STOP THE STADIUM - CLUB HOUSE - Debate The Issue Here

[SYDNEY]

For those opposed to the Dunedin Stadium redevelopment..knock yourselves out and enjoy your new home ......

[flyin_higher]

Indeed. Please discuss your opposition to the Dunedin stadium redevelopment here

[GoluBoy]

^^:lol: Thank GOD! for some initiative:cheers:

[Marky Mark]

http://www.stadions.dk/billeder/middelfart4.jpg:lol:

[dunedin]

^^
Oh its gorgeous absoloutley breath taking those concrete teraces WOW they splurged out there didn't they rates will postively sky rocket :bash:

[bing222]

LOL

[Marky Mark]

^^
Oh its gorgeous absoloutley breath taking those concrete teraces WOW they splurged out there didn't they rates will postively sky rocket :bash:

Seating for 200 :banana: Standing room for 1000 :lol::cheers:

[dunedin]

Seating for 200 :banana: Standing room for 1000 :lol::cheers:

Where do they get off space for 1200 people are they sure Dunedin can draw in all those people this will put Dunedin into a full on recession :ohno:

[dunedin]

Right all the STS members :evil: will be getting ready for the noon march tomorrow they have to get up and get into the wheelchairs get there sticks and walking frames and get a shuffle on so they can make it to town by tomorrow:doh:

[IHaveNoLegs]

http://www.stadions.dk/billeder/middelfart4.jpg:lol:

that probably would fit everyone who wanted to go to a rugby game in dunedin though :ohno:

[dunedin]

that probably would fit everyone who wanted to go to a rugby game in dunedin though :ohno:

You are kidding right didn't you see the match between the ABs snd the Springboks it was the first test match to sell out and be completely full I was there you could barely move and they bought an extra 5000 seats down from CHCH

[But Who's Counting?]

"Stadium, Schmadium

Year after year, city boosters tell us building new stadiums at a cost of hundreds of millions or even a billion dollars will create jobs, bring back neighborhoods, spur development, build national buzz and image, and stimulate local economies. The evidence shows this is mostly hooey. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Mark Yost sheds light on one of the great public policy travesties of our time:

'Yes, stadiums do create high-paying construction jobs for a year or two. But the vast majority of long-term employment is low-wage concession jobs. A Congressional Research Service study of the Baltimore Ravens stadium found that each job created cost the state $127,000. By comparison, Maryland’s Sunny Day Fund created jobs for about $6,000 each … A 1998 report by the New York City Independent Budget Office found no “economic rationale for assuming that building any new stadium would itself spur construction of office towers and hotels. Total output resulting from the presence of the teams in the city amounts to less than one tenth of one percent of the economic activity in New York City.” …

But perhaps the best argument against publicly financed stadiums is straight out of Econ 101: Opportunity cost. “What else could the city have invested its money in and what kind of a return would it have produced?” said King Banaian, chairman of the St. Cloud State (Minn.) Economics Dept.

While using public money to subsidize stadiums and sports is economics and bad economic development is in most every city, wealthy cities like NYC, DC, LA or Boston can to some degree afford such extravagances. The real tragedies are in smaller, older, stagnating rustbelt cities - like Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Detroit, Buffalo, St. Louis and others, where city revenues are terribly strapped and stadium funding takes away from pressing local needs from police and fire to schools and parks. I am amazed and outraged that such blatant abuse of the public purse is allowed to go on."

http://www.creativeclass.com/creative_class/2008/07/19/stadium-schmadium/

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB121625362443460331.html?mod=Sports90_1

(Richard Florida is best known for his work in developing his concept of the creative class, and its ramifications in urban regeneration. This research was expressed in Florida's bestselling book The Rise of the Creative Class, Cities and the Creative Class, and The Flight of the Creative Class. A new book, focusing on the issues surrounding urban renewal and talent migration, titled Who's Your City?, was recently published.)

Sound familiar?

[UglyBob]

Yesterday's STS protest
SGQLokcbsic

iq8RaZ48IjY

LC5ahfTwzlk

n26yhusUTs0

kL6MPfpnG2w

_jA7nT0-Ko4

[dunedin]

Ohhh the one in the first vid with the dreads OMG he is a right bloody nutter he flipped his lid at the supermarket one day beacause a lable said it was on special and it wasn't

[IHaveNoLegs]

You are kidding right didn't you see the match between the ABs snd the Springboks it was the first test match to sell out and be completely full I was there you could barely move and they bought an extra 5000 seats down from CHCH
thats what 1 match in 3 years?
living in dunedin and in favour of this new stadium i'm sure you've been to a few otago/highlanders games in the past few years whose crowds have been dreadful at best

[GoluBoy]

What an absolute 'train wreck' those videos are.Very sad!.

1: Dad's Army on the drums.:lol:
2: A cameraman that's never heard of a tripod.:weird:
3: Gomer Pyle's wife wearing the Karitane yellow scarf, that's trying to swallow the Mic.Just has NO idea!....... [It's popping more times than a bowl of Sanitarium rice bubbles]:nuts:

Amateurs.Absolute AMATEURS!.

[Peter Entwisle]

Peter as an unbiased observer from halfway around the world who doesn't give a monkey's about whether the stadium is built or not; who despite having little desire to return; would still like to see New Zealand move onwards and upwards into the future...

You seem to be either;

A) Poorly educated and unable to form a coherent argument yourself or recognise when others form a coherent argument.

Or

B) A myopic militant who despises all those that disagree with him regardless of their own principled arguments and positions.

I say this because what Ugly Bob and Svartmetall have both said are well formed thoughts that indicate an understanding of the issues or the points raised in your arguments; and whilst your own arguments are generally well thought out you do not offer credit when credit is due to people who counter them well.

In my opinion Ugly_Bob has risen above the way that you chastise him; he retains the moral high ground and has on many occasions as you originally requested articulated well thought counter-points to your arguments. He never had an agenda; as far as I could tell he posted information on here in a reasonably unbiased way for the benefit of locals; others around NZ and expats such as myself that are interested in what is happening with regards to NZ's urban environment.

Your last string of replies on this forum confirms that either: A) you are so computer illiterate that you do not understand that another thread has been created specifically so that you can get on your soap-box without bothering the regular forumers here in this thread. Or B) that you are so blinded by your own sense of self-righteous importance and arrogance that you believe that by hijacking this thread that has been created for people that are primarily interested in the beautification; regeneration and urban development of their environments; your shining light of reason will somehow convert them to your cause.

SSC is not the place for this sort of carry-on; it’s not a recruiting ground for your organisation; leave that to the blogs; flyers; marches; community meetings and the local media.

If one of the other members of SSC was to hijack somewhere you like to spend time relaxing - the local bowling club clubrooms perhaps or maybe the RSA or even your sitting room whilst you enjoy your Sunday paper - with pro stadium palaver you would at best be mildly bemused and at worst down-right angry and would most likely proceed to chuck said person out.


