Mayor bullish on council record

I don't know if anyone remembers, but the stadium was a major election issue and you, the people of Dunedin, elected this council.

My recollection is that only Michael Guest declared his unqualified support for the new rugby stadium prior to the last election. He got re-elected by a whisker.
There were at least three that indicated their lack of support for such a project quoting other expenditure took a higher priority and they got elected.
And of course at that time the new rugby stadium was a project that has been correctly pointed out was to be largely funded by the private sector. Indeed we were promised that their funding of $45.5m towards construction was to be in place before anything happened. We know what happened there - the pitiful income from the private sector that actually has been extracted is actually advance revenue, not capital, and that shortfall is now met by a ratepayer funded bridging loan.

Now we have the ORC fiddling round trying to get rid of the tax liability by paying that money in advance to a private Trust who have not yet declared any financial statements to the public who have been paying them untold millions from our purses. Oh, and yes, the ORC funding was conditional on the site being cleared prior to any funding. It's not, but not meeting self-imposed conditions hasn't stopped either Council going ahead anyway.
So, Mayor Chin, don't think that this will all go away with a bit of PR spin, it won't. The only thing that should go away is those Councillors who have failed in their role to be fit people to govern our city.

The stadium wasn't decided by the local body election - for instance I myself voted for a couple of stadium supporters even thought I've lobbied hard against the stadium because I think it is the stupidest and possibly most corrupt thing the DCC have done since they sold off their power generation without even a legal challenge.
If the DCC/ORC had really wanted to know what the city thought we would have held a proper referendum. I wonder why the DCC avoided such?

What you said is indeed "rubbish" - during the election there were two groups who put candidates forward against the stadium - and NO groups who put candidates for the stadium.
One could of course argue that the "Tartan Mafia" put forward stealth candidates who did not come out publicly in favour on the stadium in order to be elected.
In the end the two groups split the anti stadium vote but two of their candidates were elected: Crs Staynes and Cull.

In the Mayor's "bullish" comments he shows how far removed he is from the real role of Mayor of a smallish city. His arrogance towards the opinions of the citizens is reflected by ignoring the public will when it doesn't suit his (or Jim Harland's) objective. This is coincidentally what he accuses Dunedin's citizens of.
Then he makes the statement "I am me, and I always have been me." This is on a par with the often foot in mouth former US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. One of his more infamous statements began with the line "I don't know what I don't know." Shortly afterwards he (reluctantly) resigned the position.
Some wag suggested the stadium should be called "The Chin Bin". I suggest it is time to bin Chin (and his offsiders). This should be a red card for repeated infringements, the yellow card having been issued previously.

I read what Mr Chin had to say and wondered just what colour the sky is in his world. Since when has it been the job of ratepayers to subsidise the building industry, creating projects that keep skills in Dunedin? Have we suddenly become a milti million population over night or are we still a small provincial town? Skilled people migrate to where ever the job takes them, always have and always will. The increasing burden on the poor (as in improvrished) ratepayers of this town is almost criminal, when will we see the money spent to benefit all the people of Dunedin not just the chosen few? I feel it is not long until the standard of living in Dunedin is below that of a third world nation, poor malnurished people struggling to survive. It would be really interesting to know how many of these decision makers have shares or some other interest in the industries benefiting from these lucrative contracts. Perhaps the expenses and interests of our local councillors should be published as have the MPs, I expect it would make interesting reading.

If tha Mayor cares to read his own code of conduct, he may be surprised to see it is his job to advocate for the community - not for construction contractors or the ORFU. And he can't even bring himself to acknowledge the criticism of council - instead he says the criticism on only because of change, then he puts his head back into the sand again.

The last NZ bullish leader and his Think Big politics went down in flames not all that long ago - albeit on the national playing field. Mr. Chin, please do all of us a favour and resign now.

Any candidate that was clearly against the stadium was soundly thrashed and now spend their lives writing to this paper and blogging. Normally about our Mayor and council. Bring on the Stadium and more power to Mr Chin , a true "Dunedinite".

Every day since Peter Chin has been mayor of Dunedin, one more long term resident is making plans to leave the city.
His name will forever be remembered by those who could not afford to turn a heater on anymore.

It is absolutely not the DCC's role or responsibility to look after the construction industry in Dunedin or maintain its skill base. I do not pay rates for this purpose - or wasn't aware that I should be paying them for this purpose.
This is an appalling mindset and indicative of an ongoing and very worrying drift away from core business by the council. There doesn't seem to be any effort being made to discipline spending or to rein in the scope of projects the DCC thinks it should be tackling. Why is it that no-one even considers rates reductions anymore?
Note to mayor and council: your people are angry, facing financial hard times, fed up with being ignored, sick of your headstrong attitude and head in the clouds thinking. Wake up. You serve us, not the other way round, and we are not a bottomless pit of money.
By the way - the library should stay where it is. We can't afford an expensive refit of a derelict building in an area with no easy parking.

