More stadium opposition
On top of half the City Council being against, four leading architects have condemned the design and location. Plus 75% of 2,400 who responded to a Herald survey have said they are against.
In another story, Transit has said they are $800 million short of the funds needed to complete Auckland’s western ring route.
Hmmn, where could they find that money? What is looking to cost around $800 million?
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: Local Body Politics
November 13th, 2006 at 8:10 am
The waterfront idea is stupid and the initial plans are totally uninspired.
The money could go for the ring road, and it could also be used for putting in the long needed city rail loop.
November 13th, 2006 at 8:24 am
the waterfront is a great idea. the govt should just bash a few Auckland heads together to make it happen.
November 13th, 2006 at 8:29 am
They can pay for it by selling the Air NZ shares.
November 13th, 2006 at 8:30 am
Strange there is little comment about the governments announcement on Friday.
Such as there wasn’t one.
Such a big build up all week to find out Trevor has batted the ball to the Auckland Mayors
November 13th, 2006 at 8:35 am
Ironic that the ring road being build on land previously earmarked for a railway line does not have a provision to have one included.
It is not the stadium or the location per se that I find repugnant, it is the fact that
1. Laws such as the RMA that we all have to abide by, are can be ridden rough shod over by a government.
2. The design has not been set so how can one cost the thing.
3. The tendering process for construction is non transparent.
4. Payment for construction is not by the users but the rate and tax payers. How much is the Rugby Union contributing?
November 13th, 2006 at 8:41 am
The renegade councillors who propose Carlaw Park are threatening to make fools out of the city too. It’s pretty obvious that the Auckland council is becoming dysfunctional.
November 13th, 2006 at 8:51 am
Zutroy
Councilors are expressing their opinion and as such good on them. Wish we had a few more of them in parliamant as well.
Since when does that make them renegades? Making fools out of the city? No. Just open and honest debate which we should have had the minute the World Cup deal was announced.
As a tax and rate payer I hate being ramroaded into accepting a puppy without due process and transparency.
Where is the private investors willing to contribute and gain the long term rewards? Not many lining up I see. Why?
November 13th, 2006 at 9:06 am
Zutory:
Sorry, if anyone is “threatening to make a fool” out of the Auckland City Council it’s the Mayor who apparently still hasn’t figured out the difference between local government and a closely-held private company where the controlling shareholders are him, his wife and his family trust. Sorry if the truth hurts, but King Dick doesn’t have the balls or the brains to play political hardball and he should stop embarrasing himself by trying.
November 13th, 2006 at 9:08 am
There may be benefits to the Auckland and NZ Economies but the stadium itself will generally only pay for its running costs. That’s why investors are not lining up Gerrit.
I’m sure you mean well but we are sick and tired of Councilors debating until we reach no result.
Good god why to Malard hand it back to Auckland Councilors? He may have well just handed it to Australia. Disgraced again.
And Councilors are about to become the most unpopular people in the country. Expect a back lash this time however, a rather nasty one.
November 13th, 2006 at 9:14 am
Sorry Gerrit, I’m with Kerre Woodham, this is embarassing & quite frankly I think that the odds of Japan being given the World Cup because of NZ’s inability to work together to make any stadium in Auckland work are a bit better than even now.
I’ve just never been as embarassed by my country as this petty mindless fight & in a rare moment ( for me _ I think Trevor Mallard deserves high praise, but he’s fighting a tough battle now.
You know the opposition is playing politics when people such as Rodney Hide support a suggestion which involves Crown confiscation of private land.
November 13th, 2006 at 9:24 am
Just to cap it all off Mallard mutters threats that if Auckland doesn’t embrace the Govt’s poison chalice that it will go to ChCh.
Yea right… a 60,000 seat stadium in ChCh, really good idea!
November 13th, 2006 at 9:27 am
Looks like the toxic Auckland alliance of talk back hosts, balkanised local government colonel blimps, out of touch elites and small minded defeatists will have their way on this.
The same people who gifted the city shitty roads, leaky buildings, and shoddy apartments will now use their considerable lobbying power to ensure that if they can’t have it their way, we won’t have anything at all.
Like Napoleons enemies, Auckland’s leaders see not the main thing, but only the difficulties.
November 13th, 2006 at 9:31 am
So it looks like the usual suspects are going to sabotage the stadium as well.
Sometimes I think if this govt came up with a cure for cancer many on here would condemn it for undermining the funeral industry.
November 13th, 2006 at 9:34 am
But Sonic..
This govt couldn’t organise a piss up in a brewery.
November 13th, 2006 at 9:41 am
Sonic, have you ever disagreed with anything Labour have done or said in your lifetime?
If National built a stadium you’d be first on the streets protesting to have the rugby in Japan!
November 13th, 2006 at 9:45 am
No Lance you can’t blame the Govt for this one, Malard has been inspirational on this, and this is coming from a long term National voter.
It’s the Auckland City Councilors, and ‘the buy a house in Western Springs then try and ban speedway type-person’. This type of person thrives in the current legal/political environment.
Craig Ranapa, you’re probably right King Dick was probably overly optimistic that a Council that has never delivered anything to make us proud would start now.
November 13th, 2006 at 9:48 am
“Sonic, have you ever disagreed with anything Labour have done or said in your lifetime”
Yes many things. However watching the blind opposition here to anything they propose makes me wince.
November 13th, 2006 at 10:00 am
Sonic, have you ever disagreed with anything Labour have done or said in your lifetime?
If National built a stadium you’d be first on the streets protesting to have the rugby in Japan!
November 13th, 2006 at 10:03 am
This is just another think big project and the associated pork barreling going on is obscene.
Sports stadia are part of the entertainment industry. The events they host therefore compete for the entertainment dollar.
Other than the research done for the boosters of such think-big projects, all other academic research shows they contribute nothing to the local economy.
It is bad enough the Government proposes building an entertainment venue on the waterfront which will probably detrimentally affect the efficiency of the Port.
Whilst a waterfront stadium is dopy at least it doesn’t involve to confiscation of private land, just the mis-use of existing public land.
However Carlaw Park is arguable worse.
Multiple private landowners will have to negotiate to sale their properties with the Crown which most likely will use the Public Works Act to force them to sell. What’s more the Auckland Domain will have land removed from it at the same time local government is dramatically intensifying the urban environment (the elimination of private open space is justified on the basis of public access to such public open space which local government then turns around and reduces when its pet projects come along)
There are a number of other issues. Who will end up owning this Stadium (assuming non Eden Park options are chosen) for whoever it is faces huge ongoing costs. No such publicly owned and operated venues make any money. Very very few publicly owned but privately operated venues make any money and nor do most privately owned stadia make any money – most survive on public endlessly tipping more money into them.
How much will the extra reclaimation of the harbour by the Port Company cost – will take be going through the RMA process?
November 13th, 2006 at 10:06 am
O.k. then…
Is there anyone here who really honestly believes a huge stadium in the centre of Auckland is not going to create transport chaos?
The trains are crap, the busses not much better and no parking.
There has got to be a sane option here.
November 13th, 2006 at 10:08 am
Lance – as pointed out on another thread Jade is already going to be a 55,000 seat stadium by that point.
The additional cost in making that 60,000 instead is probably minimal.
November 13th, 2006 at 10:16 am
Build a billion dollar stadium using tax and rate payers money just so that we wont be embarrased! Jeez I cant believe people are so depended on what others think of New Zealand.
