After two years and the spending of $45 million of
ratepayers' money, the Otago Stadium issue is still not
finally resolved. Dunedin City Council
reporter David Loughrey looks back on a year of prolonged and
bitter public debate on an issue that will not go away.
The date has yet to be decided, but in early February both
the Dunedin city and Otago regional councils will sit - again
- to decide whether what is now called the Otago Stadium
should either go ahead, or be stopped in its tracks.
Dunedin City Council chief executive Jim Harland says the
meeting dates will have to fit in with the councils' annual
plan timetables and, for the city council, its plan has to go
to Audit New Zealand by February 11.
The stadium has been through any number of big decisions,
lines in the sand and exit points, and - seemingly
unstoppable - has always managed to come out the other side.
It now faces its biggest test, with the world financial
crisis giving decision-makers some serious jitters.
Privately, some councillors who have so far supported the
project are rethinking that position, while opponents have
stuck with their opposition.
Others also say they will stick with the project.
The general consensus is that will be a tighter vote than the
10-4 split when the project was given approval in March, but
the result is anyone's guess.
Issues at the heart of the debate include whether the city
can afford to build and then operate such a massive project,
what role local authorities have outside providing core
services, and whether they should be funding a stadium.
But those issues have sometimes been lost sight of as the
project is fought on every front.
In fact, tracking down any sort of "truth" is a hazardous
occupation, and speaking out can lead to attacks.
What has been a long two years of debate has left nobody
involved immune from criticism, be it councillors, council
staff, trust members and employees, opponents, and, of
course, the media, as facts and figures are fired from both
sides.
The cost, for instance, is $188 million, according to the
Carisbrook Stadium Trust, $214 million, according to former
Dunedin City Council auditor Nicola Holman, who teaches
public sector accounting at the University of Otago, or more
than $400 million, according to Dr Robert Hamlin, of the
University of Otago's School of Business.
The stadium is multipurpose, proponents say, or for rugby
only, opponents respond.
The land on which it is to be built is either safe and
secure, or about to be washed away in the next storm, riddled
with pollutants and even prone to terrorist attacks,
depending on your viewpoint.
The financial health of city residents has been hotly
debated, with stadium opponents seeing red when the Otago
Daily Times published census data showing the number of
Dunedin households earning more than $100,000 a year had
risen rapidly, and the number of households earning less than
$20,000 had dropped from 25% in 2001 to 17.2% in 2006.
Those figures did not reflect reality, they said, when other
figures showed 51.2% of people aged 15 years and over in
Dunedin had an annual income of $20,000 or less, compared
with 43.2% of people for New Zealand as a whole.
Unfortunately, passion for each side of the cause has made a
critical analysis of the facts rare.
The year's stadium news began with a council decision on the
issue being delayed as the trust worked to buy the land it
needed, and landowners and lessees were slammed for holding
out for big profits.
With Quotable Value New Zealand figures for Awatea St land at
$15 million, an initial council budget of $22.2 million, and
a final figure for buying land, leases and relocation at $33
million, it would seem plenty of people struck a good deal.
That is perhaps not surprising, considering nobody really
wanted to sell, but the council felt it had to buy.
