Stop the Stadium to pay court costs

First I've heard about those. But on at least two occasions in the last 6 months, I've been out of town for a period of time, where the lights are on, so perhaps they were announced then.

No one I know of has ever heard of these meetings. Where were they advertised? The Rugby Times?

If you are having problems handling two years of debate, which you can easily turn off, how are you going to handle funding debt, year after year after year, for the next 22 years. In 2029 you will still be paying interest on the stadium. Wouldn't we love to be able to drop that just as easily?

Hmmm, I too could say there's truth in that, maccan. I guess, personally speaking, long evenings and being single, in front of a computer, (and after all, what's worth watching on TV?) thus making the mistake of looking up posts, seeing comments that rile myself and virtually all (but a few) I know, draws one into argument. And that's no matter how much I decide not to look at the posts again. But yep, whichever side, it's now only going in circles and wasting time, at the end of the day.
I wouldn't like to imagine how many hours I've spent posting on this subject. However, I will always respond when I see something that is abhorrent to not only my viewings, but hoards of others, none of which are firebrands, nor against things that might benefit this city. They are just honest working people that feel this is not right, perhaps because other existing things that make this city go round, or could, never get a smidgeon compared to this. Not to mention the processes going with this.
After all, no one can deny the original promise was that it would solely be privately funded. No one that opposes it, including myself would have worried about that at all, had it been the case. Things have simply been reneged upon, more than just a few times, and that's mostly what has heated many people up. and certainly a lot of people have been affected to some degree, and will be for years to come. Perhaps we can just agree to disagree and leave it there... famous last words I suspect. Anyway... since it's meant other innovative projects will now not see the light of day here, it's time to move on out of the old town, up north somewhere, I suspect. When I do that, I'll want to forget about the entire debacle altogether.

Mr Farry went around Otago and Southland holding public meetings so that people could learn about the stadium - I'm still waiting for him hold one in Dunedin - when will it be happening? I have lots of questions .....

I think the pro-stadium people are afraid to hold an open public meeting about the stadium because they know that the large majority of the rate payers are against it.

Don't forget the Port Chalmers one, similar ratio, with about 100 against, 5 for as well. Oh, those were the only two meets, and they weren't actually meant for anti, but they just happened to be the huge majority both times. It was no coincidence. Pity we didn’t have a few other meets about the various suburbs, Green Isl, Wakari, Belleknowes etc and watch the same ratio pattern repeatedly emerge, time after time on the radar. Oh, of course I can hear it being said already... the 'silent majority' stayed at home rather than make a point, ha ha, right. As for professional engineer stuff, there's been plenty of blunders, local and abroad made that have gone down in the history books, like the Clyde Dam built on a fault line... and, well, Rob and his 'think big' mob that put that forward, just an upscale of what we have here. Nothing wrong with think big, if it's going to be totally worthwhile for a widespread benefit, not just a few odd hours of rugby and supposedly two concerts.

Oh no, we can't have 25 idolised golden boys out of work, out of the spotlight, can we now? The same ones that risk injury, and not a case of if, but when it happens, ACC is fast tracking their case. A different story often when Joe Blow has an accident while trying to keep bread on the table, sometimes it's like getting blood from a stone. Like the whole case surrounding the arguments over the stadium, not a case of level playing field, pardon the pun. Not by a long shot. And while Joe Blow hasn’t got a job, hmmm, keeping 25 who don’t do a real job, least of our concerns. A pity a collection wasn't taken up for them, or the insolvent ORFU. But don't stop there, all the rugby foamers should be funding the stadium, as it's not a core facility no matter what attempt is made to justify it's astronomical cost while other worthy concerns and projects starve. And what sort of sustainable employment is selling food and drink a scant few hours a year?

Surely the same rugby players would have been playing in Carisbrook, and the kids working in the stands too - building the stadium hasn't created new jobs here, just moved them from one end of town to another.
Most of the rugby players will not stay in Dunedin after they stop playing, they will leave and take any money they earn from us with them - rugby like any other entertainment does not create wealth, it just moves it from one place to another.

If you want real economic growth you have to add value to something and resell it - take some grass and turn it into wool or meat, convert some metal into a washing machine, or some bits into a computer program. Service jobs like 'rugby player' don't create wealth or economic growth.

If you want to create service jobs (and support something like a stadium) you have to bring new wealth into Otago from somewhere else so that there's someone to spend money in them - you have to make products and export them for more than they cost to make - service jobs like stores or movie theatres don't create local wealth as service jobs tend to send money elsewhere through the purchase of goods or payment of taxes such as GST (though tourism does bring in wealth since it results in non-local transfers the other way) - manufacturing, agriculture etc are what we need.

Mr Farry originally planned to fund the stadium privately - he could have if there was enough spare wealth kicking around the local economy. If so there would have been people and organisations with the capital to make it happen. People would have invested, bought and traded shares and the stadium would have been built and would charge enough to make a profit and return for it's investors - it would have been run like a real business.

The problem of course is that local manufacturing has been on a downward spiral for a while now and we haven't been doing enough local business development to replace what we've lost with similar sorts of businesses. We don't need more service industries like the stadium, they're a drain on our economy, they're a luxury for when the economy is growing and healthy. I want my kids to have great jobs in Dunedin but they won't create them themselves, if we want them to stay we need to invest in our future in a way that makes our local economy better off in the medium to long term - we need to make stuff, not put on shows.