Who cares what they think or say. Get a thicker skin
No embarrasment here. I would rather have a toll free ring road then the stadium. If rugby wants it let them build it. With their money and revenue stream.
November 13th, 2006 at 10:25 am
Why has the Herald chosen reader feedback rather than a proper survey to gauge opinion on this issue? I’m worried that the potential bias will be lost behind the front page headlines. This debate is quickly becoming feral.
Also, I would like to see the respondents grouped by suburb. Remuera seemed very well represented!
November 13th, 2006 at 10:30 am
Lance: Something like 250,000-300,000 passenger movements occur in and out of the Auckland CBD every day. I read that there are 22,000 carparks within 10 minutes walk of the proposed new Stadium. Moving 60,000 sports fans in and out of the Auckland CBD in off peak times would be easy. That particular piece of infrastructure is already in place.
Gerritt: Trevor Mallard sees the stadium within the wider context of an isolated, event driven trading nation needing to continually generate reasons for people to come here. LOTR was an event heavily funded by the government that brought untold people here.
I had occasion this year to be a guest at a 45,000 strong event held at the Amsterdam arena. Being a guest with almost full access around the event, the real eye opener for me was the way in which the “outside” of the building was divided up into rooms that allowed any number and size of conferences, parties, meetings etc etc etc to occur. If the new stadium contains a waterfront interface of shops, cafes and restaurants along with numerous subsidary facilities for coporate and private functions then the proposed stadium fits into a wider economic transformation agenda.
Rigght wingers expend heaps of energy complaing about Labours lack of vsion and smugly declaring the right’s big picture superiority and the way grey socialists destroy vision and risk taking. Yet it seems to me that when are asked to be bold, the hardest of the hard right who take council of their fears and see all the problems, and all the costs, and demand we do nothing lest it personally cost them a cent.
November 13th, 2006 at 10:32 am
“There has got to be a sane option here. ”
There is, give the world cup to Japan and watch it on SkyTV from the comfort of your own home.
Tell Eden Park and Jade Stadium to pay their own way (no local or central govt funding for renovations)
then the rest of us can get on with life.
November 13th, 2006 at 10:34 am
1. The Prime Minister and her neighbours want Eden Park gone by lunchtime. Result A billion dollar bill for the taxpayer
2.More traffic chaos in downtown Auckland during construction of a stadium.
3.Chaos when an event is held at the stadium.
4.A blot on the landscape disfiguring the waterfront.
The alternative is North Harbour stadium. Temporary stands to accommodate the 60,000. Bus services to the ground from the city.Create priority buslanes over the Harbour Bridge to encourage the City side fans to park and ride from city carparks.
Plenty of bare land around the stadium to accommodate car parking.
Why is it so difficult to see the solution
November 13th, 2006 at 10:39 am
Just out of interest, if the government had plumped for North Harbour stadium how would you have trashed that project?
Lack of vision?
Letting the country down on a world stage?
Punishiing North Shore National voters?
Why does Helun KKKlark hate our national game so much?
November 13th, 2006 at 10:48 am
TomS & Sonic:
Well it’s depressing – but entirely typical – that expecting elected officials to treat citizens as something more than compliant ATM’s is regarded by you lot as ‘sabotage’ among a great gust of bread ands circuses faux patriotism. I know this might be a little hard for some people to understand, but the whole fraking universe doesn’t revolve around the Rugby World Cup.
And with all due respect to some other commentators, if it takes a billion dollar stadium to engorge you flaccid self-esteem I suggest long-term psychotherapy.
November 13th, 2006 at 10:49 am
This Govt are no better than a pack of arsonists, they flip around starting fires then piss off before they can be linked to the ensuing disaster.
The most intelligent options are upgrading Eden park or building a new at the old Carlaw park site, I don’t give a rats ass what Trevor Mallard or the man woman say about their preferred option, this needs some intelligent action and their input doesn’t add this.
Simple fact – we have 3 1/2 years to get a stadium to a level where the grass is going down. This stadium needs to be an asset to Auckland for at least the next 60 years, surely the Auckland city council has feasibility studies into replacing Eden park, dust these off, add the extra needs that may be necessary since the study was completed and get the hell on with it!
PS = for Christs sake stop bleating on about a bullshit monument to Clark!
November 13th, 2006 at 10:50 am
yes sonic, deeply vexing questions to be sure. i think i might have trashed that project by telling empress to build the circus wherever she likes so long as she doesn’t use my property or my tax dollars to do it.
And it’s nuts for anyone to suggest she doesn’t like our national game… after all i recall her breaking the law to get to a game on time. hmmmm, on second thoughts that doesn’t mean so much these days.
November 13th, 2006 at 10:55 am
Craig, keep your small minded personal insults to yourself. personally I am interested in the vision and the idea of economic transformation.
If the right wants to politicise it, then let let Rove and the Republicans be a warning to you. Opposing everything, being against anything, will hand you a fourth defeat in 2008.
Then general observation that right wingers are a bunch of negative, hypocritical underpants sniffers is holding up so far.
November 13th, 2006 at 11:07 am
How did things get to this stage? I mean, they went all out before the last election to get the damn competition. Surely they could have thought a bit about all this then?
The design is crappy, there is no real cost for the project as yet, and how often willl it get used after it is built?
We don’t need this vanity project destroying the waterfront – it’s that simple.
November 13th, 2006 at 11:13 am
toms:
And why don’t you keep your pompous hypocrisy to yourself – with the amount of abuse you spray around here, your sanctimonious little etiquette lectures would be laughable if they weren’t so hollow.
Still, little Tommy, what goes around comes around. I’m sure the next right-leaning council that takes control of Auckland will have their own little edifice complexes to indulge out of the public purse. I look forward to you sitting in the corner and sipping your fuckupachino.
BTW, it’s most amusing to see you characterise all opposition to this stadium as ‘right-wing’. It just goes to show your ignorance of Auckland politics is right up there with your ignorance of everything else.
November 13th, 2006 at 11:15 am
Just looked at the wonderful view we are about to lose. One giant rusting car transporter, 500 used cars and some cranes.
How can the philistines deny us these pleasures!
November 13th, 2006 at 11:20 am
I think that the waterfront stadium will reduce the potential views of the harbour in the future, as the area could never then be developed to look out onto the harbour, which arguably more New Zealanders would appreciate than Rugby.
That said, no-one also knows whether the sea-bed will take the piling infrastructure required for the new stadium until it was actually tried. That is a rather high risk to start construction on. Secondly, the IRB may well take the event away if we move the final to Christchurch (what did we commit to when Helen Clark did the presentation to the IRB last year?). We must avoid such a scenario.
I think that if the majority of Aucklanders vote “no” then so be it. All National party voters have to live with a government that they don’t want because of the simple fact that they are not the majority. That’s how these things work.
Because the Government has given us such a small choice, we may well have to go with Eden Park. But to give a solution, I personally believe that a stadium should be a bit further out – e.g. North Harbour Stadium. It wont ruin any waterfront view (like the waterfront stadium will), it doesn’t have local residents’ issues (like Eden Park), the stadium can be expanded as the land is available (better than Eden Park), and car and public transport links have been and are being upgraded to the Albany basin (better than Eden Park and the waterfront for cars).
November 13th, 2006 at 11:23 am
I think that the waterfront stadium will reduce the potential views of the harbour in the future, as the area could never then be developed to look out onto the harbour, which arguably more New Zealanders would appreciate than Rugby.
