Council signs stadium contract

They say if you put a crayfish in a pot of boiling water, it will jump straight out.
But if you put it in cold water, then turn up the heat, it won't notice the gradual temp increase, so it then boils to death.
Yes, that's ghastly, but it makes a comparison.
They spin people with $1.28 a week, or $66 a year, it's just a gradual way of taking a larger sum of money. Had they said $1320, pay it now, it would be like putting the boiling water in straight off. For poorer income earners, that could be a return ticket to a well needed holiday. But it's a matter of principle. Imagine if every fringe 'want' crowd came up with this? We'd be broke. For some rugby and little else, the stadium doesn’t (or shouldn’t even blip on the priority scale. Core infrastructure like libraries Moana, transport etc does. And it's the individual’s business if he drinks and buys tobacco, he has paid, then paid tax again, but it’s his choice as to what he does with his hard earned dosh. I, as we all do, pay tax that goes towards roads, but my pushbike I always use does no wear and team on them, but I don't object. To a rugby cathedral I do. Especially when other worthwhile projects in town get no money, when the amount asked for is a drop in the proverbial bucket compared to the stadium.
The $66 must be a have anyway. I mean, what about the re-roading of SH88, tax money. Or the amount of ratepayer's dosh spent on the large corporate box and stand, at Carisbrook, to be pulled down when still classed as new? That’s part of the cost. And then there's the cost of purchasing Carisbrook itself.
And what about the $51 million spent on this thing so far, before even a spade has been applied at the site? Wouldn’t that be over and above all the other costs, including the magical $188, oops $198 million (and not a cent more, mind!) they spin upon us? Thats the real cost.
The other real cost is the 'no-can do' to any other project for many years to come, many which I've outlined in other posts, conducive to enhancing our heritage and other attractions, (our sellers), and drawing further visitors.

Nothing was said of character buildings in place of where the stadium was proposed, most of it is, or was, an industrial area, which happen to be a fact of life. You have to have it somewhere in a city, and its somewhat more constructive than a stadium. Should we be bowling over those unsightly fuel silos adjacent to the stadium site as well, then? I would agree the area is untidy, but somehow there are cheaper options than a $200 million stadium of making it look a bit better. Fonterra should still be there. In most places, like USA, there's just miles of this urban decay, usually the later effects of endless development that’s gone to ruin. Try LA, or Philadelphia, parts of London. Some large utilitarian building will hardly be much more an improvement. And given the rate of money being shoveled into this, it will at least impede keeping work done on the actual notable character buildings we do have, let alone create more attractions for them to see.

Todays Courier Mail bore news about the plight of Queenslands stadiums.
"The Bligh (Queensland) Government has admitted losing almost $80 million running the state's stadiums in less than a decade".
Question: If Queensland can't make money on it's stadiums with a population of 4.3 million people (including enough New Zealanders to fill Dunedin three times over) then what chance does Dunedin have of making money on the lunchbox with a population of around 115,000?

Instead of driving down beautiful Anzac Avenue they will be getting a much more wonderful view of the back of the warehouses and the railway.

$66/year is just the average amount - sadly my rates bill is not average, it's a lot higher - I will be paying a lot more than $66/year
Speaking of GST - I think that $66 is before the GST is calculated on our rates ....
And of double taxation - this one will be triple taxed: we'll be being taxed by the City on our rates, the ORC on their rates and the National government to pay for the $15M they're kicking to make up for the private funding that CST was unable to raise.

20x$66 = $1320
If you believe that we are only paying an average of $1320, then I've got a really good used car deal for you.
$1320 x 52,000 households is only $68m.
Considering interest in the council loan will be in the region of $100m, capital repayments are another $100m, there will be cost over runs, a huge shortfall in private sector funding, and massive running losses every year (partially due to the fact that corporate boxes and memberships that were counted in running revenue, have now been transfered to CST private capital funding).
The rest of the money comes by way of smoke and mirrors - instead of paying directly, it will come out of the rates subsidies we get from our city-owned assets.
In other words it makes no difference - we will still pay, but the council can trick people into thinking it's much less than it is.
So we are told it's just $66 per week, but are advised by the DCC our rates will increase by an average of $600 per year in four years time (and more after that).

Yes it really is a pity that so many "character" buildings have to be demolished to make way for the stadium.
Those cruise ship visitors won't have an ugly bare space and so many run down buildings to look at on their way to the city any more.
Shame really.

