Stadium situation needs a logical, practical plan
The options for the Dunedin City Council and their stadium seem now to be more than ever limited with the announcement that their CEO, Paul Doorn, is leaving for "an exciting international opportunity".
The announcement rather begs the question, who in their right mind would take up this position?
The financial facts are that the stadium was projected to cost "not a penny more" than $188 million, according to the chair of the Stadium Trust, Malcolm Farry, at the time.
An independent review by Price Waterhouse Coopers after the build put the cost at $206.4m, but they determined in 2012 that the actual cost was $227m, which included a cost to the DCC of $162.7m.
Where did this money come from? Not out of thin air.
Borrowing costs money. The current DCC debt for the stadium is around $85m, but with increasing maintenance costs and rising interest rates this figure could rise to $194m by 2060 — more than the stated building cost at the time of the build.
Bearing in mind the reality of the new covered Christchurch stadium, the departure of yet another venue CEO, the looming costs of new turf and increased maintenance as well as increasing finance costs, what is the logical and practical plan of the DCC regarding the stadium and its financial millstone around the necks of the hapless Dunedin ratepayers?
More than one war
The statement by Gwynne Dyer (Opinion ODT 13.4.26) that "The Middle East wars of the past 75 years are all ultimately about the division of Palestine between Jews and Arabs in 1948" ought not to go unchallenged.
Your wiser readers will no doubt recall the recent civil wars in Yemen and Syria, the first Gulf War in 1990, the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Some will remember the war between Iran and Iraq in the 1980s that cost over a million lives, and the ongoing war between Turkey and the Kurds.
The Egyptian war with Yemen in the 1960s, the Saudi invasion of Bahrain, multiple conflicts in Oman, the civil wars in Lebanon, the list goes on ... .
We need an accurate understanding of both the history and geography of the Middle East in all its complexity, not just a focus on one conflict.
Iran and missiles
The ODT front-page article (9.4.26) had an assessment of the war in Iran by Professor Robert Patman. It essentially lambasted the United States for starting a war which in his opinion, cannot be won.
Prof Patman is a member of the liberal socialist elite who cannot get their heads around the fact that Iran have been negotiated with, bribed, and their terrorist activities ignored, by a succession of Western leaders who have kicked the can down the road in the hope that international law will be eventually respected by Iran. After 47 years of trying, how has that gone?
The US rightly decided that two weeks of negotiating was not going to change what 47 years of negotiating failed to achieve.
All Prof Patman seems to be worried about is the economic effects of the war and he also has the view that the US and Israel involvement has not gone to plan in "any shape or form".
Prof Patman seems to have some high level intel which allows him to make that comment.
People who are against the US and Israel intervention in Iran would be best to ponder the effect of a nuclear missile detonating in Central London, Paris, Rome, or Berlin.
[Abridged — length. Editor.]
Debate snafu example of ‘jaco’, or otherwise?
Acronyms have an interesting history. Take the word "snafu", for something that is not going well. The "f" is generally regarded as signifying something unprintable.
‘‘Taco", derived from "Trump always chickens out", is a new coining that has rapidly taken on the meaning of getting out of trouble by retreating.
Similarly, people’s surnames can take on an independent meaning. "Churchillian", for grandly eloquent speech, comes to mind and so does "Trumpian" for less than grandly eloquent speech.
New Zealand also has its fair share of words or expressions that have taken on a life of their own. "Yeah-right" in the Tui advertisements is a relatively recent example of this.
Many of us in the South have watched Shane Jones’ antics relating to publicly debating the Santana mine issue with Sir Ian Taylor. There is a Trumpian quality to it; much bravado at first, then a retreat among claims of victimhood, then the pop-up appearances in the South with assertions that he’s still up for the debate if he can dictate the terms to suit himself. Yeah right.
Here in the South, it could be a "snafu" for Mr Jones’ credibilty in an election year if he tries to "jaco" out this debate again.
Address Letters to the Editor to: Otago Daily Times, PO Box 517, 52-56 Lower Stuart St, Dunedin. Email: letters@odt.co.nz
