Thursday, 26 June 2008

Dunedin poised to build giant willy*

Was there ever a venture so obviously phallic as Dunedin's proposed stadium? If you're not up to date with this unfolding provincial debacle, let me fill you in. Our city fathers – and, make no mistake, it is affluent 'old money' blokes who are pushing the stadium – have decided that Dunedin is lacklustre. We need to impregnate the place with some excitement, and of course the measure of a city is its capacity to host rugby matches. Thus, only a stadium will do. Estimates of the cost of the stadium range from $188 (supporters' estimate) to $400 million (competent estimate), and a great chunk of the cost is to be worn by Dunedin and Otago regional ratepayers.

It is very clear who the stadium will benefit. Rupert Murdoch will have another venue from which night games can be broadcast on Sky to a lucrative northern hemisphere audience. The New Zealand Rugby Football Union will have a spangly new facility purchased for it by the public. The city fathers will feel righteous, having built a monument to themselves.

But evidence that the stadium venture will not bring money into Dunedin is overwhelming. Stadium supporters have blatantly misled the public to make their case that the phallus will create economic benefits for the city, and will be good for us all. For example, they calculated the revenue they believe the stadium will produce by assuming that almost all existing Dunedin events will relocate to the stadium, thus robbing revenue from other venues. They believe that the new stadium will attract international events to the city (although, as opponents gently point out, the Pope would have to visit four times a year, with U2 as his opening act, in order for the phallus to break even). Faced with the great likelihood that their willy will bankrupt the city, supporters are taking a bizarre field of wet dreams approach: if they build it we will come, so to speak.

With a startling immaturity, stadium supporters refuse even to look at the longer term financial consequences of their current indiscretions. They are utterly focused on the consummation of their beloved project: they'll flaunt their willy, and leave someone else to deal with the inevitable problems. An Otago University academic recently wrote a report scrutinising the economic arguments for the stadium, and Malcolm Farry, a chief willy supporter, stated publicly that he refused to read it. Critics of the stadium have been treated by the Old Boys' Network with absolute parochial disdain. It's even been suggested that those of us disloyal enough to question the giant phallus leave the city.

And it's not as if Dunedin is awash with money, or doesn't require the investment of public funds in other areas. Our public transport system is in desperate need of substantial investment: currently, it takes people only to places they don't want to go at times they don't want to go there. Going to the swimming pool is costly – prohibitively so for families headed by solo mums. An alarming proportion of the city's population lives in substandard housing so cold and damp that it induces health problems. The new stadium will not even be suitable for hosting cricket matches, events which are often attended by families. Nonetheless, it is the folks who can't afford recreation activities for their children, let alone a trip to an opulent stadium, who will fund the phallus through their rates.

Sadly, it seems likely that the stadium will be built, and that it will go the way of many a willy before it. For a while, it'll be fun to play with. But eventually, we'll be forced to get our hands off it and start acting like grown ups.

*Genital inspiration shamelessly drawn from The Bewildering Case of Ms Enid Tak-Entity

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

A sad sad situation... although even if it were not constructed I think Dunedin would have still have about 60,000 too many useless phalli draining the resources of those who don't benefit from them (to judge by the population statistics on Wikipedia)

Anonymous said...

This is a pretty poor summation of the current situation on the issue of the new stadium.

For example it totally ignores the wee fact that last years local body elections were fought over the stadium. It is reasonable to point out that the major councillors objecting were not returned and a stadium friendly Council was elected.

Perhaps this could be considered as a local referendum.

It could also be pointed out the the Otago Regional Council has also just voted to support the stadium, lending support from the province.It should also be pointed out that Otago University is a contributer and supporter of the stadium.

At $2.20 for a child to swim and $4.80 for an adult...( or 1$ for the adult to watch the child swim) ...Moana pool is hardly expensive for a solo parent to visit...which is illustrative of the hyperbole of yer blogpost.

Anna said...

The local body elections were conducted amidst a pile of misinformation, not least of which was the proposed cost of the venture. And if you believe that Dunedin's local body elections, with their woeful voter turnout, are a meaningful expression of democracy, you are a more sanguine person than I am. Speaking of democratic process, you might also note that recent submissions to the ORC regarding the stadium ran 12:1 against.

