DCC votes 'Yes' on stadium

But hang on funkie01, I thought in other posts you said they (anti stadium) were all grey haired, on zimmer frames? But the 'new age' supposedly all young pro stadium people fear them? Okay. And those anti that may well have fought for this country over 60 years ago, and deserve more respect.
The town hall, was full, you couldn’t fit any more, a security friend of a workmate said there was over 2000, he had a counter at the main doors and only 3 out of 49 at work attended either the march or the town hall due to other commitments.
I would say the repetitive and apocalyptic nature from anti stadium would be a repetitive bang back at the familiar condescending rhetoric of pro-stadium.
the injunction, well, most people are aware of the state of our law system these days.
And perhaps out illicit ramblings, might focus priorities, the state of the health board that needs cash bail out while the stadium gets fast track 15 million would be a good place to start when it comes to facts! Especially in light of the story on their front page of the ODT, 24th April. Most appropriate, to show how the other half lives while others who worship rugby want every whim satisfied at any cost. Selfish, in captial letters.

Any investment of approx $200 million must generate revenue of around $400,000 a week, or $1.7 million a month (more or less depending on operating expenses) to be viable.

Obviously the proposed stadium will not meet this criterion. So can it be justified as a necessary public amenity? Definitely not, simply because we already have a well sited, very satisfactory stadium, even if it doesn't quite suit everyone.

So we will be paying a massive price for something for which no real use has been identified. Makes for very expensive rugby.

Thanks to Malcolm Farry we now know of a use for the stadium besides the odd game of rugby. It's for students to eat their lunch in! Whoopee! (Or 'wow' for those councillors who don't like big words.) Wellington gets the cake-tin while we get the lunchbox.

I don't think we've seen any new facts from the council, they've been quite tight lipped about the contract - as far as I know its text hasn't yet been released. The mayor quoted some numbers but didn't give us enough context to evaluate what they really mean - once the contract is released we'll be able to find out what they really mean.
The last real number I think that was released by the council was that the cost was increasing by $10M from the promised limit of $188 - are you suggesting that that's not true? Will that number be going up or down?

Why didn't you hold your own public meeting? Rent the town hall, get Mr Farry to come along and explain his plan and answer questions. Mr Farry went on a road trip around central holding public meetings to explain the stadium - he hasn't done it in Dunedin yet - we're still waiting.
I'm sorry you feel afraid to hear other people express their views - frank exchanges of views are a foundation for the marketplace of ideas that a democracy should be - I'd love to hear you refute the numbers that I and others have posted in this forum.
STS are not a Bikie Club you know - other pro-stadium people harp on about how old they think the people are who have attended the meetings - you guys need to get your stories straight.

Maybe they were swayed by the actual facts rather than some "illicit ramblings" that have now proven to be falsehoods. I am surprised that any pro-ites would attend a meeting to be ambushed by zealots. A march of 1500 and meetings of 1500 and 150 respectively are hardly a mandate to claim the high moral ground. Letters and emails to the ODT from the STS appeared to be from a standard template. This in the end made them lose credibility due their repetitive and apocalyptic nature. I have faith in our legal process and an confident the good judge will throw out that dismal injunction. Once this occurs then you shall see the best side of Dunedin and it's postive people. At last!

These meetings were always promoted (either directly in indirectly) as a chance to say no to the stadium, hence no supporters turned up. I sure wouldn't want to turn up to one of these meetings as it doesn't really seem like a safe thing to do.

I think there's pretty obviously a bit of astro-turfing going on here at the moment - what we can do is make sure that the people responsible for this travesty get booted out at the next election - I'm certainly going to spend a large sum of money on that project and we need to change city government so that this sort of thing can't happen again.
We need an open city government - we need elected councilors who will front up to their constituents several times a year, whether they like it or not, and we need a way to rein them in when they go off the rails.

We need some at-large and local representatives too - perhaps we should add 50% more councillors, elect 1/3 from wards and 2/3 at large that way we get a more representative council - how on earth it filled up with disbarred lawyers and radio DJs I don't know - we need more regular citizens.
We also obviously need a mechanism for citizens to recall a council mid term and force a new election.

Some of the members of council were anti-stadium, until they were voted in and like many - swayed.
An inconvenient truth to the pro-stadium, I guess. Sadly too, lost faith in councils caused a voting apathy, which, in retrospect will have woken people up to always vote.

