The debate over whether a covered stadium should be sunk into downtown Auckland's seabed may seem like a local, sport-focused issue. In fact, it is a transport and tax issue and it affects us in the South.
Auckland's Eden Park received a $256million redevelopment in 2010 and is the country's premiere stadium. But a consortium of Auckland business people believes its city can do better and has suggested a new stadium be built on port land, in the heart of the city's waterfront. It would be sunk into the seabed, capable of seating at least 50,000 people and be surrounded by promenades populated by cafes, restaurants and pedestrians.
Remarkably, it is pitched as coming without any cost - at least to ratepayers. Instead, its $1billion price tag would be paid for through the acquisition of Eden Park's land and port land around the proposed stadium, land which would then be developed and sold at, presumably, a $1billion profit.
Never mind the loss of income from the port land, the cost of maintaining a sunken structure, the potential calamity natural disasters could inflict on such a design or the fact stadiums seldom get anywhere close to paying their way: perhaps the most confronting issue is that - whether it's paid for by ratepayers or those paying for the redeveloped real estate - many in Auckland believe the city can afford a $1billion stadium.
Yet, the same city is so congested, and so cash-strapped, it needs billions of dollars of new rail/tram lines, funded in part from a freshly increased nationwide fuel tax set to increase again next year and the year after. Ironically, poor public transport has been one of the constant criticisms levelled at Eden Park.
With that issue set to be somewhat resolved by the trams, Auckland then wants to shift its stadium to the waterfront, funded by an untapped $1billion it says it can easily find.
There are big driving distances to be tackled in the South, and increased fuel taxes are already hurting many. So it seems fair to ask why Auckland's untapped $1billion has not been put forward as an option to pay for the city's trams.
Auckland will soon have Western Springs redeveloped as an international cricket ground and already has two other international football grounds in Albany and Penrose. The loss of Eden Park's larger capacity would only be noticed once or twice a year, during All Blacks matches.
It boils down to whether we see New Zealand as one entity - as was pitched during the 2011 Rugby World Cup process - or as one major city with a large hinterland. A singer with a support band, or just a band. Are we Auckland and the New Zealanders, or just New Zealand?
Because, when it comes to downtown stadiums, it's hard to think of a better location than Wellington's. When it comes to covered stadiums, it's hard to think of a better one than Dunedin's. In fact, most of what many Aucklanders are craving already exists in other centres around the country; from low traffic to centralised urban planning and comparatively efficient public transport.
Would it not be better for the Government to let Auckland pay for its own transport redevelopments, whatever those costs may be, let it suffer its existing stadia, and let the market choose whether better alternatives are worth shifting to the regions for?
Auckland is in dire need of better public transport, so much so the rest of the country have, with just a few grumbles, accepted their share of contributions.
But if $1billion dollars of untapped Auckland money is spent on a new stadium, Auckland may find the quiet grumbles from the regions grow far louder.
There is nothing wrong with Auckland's stadium aspirations. But there is nothing wrong with the rest of the country begrudging footing the bill, either.
