Chin says stadium big help to Dunedin

You certainly have your own theories and I can see, as far as you are concerned, that’s that. Fine - that’s your view.

We can see thus how DCC can do no evil, as far as you are concerned.
History is full of examples of those who have done their utmost and gone belly and vice versa, but there would be no point looking up a few more examples, obviously.... There will always be a 'reason', in your books.

But we shall at least see some slide come next October. 100,000 or so people, and an unprecedented dislike never known before - right down to write up in editorials, parodies and more - can't be wrong.

I'm sure 'Rob's mob' never thought their beloved prime minister would end up going for a skate in July 1984's snap election either. [Abridged].

Some stadium proponents are saying that only Cr Stevenson was against the stadium, when in fact Crs Wilson, Cull and Staynes were too. This is an interesting comment by stadium proponents. If they believe the people of Dunedin are happy with the almost totally ratepayer-funded stadium, as opposed to original plan of partial funding,  why not point out clearly and loudly the councillors who opposed the supposedly popular stadium? 

You may be right, but there is no way you can say, or even infer, after talking to two people, that "in general, it seemed that the things that seemed most attractive were those that were unique."

"In general" suggests a significant proportion. Not two out of say, 200,000.

As an example, I talked to five people this morning, and they all think that netball is boring to watch. Can I now say that in general people think netball is boring to watch?' No.

Albino, I think you correctly identify a large number of excellent attractions, and I could add a few more. The horse trekking business at Deborah Bay, for example. And you are dead right in saying that Dunedin has a variety of attractions that appeal to a wide demographic.

The point I was attempting to make was that in general, it seemed that the things that seemed most attractive were those that were unique. What this particular couple had found - and they may or may not be indicative of many Australians of that demographic - was that two particular attractions didn't come up to scratch in their view.

It seems to make sense to me that there is little point in travelling if you are just going to visit something that you can see in your own country.

I have no knowledge of how this city measures what attractions are successful or not - but this couple were independent travellers and, unless they had been surveyed at the time of their visit by the operators, then their views would not be known.

I know, for example, that numbers through the gate do not necessarily equate to satisfaction, but unless those measurements are taken quite carefully then it will always be hard to measure what is actually working and what is not.

Take it from someone who has many, many conversations with tourists (from all over the world) every week - Cadburys is a huge drawcard to Dunedin and an attraction that, in my experience, is extremely well thought of.

Anecdotally, I would estimate that for every 100 people I speak to 95 of them would be very generous in their praise of Cadburys and their tour(s). The Speights Brewery tour also gets rave reviews from visitors of all nationalities - and a brewery tour is hardly unique.

And whilst certainly not as common a conversation topic as some attractions, the Chinese Gardens also rates highly.

It is of no surprise to me that the couple you spoke to loved Larnach's Castle (though those visitors from Britain and Europe I talk to often describe it more as a 'stately' home), the albatross and the wildlife - they are exceptional attractions. As are the Monarch, the museums, Nature's Wonders, our walking tours, the Taieri Gorge......I could go on for hours.

It is my humble opinion (and I follow the tourism industry with interest) that Dunedin is definitely becoming a 'must-see' for overseas tourists, particularly Australians.

I know of specific instances of tourists who have cancelled other legs of their trip, having arrived in Dunedin for a night or two and reached the conclusion that there is so much more to see.

They are tourists from all walks of life, young and old, and with very varied interests.
And isn't that what makes Dunedin so great - the diversity of attractions and experiences that we can offer all visitors?

You just struck a couple that didn't like two of our attractions. Dissatisfaction is part of the process - that's the nature of the industry. You can't please all of the people all of the time.

But a comment from two people does not detract from what is available for the many thousands of other visitors to this great, great city.

No you're right, but saying its "a very small sample" is a bit of an understatement. It is too small to qualify for a margin of error. It is a two point data set out of hundreds of thousands of annual data sets that could be polled.

So your statement "it does make sense" really .... doesn't make sense.

Well said Calvin, I couldn't have put it better myself.

Calc: "Didn't the public make a clear decision on what they preferred?" Yes, they did, and we of "Open Democracy" were discarded. No doubt.

