Submission
9 year plan feedback
Should we remove 231 Stuart Street (formerly the Fortune Theatre) from the list of strategic assets in the DCC Significance and Engagement policy?
Yes, remove 231 Stuart Street from the list of strategic assets (this is our preferred option)
Do you have any comments about 231 Stuart Street?
While I understand that 231 Stuart Street is of little use as a strategic asset in its current state, the discussion about this topic glosses over the fact that there has been a theatre on the DCC's strategic asset register and this will no longer be the case if it is removed. It begs the question of what was strategic about the asset - that building in particular or the broader principle of having a venue for performing arts held by the DCC.
Should we charge an entry fee of $20 (incl. GST) for international visitors aged 16 and over, at Toitū and Dunedin Public Art Gallery?
No, do not introduce an entry fee of $20 (incl. GST)
Do you have any comments about the entry fee for international visitors?
I would prefer our cultural venues to be free so that there are no barriers to entry for people from different places, many of whom have connections to Ōtepoti. I would be more interested in a model where cruise ships pay a visitor levy (per passenger head) to be shared between mana whenua, the city's cultural institutions and initiatives to reduce climate emission reductions.
Is there anything else you would like to tell us?
The 9 year plan seems like a massive missed opportunity to engage with communities on big questions about the kind of city we want to create over coming decades. This is a critical time to be having big conversations about how to be Te Tiriti-led, how to invest in community-led change, how to ensure our young people and future generations have the resources and support they need to thrive, and how to transition justly to low carbon ways of living, working and being as a city.
I support the proposed investment in infrastructure over the coming decade, particularly for 3 Waters. In terms of transport projects, I would prefer to see the starting point be strategic thinking about zero carbon - it's hard to tell what the combined impact of the proposed projects will be. Outside this infrastructure investment, the plan is a cobbled together bunch of low ambition, disconnected projects that seem to align more with councillors' pet interests than with any strategic thinking.
Many areas included in the 9 year plan are piecemeal and have not been well thought through. For example, there is funding for festivals and events as well as for events attraction via the Stadium and Dunedin Centre, but it's very unclear how much of this will go to local organisations vs. bidding for international acts, promotion and marketing. This is at a time when many of our long-established local festivals are struggling with a constrained national and local funding environment and when a grants funding review is being carried out without community/arts representation or involvement. It's hard to get excited about urban centre upgrades or heritage action when the DCC business-as-usual departments have such a poor track record of meaningful community engagement and involvement in decision-making.
It is also short-sighted to remove investment in areas that have been well developed and have strong community backing (zero carbon, community housing, the urban cycleways tunnel trail, performing arts). I am submitting separately on zero carbon via Zero Carbon Ōtepoti. Here, I simply want to note that I'm shocked that the Council has turned its back on the thousands of locals, many of them young people, who called for and celebrated the decisions to aim for net zero carbon emissions by 2030. It is a huge breach of public trust to have developed a robust plan and put together comprehensive packages to implement the plan at different investment levels and then to pull both options with no scope for community feedback.
Local Water Done Well feedback
Which water services delivery model do you support?
A Three Waters Council-Controlled Organisation (CCO)
Why did you choose this option?
Neither of these is my preferred option. I am disappointed that Council decided to take the option of an Otago Southland regional entity off the table, despite this being recommended by the Morrison Low report.
This Council has consistently politicised water service delivery, often ignoring mana whenua concerns and falling back on a weird parochialism that denies our long connections and shared interests with our regional neighbours. In recent months, the Council has launched a series of unhelpful attacks on Queenstown and failed to participate in regional conversations and proposals. Otago Southland is a region with strong mana whenua, historical, familial, business and community ties. Many of our waterways run across territorial boundaries, and we share values and concerns relating to our people and the environment. A regional model would recognise and benefit from these longstanding connections, allowing for a wider frame of reference than a single territorial authority can achieve.
I have no confidence that the current Council has the skills or professionalism to provide strategic, visionary guidance on water service delivery in a way that will meet the intentions of Te Taki Haruru and protect and enhance our environment.
For this reason, of the two options, I prefer a CCO with strong mana whenua representation, genuine mechanisms for community input, and professional leadership. However, I would much prefer this to be a regional entity than one that serves Ōtepoti Dunedin only.
Do you have any other feedback related to the proposed water services delivery models?
Supporting information
No associated documents with this submission.
Submitter
Submission id number: 1129783
Submitter name:
Mary McLaughlin
Organisation