A snap election is needed. The people have spoken but not been heeded at all. Overhwelming oppostion on here [Otago Daily Times' website], also in the paper, and two meets that were not just for anti-stadium, but anyone.

But the meets were averaging 100-plus against the stadium, and four or five for.

It is illuminating to read in the ODT the encapsulated views of those councillors that have voted to support to proceed with the proposed new rugby stadium.
Many of these councillors have already decided that they will not be standing for re-election for a number of reasons. The rest will not stand a chance of re-election. But their decisions mean that all of us will have to pay for their unsustainable decisions.

It was revealing at the public South Dunedin meeting to hear Cr Collins refuse to answer a simple question whether he would continue to vote for the stadium even if irrefutable evidence was produced to show that that the ratepayers of his ward were opposed to the project. So who is he representing? Himself? Someone else? Certainly not "his" electorate.

Cr Acklin and Cr Bezett didn't even bother to front up to their electorate and have been conspicuous by their unwillingness to answer questions directly and in person - one wonders just why this should be?

What will endure as Dunedin's shame is how we extricate ourselves from this shambles. How we do so will be the job of the new councillors and they will have a hard job to do. We certainly need a new Mayor and Cr Dave Cull seems to fit the bill admirably as others have already pointed out.

One thing is for sure - Dunedin no longer needs what Chris Laidlaw so aptly described on his Sunday morning radio show as the "Tartan Mafia".

But they did listen. While many opposed to the project expressed themselves through the newspaper and mischievious storytelling those who supported this project did so to the councillors in person.

The most crucial vote was in early February and if it ever was to lose steam it would have been then after the Christmas break. The fact it did not meant that they the council knew they had considerable support from a 'quiet majority'. And so they did and so they still do!

This council making the decision to build the statement is doing so because it was given an overwhelming mandate to do so by the people of Dunedin who voted them in last elections. There is no need for a High Court decision on anything. The people have already spoken and we want a stadium.

Like most posters to this forum, I believed, in my heart of hearts, that the Council would always vote in favour of construction of a new stadium. And that what was written here was not going to influence their decision. Too much money had already been spent to be able to save face. However, this has been a very important excercise. It was vital for the future make up of city governance that there be a public record voicing the concerns of the electorate. A record showing what was said, by how many, and when. So that, when the time comes to be counted, not one of those 10 elected officials can stand up and campaign on a platform of listening to the people. Not one of them can face their constituents and say "if only we had known, if only you had said". You knew, we said, and you chose. There is nowhere to hide now. In the face of well reasoned facts and arguments, these people made a deliberate choice. And will have to live with that. It is also important that forums like this, and I give thanks to the ODT, allow for people who live outside of the city, those in central government, and further abroad, to see also what has happened in Dunedin. And by whom. That has already shown it's worth, with the concerns shown by citizens being acknowledged recently by central government. One surely now must question the perceived positive value of this project when weighed against the negative image generated by the process. It would be interesting to know what the viewing figures for this site are. Perhaps someone from the ODT can oblige there. These public records will be here forever, and those seeking re election should be prepared to have to face them again and again. Many have been reposted on other websites, and can be googled for years to come. This isn't going to simply go away now. Any prospective new council candidate could not hope for a better start. On a more positive note, those sitting in council positions outside of Dunedin must be now breathing a collective sigh of relief. No matter what they do between now and next elections, they will be hard pressed to outdo this crew.

This is one of the best things the council has done for Dunedin. I'll be there buying my tickets for the World Cup when it rolls around in 2011.

There's nothing left to say that hasn't already been ignored by the DCC. I look foward to confronting them in the local body elections where they will be forced to interact with the public if they want a chance of being re-elected.

Democracy finailly previals and a raspberry to all who cannot accept they are in fact a minority.

Do they seriously believe that those of us not in favour of the stadium will just move on and suddenly become supporters? Do they seriously believe that we will roll over and forget how they have treated the residents of this city? Do they seriously believe that their disregard for transparency and accountability will be forgotten? This is not just about the stadium but about respect and accountability.
Mr Mayor and fellow councillors, you have sorely underestimated the mood of your people.

If ever there was a reason to change the voting system in Dunedin, this is it. Get rid of the ward system and let all of Dunedin have a chance to elect the council. After all this bunch has made the decision for all of Dunedin not just their 'ward'. Crs Walls and Butcher, my representatives, paid no heed to my concerns on the building of this thing. I would ask Cr Cull to consider running for mayor.