Stop the Stadium to target councillors

No one decides to move to Dunedin because of rugby - people come here because of jobs. Professional rugby is entertainment. If Dunedin wants to grow it needs to grow its economy to provide more full time jobs. This is something a stadium doesn't do because it's only active a few days a year. It provides the sorts of jobs that are good for pocket money for students, not the sorts of jobs that real people can live on and raise families. If you want to spend $350m+ on something that creates real economic growth - throw $1m a year each at 10 startup companies for 20 years (do matching funds with other VC investors) - don't build a pile of concrete that sits there idle 350 days a year.

...and to some it seems, this will be the hub of Dunedin? Puh. Amazing to read such comments, saying half of Carisbrook is 10 years old, (is that old for a building of a minuscule purpose like rugby?) the long entrance and the corporate block, 5 stories high and the size of a hotel, used for silly rugby for a few hours a year, is classed as old, no more than a shed. (Strange looking shed, I must say, looks more like a modern grandstand with a hotel-like block) And already is outdated, needs hundreds millions of public monies to replace it – with an oversized shed? This compares with the facilities many organisations around the town have, shoestring budget, who would find something like Carisbrook a luxury. And they run year round. That puts it in perspective. Glinks’ Chrystal Ball seems to think that London got it wrong, but this one in our small city, one of the last stops before the South Pole, will be a success and other than rugby, there’ll be things like concerts coming. Can you just see them all bypassing other big cities to come here? Has anyone phoned ABBA, for instance and told them about Dunedin, no, not renowned for scenery anymore, or unique old buildings, but a new mega price tagged stadium? I’m sure they’ll be instantly considering regrouping and packing their bags come stadium opening time. Coldplay, U2, and Eagles will be making a beeline. Umm, right. And to the comment "how do we attract anyone to Dunedin?" Or should I say, how have we done it so far? Not with a tin and glass shed, but given the focus on the stadium seems to have shrouded the fact that Dunedin happens to be full of precincts of unique heritage buildings, and is surrounded by a diversity of scenery, which ever direction you head off in. That’s what attracts people and it works – it could work better though. There is a multitude of potential in which we could build to enhance, and improve access to other parts. Some thrill factor attractions would not go astray either. You seem misinformed in many ways, Glinck, saying the stadium is an extra $20 per person for rates. The projected rates was $66, but it's now been proven to be more than double that. Do your maths. I don't care whether it's $20 or $200, it's the principle, and some people in a recession don’t need needless extra expense for white elephants for a fringe crowd of bottle throwing rugby heads, of which your attitude telling people to stop the sulking is typical. That’s pretty much what the rugby lot do when a game is lost, (like in June at the French team) if they don't go more extreme. This heinous tin shed impedes progress in the city twice over, in costing so much for a few hours of games with a roof 'just in case it happens to rain'. Secondly with all monies being thrown at it, it stops any other attractive useful or core project of large scale that would have benefited a wide spectrum of people. Talk about frivolous demands for you own world, sod everyone else. You say "Get on board?" I don't think so. Your words too "How can we as a town expect to attract anyone or thing down here with nothing more than a shed as a stadium." Well, that’s what the new one is, you at least put that right. Having passed the caketin a few days ago, and indeed stadia in UK, they were all dead despondent areas as the places are empty all but a few hours a year, while all around the real things that make a city happen are doing their stuff every day of the year. If we used our noodles, even mildly, it wouldn’t be rocket science to see that if we created new tourist attractions here, like a cableway up Mt Cargill for one, (like Christchurch did up Cavendish) we’d be going somewhere. Another attraction for all the visitors, on cruise ships, camper cans, backpackers and of course the locals. That’s just for starters.

Sorry but the old Carisbrook stadium is just that - old.
It's a disgrace of a place in moderm terms (sorry I know it has history but that's all it has). And I would say who are the idiots but the ones who did spend nine million doing up a shed.
How can we as a town expect to attract anyone or thing down here with nothing more than a shed as a stadium. The millenium dome was crap full stop, but the stadium will have a better chance than that did.
The xtra on the rates is peanuts compared to the extra I have to pay now for electricity and I for one would rather pay an extra $20 a month on my rates and take a chance on improving our stadium and future than sit on my backside moaning about it.
Now we have a direct link to the Gold Coast why not push for an NRL team of our own or as said above split the home games of the warriors 50/50 to make it a true all over NZ team that we can all feel part of rather than just another Auckland team. So again I say Stop The Sulking (STS). Get over it and get on board.

