Councillors at odds over spending cuts

Councillor Acklin said in the main article "There would be a lot of sports that just wouldn't be able to go about their business." There is the rub, Sport was sport, not a business; it was run mainly by volunteers who raised money for their club rooms etc. Now they have become businesses on ratepayer money. It was raffles and club dues before, now it is those who have money forcibly taken off them in the name of rates.

We have no say; look at the number who didn’t want the stadium. So their business is forcing the many low income and elderly in this city to pay for sport.

Many years ago, a fellow staff member came round work selling raffle tickets. Most of us purchased some but someone noticed his name wasn’t on any of the butts and pointed it out. His reply was “I play the sport, I don’t pay for it”. He never sold another ticket at his place of work again. If sportspeople don’t raise money themselves, why should we have it forced from us.

Unreal, I can barely believe my eyes. Bill Acklin wants to blow yet more on Logan Park. Hundreds of millions on a stadium he pushed for, which, we have been constantly reminded, is multi-purpose, so why can whatever he wants Logan Park for not be put to use in the adjacent ‘big, empty stadium?' Or is it not really multi-purpose enough? At the price it cost us, it should be able to do just about every event. Time to have a level playing field, and feed the mouths that really need it, not pandering to the whims of something that brings no money to Dunedin.

There will be another three years to go before the ratepayers get another chance to exercise their democratic right. That is to vote the present council out and zero in on some experienced people. Why this council have been voted in by these ratepayers is really at the core of the problem. The only ones that are able to make reasoned decisions are those that have shown ability in their own business. No bankrupts, criminals or pocket liners. Sound proposals without foolish notions about what the Dunedin public needs to have regarding art, stadiums, rubbish designs of the St Clair Esplanade and so on.

Who is able to take the reins of this city and steer a straight course? There are some outstanding contributors to this column and some of those might be willing to step into the shoes of the hopeless ones we have at present.

Here's a novel idea of gaining funds to pay for the debacle. Hit Malcom Farry up for the majority. After all, he's the figurehead who led the crusade to have the stadium built; therefore he should be fronting up and paying with much more of his own cash, rather than his bleating words.

Since Cr Acklin has been very quick to make a blanket statement that says the proposed budget cuts are not necessary, why is he unable to say how he would propose to achieve the same budget reduction ? Or is he saying that no expenditure cuts are necessary?  Obviously Cr Acklin does not understand the famous acronym: DBMPBMA !

Rob: you're right it does rather sound like these Logan Park upgrades have become a bit of a boondoggle - I know when I go to watch sport I bring a camp chair, surely others are capable of doing the same, or are the behinds you speak of just too big for canvas?

It can't have been built for the Highlanders, the DCC just spent a few million dollars building them a gym right next to the stadium, and they're big strapping lads, quite capable of jogging over there if they want to use the field rather than the stadium itself.

Hypothermia: but the council shouldn't have to make ANY cuts to keep the rates rise to that of inflation - well below 4.7%. All they have to do is to spend the same amount of money as they did last year.

So why do they need cuts? and an increase in rates? the problem of course is that there's still no plan to pay for the stadium - at the moment the council can't afford to pay for the interest on the stadium debt so they've been borrowing money to pay those bills, and as a result there's all the more interest - it's just like paying off one credit card with another - it's good that they're cutting back to pay for the stadium but really we need the ORFU to come through with its $50m of promised private fundraising to get the DCC back on an even keel.

The council should stop all new projects until the stadium is paid for, especially new projects involving sports facilities - the sporting sector has received far more than its share of council largesse and needs to wait its turn before it gets another cent of ratepayer funding.

Why don't we just sell the whole city of Dunedin to China? We seem to be heading that way, so may as well get it over and done with. That would fix all of our financial problems and also line the pockets of the old boys club.

The Logan Park redevelopment is well overdue for a financial haircut.  Just to take one example, the 'refurbishment' of the small set of rugby changing rooms that sit on one side of this complex.  I estimate that this one story building is about the same size as the average house (1500 square feet), and is built in much the same manner as a domestic house of this era (50-70 years ago). The publicly available figures for the Logan Park redevelopment, such as they are, are open to some interpretation, but it appears that the Council have managed to spend some 1,500,000 plus on refurbishing this small 'public' rugby changing rooms.  That's about the same as it takes to build five modern, fully compliant and insulated domestic residences of the same size and type.

Where did the money go?  Well, I would invite you to go and have a look for yourselves.  It will make matters clearer, but may not necessarily make you happier.  The interior of this supposedly open access changing facility is a sea of tastefully varnished wood, expensive services, automated climate control systems (which seem to occupy most of the expensively installed new hip roof second story) and flashy stainless steel gadgets that switch themselves on when you walk by (This makes you jump - You have been warned!). 