That said, no-one also knows whether the sea-bed will take the piling infrastructure required for the new stadium until it was actually tried. That is a rather high risk to start construction on. Secondly, the IRB may well take the event away if we move the final to Christchurch (what did we commit to when Helen Clark did the presentation to the IRB last year?). We must avoid such a scenario.
I think that if the majority of Aucklanders vote “no” then so be it. All National party voters have to live with a government that they don’t want because of the simple fact that they are not the majority. That’s how these things work.
Because the Government has given us such a small choice, we may well have to go with Eden Park. But to give a solution, I personally believe that a stadium should be a bit further out – e.g. North Harbour Stadium. It wont ruin any waterfront view (like the waterfront stadium will), it doesn’t have local residents’ issues (like Eden Park), the stadium can be expanded as the land is available (better than Eden Park), and car and public transport links have been and are being upgraded to the Albany basin (better than Eden Park and the waterfront for cars).
November 13th, 2006 at 11:24 am
Hey toms, Then general observation that right wingers are a bunch of negative, hypocritical underpants sniffers is holding up so far was not so general.. It was your own handcrafted insult and you should claim it as such rather than attribute it to other posters. Either be proud of your insult or don’t say it.
As for opposing things, I oppose the government – any government – stealing from the taxpayer and breaking the law. Apart from that I have a reasonably open mind.
And in terms of vision, Lenin had vision and executed it well, as did he those who didn’t share it. It’s quite possible that folks here who don’t share your vision still have one.
November 13th, 2006 at 11:26 am
I think that the waterfront stadium will reduce the potential views of the harbour in the future, as the area could never then be developed to look out onto the harbour, which arguably more New Zealanders would appreciate than Rugby.
That said, no-one also knows whether the sea-bed will take the piling infrastructure required for the new stadium until it was actually tried. That is a rather high risk to start construction on. Secondly, the IRB may well take the event away if we move the final to Christchurch (what did we commit to when Helen Clark did the presentation to the IRB last year?). We must avoid such a scenario.
I think that if the majority of Aucklanders vote “no” then so be it. All National party voters have to live with a government that they don’t want because of the simple fact that they are not the majority. That’s how these things work.
Because the Government has given us such a small choice, we may well have to go with Eden Park. But to give a solution, I personally believe that a stadium should be a bit further out – e.g. North Harbour Stadium. It wont ruin any waterfront view (like the waterfront stadium will), it doesn’t have local residents’ issues (like Eden Park), the stadium can be expanded as the land is available (better than Eden Park), and car and public transport links have been and are being upgraded to the Albany basin (better than Eden Park and the waterfront for cars).
November 13th, 2006 at 11:28 am
BTW, mikeybill, how are you enjoying being one of toms’ right-wing “negative, hypocritical underpants sniffers”?
If anything, this mess is reminding me of the whole ‘supercity’ concept. I was pretty agnostic about the idea itself – there are serious arguments both for and against further local body amalgamations -, but what I strenuously objected to was a cabal of mayors holding months of backroom meetings that resulted in a poorly thought through plan as a fait de accompli with no political or electoral mandate. I don’t think calling for serious debate of issues that come with serious long-term consequences (let alone require central government legislative changes) is either left- or right-wing, just common sense.
Now, TomS, wants to talk about the recent American mid-terms. You would think the big picture lesson any sensible person would take is that citizens eventually reach a tipping point where they no longer tolerate born to rule ‘take that bitch’ arrogance from politicians who forget they are servants of the people not their masters.
November 13th, 2006 at 11:34 am
I think that the waterfront stadium will reduce the potential views of the harbour in the future, as the area could never then be developed to look out onto the harbour, which arguably more New Zealanders would appreciate than Rugby.
That said, no-one also knows whether the sea-bed will take the piling infrastructure required for the new stadium until it was actually tried. That is a rather high risk to start construction on. Secondly, the IRB may well take the event away if we move the final to Christchurch (what did we commit to when Helen Clark did the presentation to the IRB last year?). We must avoid such a scenario.
I think that if the majority of Aucklanders vote “no” then so be it. All National party voters have to live with a government that they don’t want because of the simple fact that they are not the majority. That’s how these things work.
Because the Government has given us such a small choice, we may well have to go with Eden Park. But to give a solution, I personally believe that a stadium should be a bit further out – e.g. North Harbour Stadium. It wont ruin any waterfront view (like the waterfront stadium will), it doesn’t have local residents’ issues (like Eden Park), the stadium can be expanded as the land is available (better than Eden Park), and car and public transport links have been and are being upgraded to the Albany basin (better than Eden Park and the waterfront for cars).
November 13th, 2006 at 11:39 am
And of course Labour is just upset that their attempts to phrase the discourse just isn’t working this time.
Look very carefully how they try to steer everyone into a waterfront decision by trying to make it “eden park vs new stadium at waterfront”, not the actual decision of many disparate sites of which Eden Park and Waterfront are the two worst contenders.
Its like asking “Who is going to win the Rugby World Cup – Japan or the USA”?
November 13th, 2006 at 11:43 am
BTW, mikeybill, how are you enjoying being one of toms’ right-wing “negative, hypocritical underpants sniffers”?
If anything, this mess is reminding me of the whole ‘supercity’ concept. I was pretty agnostic about the idea itself – there are serious arguments both for and against further local body amalgamations -, but what I strenuously objected to was a cabal of mayors holding months of backroom meetings that resulted in a poorly thought through plan as a fait de accompli with no political or electoral mandate. I don’t think calling for serious debate of issues that come with serious long-term consequences (let alone require central government legislative changes) is either left- or right-wing, just common sense.
Now, TomS, wants to talk about the recent American mid-terms. You would think the big picture lesson any sensible person would take is that citizens eventually reach a tipping point where they no longer tolerate born to rule ‘take that bitch’ arrogance from politicians who forget they are servants of the people not their masters.
November 13th, 2006 at 11:44 am
Toms wrote;
“Moving 60,000 sports fans in and out of the Auckland CBD in off peak times would be easy”.
Wow.. have you actually used that same transport?
It sucks, most reliable movements are car trips, the others, especially trains arrival times are a lottery due to frequent break downs, buses that are meant to arrive every 10 mins but nothing comes for 30 minutes and then all 3 buses arrive at once. Game time would mean gridlock, trains passing through stations not stopping to pick people up because they are full etc.
The North Shore stadium sounds the best option.
November 13th, 2006 at 11:44 am
Toms, to be fair National ( openly anyway ) have been agnostic on this issue, sure Rodney Hide is playing politics, but as DPF pointed out, alot of the Carlaw Park supporters are on the left side of Auckland’s Council.
I just don’t think Auckland’s Councils combined could organise a p..s up in a brewery, I don’t see left/right being a key factor in that problem to be honest ( Mind you Wellingtonian’s are more than happy to fuel the fires ).
Unfortunately what it really required was Mallard & Rob Fisher to sit down, agree on a solution & push this through together, whilst they argue it’ll be tough to make a success of this debacle. Certainly Mallard has said he’ll support whichever decision ( Eden Park/Waterfront ) is made, I’ve yet to see such a statement from Mr Fisher.
November 13th, 2006 at 11:46 am
I think that the waterfront stadium will reduce the potential views of the harbour in the future, as the area could never then be developed to look out onto the harbour, which arguably more New Zealanders would appreciate than Rugby.
That said, no-one also knows whether the sea-bed will take the piling infrastructure required for the new stadium until it was actually tried. That is a rather high risk to start construction on. Secondly, the IRB may well take the event away if we move the final to Christchurch (what did we commit to when Helen Clark did the presentation to the IRB last year?). We must avoid such a scenario.