Therefore in future you should either:


A) Understand the principles of this forum; the nature and make-up of the forumers that visit and respect that this was originally their place where no-one has an agenda quite like yours there are no pro-development vs. no development factions so act with some courtesy.

B) Develop a better standard of reading comprehension and realise that there is a new thread for you where the various merits for and against the stadium can be argued and take your arguments there.

Stop the Stadium Club House (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=676418)

C) Be banned by one of our lovely administrators.

D) Accept that you are a complete fuck-wit that is part of the reason why the demographic in NZ is so skewed towards the blue-rinse brigade; why so many young talented people feel that they need to be as far away from Hicksville (NZ) as possible; and that you should start becoming part of the solution rather than the problem.

E) Accept that there are bigger issues out there that need to be resolved and devote some of your time and energy to them.

Also don't try and tell me either that $140 million is a lot of money either; it isn't.

I work in a company that is essentially a funds management - private equity hybrid. Despite the credit crunch the team that I am a part of have just negotiated a £500 million revolving credit facility which is primarily for property transactions; as long as NZ continues to think small we will remain small.

This is not an issue of money; it is an issue of mindset. Dunedin would have the same ability to negotiate a facility that suits them; all it needs is the skill-set and the will.




Those of us that still have another 60 years to live would like to see NZ prosper.

So please either get with the program or get out of the way.

If only: I were poorly educated or a mindset militant. I am aware that another thread has been created - to be direct, because some people here know when they're losing an argument. To see my replies to Ugly Bob and Svartmetall please look above. With respect, your view of this is so offshore it's humorous. I'm pleased for you you have a hand in spending a 500 million pound credit facility. But please don't make me laugh.

Please make yourself familiar with the Dunedin City Council's available cash and credit lines.

It's a different story.


You are right it's a matter of mindset. Some people believe we can walk on water.

[flyin_higher]

^^To be clear again Peter, it's not all about 'loosing' or 'winning' the argument on this forum. There's more to it than that, like others have already said.

[Svartmetall]

If only: I were poorly educated or a mindset militant. I am aware that another thread has been created - to be direct, because some people here know when they're losing an argument. To see my replies to Ugly Bob and Svartmetall please look above. With respect, your view of this is so offshore it's humorous. I'm pleased for you you have a hand in spending a 500 million pound credit facility. But please don't make me laugh.

Please make yourself familiar with the Dunedin City Council's available cash and credit lines.

It's a different story.


You are right it's a matter of mindset. Some people believe we can walk on water.

Besides, you've not replied to my rebuttle regarding the differing economic conditions present in 1970's NZ to now. You're quite selective in how you deal with criticism of your viewpoints.

[Peter Entwisle]

Economic conditions during the 1970's are rather different to how they are now though aren't they, Peter?

I acknowledge that this particular case study might in some way lay lie to my claim, however, you are also forgetting to take into account mitigating factors in your argument. Unless you begin to factor for economic variences between 1970 and now this example isn't fully admissible.


OK. That was the 1970s. Now you tell me, what's different? Dunedin is still a no-growth/slow growth city. The proposed stadium is leveraged off the high attendances at Carisbrook in the 1990s. Which have since declined. In the 1970s such expectations were built on the idea Dunedin would always be a head office city. Now they're being built on the idea it will always be a big match city. I find both ideas somewhat doubtful. I would like to see a great future for Dunedin. But if we keep on floundering around in things which have died, it's hard to believe.

[Peter Entwisle]

Besides, you've not replied to my rebuttle regarding the differing economic conditions present in 1970's NZ to now. You're quite selective in how you deal with criticism of your viewpoints.


The main difference I can see between the early 1970s and now - is that there isn't much difference at all - in terms of the world economy - and with thought to Dunedin's. Both are a bit on the back foot. Specifically, the larger economy is more resilient; Dunedin's is more fragile.

[Peter Entwisle]

^^To be clear again Peter, it's not all about 'loosing' or 'winning' the argument on this forum. There's more to it than that, like others have already said.


I agree.

[Peter Entwisle]

Wow this thread is the biggest load of tripe I've read on this whole forum yet.

My general opinion of the stadium from the start was "wow that looks cool, but how the heck can they afford something like that in Dunedin?" I think it is something for Dunedin to sort out itself as it's a bit of a gold-plated solution to the "Carisbrook problem". However, it sounds like there's a pretty good argument that the gold-plated solution is what might be needed in a broader sense for the city.

In general I find myself frustrated by the lack of vision in New Zealand. This stadium does have that vision, and could achieve much more than one might necessarily think.

Regarding the personal abuse and totally unrelated rants in the above part of this thread, I really thought we were above that. Good calls from you flyin in trying to keep things decent.

That's about it. I feel the same way - including the sentiments of some of our expatriates. What is one to do? One has to laugh.

[Peter Entwisle]

With respect your a bit of a laugh Peter my dear

Fair enough, but I'm not calling it vision. If you want vision you need a good argument. What I'm saying is this isn't vision it's, "Yes, we can walk on water!"

[Peter Entwisle]

600 out of how many who live in duenedin?
but according to our reliable sts members "Over 1000 people marched to the Octagon with the Stop the Stadium mascot, the pink pig, accompanied by pink balloons, the Waitati Militia Band, placards, songs and chants, and headed by a Highland piper"
i always though a white elephant would have made a better logo than a flying pig

You might think that, but a flying pig is more to the point.

[Kiwi_Rich]

If only: I were poorly educated or a mindset militant. I am aware that another thread has been created - to be direct, because some people here know when they're losing an argument. To see my replies to Ugly Bob and Svartmetall please look above. With respect, your view of this is so offshore it's humorous. I'm pleased for you you have a hand in spending a 500 million pound credit facility. But please don't make me laugh.

Please make yourself familiar with the Dunedin City Council's available cash and credit lines.

It's a different story.


You are right it's a matter of mindset. Some people believe we can walk on water.

Peter I am not trying to win an argument about what happens in Dunedin; frankly I don't care; I have never lived there nor ever will; I also believe it to be highly unlikely I would ever use such a stadium at all at any point in time in the future.

Instead the point I was making is that this forum is not one of your community hall meetings - I believe and I am sure other forumers here agree; that you have fundamentally misunderstood the nature and make up of this forum and as a result failed to take advantage of some of the goodwill that may have existed toward your cause here.

You have hijacked it with a specific agenda and with a tone that frankly rubs people the wrong way.

I have read a number of articles that state that spending large sums on things such as sporting infrastructure is one of the most foolish things that a public body can do with its money; for example the Sydney Olympics debrief and the ODA here in the UK. I personally agree with you on a number of your points as public money can be a scarce resource and needs to be spent wisely. However; as of yet you are unable to provide any alternative to this stadium for advancing Dunedin and choose instead to mimic Charles De Gaulle with your constant - no! or as the case may be here - stop!