I like your idea of a South Island NRL team. Im not sure about the depth of league players in the south island but im sure its worth pursuing. Getting the warriors down for the odd game would be worthwhile. Wellington had the Bulldogs play a number of home games at the caketin a few years back and it was a massive success, huge crowds.

Im interested to see how the new stadium will influence the waterfront and the Harbourside precinct. Establishing new connections between these areas will go a long way to the growth of Dunedin as an urban destination. Its all good stuff

The real moaners are the ones who consider Carisbrook, which had millions spent on it 9 years ago, not good enough. For it's use, it is more than suffice. It got heaps more spent on it than most establishments do around the town. The arrogance of these people who demand another, publically funded, is breathtaking.

But the message above by glink points out, the millenium done was a waste of money, in a large city, that says it all. So the purport above in his message; we are told to back another very likely loser, instead of channel money on things that could actually count. If you lot want it so much, why don't you cough up a grand or two a piece, I mean you could even have your name carved on one of the uncomfortable plastic seats.

I like classic aircraft, so maybe I should demand the public pay for a Spitfire so I go do aerobatics over the harbour, (it amounts to the same thing) it'd be a darn site more exciting and stirring than a boring stadium, mostly for rugby. After all, it won't do demo derbies, moto cross, track and field, and the list goes on.

How many times a year do live acts like Elton John come to the main centres? Once a year? Four nights of it being full is going to make Dunedin thrive? Talk about being in cuckoo land.

STS mght have lost for fighting for what was morally right, had justice been true and proper, it would have been a different story, espcially in the face of the $13 million undisclosed extra, glaringly typical of the underhand processes.

Oh please give up the moans STS. It's really boring. Get over the stadium and save up your groans to tell us all how right you were if it all flops. Life sucks, money gets spent - look at the Millenium Dome in the UK a big fat loss and a waste of money, but hey I paid for that even though I didn't ever plan on going there. Suck it up and get behind the project.
Dunedin won't fall apart on the back of a stadium but would do on the back of relying on students alone. I don't care how many people are in your 'group' - the fact is you lost court case after case. 
It won't all be about rugby at the stadium. I for one think we should now get looking into getting our own South Island NRL team. So instead of keeping your fingers crossed its a flop get behind it and let's make it work for the town.

Point taken Ian, but the damage will have well and truly been done by then, it already is. Though at least it might stop any other of their harebrain ideas, like the tacky glass cube plan. It will indeed be good to see them go for a slide. Whatever though, they should go, the voted message of unpopularity will be lost on them though, as it has so far. To them, the end will have justified the means, as the adverse effects on the rest of the town won't affect them at all, in their publicly funded 'ivory tower'. Consider the sacrilage of despoiling our peninsula scenery that attracts hundreds of thousands per year... Perhaps if the stadium had been halted, in decades to come we'd have baulked at the thought considering the lost potential of doing many other inventive things with just some of the money going towards it, and not faced huge debt and mounting losses. Time to leave 'em to it. I guess we just have to deal with the fact that they are taking the city down, and move off the lot so we don't get dragged in the mire with it more than we already have.

Sigh, I'll spell it out yet again. You seemed to misread the large bit I mentioned about the $13 million in my post to which you have just replied. Its an example of the many sorts of 'glaring in your face' chunks of evidence not taken into account on a case about non-transparent processes. Let alone proper public consultation. Perhaps the 4000 household random household survey results with it's 82% majority against would have spoken heaps about who wasn't being listened to, and they then should have made them take a binding referendum. In any normal process, that $13 million alone surely should have sparked investigation immediately, (it goes without saying) the evidence is more than glaring.
Interesting to note today in the news the government is planning to trim spending costs by closing down a number of police stations, yet they gave the stadium $15 million of taxpayer money.
And you wonder why, in the wake of this that people are furious about this ridiculous, heinous white elephant being pushed through like it. They should all pay up around $1000 each, amongst the 20 to 30 000 in Dunedin that want it, then it would be completely funded solely by those who want it so much. I'm sure since they want it so badly, a spare 'grand' would have been found, not forcibly taking from everyone else, including many impoverished who can barely afford to keep bread on the table in a recession. There would have been no need for STS and all the other hoo ha surrounding it, no objection at all. That's the way every other organisation, even core ones like hospice and St Johns have to operate, which are a 'tad more important' than watching a ball game with a roof on 3 nights a year. I don't know, the demands of the already spoilt...

