Stop the Stadium seeks court case funds

I couldnt agree with you more. If STS as a whole had approached their objections in the same manner they might have gotten somewhere. Unfortunately on both sides of the arguement there seems to be little respect for subtlety of thought or the intellectual rigour of honest debate. As to whether it will be a financial disaster - I guess we will now see. If the impetus the stadium generates is not leveraged and partnered with some novel and creative initiatives such as the ones you suggest then it certainly will be a failure on many more fronts than just a financial one. I am not convinced the council or Bev Butler have the will or ability to think with this sort of creativeness. It is going to require the same sort of generational and intellectual changes in leadership and mindset that have occurred in cities like Hamilton.

So where's the rest coming from? The ORC is just us being taxed in a different rates bill, the govt's $15M? that's us being taxed on our PAYE.
The trust did kick in $7M and the CST apparently raised 30 dollars - so $198M-$7M-$320 is $190,999,970 that has to come from somewhere - you say the city's only putting in $90M (plus the $10M they're using to buy out the ORFU which isn't included), that's $100,999,970, the govt's $15M and the trust's $7M brings it down to $78,999,970 which I guess the ORC is kicking in, have you told them yet?
Of course there's also interest on that money - even the DCC doesn't have $100M just sitting around for a rainy day - it has to be financed - a good rule of thumb for calculating the payments a mortgage with a good interest rate (~6%) over 20 years is to double the principle.

Council's contribution is not 198 million. It is only part of that. Somewhere around $78-90 million.

Users have had to fund a certain amount (around 25 million I believe).

As a side point, the library would chew through $78-90 million in just over 5 years. Add the museums, art gallery and library and you'd have that in a little over a year. I don't moan about paying for those services even if I don't use them.

You say that people who think that the stadium will be an economic disaster have not made alternative proposals for the city's future - yet time and time again in this very forum I've made the case for the city not spending its money on service sector development which moves money around in the local economy but doesn't create new wealth or bring it in from outside the area (like the stadium which is an entertainment venue, not really any different than a new cinema).
Instead I've continually suggested that the city should be helping many more new companies start up and thrive in Dunedin - we need new companies that create new wealth to replace the ones that move away or die - so our kids will have real jobs and wont be just selling popcorn to each other in the stadium every fortnight. I've suggested that the city put up 10 million dollars every year and try to help 20 new companies a year get started, targeting companies that will bring wealth into the region - not investing the money directly but partnering with VCs and other Angel investors to match other money invested in the companies.
The City also needs to support those small entrepreneurs who work online, largely out of their homes, and are still waiting for FTTH - there are a bunch around town, they bring several million into the economy each year and largely fly under the radar because they are individuals - many are here for lifestyle reasons - they can work anywhere in the world, but want to live in Dunedin, despite the climate making Dunedin a place where they can visibly thrive will attract more and more of our smart kids back home.

'They' (assuming this refers to anyone against the proposed stadium) are not all 'unable' to pay the $66 per year (making another assumption that it will only be $66 per year if and when the time comes).

I know that our family could afford it, but I am equally sure that there are other things that I think are more important than a stadium which may host a rugby game now and then. One that springs to mind is the sewerage scheme which we are told we have to wait for because the city can't afford to upgrade it all at once. I would prefer to upgrade that first, rather than spend the money on luxury items.

The council seems to be intent on doing the equivalent of spending money on a night on the town rather than feeding the kids! If the city has money to spare after the important things are paid for, and if a majority of citizens do want a stadium then by all means waste a bit of money, or better still reduce rates at that point and let people who want a stadium put their rates rebate into it.

Which leads to my other point. How many people do want the stadium? Who knows for sure? I am incredibly annoyed that the council, after a large portion of the populace (remembering that there will be a larger number that are not in favour but have not got around to actually making any sort of protest) has let them know they are not in favour of the stadium through demonstrations, meetings, emails to parliament etc, has not had a full referendum to see just how many citizens actually want it built. Who is the council supposed to be working for?