With the amount of money that is being spent on this proposed stadium; a research facility; a hospital; expansion of the uni; infrastructure improvements are some of only many logical alternatives that would almost certainly provide a much better future for Dunedin in the long term.

Perhaps you have some ideas of your own?!

I am glad you found the fact that I am 16,000 miles away "humourous"; given that I grew up on the South Island and have only spent about 2.5 of my 23 years away from it I do have a reasonable knowledge of what is being discussed; after all I can vote later this year so I am not entirely disconnected from process in NZ just yet. Therefore; if I actually cared about the outcome of this debate how far away I am wouldn't really matter; my opinion would matter just the same as if I lived back in Christchurch.

I am also glad that the company that I work for now having a large sum to spend is a fact that brings you great joy.

Its nice to bring a little sunshine into someone's life. :)

I won't be looking up Dunedin's credit status; cash flows; A & L; BS; holding companies or any other aspects of their financial information as I am stating categorically that I simply don't care.

What I care about is enjoying these forums; I would appreciate if you can understand that people here enjoy casual discourse; not having an agenda rubbed in their face.

So please stop acting like such a myopic militant and just relax a bit more about things here. Try commenting on something else besides the stadium if architecture and urban design truly are passions of yours as you are attempting to have us believe. This is what these forums are here for after all; and not just another chance for you to get on your soap box.

I don't know how STS heard about SSC but whoever thought it may be some kind of recruiting ground; it isn't.

I also notice that you have been editing Wikipedia too Peter; the internet is a powerful tool; but if you continue to generate such animosity amongst the online community it will surely only be counter productive to your cause.:cheers:

[UglyBob]

The main difference I can see between the early 1970s and now - is that there isn't much difference at all - in terms of the world economy - and with thought to Dunedin's. Both are a bit on the back foot. Specifically, the larger economy is more resilient; Dunedin's is more fragile.

With all due respect Peter, this is a very dubious assertion. As an historian you'll know that old adage 'the past is another country', that every event is unique and although we may see similarities between the present and the past, we need as best we can to take the past on its own merits.

Dunedin in the 1970s was a very different kettle of fish to today. The city had a fair number of Head Offices for national companies, government departments had large regional contingents, Hillside Railway Workshops and the Waitaki Freezing Works at Burnside employed large numbers of people; there was also the Milburn Cement Works and an Acid Plant at Burnside; Shacklocks in Caversham; Wilson's Distillery; Port Chalmers did not exist as a container terminal etc.. The University was only a third of its current size. The city was geared toward an economy which was largely centrally regulated and focused on export of frozen meat.

Throughout the '70s, '80s and '90s most of those components of the local economy got stripped away. Head Offices relocated closer to their mass markets, government cut back on regional staff, privatisation destroyed the Railways as it was and almost led to the closure of Hillside, Waitaki Freezing Works closed with the loss of over 1000 jobs. About the only growth in the city came from the University and the drift of retail north from the Exchange to George Street, where there was a slightly better micro-climate and proximity to the student population.

In 1976 the usually resident population of the Dunedin metro area was 120,000; in 2006 it was 118,000 although to be fair it was probably closer to 121,000 due to the way census data is calculated. The University (from around 7,000 students in 1976) now has a roll of approx 20,000 so it's fair to suggest that the 1970s to 1990s have seen a contraction of the city's population of around 13,000. It's also probably fair to say hand in hand with that contraction that Dunedin does not have the range of certain industries that existed during the early 1970s.

The development attempts of the early 1970s and mid-1980s fall into this context. I was only a toddler when John Wickliffe House was built although I remember walking through its empty shopping mall as a child (back when buses used to stop in the Queens Gardens!) Although I don't mind it as a building, I always thought it a shame that the old Stock Exchange was demolished as it was an exceptional example of Victorian architecture. In similar vein I still frown when I see the site of the former ODT buildings, demolished with indecent haste in the mid-1980s for a hotel development that died with the sharemarket crash. I recall quite vividly the Excelsior Holdings period with Wilson Neil House (as Otago House was named on opening) and plans for a bigger 16 level tower on the Excelsior Hotel site on Princes St and another 12 level high rise next to the Imperial Buildings in Queens Gardens;there was also the large multiplex/mall proposed for the Farmers Department Store site on George Street. National economic downturns and an even flatter local economy killed these projects.

Which brings us to now. Why given my somewhat gloomy analysis (which I think by and large accords with your own) would I have a sense optimism?

I think that beside particular types of manufacturing, which in Dunedin is undoubtedly fragile (as it is in NZ generally), the rest of the local economy is in reasonably good shape -- at least far better than it has been over the last few decades. The University is even more of a powerhouse than it used to be and the growing links between town and gown for commerical purposes have already benefited and will continue to benefit the city. As an education centre Dunedin is strong and it is becoming increasingly strong as a centre for research and development. The Centre for Innovation, new Institute of Applied Design, Upstart Business Incubator and the council's Economic Development Unit have put a great deal of work into fostering this sector -- IT, biotechnology, applied design, fashion have flourished to varying levels albeit to date on a small scale. These are areas where central government has also shared a vision of Dunedin as an R&D centre and provided various types of support. Research alone is now worth $170m year to Dunedin.

There has also been active targeting of student entrepreneurship based on evidence that once students own businesses they are more likely to be retained by the city after graduation. Although many of these businesses are temporary ones designed to pay the bills or the costs of the Gardies or Orie, others are not -- e.g. Cook Brothers construction company and Alibi Bar in the Octagon along with the venerable Captain Cook Tavern itself are now student enterprises. Where in the past the city was complacent about the student population other than collecting their rents, there is evidence that over the last seven years that in this and other areas it has decided to focus on building on its strengths.

Then we have the area of Tourism. Who would have thought 20 or 30 years ago that Dunedin would be considered a 'must see' destination? Fine museums and art galleries (you can take some credit for one of those), some stunning architecture and eco-tourism opportunities have been leveraged off with new proposals -- the Orokonui Eco-Sanctuary (which I'm glad to see now has funding to build a visitor centre and open to the public -- I look forward to seeing my fencepost), the Chinese Garden, the upcoming redevelopment of the Otago Settlers Museum, all supported by central government. Then there's the private sector investment in tourism -- the Hilton Hotel, Mercure Hotel, St Clair Spa/Hotel, new restaurants under development, the potential of the Harbourside project (if properly managed) and dare I say it (at least in part) the proposed Stadium.

Have you read the DCC's Tourism/Visitor Strategy? Currently tourism accounts for 10% of FTE nationally and 6.5% of FTEs in Dunedin. If the sector in Dunedin can be grown to the current national average that would be 1500 new jobs in the city. Now Hilton and Air NZ are bedfellows in attempts to grow the Dunedin market by 10% to 15% by using their international marketing abilities/networks. Tourism Dunedin is the only regional tourism group in the country with an office in Australia. The council's Project Gateway is designed to foster tourist and commercial travel between Dunedin and Australia.

Now lets look at city infrastructure. Over the last 8 years the city has built a new reservoir at Mt Grand, undertaken extensive (and ongoing) sewerage upgrades at its Tahuna Plant; the city is currently extending mains water supply to the Warrington/Seacliff communities and building a new community centre at Waikouaiti. Considerable money has been spent on Dunedin International Airport with plans to create an Airport Zone to consolidate and that work. Port Chalmers has blossomed and has plans for a deep water port -- admittedly the ORC stake in Lyttleton keeps the neighbouring pitbull at bay -- but the Port's done very well of late.

As has been mentioned, there's also growth in the wider Otago and Southland regions. I stand by my contention that downstream this can only be good for Dunedin. It will create opportunities to leverage even more growth if people with vision and courage are willing to do so. In my opinion, Otago has always been quite divided -- geography does not help -- but now we're seeing initiatives like the Chinese Goldmining Trail or the Winter Games (imagine that in part at the Stadium). THere's opportunities in them there hills -- both the seven hills of Dunedin and those of Central.

I haven't even touched on oil/minerals/energy projects but if some of these do come to fruition they would transform the South. Dairying and wine are booming and forestry will probably have its day too -- if people can ever agree to the construction of large processing facilities.

So my point is that Dunedin's economy and that of South has changed radically since the 1970s. I don't agree that overall it's as fragile as you would suggest. Unlike the '70s and '80s the current wave of development in Dunedin has been predicated on growth and it's intended to promote even more growth. Bring it on, I say.

[sam-buca]

Whilst I loath to divulge unrelated personal information about a contributer to this (or any) forum, I thought that many would likely find the following information extremely interesting.

In the late 60's the skull of William Larnach (of Larnach Castle fame) was found to be in the possession of a post graduate student of the University of Otago, the case went to trial and whilst I am unsure of the final outcome of that trial I can advise that the students name was none other than PETER ENTWISLE. He claimed it was not he that had stolen the skull, and that someone else unspecified had removed it from the mausoleum and given it to him. It was reported that Peter apparently kept it nicely polished.

Now I am unsure as to whether this is indeed the same Peter Entwisle, but it is a rather uncommon name.

[Marky Mark]

Yes I know your Posts are improving Peter ........but you don't have to search for long to find a Life full of Battles ....Ha Ha as you stated yourself :lol: and yes some you have won ........I think you may have been abused by your Father Verbaly , and always told you were wrong when young and have spent the rest of your life proving yourself right ......ha ha even though in some cases ....well we know the rest :cheers:
PART A:1RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATION – 84 FILLEUL STREET, DUNEDINThe Committee considered an application under the Resource Management Act 1991from Mintaro Holdings Ltd to alter the layout of a previously approved car parkextension at 84 Filleul Street, Dunedin, being the Smiths City store. In particular, theapplicant sought approval for the establishment, use and maintenance of 13 car parkson Certificate of Title 18D/364; alterations to the car park layout on Certificates ofTitle 180/260 and 147/151 and the establishment and maintenance of landscaping.The Committee noted that the works for which consent was sought had already beencarried out. Details of the works include the demolition of existing concrete walls,excavation to provide a near level area for vehicle parking and manoeuvring,construction of concrete retaining walls, erection of fencing on top of the new retainingwalls, asphalting and paint marking of the car parks, and landscaping.The Consultant Planner advised that overall the proposal was required to be assessed asa non-complying activity. He also drew attention to the history to the application, andthe procedural issues which had been raised. He noted that the consent could beprocessed in the following two ways:(i)A request for a change to consent conditions under section 127 of the ActIt was noted that if this procedure was adopted, the applicant was required tosatisfy the Committee that there had been a change of circumstances that hadcaused the previous consent conditions to become inappropriate or unnecessary.(ii)A new resource consentIf this approach was adopted, then the status would be determined havingregard to the provisions of the relevant District Plans.The Consultant Planner advised that in his view, the Committee had jurisdiction to hearthe application. He concluded that provided additional landscaping was undertaken on
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 2
2the site, in his view the effects of the activity would be no more than minor, and theproposal would not be contrary to the objectives and policies of the TransitionalDistrict Plan or the Proposed District Plan. Accordingly, he recommended that consentbe granted.The applicant was represented by Mr Peter Constantine, with Mr Tony Clear (arepresentative of Mintaro Holdings) in attendance.A total of four submissions were received to the application, of which two were insupport and two in opposition. Mr Len Andersen appeared on behalf of Mr PeterEntwisle and Ms Robyn Notman (submitters in opposition). Ms Elizabeth Kerr (also asubmitter in opposition) appeared and spoke on her own behalf.At the commencement of the hearing, Mr Andersen expressed concern as to theprocess that was being followed by Council in dealing with this application.The meeting adjourned briefly to allow the Committee to consider how it wished toproceed. Upon reconvening, the Chairman advised that the Committee was satisfiedthat the hearing could proceed, because regardless of which process was adopted, thesubmitters present were the only persons with an interest in the matter wishing to beheard. He noted that the procedural matters would be included as part of the decisionissued by the Committee.Mr Constantine presented evidence in relation to the application and submitted arevised landscape concept plan indicating additional landscaping that could be providedon-site in order to meet the concerns of Council staff with regard to the visual impactsof the proposal.RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLICIt was moved (Weatherall/Walls):"That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of thismeeting, namely, Item 1.The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded,the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specificgrounds under Section 48 (1) of the Local Government Official Information andMeetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:General subjectReason for passingGround(s) underof each matter tothis resolution insection 48 (1) forbe consideredrelation to eachthe passing ofmatter.this resolution.1Resource Consent That a right of appealS 48(1)(d)Application - lies to any Court or
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 3
384 Filleul Street, Tribunal against theDunedinDunedin City Councilin these proceedings.”Motion carried.The meeting went into non-public at 12.12 pm, and adjourned at this point to allow theCommittee to undertake a site visit. The Committee reconvened at 1.00 pm on Friday, 17December in the Edinburgh Room to give consideration to its decision. The same staff were inattendance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 4
4MINUTES OF THE NON-PUBLIC SECTIONOF A MEETING OF THE CONSENTHEARINGS COMMITTEE HELD IN THEEDINBURGH ROOM, MUNICIPALCHAMBERS ON THURSDAY, 16DECEMBER 1999 COMMENCING AT 9:30AMPRESENT:Councillors Colin Weatherall, (Chairperson),Andrew Noone and Richard WallsIN ATTENDANCE:Debora Spence (Team Leader Consents), KeithHovell (Handling Officer/Consultant Planner) andJane Robertson (Committee Secretary)PART C:1RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATION – 84 FILLEUL STREET, DUNEDINIt was moved (Walls/Noone):“That pursuant to Sections 34(4) and 105(2)(a) and after having regard toSections 104 and 127 of the Resource Management Act 1991, the DunedinCity Council refuses consent to the non-complying activity of MintaroHoldings Limited to establish and alter an existing car parking layout at84 Filleul Street, Dunedin, legally described as Part Sections 25 – 28 andPart Section 29 Block XX Town of Dunedin, and Lot 3 Deposited Plan26726.”Motion carried.CONSIDERATION AND REASONS1The Committee had placed before it a request that in effect sought to alter theconditions of a resource consent that had been the subject of a consent order agreed toat the Environment Court. The consent order represented a compromise between theapplicant and the adjoining properties owners that provided for the use of land for carparking purposes associated with the Smiths City store, while at the same timeincorporating conditions on its use, landscaping and other works which were agreed asappropriate in order to mitigate the adverse effects of the car parking use. Twoadjoining neighbours had opposed the present application, one of them vehemently. Inthe circumstances, the Committee did not consider that it should make any changes tothe previously agreed proposal. Nor did the Committee consider that it should adopt arole of mediator in this case, seeking to achieve an agreement between the parties on amatter that had previously been agreed.2The Committee had been invited by Mr Andersen to consider whether effect had beengiven to the previous consent. In assessing that matter the Committee was satisfied
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 5
5that the substance of the previous consent had been given effect to, and considered thatit was unnecessary for each and every condition of that consent to fully implemented.Mr Andersen also submitted that the application should be considered as a request tochange conditions of a consent under Section 127 of the Act, rather than as a newconsent to be considered in terms of Sections 104 and 105 of the Act. The Committeeconsidered that the application should be treated as a fresh application for a newconsent. However, in case that approach were found to be inappropriate, the matterwas also considered in terms of Section 127. The Committee reached the view that theoutcome would be the same regardless of which approach was adopted.3The Committee, in the context of Section 127 of the Act, did not consider that therehad been any material change in circumstances that warranted review of the conditionsof the earlier consent. The applicant had argued that unstable ground conditionsnecessitated a change in the location of the retaining wall and other changes to thelayout and appearance of the carpark. The Committee did not accept that this wassufficient to qualify as a change of circumstances under the Act. The Committee alsoundertook a site visit and noted that the new retaining wall was located in a positionnot previously agreed to. It was also noted that the wall was a substantial structure,which appeared to be designed by an engineer and purpose built for its location. TheCommittee did not accept that relocation of such a wall from the previously agreedposition was necessary having regard to the structural integrity of the wall that hadbeen built. Even if relocation was appropriate, the Committee did not accept that suchrelocation caused other conditions relating to landscaping and paving to becomeinappropriate or unnecessary. Put simply, the Committee did not consider that theapplicant had proved a case that warranted reconsideration of the proposal underSection 127 of the Act.4In the context of Section 105(2A) of the Act, the Committee was of the view that thekey adverse effect arising from the proposal related to visual impacts. In theCommittee’s view, neither the original application lodged, nor the proposal as amendedby the applicant at the hearing, provided adequately for the mitigation of adverse visualeffects of the development. Insufficient landscaping had been provided to reduce theimpacts of open car parking areas, bare walls adjoining the car park areas and views ofthe car park from adjoining dwellings. In the Committee’s opinion, regard must begiven to the views of the site from London Street and from adjoining properties. Whilethe property occupied by Mr Entwisle and Ms Notman contained large trees whichsubstantially screened the their house from the site, the Committee on the basis of avisit to the site, concluded that adverse views from those outdoor parts of the propertythat were regularly able to be used were significant.Arising the adverse visual effects the Committee concluded that the application wascontrary to the following objectives and policies of the Transitional and ProposedDistrict Plans:• Objective 26 – Vehicle Parking of the Transitional District Plan, which states:To minimise the obtrusive effects on landscape and townscape amenity of motorvehicles parked en masse, both on and off the street.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 6
6• Objective 8.2.1of the Proposed District Plan, which states:Ensure that the adverse effects of activities on amenity values and the characterof residential areas are avoided, remedied or mitigated.• Policy 8.3.1of the Proposed District Plan, which states:Maintain or enhance the amenity values and character of residential areas.As the application was contrary to the objectives and policies of both the TransitionalDistrict Plan and Proposed District Plan, and as the proposal would give rise to adversevisual effects that were more than minor, the application failed the threshold test ofSection 105(2A) of the Act, and was therefore declined. The Committee also wishedto record, that even if the proposal had passed the threshold test, the application shouldbe declined for the reasons set out above.The meeting concluded at 1.35 pm.……………………………………….C H A I R P E R S O N

