The choices for Canterbury

May 23rd, 2013 at 9:00 am by David Farrar

Stuff reports John Key as laying out the choices for Canterbury:

  1. Council borrows money for infrastructure projects
  2. Council raises rates for infrastructure projects
  3. Council changes its asset mix to fund infrastructure projects
  4. They don’t proceed with or downsize some of the infrastructure projects

My preference is (3) but it is a decision for the locals. If residents don’t want a new stadium, then absolutely that is their call. Likewise if they want one, but are happy with higher rates, then also their call.

Tags:

28 Responses to “The choices for Canterbury”

  1. Graeme Edgeler (3,267 comments) says:

    Is one of the options: council builds less than the Government is trying to force it to build?

    [DPF: Yes, that is option 4]

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. toms (301 comments) says:

    “…My preference is (3) but it is a decision for the locals….”

    No it isn’t, it is the decision of King Gerry and the dictatorial powers he has abrogated to himself and CERA to over-rule any decision he doesn’t like. Canterbury is a dictatorship rules by a fat man in Wellington, the local council is just a fig leaf to try and hide that fact.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. bhudson (4,734 comments) says:

    Bob Parker translated: “Everyone else has to pay our way”

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. RRM (9,471 comments) says:

    I can’t see 4) happening. Rugby is an essential necessity of life down there.

    W.R.T. number 3, CCC should raise funds by selling the amazing new Rieger organ in the Town Hall to Wellington City Council. (Or some benevolent Wellingtonian who wants to patronize the arts??)

    It would fit right into the blank wall behind the stage at the Michael Fowler Centre that was always intended to house a pipe organ – the MFC auditorium and the CHCH town hall auditorium are similar designs by the same architect so no doubt it would fit straight in.

    (As I understand it, it is one of the best instruments of its kind in the world. I got to hear Martin Setchell play the Widor 5th Symphony Toccata on it when I graduated from Canterbury Uni, it made the floorboards reverberate and it sounded spectacular! Far too precious to be demolished.)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. nasska (10,689 comments) says:

    It’s their swamp & their city so let them build what they want….just so long as the rest of the country doesn’t have to underwrite grandiose ‘new for old’ wish lists.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. A.Ziffel (4 comments) says:

    I don’t consider a for-profit rugby stadium as being infrastructure. It should be left to the private sector.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. toms (301 comments) says:

    10% of National’s vote came from Christchurch. Let’s all hope John key keeps pissing them all off by lecturing them on what a burden they are.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Cunningham (821 comments) says:

    toms (268) Says:

    “No it isn’t, it is the decision of King Gerry and the dictatorial powers he has abrogated to himself and CERA to over-rule any decision he doesn’t like”

    Do you actually think anything would be done if it was left to the Christchurch City Council???? By the way the whole country is putting a bucket of money into Chch (rightly so) so the country deserves a say as well. From what I have read, I wouldn’t trust the council down there if I was the government either.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. queenstfarmer (747 comments) says:

    John must have forgotten to ask Russel Norman, as he left off option 5:

    5. Print more money using the Green Party money press – problem solved.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Sir Cullen's Sidekick (789 comments) says:

    When Shearer-Norman-Winnie-Hone government is in place, there will be a 3% earthquake levy on all Kiwis to fund flash new stadium in Canterbury. This is called restoration of social justice. Go figure that out.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Cunningham (821 comments) says:

    toms (268) Says:

    “10% of National’s vote came from Christchurch. Let’s all hope John key keeps pissing them all off by lecturing them on what a burden they are.”

    Yeah because a Labour/Greens monstrosity of a government would do so much better. The Greens are dealing with such important issues like whether there should be a beehive on top of the Beehive. Imagine the wonderful quirky things they could come up with for Chch. At the taxpayers expense of course (or the printing press).

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Rich Prick (1,556 comments) says:

    5. The Council pursues it’s insurer for a proper claim payout, rather than turning to the taxpayer to act as it’s defacto insurer.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/christchurch-earthquake-2011/8644596/Council-battles-insurer-to-get-replacement-value

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Harriet (4,524 comments) says:

    “……John Key as laying out the choices for Canterbury:……”

    I call bullshit!

    5. Private Public Partnerships.

    Who said the council has to own most, if not all, the infrastructure of an entire city? And given that the CH-CH council struggles to get the most basic of things done, like sewerage, power and water, and when they are most needed – after a major earthquake, then why would rate payers then want the council to take on the ownership and stewardship of ‘extra curricular activities’?

    A clean break from the past is the future for CH-CH ratepayers.

    Key would surely see that!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Alan Johnstone (1,064 comments) says:

    “Do you actually think anything would be done if it was left to the Christchurch City Council???? By the way the whole country is putting a bucket of money into Chch (rightly so) so the country deserves a say as well. From what I have read, I wouldn’t trust the council down there if I was the government either.”

    The council are the democratically elected representatives of the people of Christchurch appointed for this very purpose. No one else has this mandate. They were elected post earth quake. The people knew what the deal was when they voted them in.

    If they are a bit shit, then too bad. It’s up to them, not Gerry Brownlee.

    No more gold plating down there. Stadiums aren’t infrastructure. Roads and water are.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. dime (9,465 comments) says:

    A stadium is a must for any real city.

    The sort of short sightedness shown by people here is the exact reason auckland is so fucked now.

