, but then if the engineers know how to build a 235m, 50 storey, 1.2m sq ft skyscraper on reclaimed land on Canary Wharf in London, a relatively light weight and small footprint stadium won’t be too much of a problem for them. The risk of rising sea levels from global warming has been debunked in previous posts- end of story.

4. It is too small – the minimum is 35,000 for a category A rugby tests.

Correct it is too small for category A tests. But considering category A rugby tests are The Lions Tours, Rugby World Cup finals and Bledislow cup matches, this should not be of concern. England, South Africa and Australia test matches including Tri-Nations will all be held here in the new stadium. The cost associated with another 5,000 would have meant even I would have opposed the stadium. Considering it is also better to be in a 3/4-full smaller stadium than rattling around a bigger stadium atmosphere wise etc the capacity they have settled on is about right. The very suggestion is that big rugby matches won’t be held here, simply is scare mongering.

5. Roof – I am not convinced the grass will grow.

Again I am pleased that the expertise of Mr Smith is greater than that of the experts who have created the material and the clinical studies carried out by experts in turf management on site. Despite all of the evidence showing that the grass will grow (you know scientific stuff), Mr Smith doesn’t think so, that’s good enough for him. Bloody hell!

6. No Cricket – the University Oval is nice but too small for one-day internationals.

Not sure what Mr Smith means by this. Is the ground physically too small, or the capacity? Considering the University Oval will probably have it’s dimensions increased considerably when the old Art Gallery is finally demolished, the ground is similar in size to many ODI grounds. It’s a purpose built ground unlike Eden Park with a rectangular shape or Lancaster Park again with a Rugby shape. Capacity wise it is far inferior to the likes of the Cake Tin, but then ODIs are held in Queenstown. However this discussion isn’t about the Oval, and the cost consideration to put a roofed stadium that could accommodate Cricket is just one that isn’t even worth mentioning. Not unless that is the good people of Dunedin would stump out close to half a billion dollars – but then Mr Smith doesn’t think the grass will grow anyway.

7. Safety – in a natural disaster (i.e. earthquake) evacuating 29,000 people from a ground close to an Lpg installation and surrounded by large petrol storage tanks.

Oh, hell where do you start with this one. Earthquakes. Seems the expert seismic analysis of Mr Smith is somewhat woeful (yet again), in that Dunedin has a less than 1% chance of a earthquake with “Widespread building and bridge failure, ground cracking and landslips.” This is from the council’s own earthquake assessments. The 1-10% chance of “roof tiles falling, chimneys break, furniture moves” would hardly induce structural damage to the mentioned ‘hazards’.

Seriously it makes you weep that this rubbish is printed let alone discussed in the pubs and workplaces.

8 Public Safety with the potential for a terrorist attack

there is a greater chance the Easter Bunny running amok than this happening. Why didn’t he just say, “potential for the sky to fall” or meteorite or black hole – they’re out there man!

If I wasn’t weeping before, I’m just bloody depressed now. This tripe is published in the paper – people believe this stuff. Now I know how G W Bush managed to invade Iraq, the people really are that bloody stupid.

9 Carisbrook – this year, we celebrated 100 years of Rugby at Carisbrook. It is right up there with the most famous rugby grounds around the world. The Historic Places Trust recognised this and said the ground had a significant part in the history of Dunedin and Otago. International cricket has also been played there over the years. I believe it belongs to the people of Otago and the DCC should take ownership and redevelop Carisbrook with a minimum 35,000 seats. if we walk away from 100 years of history and tradition we have nothing.

Despite what the good people of Dunedin think about Carisbrook, it is not ‘up there’ internationally. I know, I am a sports nut, and in the UK, Wales, Ireland and Scotland, unless you are a pure rugby fan, you have no idea about Carisbrook. Having also lived in Vancouver and other sub rugby nations, I know for a fact that Carisbrook isn’t known at all, funny they don’t even know where Dunedin is. It’s a historical ‘folk hero’ ground in NZ.