[DML2]

GO THE STADIUM!!!!!! :banana2: :cheer:

[Davee]

Why do these people want to see Dunedin become a backwater?

I think the new stadium will be the start of a very bright future for this wonderful city - both nationally and internationally.

BUILD THE STADIUM :banana:

[GoluBoy]

Interesting finds:

What if? Stadium of Dunedin

1: http://dunedinstadium.wordpress.com/2008/08/05/disinformation-a-disservice/

2: http://dunedinstadium.wordpress.com/2008/07/29/get-out-of-my-freaking-face/

3: http://dunedinstadium.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/stop-the-stadium-meeting/

4: http://dunedinstadium.wordpress.com/2008/07/22/when-is-a-fact-not-a-fact/

5: http://dunedinstadium.wordpress.com/2008/07/13/some-thoughts/

6: http://dunedinstadium.wordpress.com/2008/07/24/stadiums-within-budget/

[SYDNEY]

:lol: I knew it !!!! They just enjoy getting up peoples noses but little do they realise just how many enemies they are making .... they are going to have to flee Dunedin one of these fine days and I want to be there went it happens ... I FUCKING LOVE IT !!! :lol:

[dunedin]

Ysterday one of them put a flyer in my mailbox asking people join STS and I saw him putting it in there from the window I noticed the pig and it took me all my strength not to open the window and yell something at him

[Svartmetall]

Why is it that us people who are pro-stadium are not the vocal group? It's always the anti's that are vocal, not the supporters.

[GoluBoy]

Ysterday one of them put a flyer in my mailbox asking people join STS and I saw him putting it in there from the window I noticed the pig and it took me all my strength not to open the window and yell something at him


^^ Yep,seems like they've been annoying the 'absolute crap' out of everyone.:ohno:

What goes around comes around, in the form of "Bad Karma".:bash:

[Peter Entwisle]

Kiwi Rich,

If you want to check my educational credentials please do so on my website which you will find by googling my name.

Feel free to think I'm a myopic militant but if you want to work out whether I am or not look again at what you think is good or bad argument.

You have looked at Ugly Bob's and Svartmetall's posts and can't see anything wrong with them. It doesn't matter who has the moral high ground but who has the better facts and arguments - if you're interested in finding out the truth of what is asserted.

Regarding Bob's claims the position is: the advertisements don't allow his conclusions by deductive logic; he has hinted at an inductive path to them but that doesn't get off the ground for lack of basic information; he has questioned the first and perhaps the second of these processes - which is fine - invoking Foucault and others. But that doesn't actually identify any method of reasoning by which you can get from the available information to Bob's conclusions. (To put it bluntly he's guessing and these are the things which show it.)

