The stadium saga moves inexorably forward, and in doing so
continues to reveal an ever growing list of deceptions.
Why this should be it is difficult to know.
In fact, why the DCC has gotten so deeply implicated is both
a mystery, and by extension, an enormous worry to a good many
citizens.
The stadium was first announced by Malcolm Farry as a new
concept, to be on a site at Awatea St. to cost not a penny
more than $188m, and yes, it would have a roof.
Further, there would be no call on the rate payers for
funding.
That, as it turned out was deception number one.
Then it was later said that the complex was to be multi
purpose, associated with the university and was therefore not
just about rugby.
Because of the multi use aspect it was expected now that rate
payers should provide some funding and ultimately own it.
Deception number two.
By now the DCC - led by mayor Peter Chin and CEO Jim Harland
- had taken the lead by financing the Carisbrook Stadium
Trust (CST) to develop the project.
From then on we have witnessed a continuous series of
misinformation, withholding of information, the making of
outlandish claims, such as 500 to 1,000 additional students,
economic benefits to the region of up to $20m. per annum and
general humbug.
Meanwhile, the costs were escalating from the original
absolute $188m to $198m, to $204m, and now seemingly $217m
with no assurance that this would stop.
Meantime, the public were showing their anxiety by forming a
group (Stop the Stadium) which set about to inform the
populace of the situation.
There was a large street march of protest followed by a
meeting in the Town Hall attended by more than 1800 people
united in their opposition.
The media has been inundated with letters, articles and
editorials over the pros and cons of the concept.
These have been and are, overwhelmingly in opposition.
Then there was the professionally conducted public survey by
the university which showed a dramatic 78% as being opposed.
The methods of funding -as it affects the rate payers -
devised by the DCC are opaque to say the least.
The manner in which the council owned trading companies under
the DCHL have been exploited in order to distract from the
rate payers the true implications is a deception on a grand
scale.
To suggest that the average cost will be just $66 per annum
is simply not believable.
This cost is simply to cover the reduction of $5m per annum
in the dividend to the city from DCHL over twenty years.
The reason for this is that DCHL will pay down the city's
stadium debt by $5m a year.
There is no mention of the interest pertaining to that debt,
the maintenance of the venue, the depreciation nor the
operational expenses.
As well there is the cost of covering the shortfall in the
private funding component which is reputably to be coming in
over time up to 2010.
All these are supposedly to be covered by the revenue
obtained from events held.
Another deception.
All this led to this year's Annual Plan at which there were
812 submissions, an overwhelming number of which were on the
stadium. 249 of these chose to speak.
This resulted in Jim Harland announcing that a comprehensive
letter would be sent to all submitters in order to
"deconfuse" them.
This letter, in response to some concern about the options,
justified itself by unbelievably citing the February 2007
report stating the cost at $186m.
This is deception writ large, as it is already acknowledged
that costs are now some $217m.
In response to concerns about the profitability of stadiums
it drew comparisons with the Wellington Westpac stadium,
showing it to be making profits ranging from a low of
$374,000 in 2003/04 to a high of $2.984m. in 2007/08.
It ignores the fact that it was built for $128.65m. compared
with our local one at $217m. and counting.
It ignores the fact that the public funding was, WCC $15m and
WRC $25m a total of $40m.
Our local public funding is DCC $109m plus ORC $37.5m. for a
total of $146.5m.
Also, if we compare the population pools we find that greater
Wellington is some 486,000 whilst Otago's is some 200,000.
On that basis, comparing apples with apples there is no way
on earth that ours can make a profit.
Another deception.
Now we come to the biggest deception of all.
The purchase of Carisbrook by the DCC.
This was at a figure of $7m, against valuations of less than
half that figure.
Why did this happen? Well, the ORFU was operating with
consistent annual losses and owed the DCC $2m. as well as $4m
to the bank.
This deal allows the ORFU to get rid of their debt, have
perhaps $1m. in the bank and no further costs pertaining to
owning a ground.
Jim Harland says this was to "ensure the viability of the
ORFU as a tenant of the new stadium." But surely, the stadium
is not about rugby, they said.
In fact, the ORFU is not to be a tenant as such, but simply
to hire the facilities on an event by event basis.
But now he says that the DCC had an "active interest" in
having a successful rugby franchise in the South.
"The majority of revenue in the new stadium will come from
professional rugby, and the Highlanders are the vehicle for
that."
Worse, originally the DCC was to take over Carisbrook for a
token $1, be sold on and the proceeds becoming part of the
funding for the new stadium.
Now we come to the grand launching of the brand. "Forsyth
Barr Stadium at University Plaza" is the name with a logo
depicting a "curved stadium aurora symbol"
At the function FB chairman Eion Edgar said that the company
tried to give "meaningful support" back to the community.
I wonder do the investors through his company appreciate
that? CST chairman Malcolm Farry, said that there were still
"pockets of disenchantment" that opposed the project.
Now there is the understatement of the decade.