I think that if the majority of Aucklanders vote “no” then so be it. All National party voters have to live with a government that they don’t want because of the simple fact that they are not the majority. That’s how these things work.
Because the Government has given us such a small choice, we may well have to go with Eden Park. But to give a solution, I personally believe that a stadium should be a bit further out – e.g. North Harbour Stadium. It wont ruin any waterfront view (like the waterfront stadium will), it doesn’t have local residents’ issues (like Eden Park), the stadium can be expanded as the land is available (better than Eden Park), and car and public transport links have been and are being upgraded to the Albany basin (better than Eden Park and the waterfront for cars).
November 13th, 2006 at 12:10 pm
I think that the waterfront stadium will reduce the potential views of the harbour in the future, as the area could never then be developed to look out onto the harbour, which arguably more New Zealanders would appreciate than Rugby.
That said, no-one also knows whether the sea-bed will take the piling infrastructure required for the new stadium until it was actually tried. That is a rather high risk to start construction on. Secondly, the IRB may well take the event away if we move the final to Christchurch (what did we commit to when Helen Clark did the presentation to the IRB last year?). We must avoid such a scenario.
I think that if the majority of Aucklanders vote “no” then so be it. All National party voters have to live with a government that they don’t want because of the simple fact that they are not the majority. That’s how these things work.
Because the Government has given us such a small choice, we may well have to go with Eden Park. But to give a solution, I personally believe that a stadium should be a bit further out – e.g. North Harbour Stadium. It wont ruin any waterfront view (like the waterfront stadium will), it doesn’t have local residents’ issues (like Eden Park), the stadium can be expanded as the land is available (better than Eden Park), and car and public transport links have been and are being upgraded to the Albany basin (better than Eden Park and the waterfront for cars).
November 13th, 2006 at 12:11 pm
Ha Haha haha hahaha ha .. aha ah ah … hahahahaha.
God, I’m enjoying this.
November 13th, 2006 at 12:34 pm
Apologies for all these multiposts beginning with “I think that the waterfront stadium will reduce…”. Every time the browser came back saying 500 Internal Error, and when I checked several times the comments link after a post, my comments wasn’t there.
As a small aside, I’ve noticed poorer performance for David Farrar’s weblog in recent times.
Please remove the the multiple posts if you can.
November 13th, 2006 at 12:35 pm
BTW, mikeybill, how are you enjoying being one of toms’ right-wing “negative, hypocritical underpants sniffers”?
Mmmmm – underpants …..
But seriously Craig, I don’t mind being mistaken for a right-winger by those who don’t know. Come the revolution I’ll just line them up and shoot them – simple
My heart just about breaks everytime I look and see the damage done to this place by developers, planners and politicians.
Such a wonderful site for a city – such a hash they’ve made of it in the last 40 years…
November 13th, 2006 at 12:37 pm
The 10,000 odd visitors to NZ for the game wont have cars. So how are they going to get to the North Shore and back? Hitch hike?
I’m afraid the only sensible place is the waterfront.Just do it!
November 13th, 2006 at 1:03 pm
Although I support the idea of a downtown stadium (but Carlaw Park, not the waterfront), I think the 2 week timeframe is also flawed. The local authorities are required to comply with their Local Government Act 2002 obligations to consult with the public under the special consultative procedure.
See:
> LAWS179:Stadium Aotearoa
November 13th, 2006 at 1:40 pm
The 4 leading architects all appear to be academics. How could anyone think academics lead on anything except moaning. If they were any good they would be out there earning a living convincing people to pay for their services.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:43 pm
Captain Crab
The same way they get from the airport to Auckland or from where ever they are staying to the waterfront. Silly argument.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:50 pm
Does anyone else think it amusing that we couldn’t have tax cuts because it was going to imperil the health and education systems, but mysteriously we have a billion to spend on football stadium?
November 13th, 2006 at 2:04 pm
Predictable Billy – but not amusing
November 13th, 2006 at 2:11 pm
Bread and Circuses…. thats all it is… still, you have to say that ole Trev has done his job and adroitly distracted the public from the corrupt practices his party gets involved in.. “quick throw them more bread- but its not my fault if auckers can’t get their act together… quick throw them more bread -HEY!! lets make put a real Forum on the waterfront instead, and HEY- we could even keep those nasty bloggers of the VRWC in chains underneath the arena floor, bringing them up for public flogging and humiliation….” (oops, sorry, got carried away)
November 13th, 2006 at 2:12 pm
Bread and Circuses…. thats all it is… still, you have to say that ole Trev has done his job and adroitly distracted the public from the corrupt practices his party gets involved in.. “quick throw them more bread- but its not my fault if auckers can’t get their act together… quick throw them more bread -HEY!! lets make put a real Forum on the waterfront instead, and HEY- we could even keep those nasty bloggers of the VRWC in chains underneath the arena floor, bringing them up for public flogging and humiliation….” (oops, sorry, got carried away)
November 13th, 2006 at 2:38 pm
The NZRU should tell the IRU that they made a mistake in applying for the WC and Japan should be awarded it. Then get the government to buy the TV rights for a free to air channel so that we can watch all the games live. Cost a few million saving a billion.
November 13th, 2006 at 3:20 pm
So funny. Who actually owns the All Blacks now? We need to pay for the AB franchise stadium, because?
November 13th, 2006 at 3:22 pm
Isn’t typical of this Govt, jump in with a dip shit idea, back out of the decision making leaving Govt funding in the balance, then give the recipients 2 weeks to make up their minds as to which proposal is best.
“Clarks lost it, Mallard never had it and Dick Hubbard’s is on back order” We not only have dip shits in regional govt but those in central govt qualify as well!
PS – does Phillip Field get a crack at supplying painters and decorators this thing when it does get kicked off?
November 13th, 2006 at 3:32 pm
So Trevor says trust me the billion dollar stadium is the best bet..The last time we trusted him was when he was in charge of TeWananga ‘O Aotearoa and he kept assuring us the half billion dollar annual cost was value for money.
His idea of a bed tax so tourists can relieve Auckland ratepayers of some of the ongoing costs might help in good times but what happens if hotels/motels have falling occupancy rates.
November 13th, 2006 at 3:38 pm
Dean Knight: “The local authorities are required to comply with their Local Government Act 2002 obligations to consult with the public under the special consultative procedure.”
Mmmmm Mr Knight seems a bit slow to catch on with this government. The proposal is not advancing under existing statutory schemes. That is the point really.
Labour is proposing special legislation. Again. Everyone else must obey existing laws if they want to cut a tree down, built a jetty or a deck over 1 metre high.
Labour simply changes the rules – not for all just for its pet project.
The consent to this proposal (i.e. to use special legislation for the buildings as proposed in the architect’s sketches and the estimated costs of Fletchers for the waterfront and those of the Eden Park trust Board for their property) is really an agreement in principle for the Government’s plans.
Labour absolutely needs this for two reasons. First, in order to ramp it up on National to get then to vote for the legislation. Without strong support from Auckland local government National is likely to find some fault in the legislation in order to vote against it. This is especially so if public opinion isn’t clearly in favour and National supporter form the bulk of those opposed. Labour therefore needs to increase the political price that National might pay if it finds fault and opposes the legislation.
It is in National’s interest for Labour to trip on this project (so much for Labour chorusing about a coup before xmas) – thus Labour needs to be able to claim that “Auckland wants it.”