If members/ex-members of S.T.S. don't forget their disaffection, ranging from dented egos, to 'mildly-miffed' and and set aside their differences very soon we stand to have most of the present bunch of nongs returned to the Council in November 2010. If that's what you want, then continue to carry on like small children in a playground dispute. I'm sure Mayor Chin and the present incumbents will be only too happy to accommodate you.

Sorry Pukeko I may not be reading your comment correctly but it appears that you are suggesting that the High Court and the Court of Appeal were both wrong in their judgement against STS . I am curious to know whether you believe these judges, who no doubt reside in the top 0.001% of all learned professionals in NZ, are incompetent or just part of some elaborate "Old Boys Club" driven conspiracy which has supposedly infiltrated every level of the NZ political and judicial systems. It's time for a reality check (to use a familar line from the stadium debate). Both STS and the DCC had their day in court to present their cases. All the information was on the table and it was just a matter of interpreting the facts. In both cases the Courts found in favour of the DCC (I'm not even counting the debarcle that was the appeal against the ORC).
If you still believe the Courts were wrong then you are effectively saying they are incompetent or corrupt. So which is it? I cannot envisage a scenario where three Appeal Court judges in Wellington would have a stake in the outcome of a case concerning a stadium in Dunedin, so that rules out corruption - unless you can think of one? As for incompetence I can only say I would back the competence of High Court and Appeal Court Judges over STS any day. I guess the point I was trying to make in my original post was that even if failures in the political or justice system did occur, the fact remains the performance of STS was found wanting. Their performance has been a text book example of how to alienate your potential support base. As a pro-stadium person I am grateful for this.

"A messy end to a cobbled together group of the disaffected, outright negative band genuinely concerned." Mikenette, you could be describing the present council as at November 1, 2010.

The tunnel eyed, self serving view of the stadium rouge rears up yet again. I imagine Rob’s mob had plenty of demeaning descriptions for the people opposing the think big schemes.
Workforce all for it? Something connected to rugby or maybe CST, maybe? Well, someone would be making up some part of the 20% of the city who are for it. Yes, let everything else fall apart for just that, no matter what it costs and take, take, take off everyone who seems to not be allowed any say in the matter, despite it's their city, their money. If any other organization got to do that, especially with such a huge scale of money, all for the frivolous benefit of the few, there'd be hell to pay. The term used on STS as “disaffected, outright negative”, which should read “insightfully raw and cynically honest” would be the case of anyone who can see this project in a rationale light.
Maybe they were told to leave our ‘Goliath’ to do it, but conscious of what is right still saw it rubber stamped, (a case seems to all about lawyers now) and just at the same time, the crux of the case - un transparent processes is exemplified in grand scale as the hidden $13 million extra they 'forgot' to disclose is exposed. But somehow it didn’t get taken into account for an investigation, which Rodny Hide was meat to do after a huge influx of letters regarding this issue. Considering as soon as it was more than $188 million, they promised to drop the whole thing. You people cannot answer or justify things like the $13 million, but facts like this will continue to be ignored. That is such a clear cut case, and here it is happening in NZ. Have things come to this? This shows how clearly the course of true justice has gone blatantly wrong, maybe another government might have helped see the harebrain wastrel project go down the tubes long ago if any sense of fair play had been initiated.
Move on?, yes, well, there’s plenty of shafted people looking at leaving this city, it’s certainly not going to go anywhere for a long, long time now. “Oh, but who cares, we will have a stadium”. That’s just sad. Conservative thinking that thinks it’s outward thinking, and even exciting. It's almost laughable, and if it wasn't so serious, it would be.

No costs have been awarded yet, and it's far from certain that they will be. Stop the Stadium has already paid the $4500 bond so it looks like you are confused and projecting negativity, mikenette.

Yeah right. Well in my work place it's a different story altogether. With 3 mildly opposed and the remaining 50 all rejoicing at the demse of the STS. A messy end to a cobbled together group of the disaffected, outright negative and genuinely concerned.Course they should pay costs. If they had taken the correct advice early on they would never have taken the court action.Move on.

