Guest apologises to councillors over Chin letter breach

Richard Walls says that just to bring the Town Hall up to regulatory standards will cost $22m to $25m. This as part of the whole $45m conference centre project.
I am looking today at an aerial photo on page 11 of the ODT showing the progress on the Universty's new department of psychology building. It is a 4,700sqm five- storey construction to provide teaching, research, laboratory and office spaces. It is costing $25m to build.
What? And the Town Hall refit of existing, costs the same amount? I would suggest to Richard Walls that he seriously question what's going on here. Another example of just how out of touch with reality these people are.

Richard, what on earth are you talking about? I was taking the bait? This is not some type of fishing contest. This is another reason why one would not bother to attend council meet the people sessions. It is the constant put down of any and all reasoned comment which does not fit your requirements. You demonstrate that clearly, by your assessment of what it was that I had just posted.
As for saying that the "clip on" never got to design, then perhaps you should ask Cr Bezett and Peter Brown where they thought it got to. It was disclosed as a concept in the ODT together with a comprehensive public disclosure of all it entailed including cost estimates, economic benefits and time frames. Now you are saying it was just a figment on the back of a cigarette packet. Is that what you think fired up the "Hands off Harrop" people? Give them credit, please.!
Either you haven't kept up with council's own reports of the time, or your memory is failing.

Maybe a dysfunctional family chat. I've found Cr. Guest's comments quite offensive. He in particular doesn't seem willing to listen to people who tell him things he doesn't want to hear.

It's not much different really to a large family 'chat' around a big table. The response from those who have availed themselves of the opportunity has been positive.
You do not seem to be aware of the extent of consultation that council undertakes.
Putting aside the day-to-day stuff that elected members are traditionally involved with, and the on-going formal consultation etc (which quite frankly, I think is in 'overload') council makes extensive and fruitful use of 'focus groups' drawn from across all sectors of the population of our city.
Take the current draft Housing Strategy currently out for consultation. A letter with a questionnaire is being sent to all tenants and individuals who submitted to the Draft Community Plan, as well as organisations council have identified as providing, or having an interest in, social housing.
The letter includes an invitation to attend focus groups being held in the first week of August for the tenants, and on 24 July for the organisations and general public.
This draft policy is ironically, what led to "the Stevenson' affair." Cr. Stevenson was a member of the Working Party. She was opposed to one of the options in the draft being put out for public consideration. Fair enough. She voted to deny the public that right. She was the only one to do so. And that is a matter of public record.

For some reason, the first paragraph of my previous response just 'disappeared'. It made the point that councillors are well aware of your various points from your many emails etc and postings here and on another site. Yes, you have been listened to. Some of our email exchange confirms that. Council has decided not to accept your arguments, yet you continue to repeat and embellish them. But you cannot say you have not been listened to. Oh yes, Logan Park has not simply "been parked" just because of the stadium. There are other various physical issues which are being or still need to be resolved. There is no change to its priority for council as confirmed in the recently adopted Community Plan (LTCCP). Unanimously as I recall. I agree, end of this conversation. Cheers.

Thank you for "taking the bait" - I was not certain that you would. You see, the original concept of the 'so-called glass clip-on' never got to design. And you are stuck in past rough 'estimates' for parts of that concept.
For a start, the cost of bringing the Town Hall up to regulatory standards is about $22-$25.
That would not have increased its use or its revenue streams.
Yes, H-O-H played a part in the changed approach. So did many others including Ted McCoy.
And you hark back to Peter Brown. Just how out of touch are you?

I think that being stared down by the full council is very intimidating - it's certainly not an equal power situation where everyone is speaking from their strengths. One reason I suggested below that you ought to go out and regularly hold public meetings and actually listen to the citizens in your ward - the people you were elected to represent - was to turn that power relationship around.

There is another alternative through - a lot more openness and public comment - during my OE I lived in cities that held 2 hour question times before every council meeting, broadcast on local TV - they drew up to 4-500 citizens to each meeting sometimes with overflow crowds - and making sure the media took notice of both sides. Speakers got 10 minutes each and were drawn by ballot. Council meetings were also in public and broadcast. Sure you'll get a lot of cranks (cranks are citizens too and deserve to be heard), and you'll be exposed to ideas you might not want to hear - but at least you'll get to hear from everyone.

Look at the recent parking fiasco" the mayor had a meeting with some local shop owners and pledged to fix the problem - yet the large bulk of the people who are really annoyed about the parking changes are not shop owners, they're the people who have to pay the increased parking charges, or who have found that the free spot they used to be able to walk to work from is gone - when are you going to meet with them and address their needs?

As I said above you need to hear from everyone, not just some privileged groups who have the ear of the council - and you have to go out of your way to do it - I don't think you do that very well at all.