The problem for Labour is this isn’t a local government proposal. Thus the political management of it is Labour’s responsibility. And so we see the second rationale for local government consent.
The requirement for support of local government is the foil to any charge that Labour mismanaged the project. Local government will be blamed if it falls through as a result of the genuine anxiety over aspects of the proposal, its costs and the fact that no political consensus has been given a chance to emerge.
Of course it has been terribly mismanaged. All too little too late really. Rugby Union offside. Centre-right voters wary. Some leftwing voters wondering whether such a project is priority when Labour proposes tolling, and is pushing people off hospital waiting lists. Architects (except those probably designing it) opposed. Every man and his dog now an expert on stadia and the perfect placing of these.
I mean we have so many stadia experts New Zealanders could guide these projects all over the world. Stadia are such a boon for the economy so economically transformative why stop at one in Auckland? And of course the New Zealand Government (and local government) has such a proud record of building large buildings on time and on budget!
November 13th, 2006 at 3:38 pm
vanzylnz – why walk 2 minutes to the stadium from your hotel or restaurant when you can sit in a CAB for an hour going to North Harbour stadium? Ignorant prick.
Have you ever been there? It cannot handle traffic for 20,000 people. Lucky for them they only get this many people about once a year (so a 60,000 seat stadium after RWC is non-existent).
ps can someone please knock over the 28 storey PwC building its blocking my view
November 13th, 2006 at 3:56 pm
innocentIII:
My understanding is that the legislation proposed addresses RM consents and other miscellaneous legislation, not the decision-making processes and governance issues under the LGA 2002. To date, there’s been no mention of (retrospectively?) validating any defects in the decision-making processes of local authorities relating to committing to the project.
I still have an open mind on the RM legislation. The devil will be in the detail. Arguably, consents could be obtained under the RM in quick fashion – with the Minister using his call-in (direct referal) power. It may be the specific legislation may mimic that to a certain degree…
d
November 13th, 2006 at 4:05 pm
“Labour simply changes the rules”
Government in “passing legislation” shock!
November 13th, 2006 at 4:06 pm
Sonic – the issue is in them passing legislation for only themselves again. But you’re right – there isn’t any shock involved.
November 13th, 2006 at 4:15 pm
I can see the Herald headline now
Democratically elected majority of Parliament passes law.
Is this the end of civilisation as we know it?
November 13th, 2006 at 4:19 pm
Who will manage the facility after TWC? Who will get the dividend? Will they make up a LATE for it? Are the Govt in it for the international exposure, like the Pete Jackson grants; 450 million and still counting on the benefit to the taxpayer?
Why is this all so rushed, really? Will Mallard tell the IRB to stick a Heiniken bottle where the sun don’t shine again?
There are so many amazing opportunities here, wasted.
November 13th, 2006 at 4:19 pm
I can see the Herald headline now
Corruptly elected majority of Parliament passes self-serving law, again.
November 13th, 2006 at 4:29 pm
“Stadium floods – global warming true after all”
November 13th, 2006 at 4:38 pm
iiq,
GST?
November 13th, 2006 at 4:44 pm
“My understanding is that the legislation proposed addresses RM consents and other miscellaneous legislation, not the decision-making processes and governance issues under the LGA 2002”
Well we don’t know the extent of the legislation. I assume it will deal with ownership of the land and building and the funding required from TLAs. The government would be mad to allow TLAs a free choice over whether to contribute to either Eden Park or the Bedpan. I suspect a levy in principle much like the Auckland Museum levy – thus no consultation is required as no choice is available to the TLA’s.
Nothing in the currently released information would allow local government to consult anyway assuming it was a local government project – which of course it isn’t.
November 13th, 2006 at 4:53 pm
I know it has been said before but I find it rather strange that we have a government that delights in telling the people we are all doomed, doomed and doomed. Then goes out of it’s way to promote the construction of a billion dollar stadium on a reclaimed seabed. Oh well, I quess it well a make great aquarium should the tide come in.
November 13th, 2006 at 4:56 pm
“Government uses emergency powers to approve $5.4Bn dyke to protect Helenstad – public sector job losses inevitable”
November 13th, 2006 at 5:01 pm
Sonic (Labour’s siren)
Labour: We may have a power shortage but no exception from the RMA will be allowed for hydro power schemes even though we acknowledge these are of national significance.
Labour: We will legislate for an end-run-around the RMA for an entertainment venue.
Mmmm economic transformation and vision – South American style.
November 13th, 2006 at 5:28 pm
InnocentIII – good point, but its a 5 o’clock world and the whistles blown….
November 13th, 2006 at 5:37 pm
The comment that Transit say they have insufficient money to complete the Western Ring Raod is irrelevant to the debate on the stadium. There is plenty of money to spend on infrastructure, the police, all the things that Government should spend mpney on; the issue that Government allocates a different priority than many of us would like to see.
November 13th, 2006 at 5:43 pm
The comment that Transit say they have insufficient money to complete the Western Ring Road is irrelevant to the debate on the stadium. There is plenty of money to spend on infrastructure, the police, all the things that Government should spend mpney on; the issue that Government allocates a different priority than many of us would like to see.
November 13th, 2006 at 5:44 pm
and their actually intending to tax us more to do it.
Methinks North Harbour – good access, cheapest option, nice neighbours….
bye bye dicky
November 13th, 2006 at 5:50 pm
The comment that Transit say they have insufficient money to complete the Western Ring Raod is irrelevant to the debate on the stadium. There is plenty of money to spend on infrastructure, the police, all the things that Government should spend mpney on; the issue that Government allocates a different priority than many of us would like to see.
November 13th, 2006 at 5:55 pm
Easy to solve innocent, get a majority in parliament to pass legislation re the power issue, all National would have to do is get a majority in parliament…
Oh sorry…
November 13th, 2006 at 7:24 pm
Why not sell Eden Park to fund the waterfront stadium? It is a useless venue in the wrong place, unable to hold night games or concerts; and given the hyperinflation of property prices, a residential subdivision there would probably cover the full cost of the new stadium.
Aside from this the question must be asked: Why does a city of 1 million people require so many local bodies and bickering councillors. It’s a relic of the early 1900s which needs to be remedied.
November 13th, 2006 at 7:29 pm
It is hard to fee sorry for the NZ voter knowing so many voted for these clowns.
At the nex election remember – when the voting stops the shafting will too!
November 13th, 2006 at 7:29 pm
It is hard to feel sorry for the NZ voter knowing so many voted for these clowns.
At the next election remember – when the voting stops the shafting will too!
November 13th, 2006 at 7:39 pm
Actually thats a good idea. In fact why not sell a couple of those old relics and build a proper 150K person stadium where theres good access.
November 13th, 2006 at 9:12 pm
Oops. On second thoughts now I think that Eden park, as is, will be plenty big enough for the number of tourists we will be able to attract here.
November 13th, 2006 at 9:25 pm
I’m all for getting things done quickly but in this instance it could be a big mistake.
If the containers etc can be shifted for a stadium then this implies that with the irght vision they can be shifted for other reasonable development of the waterfront.
This may or may not involve a stadium but if we can start with a blank canvas for this area of the auckland waterfront then proper design needs to be undertaken so what is built is good for the city long term.
I live in Wellington and the biggest stuff up on our waterfront has got to be the indoor sports stadium and original “retail” area that was built. A worse location for an indoor stadium couldn’t be imagined!
Time should be taken to ensure the waterfront in auckland is developed without making mistakes by acting too quickly.
