Stadium support emerges over weekend

Perhaps you would prefer to watch the city's hotels slowly go bankrupt and Dunedin gets no visitors. sure we have attractions, but albatross and sea lions don't fill the hotels, it's the game and concert weekends that fill the hotels and bring extra money into the city. Now that it is approved, surely it would be better to support it and try to contribute to it becoming the best it can and helping the city further rather than try to hinder it?

A referendum could have decided this thing one-way or another; the project could have gone ahead with a ratepayer mandate, and those of us who have opposed it from the outset would have had to submit to the will of the majority. But, I am sure that prospect has caused many sleepless nights amongst the members of the council because I think that, privately, they knew what the outcome was likely to be; so a referendum had to be opposed, at all costs.
And, why a referendum? The answer's simple. The method by which this project is being funded (eg 'No deposit, and no repayments until October 2011'), with subsequent payments to be spread over 20 years (if we are lucky and don't accumulate extra penalties due to possible 'default' because of uncertain economic conditions in the future), sheds responsibilities far beyond the term of the current council. In fact, they've been allowed to set in-train a process which will effectively hamstring the next five city councils at least. No civic initiatives of the future will get beyond square-one, because they won't be able to be contemplated. The alternative is to bleed ratepayers dry, until people simply give-up and vote with their feet, moving to centres which, by then, will be able to deliver a much better quality of life. We will find ourselves locked into a 20 year 'time-warp', during which the city will be able to accomplish nothing in the way of progress, while every other centre will leapfrog ahead of us, simply because they had the foresight, in times of financial uncertainty, to 'keep their powder dry' and their options 'open'. Even Invercargill will start to look attractive, by comparison. So that, in essence, will be our legacy to our grandchildren, not endless happy hours spent at the stadium enjoying events underwritten by the ratepayers-of-the-day, as a pre-condition to booking the stadium rather than any one of a number of alternative venues, around town, which will be lying idle, spreading the toxicity of this thing even further afield.
This city council has demonstrated almost unbelievable arrogance and my wish for its members is that they all be returned as councillors next elections, and required, under the closest public scrutiny, to clean up the mess they have insisted in dumping on the rest of us. They created it, they deserve to inherit it, with no weaselling out from under the responsibility. In a climate where they have no discretionary money to spend, without raising rates to unbearable levels, and having the city empty-out on them, they would then inherit the situation which, having got their way about the Stadium, they were going to dump onto those who would have inevitably, replaced them.
It might be a new and novel concept, but it's known as 'accountability'.

At the most basic level "silent majority" is a contradiction in terms, i.e. if 'they' are silent how can anybody know what 'they' are thinking? If anything can be construed from 'their' silence (whoever 'they' are) it is that 'they' are apathetic. Furthermore how can anybody then determine that 'they' are the majority?
To use such a phrase once to back up an argument is both obtuse and irrational and to continue doing so is fatuous, and denys the most fundamental notion of democracy - in short it's just plain stupid!

I heard on the BBC news that a first class English architect has designed a cover for the Centre Court at Wimbledon, arguably the most important place to have good grass growth! He received his commission a long time ago, he didn't say how long, but finally was pressed into fulfilling the contract, but still isn't confident that the grass will grow, let alone to Centre Court standard, because he was quite simply unable to find any reliable information or prior testing in covered situations, even though he is at the very centre of sophisticated societies.
That should give us pause for thought.

I have often wondered what would happen to Dunedin if this stadium is given the go ahead.
I don't think I'm the only one who has thought 'let them get on with it and make a right mess of the city so the pro-stadium people will know that us nay sayers were right afterall'
Some day when the tide has turned and there's no money left for protecting Dunedin from a vicious ocean, those who are still on this council may finally admit that they were the ones who were wrong.

The mayor uses anecdotal evidence to justify support for the stadium. He sounds surprised to have received any, so it may be true. However, how much notice did he take of anecdotal reports of opposition to the stadium? None. How much notice did he take of last year's scientific survey that showed more than 50% opposed to funding $92m of its costs? None. How much notice did he take of the most recent survey that showed the opposition to public funding 75% of its costs had swelled to over 70%? None. And how much notice did he take of calls to hold a referendum that would have provided him with statistical certainty in support (or otherwise) of his anecdotal evidence? None whatever.
Your Worship, anecdotal evidence is worthless, and you show your desperation when you use it in contradiction of scientifically collected data. It's time to keep it to yourself and perhaps time also to acknowledge some of the letters and calls you have received from those who opposed the stadium.