I for one would love the opportunity to discuss some of the projects - but there is no sense in talking to someone who has already determined they will not listen. As you may recall, I for one, were amongst the large numbers who supported the Logan Park Development. It had community buy-in, Council support and would benefit the whole community. Where is it now? Parked on a back-burner while we spend community money on providing assets for a private business. Forum subjects are determined by Council not by the community. Richard - time to call a halt to this conversation. While it may have been said that consultation does not mean agreement - and I agree with that - it does mean a genuine process of listening. You, in my view, are not doing that.

Let's look at the Town Hall/Dunedin Centre. Question; did the about face on the glass clip on come because of the "Hands off Harrop" group prevailing, or because the design staff realised what an error they had made. The clip on really added very little to the effective space being sought, most certainly not relative to the cost. Don't forget that this was when the cost was estimated at $18.5m. It made good sense to concede the point to "Hands off Harrop" to get out of that glitch.

No, Richard, I don't have a problem with upgrading the Town Hall, after all she is 80 years old and pretty much original. Modern requirements for fire safety, air quality, seating and decor are in order. What I have, and continue to dispute, is the concept of spending vast sums -presently $45m- to try to turn Dunedin into an international conference centre. This is blue sky dreaming of the first order. I had discussions with Peter Brown over that years ago, and his justifications then were quite frankly, nutty.

The economic benefits to the city were flawed for the $18.5m. and clearly unsustainable for the $45m. His successor, Kate Styles is just as obdurate. I was, at the same time told publicly by Cr Bezett that I was one of those unfortunate people who knew the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Again, that was when it was $18.5m. Watch when the tenders come in and the project planned is completed to see if it doesn't get near $60m. And then sit back and wait for the international conference goers to flood in. Sorry Richard, that is why I have no faith in your meet the council and discuss suggestions.

Sorry, Russell. I remind you that - as Justice McGeekan - ruled, "consultation does not mean agreement".
You and Calvin seemingly do not wish to test your opinions in an exchange of views with council as provided for under the new form of Public Forum.
I invite you and anyone else to do so.
If you choose not to, I do not need to wonder why. The answer is obvious.

Only someone totally absorbed in their own view of 'the world' could make a comment like that!
I need only mention two current projects which are, in my opinion, two outstanding examples of what can be achieved when those involved are prepared to talk with each other: The Town Hall/Dunedin Centre and Logan Park.
And there are many more.

Richard Walls' suggested that I and others mentioned should avail ourselves of the open public forum, Council holds every six weeks.
Question: Why would you?
Council has never, in recent years, shown any propensity to listen to anybody who does not agree with their direction.
Anyway, the public media is much more fun for showing up the absurdities of the games they play. Richard should know that better than anybody.

Cr. Guest's 'theatrical' gesture in apologising for a trivial and totally inconsequential 'slip-of-the-tongue' has probably been seen by most as what it undoubtedly was; an attempt to prove that Cr Stevenson was not being unduly set-upon by having to apologise; 'After-all, it has happened to me as well'. I feel this has been widely seen for what it really was and will influence no-one, except in a negative and unintended sense.

It would be good if you could address at least some of the main points I raised in this post. Your reply is unfortunately indicative of the sort of responses I have seen in the past. My experience has been that many councillors simply have made up their minds prior to any "consultative" process taking place, other submissions or conversations have been ignored or not read, and some individuals that have made submissions have been subjected to personal abuse or attack in a number of ways.

Consultation, if it means anything at all, must occur with a background of both parties being honestly listened to - not easy to do when one of those parties is not willing to do that.

In addition to a myriad of other consultative processes, the Council holds an open public forum as part of its six weekly round. I note you and other outspoken critics of council process - including Stop The Stadium, Calvin Oaten and Ian Smith, to name but three - have never once availed yourself of the opportunity to use that forum and talk with council instead of at council.

The problem Cr Walls, is that the general perception that this Council has is that it consists in the main, of people that are in no mood to listen to the community before it decides on its pre-determined course. If the Council were genuinely interested in engaging the community in the issues that confront it and showed some evidence that they wanted to take advantage of the good ideas and constructive thoughts that undoubtedly exist within it, then there would have been a great deal less angst.

Put another way, there have not been too many shining examples where the community has been overwhelmingly supportive of the actions of the Council. More often than not, the general perception is that the Council are working against the community rather than with it. The perception is that well-informed opinion has been generally been not listened to and it is an unfortunate fact that there have been numerous examples where projects or ideas have been foisted upon the community without such consultation or without Council really listening to counter arguments.

The Stadium, the Town Hall clip-on, and the recent parking changes all seem to fit into that category. All these projects have arisen from a small number of individuals or from Council staff rather than a general upswelling of community desire, and should therefore be seen to be only adopted after either specific or general consultation. Of course the community doesn’t always have the bright ideas that can lead to the formation of a project. Nothing at all wrong with an individual or a small group coming up with an idea or concept that the community hadn't thought of and then that idea being raised within the LTCCP or Annual Plan process.