But of the incumbents, how many expressed a position on the stadium - or anything else for that matter - on the hustings? None. The fact that less than 50% of the electorate bothered to vote suggests that they got what they deserved. That is indeed your much vaunted democracy.

The original, "cross my heart, this is the truth" statement by (non-elected) Malcolmn Farry was "that we would have a new stadium with a roof, and it would not cost a cent over $188m, and no, we would not be asking the ratepayers for any financial contribution."

This is fact, not a dream, though it seems now it was.

The incumbent council has progressively rolled on every point of change on the stadium programme, constantly setting lines in the sand and idly standing by as they were washed away. The result? A complete departure from anything resembling the original understanding of the public. That is what many would mean when they say there was no mandate.

This council has continuously flown in the face of the public at large's wishes. The Town Hall "clip on" was a classic example, which the will of the people turned back.

In the case of the stadium, a 700-plus street march early on was treated with disdain by the council. Later, a professionally-conducted survey by university people showing a 78% opposition was ignored, as was a street march last March with over 2000 participants and a public meeting drawing over 1800 into the Town Hall to hear a panel of opposition speakers, including former mayor Sukhi Turner and our own councillor, Dave Cull.

Still, no hesitation from Mayor Chin and council. Just a continuing, "we know best" attitude - and you, Calc, still say there is a mandate and that's democracy.

The constant flow of letters to the press, plus the huge numbers of postings on this and other websites would tell anyone with a slight interest that all is not well in our fair city.

Whether there is a change of faces around the council table next election or not, it is very questionable as to how they can change much, in view of the debt already incurred by this and previous councils. Such are the whims of "democracy."

Thanks Roller for repeating what I said. The trio of councillors, were voting for the stadium until the most recent vote to proceed, in April.

That is my recollection also. The group so highly rated here waited until the last vote to pin their colours to the mast. Other than Crs Butcher and Stevenson, the voting has been to proceed, until very recently.

Again, no luck involved. Tenacity, hard work and a greater business acumen brings results. I also think that if you provide something the customer actually has a basic need for, then you will succeed more readily than if you don't.

An example I might give is The Warehouse, which provides inexpensive items. That is its basic business model - 'cheap'. You cannot force people to use your services and buy your product if they don't see a need or if they don't value what you have.

Ewan Wilson did not "play a straight bat". He was convicted for his "business" methods, you might recall - or was that just unlucky? He overextended himself in terms of debt for the expansion of his company at the same time he was, as you put it, being "shot down" by his competitors.

How you react to this in business is a measure of your practice. This was bad business practice, not luck. Don't get me wrong, I admired the guy greatly right up until he tried to become too big too soon.

Conversely Richard Branson has yet to serve his "unlucky" time.

I loved the dating analogy. I don't quite see how being devious in "dating", amounts to luck. I would have thought that would be better described as 'cunning', a not so attractive attribute, but effective nonetheless. Certainly an effective attribute for business.

Are you suggesting that those who get dates are lucky and those that don't aren't? Could it be that they are just not that appealing to the opposite sex, if they fail to meet someone?

I would think women and men choose their partners with the attributes that suit them best. They would look at the initial looks category and then move on to the "is this man or woman a match for me", do I enjoy their company, personality, are they financially stable, etc.?

I watched a documentary not so long ago about "attractiveness" and its was very clear that how someone reacts to a member of the opposite sex in terms of a future is directly hard wired into us, at a genetic level. This includes very basic thoughts like can this man (woman) provide me with strong healthy offspring, will, the man (in this case) protect me and provide for me, will the woman look after my children well and many other base - some would say very un-PC - values.

This is, apparently all assessed subconsciously in the first few moments of meeting someone new. I guess this is a biological response for keeping the gene pool strong, I don't really know, but it is what the experts say.

Can MikeStk please give the date of the ODT publication of the candidate interviews pre the 2007 elections? I have asked via this column for each current councillor who plans on standing again in 2010 to state what they said in the last pre-election interviews.

The sole respondent to my question has been Kate Wilson.