I have only come across one person of all the people I have discussed the subject with who think that it 'might be a good idea'. We have been a bit puzzled as to who these elusive people in favour of the stadium are. I suspect they are a small minority apart from some councillors who I certainly will not be voting for next time around.

I am convinced the reason the council does not want a referendum is because they know full well the majority see the stadium for what it is; a luxury that in the end will benefit few and will cost a fortune for many years in running costs. A referendum would be the easy way to shut me and probably many others up irrespective of their point of view. And by a referendum I mean active yes or no votes... not a referendum where the lack of a vote is counted as a yes, which I understand has happened in the past. Give everyone a chance to have their say and majority rules. The cost of a referendum will be far less than building the stadium that I am doubtful many people want!

I think a temporary job that lasts for 18 months is a long temporary job! Or maybe you have never been unemployed. Also a few dozen local 'tradies' benefitting is a good number. Something to add to the CVs of the few dozen.

As for the comment about minimum wage positions, there are many who would stave off starving by the added opportunity of an extra income!

Why pay for StS High court costs? Well - it's a matter of standing up for your principles. (In some circles, even having principles is not so common) So, even though it's possibly futile trying to explain that to those who weren't in evidence in the earlier days of this debacle, that's the reason.
We believe this project has been consistently misrepresented, that it is simply a rugby stadium which we neither need nor can afford and that the majority of Dunedin ratepayers do not want to pay for it. And we have the figures to prove it!
To those who want it (and are ratepayers) - you pay for it!
To the rest who just want it - grow up!

We've just donated $100 to Stop the Stadium to help with the court costs. It's a lot of money, but less than a third of what the FuBarr Stadium would cost us ratepayers per year for the next 20 years. Consider that private investors have coughed up all of $30 real money for the FuBarr stadium... They're very eager to rake in private profits from public money.

Because investing $20 today to try and save 20 years of $66/year - $1320 - is thinking ahead

It's not just $66, it's $66 for 20 years - on average, in my case it's a lot more than $66 for 20 years. Think about it this way - if it was a horse race I'd be being offered a $1320 return over 20 years for my $20 investment - 66:1 odds - even if the suit only has a 1 chance in 10 of succeeding those are great odds and a great potential return on investment - way better than the lottery or any horse race you'll ever see.
For the city as a whole it's $20,000 for a potential $200M return - 1000:1 odds, who could possibly say "no"?

Lynda Joy, I quote from you:
"Stop the Stadium Group want to deny Dunedinites the chance of new jobs in hard economic times".
Lynda, I'm afraid that either you've been misled or you are being misleading. No formal figures have been released as to how many people the stadium will employ. All we know is that the project is under an apparently informal obligation to be completed in time for the Rugby World Cup in 2011. This means that if the stadium does proceed, any so called "new jobs" will only last for around 18 months. Hawkins, the construction company the DCC has charged with building the proposed Stadium has it's head office in Auckland, it's regional office in Christchurch, and it's own construction crew so where did you say the new jobs for Dunedin workers were? Granted a few dozen local tradies might be employed but this does not mean that new jobs have been created, it simply means that a few existing ones continue. In addition, assuming the stadium does get built, a handful of jobs may be created, however these jobs will largely consist of minimum wage, part time-casual positions such as bar staff, security, and cleaning crews who will be employed for 4-6 hours, 2-3 days a month. All you could do with job opportunities like that are starve to death more slowly.

I see the "People that want to pay money for a stadium" are mocking the Anti-stadium movement.
Pull your head out from under your "Chin" guys.
It comes down to a matter of principle, the design would be fine if it came to user pays... but now it has changed to Yous are paying... don't you think we should fight for our rights. I think we should.
Keep up the fight Bev Butler!

I think it is ludicrous that they can afford the money to donate to stop it. For goodness sake, just let it go ahead. It might even turn out to be a great thing for Dunedin.

No, my point is, if they supposedly can't afford $66 a year (approximately 18c a day), how can they afford $20 for a court case today?