Also nothing wrong with consultants or staff coming up with a plan or project that they believed was a good one. But it is the job and responsibility of Council to then take those ideas and present them to the community through the planning process and genuinely listen to what people say. If that process had happened I very much doubt that the Hands off Harrop group would have had to be formed, or the public meetings called by the retailers would have been not needed. History shows that the Council consultation on the biggest of these projects – the stadium – has been characterised by secrecy, sometimes in the name of “commercial sensitivity”, and, it must be said, by processes that were not designed to fully inform the community. Some have said that there has been a process of deception, or at least mis-information. You know, as well as the community knows, that the many conditions and “lines in the sand” put in place to ensure that the project only proceeded with adequate safeguards were simply ignored or bypassed. Somewhere in this process the consequences of the Councillors that make these decisions become much more personalised. Individual Councillors who vote one way or another must be responsible for the way they vote, and invariably they will be held to account for those decisions. I think it a great shame that the Council have steered away from calling public meetings or forums to discuss particular projects. This type of meeting, quite separate from the Annual Plan submissions, can be specific about a particular project. When meetings have been called, it has been the public that have had to organise these, pay for them, and sometimes endure either the refusal of Councillors to attend, or in some cases behaviour from Councillors that was less than acceptable. Not always the case, but I have certainly witnessed such behaviour in the past. I’m pleased that your outburst to one of the posters on this forum has been at least partially withdrawn, but your general suggestion to leave Dunedin if you don’t like what the Council is doing is one which I’m sure will not be seen in a good light. It is our community just as much as it is yours.

Richard Walls' attempt to paper over the Stevenson debacle is pathetic. There is no doubt that Ms Stevenson was persecuted by Mr Chin. Even if she did transgress, and the panel ruled that she should apologise, why did she have to submit multiple apologies, other than to publicly humiliate her? This was purely at the discretion of Mr Chin. I am sorry Mr Walls but you can't sweep this under the carpet like that.

I accept your point. I was not suggesting you raised the matters referred to in my direct response.
You are obviously not aware of the previous posts on other threads such as "Mayor's Syncophants' (and indeed, other blogs) that I was referring to. I apologise for inadvertently putting you in the crossfire.
My response to 'MikeStk' below may clarify things.
I am simply speaking out to try and put a stop to 'the playing of the person' which is no substitute for well informed and robust debate and which, in my opinion and many of those who have spoken to me in recent weeks, has gone well beyond the bounds of fair comment.
The so-called 'Stevenson Apology' and the myth that has been created around it is, for me, a step too far. The Mayor has been unjustly abused for a process which was not of his making but which, under Standing Orders of Council, he is bound to enforce.
As for 'the invitation to leave', it is well targetted at some who have come quite recently to live in our city and who have brought with them some attitudes quite 'foreign' to this city and region.
They have contributed nothing but have are happy to take. Perhaps I should have said: "go home".

I take exception to Cr. Walls slur on those who use anonymity for various reasons as I don't, and I never have. Certainly, it would be better if these people exhibited the courage of their convictions, and made themselves known; but who does, on the internet these days? I support most of the views expressed on this thread, which he seems to take exception to and can see, expressed in his attitude once again, the patronising 'them-and-us' mindset which a growing number of Dunedin people are seeing as characteristic of this present Council and its administrative minions.

Dunedin people have been blamed, for long enough for 'complacency' and when they do begin to show an interest in the city's administration and their views run counter to those of the current Council and its administration we are, in Cr Walls's eyes, to be castigated for it. Let's face it Richard, the Stadium issue and its handling has been both a disgrace and a P.R. disaster. It has become the focal-point for a lot of people working out for themselves that 'everything in the garden' is not as lovely as your lot would try an project. To make their feelings known, is part of the right of every rate-payer, as long as it does not infringe considerations of legality. In a phrase which was being bandied around in this medium just a week-or-two ago, 'Get Over It' as opposition to the present regime is not going to 'go away', as the Council had hoped.

In reply to your post ‘Enough is Enough’: 1. I expressed an opinion, relating to that news article. Yawn, has the DCC nothing better to do?
2. You appear to have flown off the handle –‘ protesteth too much’?
3. I made no mention of Chinese gardens
4. Nor was any racist comment made.
5. Chin had a "thumping majority" – but only on the day.
6. I didn’t mention Stevenson.
7. Your last comment, “If you don’t like it here, go live somewhere else” is somewhat improper for a city councillor of your standing, especially considering the recent DCC satisfaction survey.
In closing, consider this: "We have grown up under the ancient assumption of English Common law, that the law exists to defend the liberties of the citizens rather than impose the will of the sovereign State; that it is the State, not the citizen, that needs permission for what it does." Source: http://www.silentmajorityspeaks.com/#top1

I'm not sure you read what I wrote - I was pointing out that the while the council may have been aware of what the mayor was doing the mayor was going behind the back of the citizens and offering to hock off our elder housing in secret - despite having promised to do otherwise.