$26m, yeah right - not a dollar of it actually collected for the stadium. Ratepayers have to underwrite a bridging loan to cover the whole lot, because the $26m doesn't actually exist yet, and won't for up to ten years. Besides, this money is for memberships, most of which has to be paid to the ORFU to pay for game tickets for members. The real figure is only a small fraction of this. Also interesting that the $26m of private funding is less than the level required by the DCC to give the stadium the go ahead. So how did the CST manage to reach the private funding target level for the DCC to go ahead? Could it be that they double counted memberships for ten years, when they had only actually signed up to five years? So Max power - some people have bought themselves a product - memberships which are essentially game tickets - but no one has even sizzled a single solitary sausage to raise money for the construction.

Sigh, we've been there before, and they just happen to be useful, used every day. It's that simple. Libraries; books, DVDs, music. education, entertainment (especially for low income earners or those who have no work at all). It benefits most or all. Museums, heritage visitor attraction, (that’s what this city is about after all, in a major part) and the arts, another visitor attraction. I’m not into that so much, but it’s not sucking any other project dry and all cities have one. Heritage, culture and education are just a ‘tad’ more then the frivolous want for another rugby stadium. Especially when we have one. In that case, based on importance and priority, we should have a gold palace to replace the library. As far as museums go, this city is lacking, unlike most major cities which have one covering science, transport and technology. Educational for school visits, hands on for workers, could create employment, and an attraction for local and other visitors alike. What’s annoying is a number of items pertaining to our transport heritage are under huge threat and nothing is done. All of which would cost peanuts compared to this stadium. So, there’s the grossly unbalanced scales (as one example), we never have had one of those, but we do already have a stadium. What’s more, this city would pull more visitors if it had more attractions, and indeed an improved public transport systems. This is the crux of it. This one thing is set to suck any other thing of this sort being done for years to come.

What you suggest is unrealistic - it doesn't take into account simple facts of geography and the resulting logistics.

Any promoter who's going to book an international act to play in Dunedin is going to look at playing in Christchurch as well - they're going to choose that venue first because of the population and the ease of international air freight access - after they've booked that concert then they'll look at Dunedin and see if it's viable - because they've already played in Christchurch a Dunedin concert can only expect to draw from the area south of Timaru.

Even Queenstown and Wanaka are not a given since they're close the same travel time to Christurch as to Dunedin and have a better air connection.

This is not being negative - this is being realistic about how the world works. The pie in the sky stadium is a terrible waste of local capital that we should be investing in local companies that will create long-term jobs.

For real economic growth you need to invest in industries that create wealth - not service industries that do no more than recycle existing wealth - putting on events at a stadium does not create anything new, it will be a net loss to the local economy.

There are plenty of very optimistic people around, with the attitude that anything can be done, and we'll always succeed - we just need to give it a go. They used to work for Blue Chip, Hanover Finance, Bridgecorp, Lehman Brothers, Freddy Mac, Fanny May, etc etc. They thought it was a brilliant idea to have massive loans for assets that do not generate income, to people who may struggle to pay the money back - sound familiar? When the bank wants the loan paid and we don't have enough money, we can just pay them with some optimism and positivity, and tell them not to be so negative.

No, we can do much better for that sort of money. I mean, anyone else comes up with some totally innovative, actual wow factor idea and it's squashed, but because rugby's behind it, (which, owing to it's usefulness, we bailed it out from bankruptcy as well). Yet, it being a religion of sorts, nothing's too much.
Anyone who thinks 3 nights of rugby per year, a possible concert, is, for that many hundred million, somehow is going to make the city move forward, has their head firmly buried in the sand. Look about 365 days a year and see what actually makes it tick. And consider what we could do to make it far more interesting, let alone make it easier to commute in. That's moving forward. We could do so much, much better for much less the money. Such inward thinking has been forced upon us, in this autocratic local body government we have.

The Regent Theatre raises a lot of its money by itself, like the 24 hour booksale. Being a character place, its manned by dedicated volunteer staff who do it as a labour of love. Perhaps those who love the stadium so much could offer to work in manning it for free to keep the costs down in lieu of how the Regent ticks. Thus the costs paid in are small, especially compared to the huge box. That compares well to the Regent, like for example where it became known that the ratepayers are funding the Delta suite in the stadium, which is atop the hidden $13 million extra that became not so hidden. The suggestions that go about that anti stadium are conspiracy theorists, in the face of a plethora of examples like that, by some posters is more than a tad rich. It’s that one-sided view again… one which seemed to occur when the thing got rubber stamped recently in the face of such fair cop evidence...

2 years from now 600 people will have jobs? What planet are you living on? There's no way that a running stadium will support that many full time people - there will be a couple of managers and some grounds people - so maybe 4 -5 jobs tops - sure they'll hire a bunch of kids by the hour to sell popcorn a few nights a year - those are not real jobs.

Max_Power - you give a great example of why we don't need to waste $200m on a stadium.
One of the rainiest places in the country, holds major outdoor concerts, with no roof, on a grass bank.
Great proof that the stadium has nothing to do with attracting large acts.
However your comparison with the Regent Theatre is not so good. It's an exisitng building, run by a trust, and didn't cost $200m.
Also it has the sort of support that means the community puts in a big effort to fundraise for it - year after year.
I don't think supporters of the new stadium have done so much as to sizzle a single solitary sausage to raise funds for the new stadium.