As previously said I normally like quick decisions and hate the RMA but a two week timeframe to make a decision without engineering and design undertaken properly is simply nuts.
November 13th, 2006 at 9:35 pm
Ho hohohohoho hohohohoho. Hahahaha. I’m still having a great time.
And the fun is just warming up! Just wait for the bill for the piles and platform. Cost overruns are Flecther’s *friend* – they pass them all on the government AND get to apply a margin! The more the overruns, the more money they make.
Ha ha ha hahahahahahahaha.
November 13th, 2006 at 10:11 pm
IT’S THINK BIG !
I just realised, as I was posting on JTC. Muldoon’s ghost must be laughing its head off. Is Mallard going to employ Bill Birch as a consultant? What if we get another Justice Casey?
Oh, this is all so delicious.
November 13th, 2006 at 11:29 pm
Actually there is plenty of money to fund all but one part of the Western Ring Road – the link from Waterview to Mt Roskill. The work that needs done is:
- Greenhithe deviation (under construction)
- 2nd Upper Harbour Bridge (under construction)
- Hobsonville deviation (fundable)
- NW Motorway 8 laning (fundable)
- Waterview-Mt Roskill (greenplated and now vastly overpriced)
- Mt Roskill extension (under construction)
- Manukau Harbour crossing duplication (part fundable from tolling);
- Manukau extension to SH1 (funded).
If the extension from Mt Roskill to Waterview is NOT tunnelled it will become affordable, but legislation now encourages Transit to overbuild.
November 13th, 2006 at 11:41 pm
Liberty thats a very useful analysis – I didn’t really know all that. My own opinion, and this is not aimed at you personally is:
Fuck tolls.
Wealthy – dont care
Low income – free chits
Rest of us – fucking pay for it as usual
And fuck paying extra taxes for a stadium – we’ve paid our dews. Take it out of my 50% rates hike dicky.
Of course we could do the sensible thing and realise that there is now way on gods green earth that more roads can ease Auckland’s traffic congestion – but that would require thought and taking on the construction industry.
Liberty, you seem to know quite a lot about this – Am I right in assuming it is the construction industry that is “forcing” this? (to use a puke-making PC term). Or do you really think it is the public of Auckland.
Why cant the construction industry build factories for us to run clean green efficient industry out of and secure a future for our children?
What is the figure of new cars comming in – I think its something like 75km of new roads needed each year just to park them isnt it??
November 13th, 2006 at 11:56 pm
Porcupine, the construction industry is not important in this at all, the road is politically driven.
The PM, Dr Cullen and Auckland Labour MPs fully support the Western ring road, as does Auckland City Council and the Auckland Regional Council. The Nats support it too, so it is largely a done deal – but the Waterview-Mt Roskill section is escalating in cost enormously (the other sections are not that expensive).
The road, I think, is a good idea, at least some of it. You wont get many people using public transport to do trips from say Albany to Henderson – that is why the Upper Harbour Motorway is a good idea, it helps relieve the harbour bridge. Similarly the extensions that will see a motorway run from Manukau to Mt Roskill will help west Auckland businesses and commuters get to south Auckland. All of these include bus lanes. The problem is the Waterview-Mt Roskill section and that should be left till last.
November 14th, 2006 at 12:13 am
Thanks for that, I understand it better now.
But basically long term more roads isn’t the solution because we’re squashed onto an isthmus.
Auckland hardly even has traffic congestion compared to most modern large cities. I’m not sure whether Aucklanders and especially the rest of NZ realises this. Of course for business efficiency it makes sense to minimise this and I’m not really against the ring road but I am against paying twice for it (as always).
November 14th, 2006 at 7:10 am
The stadium is obviously going to be built to symbolise the great NZ brand of communism.
It is only one aspect of HCs plan to show off her dynamic multi-ethnic, feminist, PC mad and sexually tolerant society.
You are all just a fly in the ointment, pain in the arse……..so to speak
The stadium will go ahead regardless. The propoganda will soon drown out your concerns and you will actually think “hey, that’s a great place to have a stadium.”
November 14th, 2006 at 11:23 am
porcupine says: “Auckland hardly even has traffic congestion compared to most modern large cities. I’m not sure whether Aucklanders and especially the rest of NZ realises this.”
Rubbish.
It is far easier to get round Paris (or Tokyo or New York or …. )than Auckland.
November 14th, 2006 at 11:45 am
For anyone interested in symbolism, the harbourside looks to me not like a bedpan, but more like a feminists alternative to a phallic symbol – a vaginal symbol no less.
God defend New Zealand indeed.
November 14th, 2006 at 12:03 pm
In fact, the way the govt has interevened in all this lends strong support to Marx’s comment that “The government is just the executive committee of the bourgeousie”
This will feed taxes collected from all into the pockets of the wealthy.
(There Craig – think anyone will mistake me for a right-winger again?)
November 15th, 2006 at 11:32 pm
Sonic: when governments change laws to suit themselves and to deliberately subvert lawful process it is an abuse of power. No-one is above the law – especially governments. Don’t you get it? There is an established process in New Zealand for development – you have to go through the hoops of council planning/RMA. Now if the waterfront proposal was a good one, then the government should have commenced it more than a year ago, and gone through the planning process just the same as everyone else does.
Of course, if the government wants to ditch the whole RMA planning process, then that is fine – if the government wants to build a stadium on the Auckland waterfront, then I should be alowed to build an extension to my house without needing to go through the existing RMA consent planning process either!
November 17th, 2006 at 8:57 am
This from DavidW : Hear this morning that London’s Olympic Games cost (now only 1 year into the construction) has blown out from 5Bn to 15Bn and rising. Don’t know if this is pounds or dollars but in any event Red Ken has proven something about the role of Governments (Central and Local).
This from Zutroy: A $700 million AUD stadium, in debt for $140 million to the bank, sold for $10 million back to the bank.
Sure, a big flash stadium might be nice…
But is it practical, affordable, sustainable?
Based on engineering doubts is it even do-able, not only in-time for the RWC but at all?
Is it wise to commit so much money with such a deplorable lack of planning and due process?
Is it sensible to expect ratepayers and taxpayers to write an open-ended cheque?
How much of the uncontested contract fees will find their way back into Labour’s coffers as donations?
So many questions, so little time eh? Nah, bugger care and consideration let’s just build our circus!
March 2nd, 2007 at 5:14 am
Cool site. Thank you:-)
March 14th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
Very good site. Thank you!!!
March 15th, 2007 at 12:26 am
Good site. Thanks.
March 15th, 2007 at 12:27 am
Good site. Thanks.
March 15th, 2007 at 1:36 am
Nice site. Thanks!
March 15th, 2007 at 1:36 am
Nice site. Thanks!
March 15th, 2007 at 7:12 am
Nice site. Thanks!!!
March 15th, 2007 at 7:12 am
Nice site. Thanks!!!
April 7th, 2007 at 11:05 am
Very good site. Thanks:-)
April 7th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Nice site. Thank you!!!
April 7th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Nice site. Thank you!!!
April 9th, 2007 at 9:53 am
Cool site. Thank you!
April 9th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Cool site. Thanks!
April 9th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Cool site. Thanks!
April 9th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Good site. Thanks:-)
April 9th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Good site. Thanks:-)
April 9th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Cool site. Thanks!!!
April 9th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Cool site. Thanks!!!
April 10th, 2007 at 1:07 am
Cool site. Thanks!
