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?
I am happy for the council to sell the former Fortune Theatre building given its state and history. However, I believe the council should be investing now in a proper replacement theatres or theatre network to support a strong performing arts scene in our city. $17 million dollars as mooted would have been a great start.
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?
$20 is too high and will lead to international visitors missing out on key cultural experiences when visiting our city. There is no charge to visit most Australian galleries and museums, and it would be a barrier to put one in. We can afford to extend a warm welcome as part of our manaakitanga to international visitors. There would other ways (like a cruise ship Dunedin entry fee and bed tax) to recoup costs if needed.
Is there anything else you would like to tell us?
I want to see a high ambition package adopted for the city's Zero Carbon 2030 plan in this 9 Year Plan. It is a huge disappointment not to see it in there. Early engagement, climate strikes and public opinion over the past 5 years have clearly shown the majority of people support this so I hope councillors will start listening and take action now. The sooner we start decarbonising our city, the smoother and fairer the transition will be, and the more benefits we will all accrue. We simply have to start paying to make the future for our kids and grandkids better.
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?
This is a tough choice. On balance I support moving to a CCO because it will give the chance for more direct governance for our Māori Treaty partners and more professional and long-sighted leadership. But neither is my preferred option. I believe we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create a strong Otago-Southland water entity that can make water healthier, safer, better and cheaper. This, or at the least joining our neighbour councils in Clutha, Central Otago, Waitaki et al. in a regional model, would be far preferable to going it alone.
Do you have any other feedback related to the proposed water services delivery models?
I think we will end up in an Otago-Southland grouping in future in any case, because the economics of size, complexity of planning issues, governance challenges and need to work with mana whenua across the whole region all point in this direction. Climate changes and catchment management all point to larger entities being the future. It is therefore short-sighted to try to go it alone now, when we could be getting ahead of the curve and reaping benefits now. We also owe this to our small neighbouring councils who can afford the future water requirements far less than we can. We would be stronger together - kotangitanga!
Supporting information
No associated documents with this submission.
Submitter
Submission id number: 1129785
Submitter name:
Ian Telfer
Organisation