Stadium decision will haunt city

Mark Laughton
Mark Laughton
Previously a fence-sitter over the Awatea St stadium issue, Mark Laughton changed his mind after attending the town hall meeting called by opponents of the project.

Dave Cull, Thank you for being the only councillor to have the backbone to tell the ratepayers of Dunedin the true facts about the proposed stadium.

Until I heard you speak [on March 29], I was on the fence, thinking a stadium would be OK for the city, but apprehensive about the citizens paying for it.

I am not a member of Stop The Stadium and do not intend to be.

But I am extremely concerned about this pending decision.

Now I have heard the facts, from you as a councillor who is privy to all discussions in committee, I have no doubt that this decision will have very big repercussions for the city for many years to come.

Why would we allow this to happen at any time now we have the true facts - let alone now when we are experiencing one of the most uncertain economic climates ever to be seen in the modern world? Simple common sense should overwhelmingly prevail, but oh no, not in this case it would seem.

This decision, in my opinion, is not even whether people can afford the inevitable rates rise (although this needs to be carefully considered).

But it should be, is this a sound commercial decision for Dunedin city and its future? And can the city afford the building cost, the running costs and the ongoing maintenance going forward for what, when all said and done, is only a rugby stadium and not a multipurpose stadium as we are being led to believe?

If we look at the people charged with the responsibility of making this all-important decision - which is very much a business decision - there are only a handful who have any real experience of successfully running or owning a business.

What a joke.

If it were any one of these people personally fronting up to start this business and borrow the money needed, the idea would not have even seen the light of day.

Plus, no lending institution would even remotely contemplate being involved.

It is very clear that the council is allowing the Stadium Trust to get away with telling them what they want to hear, rather than ensuring that these "facts" are actually all true and accurate - for example, the proviso that the private investment must be secured and in place before the proposal could move to the next step.

Well, the trust is nowhere near the target (and probably will never ever get there) yet the council has, in its wisdom, decided to proceed - with a lame assurance from the chairman of the trust that the private investment will come in as promised.

We all know that will never happen and that the DCC will then make up that shortfall, which will become additional funding on top of the already promised amount.

The fact that a large part of the facts and discussions surrounding the stadium have been kept secret from the public proves, in itself, that whole process has been poorly handled. It is time our mayor and chief executive told their employers - the ratepayers - the absolute truth and not continue to cloud this issue withstatements that really mean nothing.

Our councillors have been elected and entrusted to make sound decisions on behalf of the citizens of Dunedin, so come on, listen to the true facts and figures and do not bow to peer pressure: this decision will haunt the city for ever.

This whole process has been a sham from day one and you still have the chance to cut your losses and get out while you may still have some integrity and are still well ahead.

I am very passionate about this city and the way it is run, and simply cannot believe that as an elected council you would continue to be so irresponsible involving so much money and commitment.

Why have you not further explored totally revamping Carisbrook at a fraction of the cost and saving the city from this grandiose, unaffordable, ugly edifice to be built on swamp land?

• Mark Laughton is a Dunedin businessman

 

 

 

Add a Comment