20 x $66 = $1320
.
How often do you buy a coffee? $1.28 a week is less than half the cost of a coffee. You can't even get a 7oz beer for that these days.
Let's get things in perspective.
I'd look more to the government for double-taxing us to the hilt on anything and everything they can. You buy petrol/road-user, get taxed and then you pay GST on top of that. You pay alcohol/tobacco tax and then GST.
Now that's something that gets me angry...and don't get me started on electricity companies, telecommunications monopolies and banks.

A new stadium will not detract from the character of Dunedin . . . as long as we can keep developers from knocking down our heritage buldings and putting money into preserving them instead.
A problem exists where owners of heritage buildings let them get run down so they either need a huge capital investment to save them or get demolished as they are unsafe.
It's all very well moaning about it, but who's doing anything about it? We are talking private property and despite the efforts of the Historic Places Trust it all boils down to the almighty dollar.
One thing that's always got my goat is how the Council can stipulate what colour you can paint your property but it doesn't matter that it's going to fall down through poor maintenance.

Then why did over 60 cruise ships come between October and last month? Mind you, with the insult attempt at Otira, another typical 'lets build all over the show and ruin the authenticity' , it seems to be a popular photographer’s stop on the Tranz Alpine train, people like it because it's been not turned into another generic mass of glass and tin, for the sake of change and so called 'progress'. Such places don't seem to suffer from an identity crisis, and keep timeless. So many people try to make that sound 'naff', which is just being ignorant. Dunedin has an identity, and it's character buildings that many similar 'naysayers' prevented being pulled down, (such as the Town Hall, now an icon) and that proved to be foresight.
Trying to market a city so far south, for stadia events and pouring millions into it (mostly rugby, which people in this day and age watch in their own home, rather than a hard stadium seat) will turn it into a dead place. Enhancing and adding to what already sells it to the travelling public is a winner, and it will serve locals as well.

Given what we're all going to be paying (at least $6000 for the thing over the next 20 years in my case) I think all the ratepayers should be getting lounge memberships and box seats - maybe we can vote in a council that will.

Being one of the 'silent majority' who's quite prepared to put in money by way of rates (in my case, reflected in higher rent) and commitment to a lounge membership, I say it's time for the city to move ahead and not become the Otira of Otago.

This is very interesting, pity this is the sanitised 'public' version, it would seem that the real contract is 3 times the size (the 65 pages referred to in the document rather than 23 actually presented) so we're still not able to tell all of what's going on.

The cost seems to be limited to $165M paid to the contractor but there would seem to be a whole bunch of extra costs over and above that that CST will be responsible for (and I assume the rate payers will get stuck with):

• cost all permitting, RMA, consents, etc
• costs of the bonds for the above
• some of the insurance (including insurance of nearby structures if the contractor makes a mistake, or for the entire project up to the value of $165M plus demolition/architects/inflation of construction costs should the contractor default or cut and run)
• the architect
• it would seem that CST will be employing it's own staff to oversee the actual work - that's going to cost too

In short this appears to be a contract that limits what the CST pays the contractor, not what the city pays CST. There also doesn't seem to be anything at all in there saying that the contractor will give work to local subcontractors. Really though we need to see the real contract with all the blanked out bits filled in to tell what's really going on.

This will be the only stadium in the country that has been financed mainly through public money. All other stadia have had major private revenues. People who are anti-stadium aren't against spending money and leaving legacies for future generations. Just think of what fantastic things you could spend $160 million on, it just needs a bit of imagination. No imagination is required to feed so much public money into a mainly private venture.

OK, thanks for participating in the debate about the debacle that is about to finacially decimate our city.
It is nice to know that there are some people further north of Oamaru that know Dunedin exists.
My main points against your posting is that you are assuming the anti-stadium brigade is full of old codgers.
That is not the case. We are not all members of Grey Power or always vote for New Zealand First.
There is a large cross section in both supporter and non supporter camps.
As for being selfish, how about I turn that back and say it is incredibly selfish of the professional rugby companies and their supporters to expect the majority of ratepayers (and renters through increased rents to cover this) to build something so expensive and over the top so they can indulge in watching their sport?
Same goes for the billion dollar Auckland water front stadium.
Also, there are a truckload of other things in life that have priority over sport.
And every region would have to host the IRB sevens every year to cover their stadium costs, just like Wellington.
Dunedin, unlike Auckland, is barely holding on to the populace it has and that won't change due to a stadium being built or not.
Thanks again for your comments though.
And there is already a stadium here by the way.

