Comments on: Stadium to cost ratepayers $261m

By: Damien Garrett

Damien Garrett — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 09:24:32 +0000

I have biked by the stadium a couple of it makes me sick thanks to the idiots who run this city and hearing the sound of foundations being driven into the ground. I also hear the sound on the foundations being driven into the ground when I am biking up Evens St or biking to work. Has anyone see the video for the stadium on Youtube? It says “Well done Dunedin” and I think – “For what? Making us enter the poor house thanks to the idiots who run this city?”

By: Caz

Caz — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:05:19 +0000

You are so right bside.
Dunedin is a messy city and it’s got a weird bunch of idiots running it

By: ralph hayburn

ralph hayburn — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 13:16:51 +0000

Am in the UK at the moment, so can’t check this information, but there was a short paragraph in the newspaper when I was in Gore in May saying that Stadium Southland had NOT been paid off, after 20 years (and we’ew talking peanuts here compared with The Big P) and that the Southland Licensing Trust had been asked to increase its contribution, up to $750,OOOpa

By: bside

bside — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 12:58:21 +0000

well its not a fetish its a comment, but if thats what you jokers from Dunedin want to call it be my gest.

If that is the case then your fetish is being angre at the DCC for making you pay for a stadium that you dont see any benifits from. Its what you do with your time, you have nothing else to do. All you need to do is get over ya selfs. Invercargill has a world class indoor track cycling facility that is going to be used for a world class event in a few years. But Dunedin will not profit from that event.

Also why are Dunedin streets so messy there is still gravel on the side of the road from the snow 2 weeks ago what a messy city this is. No wonder on one speaks of Dunedin as being a city with a future!

By: gary hughes

gary hughes — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 09:59:58 +0000

bside seems to be a very ignorant person, firstly Invercargill actually has a stadium which owes nothing
and secondly Christchurch is actually upgrading their current facility at a cost of 60 million for A grade tests and cricket, of which Dunedin’s new stadium will get neither.
One saying seems to be typical of all stadium supporters
“Ignorance is bliss”

By: Ian Smith

Ian Smith — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 03:44:35 +0000

There is little doubt in my mind, that the effusive promises, such as the ‘state-of-the-art’ conference- centre, the running-track and all the other ‘carrots’ dangled in front of us to get this insanity past the hurdle of the last local body elections, were never intended to be implemented. Instead, we have found ourselves ‘let down by stages’ so there has never been one major adverse impact which we have been able to muster any ‘clout’ around. Just as we have been ‘let- down by stages’, the cost has ‘escalated by stages’ as well. I don’t for one moment think that there was ever any seriously-intended private sector input either; the scheme was to get construction beyond the point-of-no-return before the next local body elections, then
giving the whole useless lot of them the bum’s rush, is bound to be ineffective, as well.

By: peter

peter — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 08:18:35 +0000

Bside seems to have some strange fetish for Bev’s hair. A bit like a fetish some have for a debt- ridden stadium.

By: yankiwi

yankiwi — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 08:03:15 +0000

Sorry to jump back into it, but to say “At least when rates rise, we get an increased level of service and/or tangible assets in return, which will benefit current and future generations…”

I disagree with the increased level of service. I’d like to invite you to come and have a look at my street. The footpaths and street have been in a continual state of disrepair for over a year – the storm drains are clogged and back up every time we get a shower, the road is damaged, broken, and parking is at a minimum. Why? Because the DCC allowed two building consents to go through in the same time span. We asked the DCC for some remedy and told that they would do nothing to solve the problems – er- challenges until the construction was complete. So much for value for money. Even a submission in person to the council was futile.

If you believe that we are getting increased levels of service, talk to anyone who surfs or enjoys going to the beaches. Do you realize that if we didn’t have to spend those millions on a new rugby stadium, then the sewage treatment plant could be finished correctly, and completely.

By the way, do you have any idea of how old the water pipes are that service the city? We should be spending money on improvements for future generations, I agree – sustainable spending on maintaining our drinking water system, and getting rid of our poo. Keeping this a safe and healthy community.

The idea that a stadium is a tangible asset makes me think that you and I are using different dictionaries. And bside, have you ever heard of the old saying – don’t judge a book by its cover. Name-calling is a secondary-school tactic.

By: bside

bside — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 05:13:13 +0000

Dunedin does have alot of nice old bulding not like some citys in NZ and the wildlife is something that you cant find else where but thats not the point also the new reserve up blueskins bay.

The point of a covered stadium i would pay rates for it and it wouldent matter to me what would matter is that there is an asset to the city, no cold games, no one freezing more people would go to the games, more internatinal events maybe it could even take some soccer games you never know what they will use it for.

so all in all it dosent matter Jade stadium is getting an upgrade, did the christchurch people kick up a fuss no they didnt and why did they not only because they have a life and know what is good for them.

yankiwi you ever been out of dunedin sounds like you havent.

leaving dunedin behind i mean it will be forgotten about on the sporting calender no one will come here, the otago nuggets strugled to get sponsers, the highlanders dont do that well. so forgetting about Dunedin is something that will happen, why is it even on the weather map on the news i do not know!

and why dosent bev get a hair cut people will then take her seriously!

By: matty_s

matty_s — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 01:08:57 +0000

Peter, I am not COMPARING constructing a multi-million stadium to buying a house.
I am pointing out that there is a cost of borrowing money, no matter what that money it is for (unless you have a nice relative or friend who will lend to you interest-free!).
You seem to be implying that, due to this figure of $261 million, the costs of the stadium have ‘blown out’.
This is not the case at all. The stadium was always going to cost $261m in principal and interest repayments. The principal amount borrowed by DCC has not increased beyond $109m and the principal amount borrowed by ORC has not increased beyond $37.5m, yet you seem to imply it has.

Yankiwi – there lies the real problem in my opionion – the cost of power, food, petrol etc rises beyond the rate of inflation and yet we get no extra benefit from these services. At least when rates rise, we get an increased level of service and/or tangible assets in return, which will benefit current and future generations.
You are right though, a stadium in itself won’t be the silver bullet for all Dunedin’s problems, but personally i believe it will add a lot of value to the city at a reasonable cost. I would far rather pay towards the stadium than paying to try to comply with unreasoable water, sewerage and waste charges imposed from central govt legislation, which will have little, if any real benefit, for anyone.