April 10th, 2007 at 4:02 am
Good site. Thank you:-)
April 10th, 2007 at 4:02 am
Good site. Thank you:-)
April 10th, 2007 at 6:27 am
Nice site. Thank you!!!
April 10th, 2007 at 9:49 am
Cool site. Thank you.
April 10th, 2007 at 9:50 am
Cool site. Thank you.
April 10th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Nice site. Thanks.
April 10th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Nice site. Thanks.
April 10th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
Very good site. Thanks!
April 10th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
Very good site. Thanks!
April 11th, 2007 at 4:05 am
Very good site. Thanks:-)
April 11th, 2007 at 9:47 am
Nice site. Thanks!!!
April 11th, 2007 at 9:48 am
Nice site. Thanks!!!
April 12th, 2007 at 5:02 am
Nice site. Thanks:-)
April 12th, 2007 at 5:02 am
Nice site. Thanks:-)
April 12th, 2007 at 5:12 am
Good site. Thanks.
April 12th, 2007 at 5:13 am
Good site. Thanks!!!
April 12th, 2007 at 5:14 am
Good site. Thanks!!!
April 12th, 2007 at 7:41 am
Very good site. Thank you!
April 12th, 2007 at 7:41 am
Very good site. Thank you!
April 12th, 2007 at 11:58 am
Nice site. Thanks!!!
April 12th, 2007 at 11:59 am
Nice site. Thanks!!!
April 12th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Cool site. Thank you:-)
April 12th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Very good site. Thank you!!!
April 12th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Nice site. Thank you.
April 12th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Nice site. Thank you.
April 12th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
Very good site. Thank you:-)
April 12th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
Very good site. Thank you:-)
April 13th, 2007 at 4:21 am
Cool site. Thanks!!!
April 13th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Very good site. Thank you:-)
April 13th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Very good site. Thank you:-)
April 13th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Very good site. Thanks!!!
April 13th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
Good site. Thank you!!!
April 13th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Good site. Thanks!
April 13th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Cool site. Thank you!!!
April 13th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Cool site. Thank you!!!
April 14th, 2007 at 1:53 am
Nice site. Thanks!
April 14th, 2007 at 1:53 am
Nice site. Thanks!
April 14th, 2007 at 8:49 am
Good site. Thank you.
April 14th, 2007 at 8:49 am
Good site. Thank you.
April 14th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
Nice site. Thank you!!!
April 14th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Nice site. Thank you!!!
April 14th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
Very good site. Thank you:-)
April 14th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
Very good site. Thank you:-)
April 15th, 2007 at 12:32 am
Very good site. Thank you!!!
April 15th, 2007 at 1:36 am
Nice site. Thanks!
April 15th, 2007 at 1:36 am
Nice site. Thanks!
April 15th, 2007 at 2:52 am
Nice site. Thank you:-)
April 15th, 2007 at 2:52 am
Nice site. Thank you:-)
April 15th, 2007 at 6:52 am
Cool site. Thank you:-)
April 15th, 2007 at 6:52 am
Cool site. Thank you:-)
April 15th, 2007 at 9:20 am
Nice site. Thanks!!!
April 15th, 2007 at 11:25 am
Cool site. Thank you!
April 15th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Good site. Thank you.
April 15th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Very good site. Thank you!!!
April 15th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Very good site. Thank you!
April 15th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Very good site. Thank you!
April 16th, 2007 at 12:51 am
Good site. Thank you:-)
April 16th, 2007 at 12:51 am
Good site. Thank you:-)
April 16th, 2007 at 4:46 am
Cool site. Thanks:-)
April 16th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Cool site. Thank you:-)
April 17th, 2007 at 12:22 am
Cool site. Thank you!
April 17th, 2007 at 3:37 am
Good site. Thank you!
April 17th, 2007 at 3:37 am
Good site. Thank you!
April 17th, 2007 at 9:31 am
Nice site. Thank you:-)
April 17th, 2007 at 9:31 am
Nice site. Thank you:-)
April 17th, 2007 at 10:38 am
Good site. Thank you!
April 17th, 2007 at 10:38 am
Good site. Thank you!
April 17th, 2007 at 11:20 am
Very good site. Thank you!
April 17th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
Good site. Thank you!!!
April 18th, 2007 at 2:06 am
Very good site. Thanks!!!
April 18th, 2007 at 2:59 am
Very good site. Thank you.
April 18th, 2007 at 4:54 am
Good site. Thanks.
April 18th, 2007 at 4:54 am
Good site. Thanks.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Nice site. Thanks.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Good site. Thank you!
April 18th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Nice site. Thank you!!!
April 18th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Nice site. Thank you!!!
April 19th, 2007 at 1:19 am
Very good site. Thank you!
April 19th, 2007 at 2:46 am
Very good site. Thanks:-)
April 19th, 2007 at 3:08 am
Nice site. Thank you:-)
April 19th, 2007 at 3:09 am
Nice site. Thank you:-)
April 19th, 2007 at 6:42 am
Nice site. Thanks:-)
April 19th, 2007 at 9:05 am
Very good site. Thanks!
April 19th, 2007 at 11:34 am
Good site. Thank you!
April 19th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Good site. Thanks.
April 19th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Cool site. Thank you:-)
April 19th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Very good site. Thank you:-)
April 19th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Good site. Thanks!!!
April 20th, 2007 at 3:17 am
Cool site. Thanks!
April 20th, 2007 at 3:17 am
Cool site. Thanks!
April 20th, 2007 at 3:24 am
Nice site. Thank you.
April 20th, 2007 at 11:15 am
Nice site. Thank you!!!
April 21st, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Nice site. Thanks!!!
April 21st, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Nice site. Thanks!!!
April 21st, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Very good site. Thanks!
April 21st, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Very good site. Thanks!
April 23rd, 2007 at 3:30 am
Cool site. Thank you:-)
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:13 am
Very good site. Thank you.
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:13 am
Very good site. Thank you.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:45 am
Very good site. Thank you!
April 25th, 2007 at 4:46 am
Very good site. Thank you!
April 25th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Good site. Thank you!
April 25th, 2007 at 11:55 pm
Very good site. Thank you!
April 26th, 2007 at 1:27 am
Very good site. Thank you!
April 26th, 2007 at 1:28 am
Very good site. Thank you!
April 26th, 2007 at 3:25 am
Very good site. Thank you.
April 26th, 2007 at 3:26 am
Very good site. Thank you.
April 26th, 2007 at 7:24 am
Good site. Thanks!!!
April 26th, 2007 at 7:25 am
Good site. Thanks!!!
April 26th, 2007 at 9:12 am
Good site. Thank you:-)
April 26th, 2007 at 9:12 am
Good site. Thank you:-)
April 26th, 2007 at 11:57 am
Very good site. Thanks!!!
April 26th, 2007 at 11:53 pm
Very good site. Thank you!
April 27th, 2007 at 6:46 am
Cool site. Thanks.
April 27th, 2007 at 7:51 am
Nice site. Thanks!!!
April 27th, 2007 at 10:30 am
Cool site. Thanks!!!
April 27th, 2007 at 10:31 am
Cool site. Thanks!!!
April 27th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Cool site. Thank you!!!
April 27th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Cool site. Thank you.
April 27th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Cool site. Thank you!
April 27th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Very good site. Thanks!
April 28th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Nice site. Thank you!!!
April 28th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Nice site. Thank you!!!
April 28th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Good site. Thanks!
April 29th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Nice site. Thanks!
April 29th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Nice site. Thanks!
April 29th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
Nice site. Thank you!!!