Run a startup company, and if you're doing everything else right then it's all luck: there's someone else on the planet 6 months ahead of you who hasn't announced yet, the economy will crumble out from under you, your smartest person will fall under a bus or have a nervous breakdown, or ... That doesn't mean you don't take the chance - you should - but you should realise that to be succesful everything has to go right, including stuff you have no control over, and that's luck

History is full of examples of tyrants or doolittles who came on top, and others who strived - ‘worked their fingers to the bone’ - and lost.

It’s the same on a more personal scale, like dating for example. Some can be devious and have all the luck in that area, while some with the most honest intent just miss out for all their efforts.

You can’t distort the fact to suit your ideas. The fact that much larger companies knocked him out still amounts to the same thing, losing, as happened to Tucker when the big car companies knocked him off, because his product was better than theirs with features ahead of that time.

As another offhand example, Euan Wilson, founder of our first budget airline, Kiwi International, was full of innovation and trailblaze, got killed off by Air NZ and bureaucracy as well. And he wasn't competing with them - no one was flying transtasman to Dunedin or Palmerston North.

But when he came along, Air NZ created Freedom Air to 'shoot him down'.

Whether you say that’s 'just business' is irrelevant. At the end of the day the poor guy, who played a straight bat, lost and went bankrupt.

Richard Branson, who worked as hard, was lucky and now is a huge airline and franchise branding.

What happened to Kiwi could have easily happened to him once upon a time. Back in 1984, what is now basically a global airline owned a solitary Vickers Viscount for short-haul routes,so it was even smaller than  Kiwi Air, which started  with a Boeing 727.

British Airways or BEA could have cut him down, but he was lucky, and grew from strength to strength.

I flew with Kiwi 6 months before they went under, and a chat with one of the flight crew told me they were aiming their sights on Asia and London, she told me to "watch this space".

Had Euan Wilson's luck been a little different, like Virgin's in 1984, they might well have been by now. Thus, luck very often has all to do with it.

Dave Cull spoke at the town hall late March STS rally, and has been well known for his stance against the stadium. And the others you mention, indeed, are too.
Before elections there were one or two fence sitters as well, and one or two in opposition, (I'd need to check up who was who) who turned the other way once voted in.

Some of them spoke of upholding democracy (sounded good for a vote), which isn't just determined by who is voted in (as the pro-stadium people keep saying), but that they listen to the people on huge issues, and if there's major controversy, run a binding referendum and seek submissions so people can have their say, and see who the majority is. That's democracy in true form.

I'm not sure of my facts here, but I do remember a 12:2 Council vote in favour of the stadium sometime around April 2008, with Councillors Stevenson and Butcher being the two councillors voting against (I think one councillor abstained - I think it might have been Cr Hudson, but don't quote me on that).

It got a lot of front-page coverage on the ODT at the time (and inside too).
It may have been to allow the CST to proceed with their stadium plans rather than a vote for or against the stadium per se...I think it was to proceed to the first famous 'Line in the Sand' which became several lines in the sand!

Apologies if the above is not 100% correct, but i'm sure most of it happened.

I took the opportunity recently to talk to an Aussie couple who had just visited Dunedin and asked them for their impressions on the things that they saw and visited.

They were the sort of people that I would have thought the city has been targetting over recent years and so their comments were interesting.
They stayed in Dunedin for about 3 days and in that time they were disappointed in their motel accommodation (noisy and not a good environment); they thought Cadbury's was a huge disappointment; and they visited the Chinese Gardens and found it to be only worth a 5 minute visit at best (their impression was that it looked tired and grey).

On the other hand, they loved Larnach's Castle, the Albatross Colony and the other wildlife attractions of the Peninsula.

They offered the opinion that while Australia has stunning scenery in patches, the New Zealand natural scenery was consistently interesting and varied.

The conclusion I reached was that they were genuinely interested in visiting those attractions that were truly unique.
The things that were a disappointment were, in the main, things that can be seen anywhere else.

Granted, this is a very small sample of the many thousands of people that visit New Zealand, but it does seem to make sense, doesn't it?

Your memory does leave a lot to be desired - or are they just lapses of convenience? It is clearly on the record that councillors Dave Cull, Chris Staynes, Teresa Stevenson and Kate Wilson voted against the stadium proceeding on 20th April, 2009. If only you could recall, you'd realise that there have been several occasions when this project should have come to a screeching halt, all things being equal - but it didn't.