    Christchurch has the opportunity to set itself up for the next 100 years. Do it right.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Cunningham (821 comments) says:

    Alan Johnstone (363) I agree but this is an event like no other in recent history. The whole country has to come together to help Chch so you cannot possibly expect the council to do it all. There is no way it would ever get done in this case. I agree with giving the council as much responsability as is possible but at the end of the day this is no your average situation.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. xy (152 comments) says:

    We’ve been screaming for 4 for a long time. Maybe it’s getting through to CERA finally.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. alloytoo (434 comments) says:

    @ Harriet

    What exactly is the difference between a mixed ownership model on assets going forward, and a mixed ownership model on historical assets?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. RRM (9,471 comments) says:

    The sort of short sightedness shown by people here is the exact reason auckland is so fucked now.

    I know…! How awesome would downtown Auckland have become, if Akl had had its brand new world cup stadium on the waterfront, right next to vector arena and the viaduct (and all served by the nearby railway station and grafton gully motorway junction)…

    It could have been an ‘entertainment central’ kind of set-up that a lot of cities around the world would envy. Instead it’s just a slightly better Eden Park than there used to be. Wasted opportunity.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. YesWeDid (1,029 comments) says:

    ‘If residents don’t want a new stadium, then absolutely that is their call.’

    That is not the question, we need a new stadium as the current replacement is only temporary. The question is how much to spend on a new stadium. The insurance payout for the quake damaged AMI stadium is around $145M that should build a stadium of around 20-25,000 seats, if we want a roof that adds around $30-$40M. That would seem a reasonable solution.

    However the rugby union say we need 35,000 seats for All Black tests and that would add around $100M to the build cost. So that is the real question; should CHCH rate payers pay an extra $100M for a large stadium or build a more modest stadium that does not require a lot of extra funding?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. dime (9,465 comments) says:

    RRM – we should have had rail 30 years ago. Imagine what that would have cost? fuck all.

    Im not against the auckland council borrowing to build rail now, i just think the rail loop is garbage.

    Im not sure where they want to put the new stadium in chch, but they could make the area something pretty dam cool. not unlike olympic park in sydney. bars, hotel, retail, business, stadium, convention centre etc

    everyone thinks that it has to be paid for in the next 3 weeks.

    its funny how we think like that for council and government put will sign up to 30 year mortgages

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Cunningham (821 comments) says:

    dime (6,233) Says:

    “Im not against the auckland council borrowing to build rail now, i just think the rail loop is garbage. ”

    I thoroughly agree. Massive expenditure for what it would deliver. Sad thing is, it’s only a matter of time before the Labour/communist Green parties get in government (hopefully not next term) and it will be approved at that point with no consideration whatsoever.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. davidp (3,540 comments) says:

    RRM>It could have been an ‘entertainment central’ kind of set-up that a lot of cities around the world would envy.

    I don’t think so. Sports stadiums are generally pretty dead areas. They’re only in use occasionally, and they’re often surrounded by large open areas that are used for car parking, deliveries, or spectator circulation. That means a few city blocks of nothing happening most of the time, and a dislocation between activity on either side of the stadium that takes people several minutes to traverse on foot. Much better to locate the stadium in a distant suburb, and fill up the CBD space with shops, offices, and places to eat. The sort of economic activity that people enjoy walking past, that is always busy, and which brings a bit of a buzz every day of the week.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. A.Ziffel (4 comments) says:

    dime says “A stadium is a must for any real city.”

    One could equally argue that an IMAX is also a must for a real city.
    If Hoyts said Christchurch desperately needs an IMAX and we want the City Council to build a really good one, what should be the appropriate response?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. noskire (832 comments) says:

    The only way I see Christchurch justifying spending a huge amount on a stadium:

    A: It has to be multi-purpose (not just rubgy).

    B: Incorporates a convention centre, such as the Indiana Convention Center & Lucas Oil Stadium.

    C: A mixture of private/public investment.

    D: Innovative – say perhaps the cover incorporated solar panels?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Lance (2,454 comments) says:

    @A.Ziffle
    IMAX sux.
    Just sit a bit closer to the movie screen, the effect is the same; which with 3D is dizziness for me.

    I know that probably wasn’t the real point, but just thought I would point that out.

    I think in reality a convention centre would generate more income than a big stadium.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Kleva Kiwi (281 comments) says:

    “YesWeDid (886) Says:
    May 23rd, 2013 at 10:33 am
    ‘If residents don’t want a new stadium, then absolutely that is their call.’

    That is not the question, we need a new stadium as the current replacement is only temporary. The question is how much to spend on a new stadium. The insurance payout for the quake damaged AMI stadium is around $145M that should build a stadium of around 20-25,000 seats, if we want a roof that adds around $30-$40M. That would seem a reasonable solution.

    However the rugby union say we need 35,000 seats for All Black tests and that would add around $100M to the build cost. So that is the real question; should CHCH rate payers pay an extra $100M for a large stadium or build a more modest stadium that does not require a lot of extra funding?”

    The stadium should not be built purely for the use of Rugby. Dunedin did that and now they have a box on the waterfront that dosn’t get used… it needs to be a multisport stadium with built in convention centre and convention venue.

    A mixed ownership model is a good way forward, or if the lefty idiots don’t find that palatable, then why not design a stadium that can have additional stands added to it at a later date when more money is available? Both options are far more sensible than catering for one sport…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. GPT1 (2,090 comments) says:

    The rainy day has arrived. Sell.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.