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?
No, keep 231 Stuart Street as a strategic asset
Do you have any comments about 231 Stuart Street?
The fortune is a heritage site and should be kept within the cities control.
At the very least the external walls of the building must be protected. Look at Vogal street, how do you use a blueprint like that and create amazing spaces within. Time for some creativity!
Should we charge an entry fee of $20 (incl. GST) for international visitors aged 16 and over, at Toitū and Dunedin Public Art Gallery?
Yes, introduce an entry fee of $20 (incl. GST) (this is our preferred option)
Do you have any comments about the entry fee for international visitors?
Lets not shy away from reality! It is common practice for international visitors to pay an entrance fee all around the world when they visit a gallery, museum, a heritage site and so forth. Be bold, don't apologize just do it !
Is there anything else you would like to tell us?
Yes! Dunedin's rubbish and Smooth Hill needs to be re looked at.
As a rate payer $95 million could be put to better use especially when there are alternatives such as AB Lime, and other locations. I Smooth Hill is just a case of doing the same old same old which will give you the same old results such as ongoing environmental issues . And then of course there is the airport, bird strike, the employment of a bird officer and a net!.
Where is the transparency in the decision making and the rationale for Smooth Hill . A spend of $95 million needs public scrutiny, given that you are asking rate payers to foot the expense. This is my money you are spending.
Where does the waste minimization strategy fit in? One ton of rubbish will cost the same as half a ton at Smooth Hill so what are the incentives when the cost is the same?
And then there is a suggestion that we should keep our own rubbish within our boundaries!
The reality is that most of the rubbish is generated from outside of our region in the form of packaging and so forth.
Tinned tomatoes from Italy, Instant pudding from the USA , Woolworths Sour dough bread imported from Australia , batteries from China and the list goes on. If we are serious, we should establish a global transfer center and send the packaging back to where it came from!
The alternative =AB lime
AB Lime is the cost-effective solution. If it's not, where are the figures to show that it is not?
-Trucking is not an issue, and if we reduce waste, we use less trucks.
-Rail in the medium term is an option.
-Hydrogen and or electric trucks would work well with minimal outlay.
Why are you wanting to reinvent the wheel when there is already a wheel invented.
Commercial Sensitivity seems to be the excuse for the lack of transparency. If you know the cost of Smooth Hill , then you know the cost of the alternatives. As it's my money you are playing with, I want to have access to the full analysis.
Failure to do so indicates something is being hidden.
$95 million could be spent on fast tracking the water issues, or South Dunedin, repairing the environment ie Tomahawk lagoon, museums etc etc
We are in challenging times, family finances are stretched, the cities budgets are stretched , its time for some leadership , and time to look at the alternatives!
Local Water Done Well feedback
Which water services delivery model do you support?
The Council’s preferred option: an in-house delivery model
Why did you choose this option?
its our water , we all have a vested interest, however having said that some collaboration makes sense when it comes to sharing expertise etc . Dunedin is a village, New Zealand is a small country, let's work together
Do you have any other feedback related to the proposed water services delivery models?
water is a priority and we have no option whereas for rubbish we have options .
As I said to my children Make good decisions, its now your turn to make good decisions !
Supporting information
No associated documents with this submission.
Submitter
Submission id number: 1131820
Submitter name:
Michael Waddell
Organisation
038-160-281