I appreciate it upsets people to see things like this stated too clearly, especially when it's about assertions they've made which others can see. But putting personal feelings aside that's, where we all are with Bob's claims. If I got impatient with his reaction I apologise. But it doesn't change anything.

Svartmetall's shortcomings are less sophisticated. He simply denies relevant facts - and pours scorn as a substitute for making an argument. He doesn't attempt to argue points of logic. He relies on insisting it doesn't matter that Northampton is bigger than Dunedin and Otago, and nearer to London, when the relevant issues are: how many people are there to pay for these projects; what do they cost; how many people are there around to use these facilities?

Now you may wish I didn't say these things here and put them on another thread where people didn't have to think about them. But if you are seriously interested in "beautification; regeneration and urban development", particularly in Dunedin, they are worth considering. Because they tend to show that the proposed stadium at Awatea Street will have the opposite of those effects.

[Svartmetall]

Svartmetall's shortcomings are less sophisticated. He simply denies relevant facts - and pours scorn as a substitute for making an argument. He doesn't attempt to argue points of logic. He relies on insisting it doesn't matter that Northampton is bigger than Dunedin and Otago, and nearer to London, when the relevant issues are: how many people are there to pay for these projects; what do they cost; how many people are there around to use these facilities?

#1. In reference to your point about being nearer to London - that is to Northampton's detriment rather than its benefit. Think about it, the closer you are to a major centre, the less people will come and utilise your facilities as there will be better ones nearby.

#2. My point about the relative size being inconsequential is due to the fact that people from Northampton travel 30 miles and end up in a town with more expansive infrastructure and therefore don't utilise that which is present in their own town.

#3. You're refusing to consider the fact that Dunedin is still the fourth most important city in New Zealand, and therefore must have infrastructure to match that. You can't simply rely upon having three world class stadia in one country. Where should the extra infrastructure be based other than in the fifth largest (and fourth most important) city in the country?

#4. You've not posted facts, you've posted opinions. I've yet to see solid cost: benefits ratios or figures for attendance. I've also not seen you refute the fact that despite its smaller population, Dunedin is a city of national significance (which I stated via the use of population FIGURES [and therefore that would be a fact, would it not, Peter?]).

The very shortcomings you've noticed in my argument are very much the same as in yours. The argument for building (or not building) of the stadium is very much an opinion driven one with very little factual basis exhibited on either side. You have tried to falsely equate the economic situation in 1970's New Zealand with the situation present now, you have refused to acknowledge the significance of Dunedin, you've shown a lack of understanding of international issues and cultural differences relating to examples shown abroad and you've also tried relentlessly to hammer home your point with little factual basis behind it. You turn to the bastion of "logic" whenever it suits you and deride those who don't follow your argument as "illogical".

Sounds like you would be someone else who needs to go to Argument 101 doesn't it, Peter?

[Peter Entwisle]

Yeah about the same size as past protests ... so much for the massive shift in public opinion. All that advertising, publicity and that's all they can muster.

Non StS estimates range from 600 - which you quoted above to 1,500 - Radio New Zealand - which I think is too high.


The march last year was estimated at 500 and that was against the Dunedin Centre development and the Otago Settlers Museum development as well as the stadium. In other words at 600 this is a significantly higher turnout against the stadium.

Things like this are indicative only. It isn't the case that the number of marchers represent all the people opposed to the stadium, they just give you some idea of how many are. It is also significant that to date nobody at all has marched for the stadium. There are other things you might consider but as a sign the numbers indicate significant and growing opposition.

If you are in doubt you should look at the mood of the Dunedin City Council at its meeting the following Monday morning.

[Peter Entwisle]

^^ Agreed.:yes:It's nothing but a constant 'fishing expedition'.MOST of which is discursive & comes across as 'highfalutin'. :ohno:

If it's not a positive comment regarding the redevelopment of a superb Stadium for Dunedin,then I believe it's not welcome here.Please use this: STS http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=676418


Originally posted by KaneD:


^^ Agreed!.:)

http://arl.co.nz/images/429.jpg
http://www.carisbrook.org.nz/


Our Stadium - Bring It On
http://www.ourstadium.co.nz/



Edit: Dunedin City Council has confirmed funding of $85 million for the new Stadium http://www.carisbrook.org.nz/pages/faq.html#howpaid

Westpac Stadium Wellington also received ratepayer funding of $40 Million

http://www.westpacstadium.co.nz/road-to-opening-day


It also had a similar funding model to that of the new Dunedin Stadium.
http://www.westpacstadium.co.nz/principal-funders

But without any protests revolving around ratepayer funding.:|Can you find any media releases??......


Interesting that Wellington, more than three times Dunedin's size, put much less public money into the Caketin which is a marginal performer even with Wellington's bigger population. This doesn't say much for the Awatea Street project's likely contribution to a vibrant urbanism in Dunedin.

[Peter Entwisle]

Now that STS has a soap box at SSC they don't want to use it which just goes to prove my point ... they don't care a toss about the implications of a new stadium, they are bored out of their skulls and would much rather annoy everybody else that doesn't go through life with blinkers on.

Should they keep posting in this thread - Please IGNORE them. I have asked Toddy to remove their gibberish and place it in the STS thread ... anybody who wants to continue this sad debate can do so in the STS thread ....

This is not the thread for it ..... Thank you.


With respect we DO care about the implications of the proposed stadium and about the vibrant urbanism of Dunedin. That's why I post here the reasons for thinking the Awatea Street project is a lemon. The thread could help work out whether it is or not, by subjecting the claims and counter claims to critical examination.

[Svartmetall]

Interesting that Wellington, more than three times Dunedin's size, put much less public money into the Caketin which is a marginal performer even with Wellington's bigger population. This doesn't say much for the Awatea Street project's likely contribution to a vibrant urbanism in Dunedin.

Wellington has a usable stadium already in the form of the Caketin therefore they only have to invest a bit of money to get it up to standards.

Eden Park on the other hand in Auckland... Lets not even go there.

[Peter Entwisle]

"I think your talk of philosophy is starting to detract from the topic of this forum Peter - You need to state your view on the stadium and why so that we can all benefit from your opinions - Then, we can read and reply with ours - maybe you could learn something from our perspective?

So there you have it Peter - This forum and discussion is all about sharing ideas and points of views of it's members. We can all gain from each others opinions so please stay on topic and start making more productive comments that we can all learn from rather than destructive ones."

There's an important point being missed here. Real discussion is not simply about stating what one thinks and leaving it at that. In real discussion somebody says something. Somebody else may then say it has factual mistakes or errors of logic, perhaps with evidence and arguments to back this up. Then the whole thing gets looked at again and a new view of it emerges. That is critical debate. While it may involve asserting negatives it isn't destructive - or if it is, only of bad ideas, which is a positive.

