Will anyone insure it?
May 31st, 2011 at 10:46 am by David FarrarKatie Chapman at the Dom Post reports:
Workers sporting bright orange safety vests have appeared on the hill beside the Miramar Cutting as work to erect the controversial Wellywood sign begins.
But those opposed to the sign are not giving up, with another drive-by protest planned at the airport tomorrow.
Workers were abseiling on the hillside yesterday, as survey work to mark out positions for the 3.5-metre-high letters began.
The work comes as Wellington International Airport, which is erecting the sign to promote Wellington’s film industry, remains determined to build it, despite calls for the plan to be ditched.
If they persist with the sign as Wellywood, they will be destroying the brand and corporate reputation of the Airport.
And I would be surprised if any insurer was willing to insure the sign. Look for example at the iPredict contract on the sign:
In the event construction of a Wellywood sign commences but at no time does the complete word ‘Wellywood’ appear, for any reason including complete destruction of one or more letters, then this contract will close at $0. Defacement including graffiti will not prevent this contract closing at $1. In the event of part destruction of one or more letters, iPredict will, at its sole discretion, close the contract based on whether it considers a person not previously aware of the sign could reasonably read the word ‘Wellywood’.
When the futures market has to specify rules around possible destruction and defacement, it gives you some idea of its likely fate.
And think of the poor Police, if the sign is destroyed. They’d have around 100,000 suspects to interview.
Tags: Wellywood
May 31st, 2011 at 10:56 am
Great, an iPredict market where one can stake some cash and then make it all happen (by destroying the sign).
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 11:02 am
Do you approve of vandalism of things you disapprove of, David?
[DPF: Nope]
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 11:14 am
TripeWryter.. what an apt name!
Where is it that you get the notion that DPF approves of or condones vandalism?
All I see is that he is pointing out it’s inevitability.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 11:15 am
I notice the dude organised the drive around protest has a lisp. what is it with protesters and lisps??
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 11:21 am
Must be the same as Greenies and moustaches.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 11:25 am
At a significant premium, yes, Its a bit like is something for sale , again yes but the price may be a problem.
Am I missing something, I understand it WIAL has planning consent but not a building permit.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 11:49 am
I do trust that those f…wits who support destroying the sign don’t have the hypocrisy to complain if their own property, or that perhaps promoting things that they do support, is vandalized or destroyed. All very schoolboy level sense of responsibility, learn to laugh at yourselves a little. As it is, I suggest a new slogan for Wellington: “Wellington: Very Precious”.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 11:54 am
Just put it up. Then after the World Cup look at replacing it with a large Weta or perhaps nothing at all.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 12:01 pm
gravedodger
A building permit is required for…. well…. a building….. I don’t believe one is required for a sign. They have consent to erect the sign…
As an aside, it would be much easier to replace the “E” with an “A” as I would imagine that destruction of a 38m sign is quite an undertaking.
I still think a large arrow pointing at the runway would be amusing…
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 12:24 pm
rouppe: My understanding is that they actually have permission for 9 seperate signs – how they got a non-notified consent.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 1:01 pm
1 for it, 400,000 against it… the odds aren’t great
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 2:06 pm
The Wellywood sign is an expensive in-house joke that no visitor to this country would find faintly amusing. It has the cringe factor of a personal message being towed around by a plane.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 3:00 pm
aitkenmike
Really… Sneaky buggers. I’m sure the average citizen wouldn’t be able to get away with that
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 3:18 pm
aitkenmike 12.24 Does your understanding re 9 signs come from any source more reliable than a reader’s comment on Stuff?
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 4:41 pm
PaulD – Only slightly. Friend of a friend type thing. Certainly not anything substantiated. Hence the ‘my understanding…’ rather than stating it as a fact. Happy to be corrected if untrue (I really hope it is).
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 5:25 pm
DAVID………You could display your abhorrence at Infratil’s insistence on using their property right to erect this sign by ripping up your Snapper Card.
Vote:May 31st, 2011 at 8:24 pm
Re the police investigating, I’m Spartacus!
Vote:June 1st, 2011 at 6:25 am
It is the wonderful thing about being a monopoly. It means you can do what you like to who you like whenever you like so long as it is legal without fear of losing customers, despite being an absolute pratt in the face of a fairly significant community outrage at what you intend to foist upon them.
It would be interesting to see whether WIAL would be so arrogant if they were a business that faced genuine competition.
Isn’t the “property rights” argument a good one probably coming from the same nimby’s that would scream the place down if they faced an eyesore development in their street.
Vote: