STS out, 'Dunedin Coffee Club' in

Despite all the groans and moans about the current DCC and the ORC over the past 3 years plus, this is one of the most boring election campaigns I have ever seen. Same old newspaper photos of councillors taken when they were 10 years younger, and all they say is Vote No 1 for me. Same old catch-phrases on their tired old billboards. And to have a Mayor touting that his biggest concern is to complete a stadium on time, blah blah. Where are comments from councillors about when the huge water reticulation project should start? And getting the parking properly sorted out? If we do not force answers from councillors we will end up exactly as we ended up last election.They stayed virtually silent before the last election and the same thing is happening now. There is a certain pervasive smugness about the current council that is quite arrogant.

Further to MikeStk's comment about Council finances in disarray, the ODT editorial on 4 Sept was timely. Here's an extract from the Auditor-general's report on all Councils LTCCP's....
"The Auditor-general's report also quotes the Dunedin City Council as an example of a local body using a heavy burden of debt to fund infrastructure projects, remarking that it had been "significantly affected by its involvement in building a new stadium".
The council's level of debt "is expected to increase by 226% between 2006-07 and 2010-11, with interest expenses forecast to increase by 254% from 2006-07 to 2013-14, when interest costs are forecast to peak.
As well as the stadium project, the council also has other capital projects (such as the central city redevelopment and development of a secondary sewage treatment system) in progress during the 2009-19 LTCCP period.
As a result, the council is expecting to breach a number of its own liability management policy limits in the mid-years of the 2009-19 LTCCP period, when the debt levels are at their highest."
And Chin is standing on his record. Some record.

Before the last election the pro stadium councillors, and some council candidates, claimed they had not made a decision on the stadium because 'they were waiting for more information' on what to base their decision. This was despite the oodles of information in the CST Feasibility Report and appendices ( the latter not asked for by councillors). Now we have councillors, and candidates, who say we have to wait to see what we might need to spend to make a buck. This is prevaricating and gives the appearance of being hedgy. All people like Dave Cull and his team need to say is spend more if 'needed', but not rate payer money. Is it that difficult to say?

I think they do. Reading Greater Dunedin's web pages I find that they want to minimise the amount we spend on the stadium in the long term, but they realise that we are trapped by the excesses of the current council, which agreed to build a stadium but was so shortsighted and unaware of what it was doing that they forgot to include funding for large parts of it. To simply stop spending money on the stadium will cost us more in the long term than finding a cheaper middle ground.

The DCC's finances are in disarray, and Walls and Chin have spent up big, planning on saddling our children with their debt. In this morning's ODT Chin said "we know next year and the year after are years where the rates increase is higher than the years that follow". You see that? He's planning on rates rises for as long as he's mayor, and the next two years are going to be particularly bad. Getting rid of that guy, who is already planning his rates increases, should be our biggest priority. Who replaces him is honestly not as important. So please vote for Cull or Vandervis - but rank the other one #2, and don't rank Chin at all.

What I would be concerned about, is post the World Cup (you know, the one where we are invited to 'Share the Glory', 'Be part of history', but b....r-all else), is those organisations, groups who are beginning to schmooze-up to the stadium promoters in endeavours to have their niche interests catered-for as par of the stadium operation as if we are somehow morally bound to cater to these activities.
One way the effects of the ambush of ratepayers may be mitigated, somewhat, is if all of these organisations pay competitive 'market-rates', which will propel the stadium somewhat towards viability and not have its operating costs further underwritten by on-going penalties on ratepayers, who have been 'bled' enough. Did our City Fathers learn anything from the 'Fisher and Paykel' experience, or not? Rule no 1, then, no 'freebies', 'mates-rates' and and handouts, just to make the stadium appear 'used', and hence, justify the disastrous decision which led to its getting the go-ahead.

If you were there at the meeting you'd know Cr Cull's promise to spend more rate payer money on the stadium was only part of what was discussed. Cull and his Greater Dunedin are still better than the solid pro stadium lot, but increasingly are making themselves seem like 'more of the same' and falling into the same trap of failed and wasteful spending of rate payer money on the stadium. Why don't they support alternative funding that doesn't involve the rate payers?

A minority claiming the mandate to act for the majority is rather presumptuous.
And doing so through the stamping of feet and the throwing of toys and the "You're not my friend any more Mr Cull" takes it from presumptuous to preposterous.

The real issue is the use of 'ratepayer' money to finish the stadium off above its GMP. The issue is not about not finishing the stadium. It will be finished off. This was mentioned at the meeting. We now look for real private sector input.

It would be better to get comment from those who were actually at the meeting rather than the lathered-up left who seem to always be able to make such profound comments on what they have not witnessed.
It was a great meeting at which we heard from many of the council candidates. Most of them clearly set out their views in a respectful and genuine way. We did hear and discuss plenty of new ideas and good reasons why the present council should be dumped. I will be voting for a new council to lead us into a more prosperous, democratic, fair and balanced future.
Thank you to Dave and the committee - we salute you and continue to support you all.
We are not worried about being a minority, since many political changes can and do come from small beginnings.

If the "Coffee Club" has credibility it will pay its debt.
As a footnote, I suggest that it will get a call from the company called the Coffee Club soon, and may have another legal bill. Will it pay this time?

I think the fact that he consider's Dave Cull's eminently sensible attitude a "betrayal" says it all. There are two options: spend a relatively small amount more and the stadium is finished to a suitable standard and "succeeds", or spend no more and the stadium is an incomplete, inadequate failure.
He would clearly prefer that the stadium be seen to fail and for the money that has been and will be spent on it to be wasted, than for it to be a success (albeit an expensive one) and for him to be seen to be wrong.
Better to realise you've lost the argument on whether to build a stadium or not, and work to make sure the money spent is as well-spent as possible, than to sit there sulking and trying to get to say "I told you so".
"Cutting off the nose to spite the face" springs to mind.

A rose by any other name......
Fundamentally, they'll still be a minority group who are simply opposed to anything that the council does that doesn't suit their extremely narrow sense of what is needed.
Next (real) news story.....

The Dunedin Coffee Club? It looks like a cunning ruse to fool the media. Clearly it is the same old peevish "Denigrate Cull Club".