The thing here is that some people have claimed the Awatea Street stadium would be a big positive for Dunedin. Reasons have been advanced to doubt that. A positive reaction would be to look at those things carefully and either refute them, with other facts and arguments, or acknowledge that may be the proposal is not such a brilliant idea.

Ostensibly that's what this site and thread are all about.

[Peter Entwisle]

^^ I can assist on this one.:) Reference to: Peter Entwisle


It's because he suffers from delusions of grandeur!.He thinks in his own mind that he's the Prime Minister of N.Z by proxy.:nuts:



Example: You buggers are not getting any tax relief this year.Not on my watch......so there!.



Helen Clark






Also, it's because he's an eccentric.:weird: Including the rest of his cronies.

Definition: a person who has an unusual, peculiar, or odd personality, set of beliefs, or behaviour pattern.


The sad reality of his time spent here, is simply to be a vexatious hijacker.:ohno:


I totally agree with Sydney.That the posts in question need to be shifted to STS thread as required.

This is an argument? Why not get back on thread?

[Peter Entwisle]

Awatea St or nothing ...


This is the first time the city council has discussed upgrading Carisbrook in a long time. It was shortly after the march against the stadium - the reason the subject was resurrected.

[Peter Entwisle]

Wellington has a usable stadium already in the form of the Caketin therefore they only have to invest a bit of money to get it up to standards.

Eden Park on the other hand in Auckland... Lets not even go there.

Wellington didn't have the Caketin when it put the money into the Westpac stadium. The Westpac stadium IS the Caketin. But do the maths. Wellington has more people and money than Dunedin. What's being asked from Dunedin is a much bigger sum than was asked from Wellington. How much money does that leave in Dunedin for any other civic projects? How does that sum relate to Dunedin's overall finances? Will it overstrain the budget or not? If the Caketin struggles to perform in Wellington which has about 400,000 people how would the Awatea Street stadium perform in Dunedin with its 120,000 people?

[Svartmetall]

^^ You missed what I was saying. I wasn't saying that the Caketin and Westpac stadium are different things at all, what I am saying is that Carisbrook can't be upgraded as it's an unsuitable ground UNLIKE the Caketin which is still usable and easier to upgrade.

[Peter Entwisle]

New Heart of the Region Will Pump


Supplied by the Carisbrook Stadium Trust.


http://www.carisbrook.org.nz/images/flyby_images/flyby2.jpg


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYM8vvVaTlI

This is a straight quote from the Carisbrook Stadium Trust's promotional material and doesn't attempt to answer the arguments which have been mounted against it.

How would the proposed stadium stop the drift north? By attracting 200 students to the university? The new university funding model caps the rolls at the unis and means any more students wanting to enrol at Otago because of the stadium wouldn't be funded. Why not use a fraction of the money to pay the costs of more students studying at Otago?

The CST admits the number of big matches at this stadium - max 20 per year - wouldn't justify the expenditure. So what would? Fixtures by other codes which attract smaller audiences? But they already have other venues in Dunedin. Concerts? National organisers of such events say the CST's projections of 4 concerts with 14,000+ audiences a year are unrealistic. Covered stadium or no covered stadium they aren't coming to Dunedin because the population is too small. Exhibitions? Art exhibitions can't be shown in light filled spaces with no atmospheric controls, surveillance or other facilities which aren't present in the Awatea Street project but are in the city council's Dunedin Public Art Gallery. Conferences? The CST's own Horwath Report says users and providers wouldn't use such facilities at Awatea Street because it's too far from the CBD. They would use the Dunedin Centre already provided by the city in the central city and which they want expanded. Anything else? Certainly not cricket.

This also claims the Caketin in Wellington has been a great success whereas it has struggled to meet its projected targets and is still a marginal operation - in a city more than 3 times Dunedin's population.

The Awatea Street stadium could be a disaster for Dunedin's urban development by overstraining the city's finances to build an underused facility.

[Peter Entwisle]

^^ You missed what I was saying. I wasn't saying that the Caketin and Westpac stadium are different things at all, what I am saying is that Carisbrook can't be upgraded as it's an unsuitable ground UNLIKE the Caketin which is still usable and easier to upgrade.


Well, if Carisbrook can't be upgraded - which by the way is not the CST's position, but say it can't be - how would that make $140m of public money a good spend in Dunedin on the $188m Awatea Street proposal? It would still have the potential to wreck the city's finances, would preclude any significant civic spending on anything else for 20 years, for a facility which at best would get 20 big matches a year, which the CST says isn't enough to justify the spend.

If you're right about Carisbrook Dunedin should forget about stadia and put its public money into other things.

[Svartmetall]

Lets say the stadium isn't built, Carisbrook is mothballed and the RWC doesn't reach Dunedin. What would you rather the money be spent on?

[UglyBob]

This is the first time the city council has discussed upgrading Carisbrook in a long time. It was shortly after the march against the stadium - the reason the subject was resurrected.

Perhaps, although the fact the CST's latest report to the Finance and Strategy Committee fell at the same time might also have had something to do with it.

[GoluBoy]

Interesting that Wellington, more than three times Dunedin's size, put much less public money into the Caketin which is a marginal performer even with Wellington's bigger population. This doesn't say much for the Awatea Street project's likely contribution to a vibrant urbanism in Dunedin.




^^No Pete.It just means that it cost less to build a Stadium of similar capacity back in 1998.At a cost of $130 Million it meant that the corresponding ratepayer funding was proportionate to the overall cost.


Originally Posted by Peter Entwisle:
This also claims the Caketin in Wellington has been a great success whereas it has struggled to meet its projected targets and is still a marginal operation - in a city more than 3 times Dunedin's population.


^^ Your "full of it" Peter:

Westpac Stadium Financial Report:
http://www.westpacstadium.co.nz/assets/Documents/WRSTAR07.pdf


PROJECTIONS

Looking forward to the next three years, we are operating in an environment where the Sevens are secured until 2010 but the major rugby competitions are experiencing some change and we have had reduced attendance in the past year.

Our projected surpluses for the next 3 years are:

2007/08 $1.08 million
2008/09 $1.84 million
2009/10 $2.15 million

The projected results for the 2007/08 year assume no rugby tests as we were allocated two in the 2006/07 financial year.

During this period we will continue with a capital investment programme so that we are in the best shape possible for the Rugby World Cup 2011.


Attendance Record

2000 (6 months) 401,569
2001 645,710
2002 537,353
2003 535,955
2004 410,508
2005 594,986
2006 506,928
2007 483,000

Total 4,116,009

We have now had three years of surpluses in excess of $2 million
and we believe our operation is sufficiently mature that we can
be more confident about future projections and cash-flows.

Brad Cooper
Chief Executive Officer
Westpac New Zealand

[GoluBoy]

Originally posted by Rosie:

So dear Monsieur
I'm sure the people of Dunedin wouldn't be asking too much from you if you were to put your money where your mouth is and contribute a little bit of cash to-wards this great asset to NZ.
And to rugby.