Please get your facts correct as 3 non stadium supporters got in by clearly saying they did not support the stadium but not a single pro stadium supporter got in as the rest all said "we want to wait and see" words to that effect. In fact can you give me a quote from any of the now (after they got in) pro stadium people that they pre election came out and said vote for me I want the stadium. You wont find any because they knew then it was not going to get them elected and hid behind the "i need to look into it further"etc etc if im elected.

What rubbish. The stadium was not decided in the local body election.
Firstly, go and have a look at your book of candidate statements - with a few exceptions, most were very non-committal in their statements.
Secondly, people weren't solely voting on the stadium issue. It is only about a 10% increased debt, so while significant it wasn't the sole issue people were voting on.
The only polls that asked solely about the stadium have shown that the people of Dunedin are largely against the stadium as it is proposed (ie with massive public funding).

You have to admire Mayor Peter Chin's altruism. As his legacy he wants to "leave a city rich in infrastructure, as previous generations had." Never mind if we actually need them, or more important, that we can afford them. He cites the council's building programme as being the saviour of the industry in Dunedin.
Is it the rate payers' task to carry this responsibility, when in actual fact if the recession is not over by the time these projects are completed it will have no effect?
Is it right that the rate payers should be burdened with enormous debt for generations to satisfy his whims? Is it right that the stadium and the Dunedin town hall/conference centre should be built without empirical evidence that either will be utilised at anything like an economic potential?
Is it right that he should leave office (when he does) with a legacy of debt approaching three quarters of a billion dollars?
To simply say,"I am me and I always have been me," is no justification for acting in such an irrational and financially imprudent manner. In essence, it would be fair to say that elected councillors and the administration are equally culpable by their actions in risking putting the city into an insolvent state.
That will be his true legacy.

Very well said, but I don't agree that Mr. Chin should resign, and I also think that he should be required to remain for another term after the next election. He should be required to confront and deal with the consequences of the financial mess, which he and the Council have created.

Mr Chin said he wanted to leave a city rich in infrastructure, as previous generations had. The settlers museum, ... the Chinese Garden and the town hall redevelopment all fitted into that thinking.

That's an unusual definition of 'infrastructure'. As far as I was aware, infrastructure means things like transport, water, gas, sewage, rubbish, power, and communication lines. The railway station is the only thing that fits into this category - and forgive me, but I haven't seen anything different at the railway station except for the bridge they had to rebuild.

And in regards to the 'it's your fault you don't know what the council's doing' argument, I leave you with an excerpt from the Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy:

Plaintiff: "I eventually had to go down to the cellar."
Council representative: "That's the display department."
P: "With a torch."
C: "... the lights had probably gone."
P: "So had the stairs."
C: "But you found the notice, didn't you?"
P: "Yes. It was 'on display' in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet, stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'beware of the leopard'. Ever thought of going into advertising?"

Well just for the record I'm not pushing any prospects for the next election, nor am I running - will be campaigning though - under the slogan "throw the bums out"

The outcome of the next council election is not clear at all. The only thing clear at the moment is that opponents of the current Council are using the stadium and other city projects to push their own prospects for election. The 2010 election should indicate the true state of affairs as it is stacking up to bring voters out of the woodwork who support Council as much those who oppose it.

This interview further demonstrates that our Mayor is not living in the real world and is obviously dreaming. There are many examples of "private" construction projects around the city as "farsighted" has pointed out in their comment. So, now the Mayor has openly admitted that the council's role is to keep the construction industry busy (and Otago Rugby in business too) while increasing council debt levels from around $90 million to over $400 million. This has all occurred while Chin's been in power. Ah, the public purse is bottomless...yeah right.

The council made the decision, not the public - despite the council knowing that a majority of the city didn't want to pay to build the stadium - if they were actually responsive to their citizens they would have held a referendum.

The stadium proposed at the previous election was a different, privately funded, stadium - not the one the council has decided to build.

At the election there were two competing anti-stadium slates - they split the vote, one of the groups did get some of its members onto the council - but the vagaries of the current ward system meant that a large number of anti-stadium voters votes were not counted - because of the vote splitting you can't claim that the council had a mandate.

In response to Max_power's comment on council having a mandate. It's true they do have a mandate but that power comes with a responsibility to act in reasonable, fair, effective and transparent way, making decisions for the benefit of all not just a minority with vested interests. It is in these ways the council is failing and it is clear they will not be retained after the next election.