Yes, anneeliot, it seems to be that the 80% landslide majority survey result is what you might best call 'An Inconvenient Truth' to these ardent stadium supporters. If that still creates any dispute amongst them then it's clear of course there should have been a binding referendum to show the true majority. (The 1500 odd STS are the core of them, like my work, 49 oppose it, but only three including self are members of STS.) The referendum would have cleared this debacle up once and for all, but DCC avoided the idea of it, when if was called for, at all costs. Given the huge scale of up in arms-ness, and proper course of democracy, they should have if they were not rogue. But they clearly feared the result which would have killed the ‘old boys club’ pet project and put egg on their faces. But no matter how often we repeat these facts, they seem to get ignored, or conveniantly 'forgotten'.

The Chinese Gardens cost $6 million and are attractive, cultural, and a part of our history given the Chinese were here during the gold rush. It's also open daily for hours, and therefore will easily not run at a huge loss. In a word; worthwhile. It's also unique, not an ugly blight on the landscape.

I laugh when I read the stadium supporters constantly banging on with the majority/minority issue. In doing this they effectively do what they accuse STS of, unfounded information. There was one survey held, and it seems to remain one of the many conveniently forgotten items of this cult like group, that the stadium was opposed by 78 % . But since they think their project will make Dunedin go round, after starving those that do contribute, maybe there simply should have been a referendum. After all, if the DCC had nothing to fear, then it should have gone ahead. There's more anti the stadium than the 1500 in STS, as mentioned elsewhere here. The ugly Caketin in Wellington is a slight comparison, it sits in empty darkness most of the time, (just as this one here will) like the other day when I passed it, which is what it does most times of the year. What a bleak barren place, and a huge structure with a few slit windows, like a bad copy of a flying saucer from the Independence Day Movie.
Bev did well, as the DCC did all they could to cover their tracks. Good on her tenacity, there's been plenty of people who have stood up for to Goliath, but unjustness seems to prevail anyway, there's lots of occasions of that, nationally and globally in the years gone by.

Apparently you failed, or chose not to notice the news about a 'forgotten' extra $13 million the ratepayers will be paying being exposed, and when found out, they can't give a direct answer, but to say there was a “few extra costs.” A broken promise to start with, when you consider $188 million, not a cent more!” That in mind, it or the ‘forgotten’ extra $13 million a tad more than $15 000 and the supporters' accusations of STS costing the ratepayer, what a lopsided accusation. Then there was selectively self suited 'moving deadlines, clandestine letters to government, steering around a referendum, just some examples. So there was nothing baseless in accusations of corruption and incompetence. Especially when those were advocated by leading economists and others in the know to endorse what STS were driving at. And now, rubber stamping the case right in the face of the undisclosed $13 million,. when the case was over lack of transparency, that just might be a clue... If there was supposedly any aggressive approach, well, the more diplomatic ways failed, so tactics had to change. You have to fight fire with fire. I suppose one way or another, the big wigs always have a few followers to belittle those fighting for the cause. And later those opposing the issue were, in the end found to be right all along.

You should be able to count them on fingers and you might make it to toes if lucky. The desperate drive to cadge money towards it created interst so low in Invercargill they had to change the venue to a small room. Oamaru was simliar. That was when they decided to write a quiet little letter to get taxpayer's money. Since the whole thing defies logic to Dunedin, (unless rugby makes the world go round, forget what happens 360 other days of the year), so, no reason why other places would have any interest, apart from the fanatical supporters ignoring the facts that appear on here regularly.The court costs vs the cost of this whole thing that should have been knocked on the head long ago is a drop in the bucket.  

Until costs (if any) are awarded against Stop the Stadium, they owe no-one anything. To my knowledge, Stop the Stadium has behaved with creditable integrity throughout this period of protest.
If only we could say that of all the other parties.

Sorry, tangiwha, but I find the broken promises and misleading statements by CST, et al, to be a much more deplorable example to the young and impressionable than your unsubstantiated claim of StS intentions. Consider: 'No ratepayers' money will be required for the stadium' or 'Not a penny more than $188million' or, when Malcolm Farry was asked, what if the cost was more? - 'Then we won't build it.'

So . . . STS is opposed to council spending money on the stadium, funded by ratepayers, so it takes the council to court, and loses... twice. Then they try to say the council should pay for their loss, and where does the council get their money? Ratepayers. If they want to waste their money on court cases they have no case in, they should pay, not the Dunedin ratepayers they are supposedly trying to protect.