^^ Don't worry...... Monsieur Aquilone has already sent 1,842 of his very wealthy friends from Auckland to Dunedin.And Dunedin badly needs these entrepreneurs to get a very stagnant,no vision city back on-track.:yes:

Having said that,It's great to see that you were one of the 993 that did something pro active and actually shifted to the Canterbury region.Well done!.I know that Dunedin per se,is not "crying over spilt milk".

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i29/blairboy_2006/stats.jpg
http://www.stats.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/3B258696-5037-40ED-8F3A-F2EE71343CCF/0/DunedinCity.pdf

[UglyBob]

As much is made by STS that the stadium will bankrupt the city, it would seem strange that Standard and Poor's don't agree ...

DCC’s local currency ratings remain unchanged
ODT 16 August

STANDARD and Poor’s Rating Services has retained its AA- longterm and A-1+ short-term local currency ratings on Dunedin City Council and Dunedin City Treasury.
The outlooks on the ratings have been revised from positive to stable, reflecting the inclusion of the proposed multipurpose stadium and other additional projects in the council’s long-term forecasts.
Dunedin City Holdings chief executive Bevan Dodds said the retention of the ratings was good news for the council.
The rating on the bonds and promissory notes affected the pricing of the council’s debt.
S&P credit analyst Anna Hughes said from Melbourne the ratings on the council reflected the council’s strong management and its track record of fiscal discipline.
‘‘The council’s strong liquidity, as well as its ability to adjust rates revenue, also support the rating,’’ she said.
The outlook was revised to stable from positive, reflecting the expectation that council debt would continue to increase in the short-to-medium term rather than peak and then decline.
The stable outlook reflected S&P’s expectation the council would maintain its strong financial position, she said.
Given its increasing debt burden, there was little upside to Dunedin city’s rating.
‘‘Further, Dunedin city’s history of significant capital underspending, as well as the magnitude of capital expenditure rampup, means there is a strong chance that its net debt-to-operating level is more likely to be between 90% and 110% rather than its forecast of around 130% of operating level.’’
If the city did reach its forecasts, its debt level would still be consistent with the AA- rating, albeit at the upper end, Ms Hughes said.
S&P expected the shortfalls in capital spending to continue.
That meant the peak in debt would be lower and delayed.
However, the council’s decision to fund the multipurpose stadium, along with several other capital projects, ensured that a ratings upgrade in the short-to-medium term was unlikely.

[Burden]

Lol I havent read this thread before, what a joke. I think DCC might be reading this/these threads look how many hits it has had 18,998, More then usual.....

[UglyBob]

^^ Two other websites have links directly to the SSC stadium thread: STS and Paul LeCompte's "What If - Stadium of Dunedin" blog ... That plus the continued aggro has probably contributed to the high no. of views.

[Ironmanfood]

First time on this thread for me as well. Personally, I don't care... I think Dunedin needs a stadium though - but whether that is an upgraded Carisbrook or a new stadium it's not up to me ....

but, re: Peter's figures on Wellington Stadium's funding . $40 million of public money? I'm guessing (but don't know) that the 2 councils are also ultimately responsible for the $33 million loan mentioned below.

The Stadium cost $130 million to build. The finance came from:
Wellington Regional Council: 25$M
Wellington City Council: 15$M
Grants and Donations: 7$M
Fundraising: 50$M
ANZ Bank Loan: 33$M

http://westpacstadium.co.nz/building-the-stadium



Also, as Golu mentioned. The Caketin makes a profit, even after loan repayments.

[sensible]

i havnt bothered looking at this thread before... and now i wish i hadnt bothered at all.

whats wrong with Dunedin investing money in projects that could attract all sorts of bussiness, provide a modern first-class facility and rejuvinate part of the city? Hopefully you would say "nothing"? Question is will the stadium fit that bill? The supporters would argue about the broader benefits, that its not just about rugby, that it will bring plenty of business to dunedin. The detractors? all too often go on about the cost, tell us about Bob and Nessie and how they cant pay the rent. Well im sorry for Bob and Nessie but that has about as much to do with the DCC funding a stadium as it does the price of fish.

Its not about the cost, its about getting bang for your buck! Screw how much it costs now, what will it bring for the future? Holy crap this could be the largest indoor stadium in NZ!!! Look beyond rugby! it would be unique! And Invercargill, Queenstown and Christchurch are only down the road anyway,really. It would have a good case for attracting all sorts of events! This could be a good investment, a great investment and could be a catalyst for more good things. Thats the argument really... so will it do that or wont it? You cant just say it will cost too much and squeeze ya purse. Thats just silly

I guess what im saying is a city like dunedin should be investing money to better its position and the real question is 'does the stadium fit the bill'? If not then what would? How else are you gonna create growth? Cmon?!!!! dont just tell me 'people are too poor' or 'Dunedin cant afford it' or whatever. Thats a cop out.

I think Dunedin should rebuild the cable cars :)

[dunedin]

i havnt bothered looking at this thread before... and now i wish i hadnt bothered at all.

whats wrong with Dunedin investing money in projects that could attract all sorts of bussiness, provide a modern first-class facility and rejuvinate part of the city? Hopefully you would say "nothing"? Question is will the stadium fit that bill? The supporters would argue about the broader benefits, that its not just about rugby, that it will bring plenty of business to dunedin. The detractors? all too often go on about the cost, tell us about Bob and Nessie and how they cant pay the rent. Well im sorry for Bob and Nessie but that has about as much to do with the DCC funding a stadium as it does the price of fish.

Its not about the cost, its about getting bang for your buck! Screw how much it costs now, what will it bring for the future? Holy crap this could be the largest indoor stadium in NZ!!! Look beyond rugby! it would be unique! And Invercargill, Queenstown and Christchurch are only down the road anyway,really. It would have a good case for attracting all sorts of events! This could be a good investment, a great investment and could be a catalyst for more good things. Thats the argument really... so will it do that or wont it? You cant just say it will cost too much and squeeze ya purse. Thats just silly

I guess what im saying is a city like dunedin should be investing money to better its position and the real question is 'does the stadium fit the bill'? If not then what would? How else are you gonna create growth? Cmon?!!!! dont just tell me 'people are too poor' or 'Dunedin cant afford it' or whatever. Thats a cop out.

I think Dunedin should rebuild the cable cars :)

Well actually they do want to bring the cable cars back to Dunedin

[sensible]

yeah i know thats why i said it... www.cablecar.co.nz

[BuckMeadows]

Sensible, please don't post too often. I did over at their website and got banned today. Seems that if you are a voice they don't want to hear, they will ban you than have a go at your grammatical inadequacies behind your back. It's a cutting world of public opinion (as long as it's the same as their opinion that is).

You are all of course welcome over at my blog. It's been going for nearly 2 years now and of course got some momentum at the moment.

dunedinstadium.wordpress.com

also do go to their web site and say hi or boo, but just don't stay too long, it's naughty apparently.