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?
Bookmark/Search this post with:
A name, residential address, and (preferably residential) telephone number is required from readers who comment on ODT Online. These details will not be visible to site visitors.