These days it’s treated like an insult, but honestly, some of history’s best campaigners were just people who didn’t want something daft built in their backyard. And when the mayor himself decides to discredit you in the media, you know you must be hitting a nerve.
Well, he’s half right. Nobody does. But this isn’t just about my backyard - it’s about our city’s future.
Let’s start with the process. When our community made submissions on the long-term plan in April, we were flying blind. We worked with what we had: Green Island data, the council’s annual reports, research on average gate rates across New Zealand and our best estimates. We presented those figures at our hearing on May 21 - only to be completely disregarded as "not reflective of our numbers in the business case". We had asked repeatedly to see the real business case, but we were told it was commercially sensitive and couldn’t be shared.
The business case was released publicly on May 22, one day after our hearing. One day after all public feedback was closed. We were shut out of any chance to challenge it or even ask questions. For a $92 million project with decades of consequences, that’s not democracy - that’s deliberate gagging dressed up as consultation.
And the irony? Once we finally got our hands on the business case, the situation turned out to be even worse than our numbers predicted.
Here’s what the mayor and councillors haven’t taken the time to figure out: the numbers on Smooth Hill don’t stack up. Not by a long shot.
Bizarrely the Dunedin City Council’s business case doesn’t appear to account for interest or depreciation. Anyone with a mortgage knows interest is real money out the door, and anyone with a car knows depreciation is a real cost. A landfill, like other capital assets, doesn’t appreciate over time - it’s a sunk cost, fully depreciated over the life of its operation.
Pretending those costs don’t exist doesn’t make them go away.
Furthermore the council’s own business case discloses a gate rate of $172 a tonne at Smooth Hill. Compare that with AB Lime in Winton, offering $117 a tonne flat, irrespective of volume.
That’s a $55-per-tonne gap. Do we honestly think commercial waste operators are going to pay that much more just for the privilege of dumping in Dunedin?
Of course not. They’ll go where it’s cheaper - and that means Smooth Hill won’t get the volumes it needs.
And volumes matter. Dunedin’s municipal waste is only 35,000 tonnes. The balance is commercial. Smooth Hill only works if it gets 60,000 tonnes a year. Drop below that, and it starts bleeding.
By our numbers - based on the council’s own disclosed target of 47,000 tonnes per annum by 2030 - that’s a deficit of $22m every single year. All of which flows straight back to you and me, the ratepayers. On a per-household basis, that’s around a 16% rates increase from Smooth Hill alone.
The business case even admitted this risk: if commercial volumes drop, the project is unfeasible. The other risk? Development costs blowing out.
Now let’s put those "risks" in the context of the DCC’s track record. In 2023-24, the council’s waste budget blew out by 43%. Its waste capital projects ran 245% over budget - $3.5m ballooned to $12.1m. And we’re supposed to believe they can deliver a $92m landfill on time and on budget?
And then there’s the bird problem. The landfill site is just 4.5km from Dunedin Airport. International aviation guidelines say landfills should be at least 13km away because birds and planes don’t mix.
The consent conditions on Smooth Hill are so strict they border on farce: no more than 10% food or organic waste allowed; a full-time bird shooter on site; immediate shutdown and notification to the airport if more than 20 birds show up.
Imagine explaining to an airline that Dunedin’s waste plan involves hiring a sniper to keep gulls off a tip next to the runway. Air New Zealand won’t laugh. They’ll just put Dunedin’s services at risk. Do we really want to gamble the airport - one of the city’s biggest economic lifelines - on the hope that gull patrols work?
And let’s not forget the bigger picture. We’re supposed to be reducing waste, yet Smooth Hill has been designed with more capacity than we need.
Why? Is the plan to import other regions’ waste? That’s not minimisation, that’s maximisation. Meanwhile, we’re spending $83m to transform Green Island into a world-class recycling and reuse facility. The two strategies contradict each other.
But here’s the good news: we don’t have to choose the tip. We could choose to be the most innovative city in New Zealand when it comes to waste. We’re already investing in Green Island - imagine taking that further and becoming the city with the lowest landfill waste per capita in the country. That’s something worth being proud of.
The AB Lime proposal of $117 per tonne isn’t based on a minimum volume. If we cut our waste from 47,000 tonnes to 25,000, we simply pay less. Once you build a hole in the ground reliant on 60,000 tonnes, you don’t pay any less if you reduce waste - you just pay more to fill the deficit.
Mayor Radich talks about restoring the Groynes, yet this landfill puts Brighton Beach and the Otokia Creek at risk. He also forgets that he campaigned in our community of Brighton on the promise that a vote for him and Team Dunedin would be a vote to stop the landfill.
Mayor Radich and councillors, what if instead of throwing $92m into a hole, we invested it in facilities and infrastructure that made Dunedin healthier, more liveable, and more attractive to talent and visitors?
How much of a head start on that vision would $92m make, rather than burying it in the ground? That’s the Dunedin that will get my vote.
• Sarah Ramsay is chief executive of United Machinists.