To me, the logo looks more like "Icarus' wing," and we all
know what happened to him.
He flew too close to the Sun, his wings melted and he fell
crashing to the earth.
Could this be an omen?
Well said Cal
One of the best write ups yet, and by the looks of it, the even more cynically raw truth has obviously hurt, but they remain in total denial... And the intelligence of Bside's comment, well, having the thing will indeed help deaden the place, aside the ripping off processes, the ignored, oppressed people who would like some real, imaginitive progress will move on...
How these stadium supporters who accuse STS of causing the thing to cost more think that is a valid comment. What? A few hundred thousand pitted against the ever escalating million here and there it seems to climb in overall total cost, almost week by week? Latest, the required strengthening of the bridge due to construction machinery, to name one example of a myriad. 49 out of 50 in my workplace are against, which flows well with the well conducted survey, and indeed the two stadium meets, but now even the solitary supporter is starting to show doubt now.
It's not all black and white
In my opinion Calvin's piece was one of the best I've read on this subject. Very well argued and succinct. No, I'm not a stop the stadium person, I was in favour of a new stadium properly costed and designed to purpose. (As a rate payer I was even happy to contribute). However the way the DCC and the Trust has conducted it's business in this regard has been shamefull and an insult to the intelligence of Dunedin people.
Talking of intelligence I'm not sure if poster 'wingy1234' is just playing 'devils advocate'. Suggesting the unemployed should not contribute and calling an article 'rubbish' without putting forward any rational does not put you in a position to pontificate. I only hope that when 'wingy' finishes studies the recession is over and they do not find themselves unemployed.
No free lunch
Of all the stadium supporters who have written to object to Calvin Oaten's article, not one has offered any contrary facts. Nor has even a single point of his been specifically refuted. How can this be? Do none of you know anything?
I do sympathise as I too think there has been a serious lack of facts. Nor even much up-to-date information. It was asked if the ODT could provide 20 facts. I strongly support this request.
I am of course aware of the ODT article by David Loughrey on 23 June which is titled 'Stadium to cost ratepayers $261m', which indicates that this project is already $73m more than Mr. Farry and Mayor Chin promised. (That seems to be factual) In addition, I would like to know if we can find out if the Stadium is actually going to have a roof, considering the serious setbacks encountered by the planned design. And, if there is still to be a roof, how much more is it going to cost? I would welcome any concrete facts the ODT can provide to help fill the knowledge void.
Now, if I was dealing with a company who regularly made and then broke promises. If they kept me poorly informed and generally did not respect my opinion, I would tell myself, 'This company cannot be trusted. I must not put myself at their mercy. I will look for someone I can trust to do business with.' If however I did not use my commonsense and accepted their promises of a 'free lunch' or whatever 'come-on' they offered, then I would deserve whatever treatment they metered out to me - and any criticism from wiser souls.
Staduim supports local business?
Can anyone tell me why the Forsyth Barr Stadium at University Plaza logo was developed by Wellington-based company Cato Partners? I thought one of the stadium's arguments was to support local business and the local economy. We have some fantastic local designers here in Otago. All I can come up with is that maybe none of them wanted to be associated with such a diabolical project. Sad.
"Twisted " facts
Like all the STS blogs we have facts being twisted to suit their own needs. Make believe figures and unproven scenarios. Maybe from maths teacher? All theory and no practical experience? Read the residents survey and weep.
Inter-generational equity
Richard Walls makes some comment in another forum regarding what he terms "inter-generational equity". While he does not use it in connection with the stadium, it probably is not a term that the DCC should be proud to apply to its financial management. Intergenerational equity is a principle that your spending rate does not exceed the after-inflation compound interest rate of your investments. As I posted elsewhere, the current state of California's finances is a good example of what happens when you get this wrong. But it seems clear that the DCC's current and projected spending rates breach this principle - raising fees and charges during a recession is a good indicator that spending rate is out of control.
Intergenerational equity
I am disappointed that you should misrepresent what I posted in another forum in regard to 'Intergenerational Equity'. In NZ local government, it is a term that relates to spreading the cost of a capital asset over the generations who will use it, e.g infrastructure such as water and sewage and not in the manner you describe it. That hardly relates to the term you use and its relation to the current financial shambles that the State of California has (again) got itself into, largely because of conflicting political partisan policies which the State legislators seem unable to resolve.
Correct
You are correct. I withdraw the above comment unreservedly.
Why blame stadium opposers for the cost?