Remember you guys are elected to represent the citizens of your ward, not the ORFU, not the CST (some of whom after all live in Christchurch and Invercargill) and not your own personal opinions and agendas either - when was the last time you held a public meeting to find out what the people you represent want? - you should be doing that every 2-3 months.

I nominate "Dunedin: If you don't like it here, go live somewhere else" as the city's new branding. Closely beaten out by: "Dunedin: No consultation here" and "Dunedin: Where city-owned enterprises can buy properties owned by holding companies of which their directors are also directors"

The Mayor did not act 'in secret' on the matter you refer to. What I have said has nothing to do with people who 'oppose' my views. Cr Stevenson and now Cr Guest have simply broken the rules by which councillors govern their own conduct. They have been "yellow-carded". They have been held accountable by their peers. That is what I am referring to.

The 'facts will out" on the Stevenson enquiry and whether you accept it or not, her action had nothing to do with 'the public interest'. She has now apologised to Council and the matter should have ended there. The endless stirring that has ensured on this blog will ensure - as I have said that the "facts will out" and when that happens, well it will be interesting to see what 'weasel words' are posted here then.

By 'facts out', I am referring the enquiry itself not any 'letters' or whatever. On the matter you riase, the Mayor did not "act in secret and behind the backs of council". The complaint against Cr Stevenson did not relate to that all. She broke the rules which councillors set themselves. Simple as that. It had notjing to do with serving public interest'.

Oh dear, no sooner do we get the Cr Stevenson pantomime behind us than another scandal hits. Again, Mayor Peter Chin writes a sensitive letter of humbug to the Regional Council and Cr Guest can't wait to tittle tattle about it to someone not privy to it. He then grovels abjectly, saying how sorry he is. This is a qualified lawyer - albeit struck off - for goodness sake. But hey, says Guest, "my indiscretion is smaller than hers," in a sort of reverse male, "mine's bigger than yours' " contest.

I find your comment 'the "facts" out, as they must' deeply ironic considering the context. I would hope that all facts of our city governance would 'out' as they occur and only be very occasionally kept in secret after long debate by the council - your current proceedings are largely opaque to the citizens.

Yes, having the people who elected you looking over your shoulder can be a pain, but we think it keeps you honest and more likely to act in our interests. While I know little of Cr Guest's behavior, in Cr Stephenson's case it seems obvious that the mayor did act in secret, and behind the backs, not of the council but of the citizens. Whether or not the city should sell off elder housing was an election issue at the last election, it was raised by one of the candidates and made the front page in the ODT - the mayor promised it wouldn't happen - yet in secret he approached the government to try and hock off people's homes.

This is not about racism, I think you're just making yet another ad-hominem attack on people who oppose your views. Personally I've never publicly commented on the Chinese Garden before this: I think it's a good idea and has turned out well. This is about holding a politician accountable to his public promises.

Delta already put in the electrical cabling for free; they are just buying back their own asset. Now they can lease it to themselves and the circle of nonsense will be complete.

Tired Farmer has just read in the NBR that Dunedin's City Council's Delta has rescued Hanover by purchashing one hundred sections at Jack's Point Queenstown and also a half share in Jim Boult's Luggate Empire. Who would be a DCC ratepayer? Will there now be a Forsyth Barr Stadium at Queenstown.

Gosh am I thankful that I am not a ratepayer of the DCC, have just read that the Dunedin City Council-owned electricity contractor Delta has bought 100 sections at the 700-lot Jacks Point development in Queenstown that were earmarked for troubled Hanover Finance.

This council is out of control with no sound business practice and prudent stewardship of resources has gone out the back door. It is evident that the old boys network is alive and well.

Quite frankly, I have had enough of this nonsense and continued personal abuse levelled at the Mayor. It nothing more than a continuation of what we witnessed over the Chinese Garden. Much of that had racist overtones which was quite unacceptable. Peter Chin was re-elected our Mayor with a thumping majority.

It is one thing to have a differing opinion. Quite another to hurl personal abuse. The Mayor did not act in this matter "behind anyone's backs'. Far from it. Council was well aware of ongoing discussions. The Mayor appraised us of his letter. A councillor chose to break confidence. That had nothing to do with public interest, nothing at all.

The Mayor did not seek an apology from Cr. Stevenson. Council did after considering a report from a committee chaired by an independent person of legal standing. When the "facts" out, as they must, some people around town will have cause to be justly embarrassed. Except those, who take the cowardly course of being anonymous. One word describes them. Cowards. If you don't like it here, go live somewhere else.