But then Anfield in Liverpool and Highbury in London also have considerable history. Anfield built in 1884 was the original home of Everton FC, but jointly used by Liverpool and Everton until Everton left to build their own iconic stadium Goodison Park just across Stanley Park. Despite the Kop (possibly the most famous stand in the world) and the echo’s of “you’ll never walk alone” and 124 years of histroy, Liverpool FC are currently developing plans to build a new stadium in Stanley Park. Highbury, the iconic and more correctly named Arsenal Stadium, designed by the famous Archibald Leitch in 1913 and home to Arsenal FC until recently is considerably more famous than Carisbrook internationally. This too didn’t preclude redevelopment, into that of luxury apartments when Arsenal FC decided to move in the luxurious Emirates Stadium down the road. This despite a $22m pound redevelopment in the 1990s. But then of course possibly up there with Yankee Stadium is Wembley as the most famous sports grounds internationally. The previous Wembley stadium, built in 1922-1923, apart from holding the Football World Cup in 1966 and 1948 Summer Olympics, not to mention countless other massive sporting occasions (like the home of the FA Cup for decades), also hosted iconic cultural events like Live Aid in 1985. But like all good things, this came to an end, and the good people of London are gifted possibly the most wonderful stadium in the world with the New Wembley Stadium. Finally Yankee Stadium RIP, long live the new Yankee Stadium, I have posted on this previously – how cool is Yogi Bera.

These and dozens upon dozens of other cities have all chosen to build on the past rather than preserve sentimentality. These new stadiums don’t denigrate the past, they add to the past and set foundations for the future. To build a 35,000 seater stadium on the site of the present Carisbrook with a roof would have been financial idiocy, without a roof, just madness. The history of Carisbrook can live on, and the traditions of the future set in the new stadium. Historic sentimentality (without an endless source of money) is a folly in the reality of modern sports and entertainment businesses.

Along with others over the last week wrongfully stating that the Caledonian is an international quality stadium, the latest rehash of the old and discredited really needs to be exposed for the twaddle it is.

If you believe that the city can’t afford the stadium fine, but unless you are a materials expert, turf management technician, civil engineering and seismic modelling expert, international security expert, geology, geomorphology and climate change expert, and can state for a fact the above arguments, please kindly preserve your dignity and respect the intelligence of others and shut up – in no uncertain terms.

Mr Smith or Joe Blogs has proven my point regretably. The inaccurate and discredited arguments put forward as valid argument against the stadium have been picked up by the public and they are now running with it. Just as GW Bush was able to hoodwink millions of Americans, the StS and it’s merry band of disharmonious followers have managed to do this city a massive disservice – bugger it, they’ve conned them.

To tell the truth, you people don’t actually deserve this stadium.

StS split – a real shame for them

Possibly only one of two that was able to engage in meaningful debate surrounding the stadium, Elizabeth Kerr has resigned from the StS committee.

This from the ODT today (Sat 15 Nov 2008)

Elizabeth Kerr, a former chairwoman of the Otago branch of the New Zealand Historic Places Trust, resigned last weekend from the committee of the group opposing the stadium because of the issue.

Approached for comment yesterday, president Bev Butler said Ms Kerr, and another member both women declined to name, had been asked to leave.

Ms Kerr said yesterday she resigned because as a committee member of Stop the Stadium she was concerned the group was not pursuing planning advice early on.

“I truly believe in using professionals.”

A group of seven people, including Stop the Stadium members, had got together to fund the hiring of planner Andrew Henderson, who is listed to give evidence at the hearing on Thursday.

Ms Kerr said she was involved in that initiative.

Elizabeth was always willing to debate the issues at hand, and of course through her experience was able to present reasoned argument in areas of her expertise. An ability to rise above the personal, I hope she continues to post at the site, it was always informed debate.

Banned!!!

This is truly pathetic and a very sad indictment on those conducting a campaign to destroy the hopes of many of us wanting a stadium built.

I have been actively engaged in presenting an alternate voice on their web site. It is of course their web site and they can do what they like, but as a blog inviting public opinion, I took up my democratic right to voice a free opinion.