There seems to be a widely used myth here; that all opposed to the stadium are older or retired. Perhaps a visit to the march 29 anti stadium rally at the town hall would have put paid to that, or the earlier street protest march there was a great swag and cross section of people. I saw more than dozens of protesters in their 20s. I myself am 40, so a way yet from the pension. I cannot stand the primeval violent game of rugby. The selfish same lies on the heads of sport, rugby people who have had endless amounts of public money thrown at venues, and then want more, more, more. Not the people who have the common sense realisation that this is a blatant waste of a huge sum of money, especially for a small city that struggles to fill any existing venues.
As an Aucklander you don't seem to value what we have wanted to retain here, a place with character, sense of place, heritage buildings and lots of unspoiled scenery on doorstep. And that’s what saw 60 cruise ships visit. Plus check any travel guide. What is Dunedin renowned for? It bears nothing in relation to stadiums that are barely used to maximum capacity being the driving force of the economy. This will stop any other potential project like building upon our heritage status and anything else, for years to come. and for what?
The injunction was a small cost to defend a much greater cost, it is 200 million, don't forget. If that's what you call forward thinking, (a rugby temple) then the earth must be flat. A little imagination as to the many things that could be done with such money is the difference between a unique magnet attraction such as Kelly Tarltans underwater world to the torn up waterfront stadium plans. Auckland got it right there.
If you think any anti stadium is not thinking of the future of the next generation, perhaps you should visit here and try using our bus service, infrequent, not easy to figure out and at bus stops, you won’t find real time info. Nor will you get anywhere online trying to make a travel planner. Public transport might be a good place to start…. And perhaps cycleways, yes, promoting eco friendly, and good for health means of transport. I’m sure that’s more beneficial for future generations, and is fully utilized daily. Dunedin got a review some time ago as being the most cyclist unfriendly city in New Zealand. As a cyclist myself, I can vouch for that! I could give a long list of things we need, rather than more stadia decadence when we have Carisbrook, recently half of which was rebuilt.
All very well for out-of-towners to cast dispersions.

Or alternatively http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/__data/assets/minutes_agenda/0018/64260/ma_r_council_stadium.pdf.

Contract information contained within.

Try searching here: http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/your-council/minutes-and-agendas. Stadium papers are under both Council and the Finance and Strategy Committee. There are plenty of 2009 documents available through this search.

May I introduce myself as a 27 year old currently residing in Auckland. I'll probably get a bit of stick for my comments (and for been from Auckland, but we are used to that), but thats because i'm probably one of the only people 'for' new stadia that has time to post a comment.
I have been following the Dunedin Stadium debate for the last year and a half with quite a bit of interest. As an avid sports fan, I personally think every major region in New Zealand deserves a stadium of quality that their region can build a legacy around. We have seen the great things done with the cake tin in Wellington, and I believe the same will apply to this stadium in Dunedin. Those are obviously the thoughts of a young male.
If I were to put the shoe on the other foot and think about the ratepayers who regard spending money on anything other than footpaths, librarys and museums, I can see the argument with not wanting a stadium. Your time to create a legacy is done and dusted. You want to enter into retirement not pressured to keep forking out money in your rates towards something you see as no benefit. Like I say, I hear your argument, but shame on you people. The time to be selfish is gone. I think its time you started thinking about the generations beneath you and let them have a legacy worth protecting. Don't act like you've never been on the end of a good decision in your life. I can gurantee you if you put the question "Would you like a new stadium in your region" into the Census, it would favourably be 'for'. Thats because only the people who are against a decision act upon it. I don't know why. But I say good on the council(s) for having the balls to go through with something like this. Let it be a lesson to the idiots in Auckland who have no idea. (and again, the do-gooders who didn't want a waterfront stadium because it would block their apartment view). Let it go all you people against it. You've probably cost the rate and tax payer alot more than you should of, and I hope the courts order you to pay money to the council for their wasted time in effort in defending some forward thinking.

I still don't see a copy of the contract, in fact there's been nothing new on their page about the stadium since 2008.

If you want more up to date Council papers you should search under the Agendas and Minutes section of the DCC website for papers submitted to the Council and Finance and Strategy Committee. Most info is there.

OK - now it's signed there's no 'commercial sensitivity' when can we see a copy?
The council's web page of 'relevant documents' hasn't changed since July last year, it's about time they came clean with what they've done.