The response by Mayor Chin to the ever-growing criticisms levelled at the council he leads could be summarised as unsubstantial at best and completely lacking in understanding at worst. While Mayor Chin is "bullish" - a phrase that has often been used by councillor Guest to describe himself - it simply ignores the difference between being optimistic and realistically prudent.
There is nothing wrong with optimism per se, but to ignore reality is not only irresponsible, but in the position he has as Mayor, it borders on recklessness - something that is at odds with the requirements of the Local Government Act. I don't think there is a citizen in Dunedin that doesn't want the best for this most beautiful of all this country's cities, but equally it has been clearly demonstrated to council that the majority want the good things delivered in a way that is both affordable and of greatest benefit to the majority.
What Mayor Chin has consistently failed to grasp, and has been again illustrated by his response to the question posed about the DCC's responses to the various submission processes, is that his role in life as mayor is to deliver those things that the ratepayers need and desire in a way that doesn't place unsustainable burdens on the citizenry. His role is to protect us all from unnecessary projects and wasteful or profligate spending and deliver on core services and facilities. This is especially true in times of economic recession, and while Mayor Chin has the power to tax all of us to levels that have no reference to what we can afford, we should be relying on him to ensure that we can build the city in a way that we can actually afford.
It is an indisputable fact that the feelings of the community have been ignored by the submission process on the major ratepayer funded projects. This fact is simply ignored by Mayor Chin. Mayor Chin has been shown to have obscured his views on the major ratepayer project - the new rugby stadium - before the last election, and equally it could be said that many believed him when he said that he was just "investigating" and getting the facts.
There were those that still believed him when he said that there were all sorts of safeguards and conditions that were put in place to protect the ratepayer before the project would proceed. We all know now that this was just so much puffery and the result of that are huge increases in ratepayer debt and equally large increases in rating levels. None of us have yet seen the full impact of the commitments that this Council have made on our behalf. The various ways in which the ratepayers are now making their voices heard via Facebook, ODT letters, blogs, public meetings and submissions is the strongest indication yet that Mayor Chin and his Council have not only lost their way, but have lost our confidence.
It is not a new call, but it is just as valid now as when it was first made. Time for Mayor Chin to have the courage of his "bull" and put it to the test with our community. Resign, Mayor Chin and let us have a new election based on the issues we all face.

I don't know if anyone remembers, but the stadium was a major election issue. The anti-stadium mob were dumped, and you, the people of Dunedin elected this council. So you all had your say by electing these people. All who were outspoken on the stadium are gone - it's as simple as that. So stop looking at other people and blame yourselves. Council has a mandate from the election. The time to stop the stadium was at election time, and the STS and ratepayers groups failed to draw enough support at the time. Sounds a bit harsh, but it's the truth. If you don't like these people, then vote them out. That's the way it works.

Just off the top of my head: Otago House - two new floors refurbishment of Westpac House; Burnside industrial area - 4 new industrial buildings; Green Island - new industrial building; Bunnings Warehouse site St Clair esplanade; Psychology 2, University of Otago Science building refurbishment; Uni; Wall St Santa Sabina; old Outback site New World Centre City; Golden Centre; Works Infrastructure site - Green Island.
Yep, not much going on at all Mr Chin and none of it due to the Stadium. If you are going to try to use the diversionary tactic of "look over here. shiny thing.", make sure that you actually have a shiny thing for people to look at. In fact, about the only project that needs doing but which is being blocked is the rebuilding of the Japanese Auto Wreckers that burned down recently. Why isn't that going ahead again? Ah yes, the Harbourside plan...

Are common bedfellows. Add an inability to backtrack, evaluate, perhaps even to think, top it off with a need not to lose face, and we are in an entirely predictable place. Far from denigrating the media, Mr Chin should thank them. My 2008 submission was sent to many senior ODT staffers, and Mr Chin is lucky indeed that it did not appear - the cat called reality would have really been amongst the pidgins....
Essentially, this is the dying roar of an obsolete way of doing things - what are we 'saving' our construction industry for? They fall over at the next hurdle, and the ratepaters are just poorer and later in going where they need to go. No, Peter, you have much to thank the media for - look at the  the recent Dunedin Forum report. Which means that the angst is greater than you, and others of similar 'mind', seem to think. The real dispute is between ra-ra growth forever at all costs, and sustainability (meaning, something our kids and theirs can do too). New Mayor time, methinks, time for a cull.....

So if the Council wasn't inventing unnecessary construction projects, there would be no construction activity in Dunedin ? Maybe, just maybe, there's no construction work happening because we don't need any ? We have an overpopulated construction industry today, because the industry demand was over inflated and unsustainable. The US government created a false market to prop up an unnecessary US auto industry, when the reality was that Americans didn't need to buy new cars all this time.
Creating a false economy fell over in the US. As it has everywhere else. Do our leaders truly believe that they are that much smarter ? And that we are that much more stupid ? Did things suddenly get a whole lot better, or a whole lot worse ?

I would suggest Mr Chin is more arrogant than bullish on his council's performance. He is living in dreamland if he seriously thinks he is leaving the city in a better state than when he started. Delusions of grandeur surely.
Further illustration of this is attributing the Otago House developments to the hair-brained decision to go ahead with the stadium, Wall St, etc. If it wasn't so serious it would be hilarious. I object to the Mayor saying many Dunedin ratepayers do not read the information provided by the council.
Two points Mr Chin, firstly the information provided to ratepayers by the council on key issues has been somewhat selective to date, and secondly, as a ratepayer I would like to think my elected representatives are fiscally savvy and acting in the best interests of those whom they serve.
But no, it seems I am expected to dissect the reports to ensure there are no surprises about to appear on my rates bill. Do not be surprised or affronted Mr Chin, when ratepayers get upset at funding professional rugby to appease the few, while core council business is ignored or worse, manipulated to fund their 'flights of fancy' that have been placed firmly around the necks of Dunedin ratepayers.