It is a facility that would not look out of place as part of the gym complex at the Ritz. This level of specification is of course also totally inappropriate for an open-use public facility, which I suppose is why it has been locked up most of the time when I have happened by.  No matter.  It is still worth a trip to Logan Park to see what is just outside the steel-bar doors.  It still makes the point.  A wooden bench runs virtually the full length of this building, facing the field.  This of course is typical of many rugby changing rooms that sport a workmanlike pine-slat bench in the same place.   This bench is, however, far from typical.  It consists of slabs of finely finished solid mahogany some 18 inches wide and two inches thick lovingly jointed together with 'pigeontail' joints.  These are a feature of very high quality and usually expensive interior joinery.  I don't know how much this fabulous item of furniture cost, but certainly a very hefty wedge of money.  Cr. MacTavish may also take an interest in the number of dead tropical hardwood trees it also involves.   

Of course, in Dunedin, nothing is too good for the pro-rugby posterior. But surely there have to be limits somewhere?   I have to say that the effeteness of this new rugby facility does match the very numerous male make up advertisements that interspersed the recent Rugby World Cup.  A new softer, gentler image for the poor little lambs I suppose, with a lifestyle to match. 

Go and take a look at it and decide for yourself if this facility and its specifications represent a prudent use of your money.  And then give Cr. Acklin a call and ask him how he justifies it as part of his plan to jack your rates.  Do keep your questions specific, it makes it harder for a politico to wriggle.   “Exactly what does this mahogany extravaganza achieve that its vastly cheaper pine-slat equivalent does not?”  Oh yes, and while you're about it, ask him who will get to use these ritzy changing rooms - and the large car park that used to be the bowling greens behind it - and under what terms and conditions?  I think that you may find the answers interesting.  I know I will, I've been inquiring for a while.  I have been given some strong indications, but not via any official channels.    

"Cr Jinty MacTavish said staff had done a "good job", but the
council faced a tough year ahead and needed to listen to
ratepayers during consultation."

It's a pity that council didn't listen to ratepayers a few years back. 95% of submissions opposed the stadium; 72% of the ORC phone survey said they did not want ratepayers money spent on the stadium; Thousands of people marched down George St.

Had the council listened we would not be in this mess.

Cr Kate Wilson was 'worried wholesale cuts could lead to a perception of Dunedin as a centre of "doom and gloom" and hoped councillors would be "realistic"'.  There are few things that lead to widespread gloom more surely than a population whose income goes up less than the dollars required to live, including paying rates.  If she thinks continual increases in the rates will result in a cartoon calypso population of poor but happies, whistling our happy songs while the winter wind whistles through the holes in our trousers, she's wrong.  Severe cuts ARE realistic.  Increasing cuts is realistic.

She said "We don't want to stop all development in the city at all,"  as if the only development in Dunedin is done by the council.  If they had stopped raising the rates there would be more money in our pockets to get on with non-council development, and there would be a feeling that it is safe to do so without the future doom and gloom of compound rates rises hanging over our heads.

Yet Dunedin doesn't have a motorsports race track like most other NZ cities? Either make soccer and rugby pay or provide facilities for all sports.

Cr Acklin, along with a number of other councillors, has demonstrated and continues to demonstrate an inability to fulfill the requirements of the Local Government Act which requires councillors to act in a prudent and conservative manner. 

It is unfortunate that New Zealand is so poorly served by Government Ministers and officials that lack the intestinal fortitude to actually do something about it.  It is equally unfortunate that Dunedin ratepayers have so few quality choices at election time that enable such people to be returned.  Maybe we all collectively need to do something to ensure that we do have better quality candidates.

Lee Vandervis' comments remind me of that early '80s bumper sticker with the rooster head saying 'lower taxes through less government'.  Would like to hear Vandervis talk about where the limits of acceptability lie for him.  It would make his comments a lot more constructive.

Councillor Acklin was an enthusiastic supporter of the stadium - his decisions, obviously made without much care for their future effects on the city's finances, are directly responsible for the financial mess the city is in - now he wants to keep spending up big on sport while our sewers are falling apart and South Dunedin is threatened with loss of its protection from the ocean. It's time he got real and understands that his past actions have real effects- we can't afford to spend more on sport because of Mr Acklin's past choices.

Sport is a luxury, we're spending $360m to build the stadium, of course we have to reduce spending on other sport to pay for it - after all, the stadium is sitting there idle 95% of the time - it's not like there are big public concerts scheduled for this coming year, it should be being used - why are we spending any extra money on sport at Logan Park or other venues when the stadium is sitting right there not being used to capacity? - I'm looking forward to my daughter's soccer games being held inside on rainy days or those really frosty mornings.

I agree with Cr Acklin that sporting activity in the city should not be unduly curtailed. In fact, he is the first that should go and take a running jump. 

Bill Acklin's comment that there has "been a bit of a blip in the rates" shows just how far out of touch he is with the financial problem in the DCC. When you add it to his earlier comment about his wish as a councillor to fight any proposal to reduce the DCC Art Committee funding, (remember the black dildo controversy?), it is clear that he is typical of the the group of councillors who want to continue to overspend regardless of the size of council debt. This must be his last term in office.