April 29th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Nice site. Thank you!!!
April 29th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Very good site. Thanks!
April 29th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Very good site. Thanks!
April 29th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Good site. Thank you!
April 29th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Good site. Thank you!
April 29th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
Cool site. Thank you.
April 29th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Cool site. Thank you.
April 29th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
Cool site. Thanks.
April 30th, 2007 at 1:58 am
Nice site. Thank you!!!
April 30th, 2007 at 1:58 am
Nice site. Thank you!!!
April 30th, 2007 at 6:19 am
Good site. Thanks!!!
May 1st, 2007 at 9:11 am
Cool site. Thank you!!!
May 1st, 2007 at 9:12 am
Cool site. Thank you!!!
May 1st, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Very good site. Thanks:-)
May 1st, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Very good site. Thanks:-)
May 1st, 2007 at 7:21 pm
Very good site. Thank you!
May 1st, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Cool site. Thank you:-)
May 2nd, 2007 at 9:21 am
Nice site. Thank you.
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:27 am
Cool site. Thanks:-)
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Nice site. Thank you!!!
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Nice site. Thank you!!!
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Cool site. Thank you!
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Cool site. Thank you!
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Very good site. Thank you!!!
May 2nd, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Very good site. Thank you.
May 2nd, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Cool site. Thank you!
May 2nd, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Cool site. Thank you!
May 3rd, 2007 at 8:51 am
Very good site. Thanks!
May 3rd, 2007 at 8:52 am
Very good site. Thanks!
May 4th, 2007 at 1:18 am
Good site. Thanks:-)
May 4th, 2007 at 2:51 am
Nice site. Thanks!!!
May 4th, 2007 at 2:52 am
Nice site. Thanks!!!
May 4th, 2007 at 3:30 am
Very good site. Thanks.
May 4th, 2007 at 3:30 am
Very good site. Thanks.
May 4th, 2007 at 4:26 am
Cool site. Thanks.
May 5th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Good site. Thanks:-)
May 5th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Good site. Thanks:-)
May 6th, 2007 at 6:03 am
Nice site. Thanks.
May 6th, 2007 at 6:03 am
Nice site. Thanks.
May 6th, 2007 at 8:02 am
Good site. Thank you.
May 7th, 2007 at 2:32 am
Cool site. Thank you!!!
May 7th, 2007 at 2:33 am
Cool site. Thank you!!!
May 7th, 2007 at 3:50 am
Very good site. Thank you!!!
May 7th, 2007 at 8:15 am
Nice site. Thank you:-)
May 7th, 2007 at 11:56 am
Good site. Thanks.
May 9th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
Very good site. Thanks:-)
May 10th, 2007 at 6:47 am
Cool site. Thanks!!!
May 10th, 2007 at 6:48 am
Cool site. Thanks!!!
May 11th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Good site. Thank you.
May 11th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Good site. Thank you.
May 12th, 2007 at 1:55 am
Nice site. Thank you:-)
May 12th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
Cool site. Thanks!
May 12th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
Cool site. Thanks!
May 13th, 2007 at 5:13 am
Nice site. Thanks!
May 13th, 2007 at 5:13 am
Nice site. Thanks!
May 14th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Good site. Thanks.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
Good site. Thank you.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
Good site. Thank you.
May 18th, 2007 at 6:35 am
Nice site. Thank you.
May 18th, 2007 at 6:35 am
Nice site. Thank you.
May 19th, 2007 at 2:02 am
Good site. Thank you!
May 20th, 2007 at 5:09 am
Good site. Thanks!
May 20th, 2007 at 5:09 am
Good site. Thanks!
May 26th, 2007 at 3:01 am
Cool site. Thanks!
May 27th, 2007 at 8:18 am
Good site. Thanks.
May 31st, 2007 at 8:37 am
Cool site. Thanks.
May 31st, 2007 at 10:00 am
Nice site. Thanks!!!
June 2nd, 2007 at 12:23 am
Cool site. Thank you!
June 2nd, 2007 at 12:24 am
Cool site. Thank you!
June 4th, 2007 at 6:20 am
Very good site. Thanks:-)
June 4th, 2007 at 6:20 am
Very good site. Thanks:-)
June 4th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
Very good site. Thanks:-)
June 4th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Nice site. Thank you!!!
June 5th, 2007 at 9:34 am
Good site. Thank you!
June 5th, 2007 at 10:28 am
Nice site. Thank you!!!
June 5th, 2007 at 11:09 am
Nice site. Thanks:-)
June 6th, 2007 at 2:20 am
Very good site. Thank you!
June 6th, 2007 at 10:36 am
Very good site. Thank you!
June 7th, 2007 at 5:48 am
Very good site. Thank you!
June 7th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
Nice site. Thanks:-)
June 8th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
Nice site. Thank you.
June 8th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
Nice site. Thank you.
June 10th, 2007 at 12:52 am
Good site. Thank you!
June 10th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Good site. Thank you!!!
June 11th, 2007 at 5:32 am
Nice site. Thank you!
June 12th, 2007 at 11:04 am
Good site. Thanks!
June 12th, 2007 at 11:04 am
Good site. Thanks!
June 12th, 2007 at 11:05 am
Good site. Thanks.
June 12th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Good site. Thank you!
June 12th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
Cool site. Thank you!
June 13th, 2007 at 9:44 am
Nice site. Thanks!!!
June 13th, 2007 at 9:46 am
Nice site. Thanks!!!
June 13th, 2007 at 11:26 am
Nice site. Thank you:-)
June 14th, 2007 at 2:48 am
Good site. Thanks.
June 17th, 2007 at 4:25 am
Cool site. Thanks!!!
June 19th, 2007 at 8:57 am
Cool site. Thank you!
June 20th, 2007 at 3:57 am
Good site. Thanks!
June 20th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
Cool site. Thank you:-)
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:16 am
Very good site. Thank you!
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:16 am
Very good site. Thank you!
June 22nd, 2007 at 7:09 am
Nice site. Thank you.
June 22nd, 2007 at 10:22 am
Cool site. Thank you:-)
June 22nd, 2007 at 9:46 pm
Very good site. Thank you.
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:49 am
Cool site. Thank you.
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Good site. Thank you:-)
June 24th, 2007 at 6:16 am
Cool site. Thanks!
June 26th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Cool site. Thanks:-)
June 26th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
Very good site. Thanks!!!
June 26th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
Very good site. Thanks!!!
June 27th, 2007 at 6:48 am
Very good site. Thanks.
June 27th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
Very good site. Thanks.
June 28th, 2007 at 7:01 am
Very good site. Thank you!!!
June 28th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
Good site. Thank you.
June 28th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Good site. Thank you.
June 29th, 2007 at 7:30 am
Very good site. Thanks!
June 30th, 2007 at 7:27 am
Cool site. Thank you!!!
June 30th, 2007 at 10:39 am
Nice site. Thanks.
July 1st, 2007 at 10:16 am
Nice site. Thank you!
July 5th, 2007 at 6:33 am
Cool site. Thanks!!!
July 5th, 2007 at 11:57 am
Good site. Thank you.
July 6th, 2007 at 1:17 am
Very good site. Thanks.
July 6th, 2007 at 1:31 am
Good site. Thanks:-)
July 7th, 2007 at 12:29 am
Good site. Thank you!
July 7th, 2007 at 9:15 am
Good site. Thank you!!!
July 7th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Nice site. Thanks!
July 9th, 2007 at 1:51 am
Nice site. Thanks:-)