There were two competing antistadium slates at the last election - they split the anti-stadum vote. One lot was elected and the other wasn't - the ones who were elected voted against the stadium.

Firstly, neither of those had anything to do with luck. Both them were affected by the lack of a funding source, which doesn't appear through luck.

Tucker chose to go it alone, taking a significant risk in the process. How could this have changed through some advantageous piece of luck? Money doesn't fall into people's laps through luck, Lotto excepted. It is earned, or, in a business sense, sourced.

It was business nothing more, luck had nothing to do with it. The companies reacted the same way anyone in competition would - get rid of him, reduce his market share or absorb him.

I would put it to you that it also wasn't luck that they were both driven innovative men, with outstanding ideas. It was just the result of hard work at their craft.

Facts are rather a grey area in this forum. My point was until this April's vote I can recall that they continued to progress the project. The only dissenting councillor from a very early stage was Theresa Stevenson, one of the long serving Councillors people seem to want to throw out with the bath water.

You must have a better memory than me because I don't recall one occasion where the other three mentioned came out against building the stadium at all.

The only ones that were rabid in their dislike of the project were "Open Democracy", and we know how that panned out.

So given what the situation was then, as you see it, didn't the public make a clear decision on what they preferred, including the "Open Democracy" you and your group espoused? Didn't the voters look at both sides' views and make their democratic decision?

You say the council didn't have a mandate prior to the election for the "vast" spending projects planned. Fair enough. Surely they gained that mandate as a result of the election. Why on earth hold elections of you still don't attribute a mandate to the winners?

Calvin, you seem to be saying that the group you ran for wasn't rejected on this very basis. At what point do you believe that a mandate exists for candidates who are elected? Surely winning is one rather clear indication of this.

You seem to be in the same isloation tank that the council sits in.

"Do you honestly believe that luck plays a major part in where someone ends up?" Of course it does in many cases. It's often not what you know but who you know, and indeed history is full of examples of people who ran their fingers to the bone, played by the rules and got nowhere.

A copule of offhand examples;

Tucker the car maker; he was a little guy whio could have become big, but he got squished into the ground by the big three because his cars had innovative features ahead of theirs.

Closer to home, Richard Pearse, the guy who flew a heavier than air machine here in NZ before the Wright Brothers, could have gotten a lot further had he recieved proper support.

And indeed here, people who have any sort of imagination that could do something more imaginative than another rugby stadium.

You're wrong on the facts - four councilors, including Cr Staynes voted against the stadium on April 20th:

• Dave Cull
• Chris Staynes
• Teresa Stevenson
• Kate Wilson

Which is not surprising since three of them were voted in on an anti-stadium ticket.

You keep telling us that the citizens voted out one of the anti-stadium tickets, but always neglect to mention that the other anti-stadium ticket was voted in.

I read the ODT interviews of the candidates carefully, especially the question about the stadium - none of the rest of the councilors came out in favour of the stadium before the election.

Yet he and his friends voted for the stadium proceeding right up until recently where they have new found 'doubts' ....in an election year. How very convenient. Maybe he is starting to be fooled by the STS polls.

Did he only decide to start "thinking the issues through" recently?

Calc says that "the council was elected against strong opposition from the rather ambitiously named "Open Democracy" cadre, who stood on a strong anti-stadium ticket. Yet they failed."

As a member of the "Open Democracy" group, I can tell you that the aim of the group was to bring a more democratic and open way of council conducting business. It was a wide-ranging platform, in protest of the manner in which the administration and elected council of the day was driving through vast spending projects (the stadium being only one) without a mandate from, nor consultation with, the public.

Its manner was, and still is, to railroad all manner of agendas through purely on the basis of "we know best", and anyway, you elected us so get out of the way. Think of parking and rubbish disposal as just two points of discord.

Calc, this attitude is what has brought the city to where it is today. A public debt admitted at $360m a council owned group of companies carrying $372.442m of debt and no end in sight of any diminution of this trend.

