Further $1.8 million for stadium

I find Cr Guest's latest outburst describing Councillors against the Stadium as 'behaving like petulant children' and having a 'hidden agenda' to be a pretty apt description of his own role in this ongoing saga. The role of these 'petulants', if he stopped to think about it, is to protect those who foot the city's bills from the worst excesses of a Council which has plainly, 'lost the plot'.

Cr Michael Guest describes councillors opposing the approval of DVML being funded to the tune of $2.4 million, as "petulant children" with a "hidden agenda" of destroying the project. What entitles him to judge these people's decision to oppose a matter of conscience such as this? As he says, they would be judged by voters on the issue, and rightly so. Deep in the canyons of my mind I keep hearing the echos of Malcolm Farry saying: "We will be building a new stand alone stadium. It will be at Awatea St, it will have a roof and will not cost a cent over $188 million. And no, we will not be asking the rate payers for any financial contribution." I wonder if Michael Guest has those same echos?

This makes me angry, especially when one recalls all the bullying language that ratepayers endured from CST regarding their robust budgets and so on. Methinks we were hoodwinked yet again. Three questions:-

1) Were councillors aware of these subvention payments, tax losses, carbon credit profits when they were debating, for example, cutting $300k from the library budget?

2) Why do councillors think that using money from these sources has less effect on ratepayers? Are they not intelligent enough to realise that these funds could, and in fact should, be available to offset the normal rate bill?

3) Why are ratepayers being asked (or forced) to market rugby to themselves? Is the rugby union providing any marketing funds?

So the budget for managing the stadium is 400% out. While council asks every other department for big cuts, they give a 400% increase to stadium management. Staff costs alone are 300% more than budgeted. In a single vote, (for just one years management), they have wiped out the first ten years profits from the stadium. (forecast at $200,000 per year)

It seems that most Dunedin ratepayers believe that it is only through the 'secret agenda' of a pro-rugby minority that the stadium project is on-going, so it's pretty rich of Cr. Guest to now claim there is a 'secret agenda' to destroy it.

And so it begins . . . the "misleading or incompetent" advice re what the stadium will cost has begun to unravel. It never added up, and no matter how many times people like me tried to say that, we were shut down with cries of "naysayer" and "negative" and having no vision.
Well, we now have a council in deep financial trouble, with a stadium that is going to go on springing surprises on the fiscal front (actually not surprising to those of us who had our eyes open all along) - and the excuses will begin. Officials will be blamed; ratepayers will be told that there's nothing really to worry about - just carry on paying, and blindly trusting that it will all be ok.
It's not ok. This council should be sacked. If there was a way for a community to vote no confidence in a council and get rid of them, then now would be the time to boot this lot into touch. 
It would be hard to quantify how angry this makes me - because it was avoidable and because it's only the beginning. This situation will get worse and then the real finger pointing will start. Watch this council scramble for cover. It will not be an edifying spectacle.

I must admit to being highly sceptical of the prospects for the unwanted stadium being anywhere near covering costs. I became quite alarmed on learning our beloved councillors were employing a manager at $5000 per week who was going to promote this 'multi-use' rugby stadium. But now I read that he has found some American wrestling promoter to talk to, I will be able to relax completely. It's just a matter now for the councillors to work out what to do with the profits.

So, I'm just not sure I understand why $850k when it's given to the 'CST budget' only becomes 'further money spent on the stadium' when transfered to DVML .... what exactly is this 'CST budget' slush fund that's not being spent on the stadium? What are they spending it on if it's not stadium-related? And why is the DCC giving them money for it?

I think it's time the council's dealings with the CST became transparent - open for all to see. It's also time the CST filed its annual financial statements so we can see where our money went.