Don't shoot the messenger. Very strange logic used by some posters to this topic in regard to the cost of the stadium escalating due to action to stop the thing. Why blame those people yet be happy to suck over $200 million down the gurgler? I'm anti the council involvement in this project - not the project itself. The idea of the stadium has not been the devisive issue moreso the funding and as Calvin Oaten says, deception. If this project was the golden goose the CST, council and now Forsyth Barr say it is then it would have been built by now and privately. Put another way, if it was so good then the average punter wouldn't have had a look in as an invester. Let's face it. The decision to go with this option of a stadium, with a roof by the harbour was made long ago and the first things to be demolished were the council's own conditions and any ratepayer opposition. The arrogance of the council and CST it what really gets up my nose though. The council in particular seems to disregard any anti stadium voice and opinion and as for Columba College with "get over it" socks... well if that is the result of a supposed top education then there isn't a lot to be hopeful for in the future. Constantly hiding behind "commercial sensitivity" when there are no other parties involved is just another example of the council thinking their ratepayers are just a bunch of yokels that have no brains really. Where is the transparency? And as for creating jobs for this project, why not just get the council to borrow a couple of hundred million dollars and write everyone a cheque? I mean, at least we wouldn't have the costs of running the loss making thing afterwards.
Let's end this
This article is a load of rubbish. Can the ODT stop posting the same anti stadium stuff we have heard for months/years. Could they not research the project themselves and put a list of 20 facts in the paper. This just seems to be an opinion piece by the same old same old. Lets end this, the stadium is going ahead. When will these people learn that they are the ones making the project cost so much by fighting the council every step of the way. They are also probably the unemployed ones who barely contribute anyway. I think it should be one vote for every dollar of rates paid. Therefore a majority of stop the stadium would get bugger all.
you know ....
You know demanding that people stop talking about things you don't want to hear isn't all that different that sticking your fingers in your ears and proclaiming "nyah nyah nyah, I can't hear you!". It doesn't change the facts of the situation to ignore them.
Lest we forget
Of course Paul-on-the-Bay and his ilk would like to forget this appallingly black period in Dunedin's history - and it's not even over yet.
I say 'Well-done, Calvin. Thank you for so succinctly encapsulating this travesty of democracy - to date."
If reminding ourselves like this makes some squirm, that's just too bad. What is being inflicted on unwilling Dunedin ratepayers is vastly more disagreeable than any discomfort a minority may be experiencing. Who knows, there are still so many 'balls in the air' over this fiasco, we may all end up agreeing that Mayor Chin et al have indeed very badly misjudged the affordability and timing of it.
Stop the stadium is increasing the cost of the stadium
I don't think stop the staduim have realised this but they are wasting the DCC time, lawyers, the courts in Christchurch, and so many other people's time, do they realise they are the ones making the stadium cost more because the council has to keep fighting them? They don't want it to cost any more so why do they keep fighting and putting the price up? Can someone explain this? Are these stop the stadium people unemployed and got nothing else to do. Do they want Dunedin to be a dead city.
Why do they want it to cost even more. Makes ya think dosen't it.
Stop the stoppers
I'm not sure how long the ODT will continue to give these people a forum to regurgitate ad nauseam the same tired and failed arguments.
There is nothing new here, this has been played out time and time again.
When will it stop?
If we are to believe these people, the biggest fraud in local body political history is about to be played out, only problem is, there's nothing here to make us believe this rubbish.
Please ODT, the same 3 or 4 people have said this rubbish over and over, you keep selling papers, we get it.
Enough.
Stop
It will stop when somebody at the DCC can answer Calvin Oaten's succint letter where he points out the deception. It will stop when they answer those questions and so far none of them have come out and said anything to the contrary so why should we stop until the DCC stop abusing their citizens with no answers. It will continue till the day the umbrella goes up and the fact that we the ratepayers had to pay $7 million dollars to the rugby union for carisbrook so they have no debt but we the ratepayers take all their debt. Well that just goes beyond the pale.
Validity of arguments ...
Just because something has been repeated doesn't make it any less valid.
In this case though Calvin is making an argument about giving the ORFU $7m (or maybe $9m, after all the jury's still out on the details) for a piece of land that the ORFU has previously said was only worth $400k - this seems like another indication that the DCC has lost touch with financial reality at a time when it should be tightening its belt to weather the world's current financial turmoil.
Enough already
Would somebody please stop the stadium stoppers already. I'm beginning to feel their pain, though the source of mine is their continued ranting.
I disagree ...
I think your valuation estimate of 1/2 the $7m is bunk. We're not buying a working running stadium from the ORFU - we're buying some land with some stuff on it that we don't want - the improvements to the land are a liability because we can't sell them and we will have to pay to tear them down.
As someone else pointed out in this forum recently the ORFU, in its submissions on the stadium, has valued Carisbrook's land value at ~$400k - I don't see any reason why the council should pay more than that for the place, probably a lot less considering the cost of tearing down all the stuff sitting on it. Anything more is a gift to prop up a tottering organisation that doesn't know how to manage its money and pay its debts, if we let them become dependent on the nanny state they'll just be back asking for more in a few years.
If the ORFU isn't happy with that deal they should develop the land themselves and create a capital fund for their own future support.
Also, as our friend here 'Max Power' has pointed out, the ORFU is not the same thing as the Highlanders, the ORFU wont be playing in the new stadium, the Highlanders will - we don't really need to prop up the ORFU to keep the Highlanders viable.