The same as commiting yourself to paying more for something
in the future, or getting something you think you need now
that you can pay for later. In the Councils case borrowing is
something someone else will pay for later. The Council needs
to reiterate the benefits, and how much we needed the
stadium. They should then explain why we shouldnt borrow
more, as the interest has essentially reduced future income.
It is a bit like spending on a credit card that your kids
will have to pay off, and just like with the Council
your kids actually wont appreciate your decision making.
It used to be a big place for shows. Conventions were
entertained by performers called 'Our Lovely Maoris They're
So Good'. Oddly, some people had hazardous volcanic craters
bubbling in their backyards, which they sat in.
An excellent opinion that cuts to the chase. Local councils
will always face these problems for two reasons. They are
democratically elected and are not required to compete in the
real world for market share as they have no competitors.
History has proven that the most efficient system is a
dictatorship with one person calling the shots. Dunedin
citizens would not wear that and rightly so. The result is
that we must live with the inefficient democratic system that
is currently in place.
What a weak excuse to blame Forsyth Barr Stadium as an
exceptional reason to break the 3% rate rise cap. Will we see
the same excuse next year? It seems this Council is hellbent
on spending money it has not got. So easy to spend someone
The new 7pm TV3 show will have "more of an
entertainment focus and more oversight by MediaWorks
executives" and they call it "A replacement
show"! The parking lot will be a popular viewing
spot for staff who worked with Campbell waiting for the day
when Mediaworks executives replace their quality cars with
entertaingly daggy 1975 Trabants.
Council staff had identified $333,600 in savings, which
had been approved for spending on new projects with a $25,800
The overspend did not push up the 3.8% rates rise.
I don't know how they manage with my rates money.
I pay rates with old-fashioned money, if I spend all my
money, then go on spending, I have to steal or borrow or earn
more. Council overspends but that has -
apparently - nothing to do with further increasing the amount
of rates they demand, from 3% to 3.8%. Even 3% was
greater than the increase in most people's incomes but never
mind, council doesn't. Different types of money,
obviously. I wish I had their kind, it would make
paying rates a lot easier if overspending was not associated
with any consequences.
8 out of 10 for this editorial. It has been a long time since
the ODT was so forthright in its views on the Councillors'
lack of fiscal responsibility and any Councillor reading this
and not getting the message would be pretty thick. However
every argument for fiscal responsibly spelt out in this
editorial is exactly the same as those for the stadium -
which is only briefly mentioned in the editorial. Promises of
vast amounts of external funding which never eventuated,
dismissal of ongoing operational costs and cost of debt, loss
of opportunity money and the total disregard for core
infrastructure maintenance was demonstrated in the stadium
issue. And to make a salient point, the decision to proceed
happened in the face of large ratepayers protest. It is hard
to see why the ODT supported the stadium decision while now
pointing out the unwise decisions of this Council.
Good to see such a good turnout for such an important
subject. Key may be good in many areas but he is a share
trader and only interested in short term profits. Climate
change is long term problem and the majority of people
recognise the threats and the government is sensitive to
publick opinion so the more we publicise our fears the more
notice they will take. The changes can have big economic
advantages for new
If only the Dunedin City Council would recognise that
communities must voluntarily adopt a simpler way of living or
have this later catastrophically imposed on their people,
with the poor and the otherwise disadvantaged taking the
brunt of that. However, the DCC is still in a time warp
competition for the best brand and 'most vibrant' city and
still believe 'what's good for business is good for
everyone', when, in general, the reverse is true.
Why should the children be punished for their parents getting
into a heated argument? Not being eligible for the trophy at
the end of the season is a ridiculous punishment for the
children. Maybe things might have happened on the field but
that's what yellow and red cards are for and the children
would get punished on a case by case basis through the rugby