The elitist attiude of Mayor Chin and most of his councillors, by trivialising the financial difficulties of so many of Dunedin's ratepayers indicates that the DCC has no understanding of the obligations of Representative Democracy. By heedlessly pursuing a frivolous (unnecessary, of no long term benefit) monument to their obsessive desire for power and adulation they have breeched their fiduciary duty to the citizens of Dunedin. To me this is of grave concern, equal to that of having foisted upon us somthing that we don't want, and forcing most further into a financial position that seriously detracts from our welfare.
Is that the function of local government?
And don't forget that we don't yet know how the ORC are going to cover their commitment to this blind bid for self-agrandisement.

If 20,000 Aucklanders attended a protest march or meeting against some issue... then city councillors and news media and Mr Hide would sit up and take notice.
... Well, hello! As a percentage of the population, 20,000 people in Auckland is less than the 1800 who attended the protest march and Town Hall meeting in Dunedin.
... And a reputable and reliable survey carried out by the University of Otago, correcting for demographic groupings, showed that only 22% of residents who had an opinion supported public funding of the FuBarr. That figure certainly doesn't suport any assertion that there is public support.
... but look at those survey results more carefully. Among the fat cats, those who earn over $100,000 a year, there is 50% support for public funding of the FuBarr. Maybe they are the people who (a) could afford to attend any events at the FuBarr and (b) run the construction companies and consultancy firms which are going to get ratepayers' money from managing the FuBarr construction.
...and look at the men on the DCC and the ODT etc who are fervently supporting the FuBarr. How much do you think they earn per year? And who do you think they associate with?
...Maybe they honestly do think that there is a majority supporting the FuBarr. But that's because they only talk to rich, like-minded people in their own rarified circle of acquaintance and ignore anyone else. Readers who have tried to talk to pro-stadium councillors will have found out how quick they are to "put down" anyone who raises a contrary view.
... It is certainly baffling that anyone could ignore the evidence of the University of Otago survey, the number of Dunedinites who turned out to the meetings and marches, and the huge number of letters to the ODT by different people (more than ever got published, I understand).
...It will be interesting to read the wash-up of this whole FuBarr debacle in 2029, after growth in Dunedin has been hamstrung for 20 years by this imprudent use of ratepayers' money.

Amazing that a few supporters of the stadium on the ODT website who have been unable to provide any substantive answers to the myriad of vexed questions round funding, process, proposed usage, hidden agendas, windfalls from required land, secrecy, failure to front up to ratepayers etc etc make front page news. That's a pity.
Like Peter, I'm sure that the very few people who were able to ram this through will not be in a position to do similar things in future, but that is cold comfort to those that are being forced to support the narrow interests of a very few citizens of this city.

Peter @ 9:10am hit the nail on the head. Although the stadium is clearly the issue at heart, it is also true that like a ripple in a pool the process undertaken by our elected officials has highlighted the total disregard they have for many of their constituents. They clearly regard them as no more than a nuisance factor who have the audacity to question those who "know best"
Unfortunately for them it is not about whether we will "come on board" and support the stadium, but rather whether we will remember the disdain we felt when voicing opposition. I suggest some of us Dunedinites have good memories, and I for one have never felt so eager to cast my shadow over the next ballot box.

The elephantine question in the room here is not whether most people reluctantly support the stadium now that it's a fait accompli. It's whether that same majority represents approval for the actions of those who've railroaded the project through. I would suggest not.
The most fascinating thing about this whole stadium saga has been in observing the lengths the oligarchy (city "fathers", the old boys' network of businessmen, local Lord Beaverbrooks etc) will go to defy the popular will.
The CST chairman's comments as reported in this paper, for example, show his bewilderment that the masses can't just accept the "good judgement" of the "experts". The implication being that the local peasantry should doff their caps and be grateful for a bit of bread and the odd circus. Especially if they're served up in a $200 million (and counting) stadium.
Perhaps the great and good of the city would just prefer to dissolve the ratepayers and elect some new ones?
There's been a lot of talk about putting the controversy behind us and supporting the stadium; I guess we wouldn't be NZers if we didn't want to sweep conflict under the carpet at the first opportunity. It's true that we shouldn't obsess over this whole issue. However, I don't think I'll be the only one taking my annoyance with me to the ballot box come the next local body election.

I'm not sure that astroturfing is really news. I think mostly what we have here is an orchestrated greek chorus rather than people debating the issues

I have not and will not change my position of non support against this project.
My colleagues and I have had to reduce hours and take a pay cut. Strangely, the stadium supporters at work are not as happy about the go ahead as I expected, little wonder why.
My household rates have rocketed and my income has plummetted.
Most of my friends are in a similar situation across different employment sectors.
This will no doubt take out a lot of money from the local economy until things improve, whenever that may be.
My priorities are to hold on to my job and so I can support my family.
Supporting professional rugby is not a priority of mine nor should it be for the struggling ratepayer or taxpayer for that matter, especially in these tough economic times.