Despite your faith in the people and systems which aim to protect the citizens from foolish actions by all these people, there has been no sign of any recognition of the parlous position the city is now in from any of the incumbents you so blindly support.

I also don't think Mayor Chin is 'rubbing salt' into anything.  I see him gilding the lily, painting a rosy picture - call it what you will - in an effort to claim positive benefits from an abysmal financial situation.

As for the statement 'I would have thought a dollar generated by the stadium is the same as a dollar generated doing something else'... The difference is that 'doing something else' does not require a 1/3 billion dollar commitment of ratepayers' money - money we don't actually have and which will only come from excessive rates increases and cutbacks elsewhere.

Private enterprise does not see a roofed under-sized rugby stadium in Dunedin as a viable enterprise. Now they at least are professional!

I would encourage you not to utilise the "noose". This is a terribly morbid statement to make in response to a small rates increase. It's rather like doing the same for an increase in the interest rate for a mortgage, an overreaction.

Unless, of course, you were being humourous.

I'm not sure of the connection you are trying to make between your inability to find a job and the stadium. How is this related? Are you suggesting that this is the 'sole' reason for your plight?

You also display jealousy when you describe people living the "high life". I don't see the connection you are trying to make.

Do you believe that councillors - the ones who have jobs and businesses anyway - haven't 'earned' their way to the "high life", whatever that may be? Are there some nefarious goings-on we aren't privy to? Do you honestly believe that luck plays a major part in where someone ends up?.

I'm not sure that he's "rubbing salt" into anything. He merely states what the stadium has done for the economy so far and will do in the future.

The emotion you have displayed to his statement belies your tendency to be so gloriously and endlessly negative about everything rather than see the positives that the Stadium brings.

This Council were elected against strong opposition from, the rather ambitiously named, "Open Democracy" cadre, who stood on a strong anti-stadium ticket. Yet they failed.

The people had spoken, loudly, that they wanted progress, not 'luddite' thinking.

So I think that your statement that they "bullishly, defiantly and arrogantly" proceeded with the stadium is, to use your new favourite word, indeed "hyperbole".

I was intrigued by your emphatic statement "The same number of people could have been put in jobs by undertaking much cheaper and much more creative and innovative jobs about Dunedin, piecemeal."

Firstly, professional people do not do things "piecemeal"; they formulate a strategy to get the best use out of resources.

Secondly what exactly are the "more creative" jobs that need doing around the City that the majority want done? I assume, as you have this grand alternative to help economic recovery, you have thought it through rather than just fired off a nice sounding paragraph?

It is easy to knock down, but unless you have an alternative that will actually meet some need of the people of Dunedin or actually be achievable, its really just words with no foundation.

What has creative got do do with anything? That is entirely subjective, and how does that make the money generated by it any different to something you deem to be 'uncreative' work?

I would have thought a dollar generated by the stadium is the same as a dollar generated doing something else.

Never content with bullishly, defiantly and arrogantly pushing ahead with it, Chin and Company seem to feel the insatiable need to keep giving the odd jab to remind everyone of their deeds, rubbing salt into the proverbial with their self righteous run of “we know best.”

All with no real facts, and a lot of smoke, mirrors and hyperbole.

They try to high-ball the figure of employment, telling of a few hundred people employed on and off through various stages, (e.g. electricians who won’t be there till the later stages) in order to create an impressive figure on paper to try make the pet project sound digestible as a recession buster (what hyperbole).

But it sets up the city for bankruptcy in the process.

The same number of people could have been put in jobs by undertaking much cheaper and much more creative and innovative jobs about Dunedin, piecemeal.

Over 200 million dollars to create 600 jobs for 18 months is, at best, a profound way of wasting money, like putting on a 747 to carry 40 people on a short haul 30 minute flight.

I’m sure over in Queensland the same sort of powers-that-be assured people they had made the right decision with the stadiums built a few years ago, but now it’s finally been admitted they are losing millions and draining the taxpayers coffers.

That’s a fact, unlike some whipped up figures to try pull the wool over our eyes. And around a much larger population base, to boot. Ahh, what they don't tell us.

Well done captain Chin, with his self touted ‘unsinkable’ Titanic project, heading us full steam for the same financial iceberg.