The irony of asking STS members for money which by my calculation is a quarter of the proposed average stadium rate rise seems to be lost on poor Bev, as does the extra expenditure by council in answering the injunction which will also be funded by ratepayers. Arent these the same people who cannot afford one dollar more of rates and bemoan such frivolous and pointless public expenditure elsewhere?
I am not a great supporter of the stadium by any means given the risks. However I agree with Cliff Skeggs that no city can afford to stand still and a wider view needs to be taken on using it as a catalyst and advancing the city's future. I support the council for at the very least putting a stake in the ground in this regard and it has restored my faith that some of them at least still possess a backbone of sorts.
It is a shame that Dunedin seems to be having the energy and life sucked out if it by persons and minorities like Bev and STS and their perverse notion that in a democracy everyone must agree - especially with them and their world view that doesnt seem to extend past their front gates.
It is a shame their energy has not been directed in a more positive manner. Throughout this ongoing saga I have waited in vain for Bev and her apostles to take a constructive approach and outline their own ideas, vision and direction for the city. It is simply not good enough or acceptable to simply object and offer nothing by way of any alternative. I believe it is incumbent on them to do so and would go a long way to convincing me they were genuine citizens with something to offer. Given the vacuum of positive ideas from them I can only surmise that this sort of courage and determination is in short supply amongst this group at present.

Goodness!!!!! Not only does the Stop the Stadium Group want to deny Dunedinites the chance of new jobs in hard economic times but they want money from many who can least afford it to support their anti Dunedin, anti University stance!
I would have you note that this charge is being led by the front runner who managed to persuade most vociferously the last council to cough up BIG money for the ice-skating rink (she has a daughter who does/did ice-skate) and it is an amenity which while one or two may enjoy neither I or my family have never been to.

Yes, 'MT', I've already shelled-out, as I believe a great many people of 'principal' will do, also. Unfortunately, recourse to the law in New Zealand comes within the scope of 'user-pays', (and-how), so defence of an important matter of principle, likely a once-only payment, can be defended. However, heavily-increased rates will keep coming back to bite us, into perpetuity.
There's the difference.

Couldn't agree more - they'll probably have asked people to fork out more than a year's rates increase. I guess that's the reason for the call for the rates boycott - give it to us - ha ha!!
I hope they'll realise by the end of this that it is only those couple of thousand people who share their point of view and stop this nonsense.
If they hold up the process long enough for no result they'll only succeed in delaying completion until after the World Cup - and everyone loses if that happens.

The DCC would be being putative and bullying if they were to seek costs from STS. STS are clearly serious and clearly represent a strong feeling from a significant number of Dunedin residents.

If it were a small number of loonies with only vexatious arguments I'd understand the Mayor's threat to seek costs from STS.

But STS is a legitimate group with a legitimate concern and considerable public support for their position. And even most stadium supporters admit the DCC have indeed rail-roaded the proposal through.

Hence the Mayor's threat to recover costs from STS really amounts to nothing more than a stand-over tactic.

Perhaps that has something to do with donations being voluntary but rates increases to fund the stadium are being arbitrarily stolen from rate payers.
Stadium supporters could take a lesson from STS; You're welcome to build a stadium - just don't steal my money to do it.

I thought the STS group were all broke and couldn't afford the rates increase?

Now they are being asked for more money - $20 now, more later if they lose. So stop the stadium could potentially add another $40 to the costs for STS members? Someone hasn't thought this one through! If 70% of Dunedin residents are against the council paying for the stadium (STS figures), there would in theory be a considerable number of lawyers in this group that would give their time for free.

We all know that lawyers can't possibly be on the pro-stadium side, because we are all "hyperbole, euphemism" spouting morons who eat pies and drink beer all day.

I love it how you cannot see the difference between a request for a financial donation and a rates demand.

Well let's see: is $20,000 larger or smaller than $198,000,000? Is spending 0.2% of the cost of the stadium to save us having to pay 99.8% a good investment? Sounds pretty good to me, I've sent in my money - 10 times what they asked for.

I love it how the STS members are afraid they won't be able to afford the rates, but are happy to illicit $20,000+ out of their members.