I would like to thank STS for all their efforts in the fight against the stadium. Although STS often claimed to represent the majority, the real majority are those who sit somewhere in the middle and don't have a firm opinion either way. As a stadium supporter I am truly grateful to STS as they couldn't have done a better job at alienating the real majority with their rantings and baseless accusations of corruption and incompetence, even against the most respected of institutions such as the Court of Appeal. If STS had been better organised and led, and didn't adopt such  aggressive tactics they might have had every chance of obtaining the support needed to effect change. I propose that all Pro-Stadium people help STS with their legal costs because ironically they have done more for the Stadium cause than most stadium supporters could ever hope to achieve.

I am mystified at funkie01's claim that he/she represents a group of people, 'we,' who are trying to do something unspecified for Dunedin. I am mystified and wonder if he/she could enlighten us and explain which organisation he/she represent and what it is 'we' are trying to achieve? I assume Funkie01 does not represent the near 80% of ratepayers, who according to a university survey stated they did not want a ratepayer-funded stadium.

There was 1500 of you and costs of around $15,000 so all pay $10. I don't see why the whole of Dunedin should pay because a small minority want to disagree with the council elected by the majority. After reading the above comments it sounds like your small group can't even agree with each other. By the sounds of it Dave has a bit more of an idea of what is going on than Bev, So maybe you will all come to your senses and support a positive project

Hear hear Caz. Democracy will take care of the councillors without the help of STS. In fact I suspect any further action by STS would result in a few sympathy votes coming their way. It's time for STS to disappear - not to avoid paying costs but to avoid losing the public support they still retain.

Tangiwha says: "What a deplorable example Stop the Stadium members are sending to our young people/students when they blantantly state "they will try and avoid paying incurred legal expenses." Who exactly is blatantly stating that, Tangiwha? You put it in quotes. Please name your source.

There's a swathe of people I know that oppose the stadium outright, but don't happen to be members. Like for one example at work, 47 oppose but only 3 are actually members. I guess like anything a lot of people might support the aims of a particular organisation, including back it up but not be a member. Taking a percentage of all the people I've spoken to over the last 1.5 years, the stadium is often a hot topic, only four were in support. The regurgitating age-ist myth that all opposers are 60 plus is just that. In fact one of the pro-stadium out of the four I met was in her 60s. A close zoom in of many at the town hall rally and indeed the march showed many around the 20 mark. People with an imagination, of all ages. When Rob Muldoon became increasingly unpopular, (and how more akin to DCC can you get?) a snap election was called, just gone 25 years ago. Time that, in a local circles, history was repeated. Though really, now the damage is done. It's like patching the hole in a ship after it's settled onto the seabed. None-the-less, a landslide ousting would be good, now that justice didn’t prevail again, especially in the face of the $13 million 'discrepancy', just the latest in a line. if that’s not being caught with blood on hands, then what is? But no, "out with rubber stamp, wink wink, nudge nudge, buddy buddy, say no more!"

I'm sick to the back teeth of this minority group going on and on about how we should all stop the stadium. Sick of the smug face of the group telling me how much we are being conned. Well I for one don't think 1500 yet to be proved membership has anyway done anyone any good apart from 15 mins of self-fame promotion. You can go on spouting figures all day long. I could say the chinese gardens are a waste of money but even though I don't visit them they are good for the town. The stadium isn't for the 'old moaners' it's for the future generations. Maybe it will be a slow succsess - who can tell? But I reckon with it Dunedin will have something to shout about. Without it we stand still. I was fed up with the STS stickers put all over town. You lost a futile case and I for one hope you have to pay every cent in costs. As for the witch hunt you allude to I think that in itself shows the true colours of the group. Give it up now and get into something more important like sorting out expensive electric bills for those who cant afford them. Nuf said

You vote councilors out because you don't like the job they've done - doing so is not "having an axe to grind" it is called "democracy". Just like small children you don't reward bad behaviour in politicians either.

If Dunedin's largest political organisation (after all that's what STS is) decides that they collectively want to put their resources together to change the make up of the council then good on them - I'll give them time and money. But it sounds like the reporter was a bit over eager and STS hasn't decided which way it will jump yet - but there are others in town planning similar things, my money will get spent.

The city's changing to one big "at large" ward means that successful candidates are going to need to be able to mobilise a lot of resources to get elected - anyone with 1500 people behind them will have an advantage. I expect candidates will be lining up next year for their endorsement.