Dr Rob Hamlin, a senior academic, has written two reports criticising supporters' costings. Peter Chin was recently interviewed on TV3, having just learned that the Highlanders franchise is not doing well. He seemed to be the only person in New Zealand not aware of this. Which position do you suppose is better informed?

And Enzer, if you think that the swimming pool costs you quote (and of which I am fully aware) cannot be prohibitive for a mother receiving a basic rate of $263.78 on the DPB, when the price of gas and food are escalating, you could do with learning a bit more about how the other half live. It's this complete glibness with which stadium supporters plan to impose the costs of their toy on everyone else which irks me most.

Anonymous said...

Enzer, any election conducted under patriarchy must be considered invalid.

Anonymous said...

The simple fact of the results of the local body elections cannot be ignored....those councillors who opposed the stadium were not returned...those folk who voted ,ensured the council hada mandate to support the stadium.

This isn't being sanguine. It is merely acknowledging the bleeding obvious.

By your reckoning because some hundreds of thousands of folk have recently signed a petition calling for the smacking of children...the central body politicans ought to repeal the current law.

Clearly a logical fallacy.

I'll see Hamlin's reports and raise you...

Lastly, there is more than a touch of irony in your suppositions of which 'half' I live in, that solo parents are all mothers and being glib.

Anonymous said...

'#13baby said...
Enzer, any election conducted under patriarchy must be considered invalid.'


Troll. *yawn*

Anna said...

Quite right - only 95% of solo parents are female.

Cull, Staynes and Wilson - all new councillors elected at the last
election - stood on a ticket including opposition to ratepayer funding of the stadium. They were 3 of the highest polling successful
candidates.

Guest, the staunchest pro-stadium advocate, had his majority slashed and only just squeaked back in.

Vandervis lost his seat to Fliss Butcher who was also anti-stadium.

I'm more than happy to read any counters to Rob Hamlin's report you can offer, other than the spurious BERL report.

Julie said...

Sure $2.20 for a kid to go to the pools is affordable. If you only go once. If you don't have to buy togs for them, or supply a towel, or any other accoutrements like floaties or goggles. If they go on their own and you don't also have to shell out the $1 to watch or $4.50 to swim with them. Oh, and if you only have one kid.

Sheesh enzer, you might try to make a point that isn't so easily demolished.

Anonymous said...

Oh please, Ya don't need goggles or floaties to go swimming. I am sure most everyone has togs about and probably a towel. Unless they don't bathe.

rme.

Anna said...

I'm sorry about my earlier tone Enzer - it was a bit rude, on reflection.

I think you're downplaying what it's like being poor - not everyone has togs or even goes to school with a lunch, sadly.

And I'm yet to be convinced that stadium supporters have made a robust or even honest case for their venture.

Anonymous said...

Here is a Radio NZ discussion between Hamlin and Farry...http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/national/ntn/cost_overruns_for_new_carisbrook
Given that at best there would be an impasse...it seems reasonable to look for others. Except those that you reject out of hand.

There are,of course those reports on the stadium site.

http://www.carisbrook.org.nz/

Anonymous said...

Is fine anna. Good robust debate is where it's at...and my skin is pretty thick ;-)

Idiot/Savant said...

Small-town cargo cult syndrome in a nutshell. Can't they just get themselves a giant fibreglass vegetable instead? It would at least be cheaper...

GZ said...

Cargo cults indeed. If we build (insert object here) then visitors will rain from the sky and deliver gifts and money.

Anonymous said...

'Cargo cults indeed. If we build (insert object here) then visitors will rain from the sky and deliver gifts and money.'

Why not? It seems to have worked for the swimming pool...

Anonymous said...

While I'm not an expert on penises (with the exception of mine) I have yet to see a stadium that looked like a penis.

The new stadium in Wellington has been a huge benefit to the city, prior to it being built there were similar arguments that it shouldn't be built.

There is an argument of course that public amenities such as swimming pools, library's, museums, art galleries, stadiums etc, etc should not be built with public money but then we would live in a boring world.

Anna said...

In the Wellington stadium's 2006/2007 report, the trust mentioned it was budgeting a shortfall of almost $1 million for the following year, and had to renegotiate the terms of its debt. This was in part due to falling attendance, which the report says is a trend occurring throughout the country. Building another new stadium in the face of falling national attendance seems dumb.

My use of penises to describe the stadium is a reference to the work of Freud, who is a bit of a cock himself to be fair.