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?
231 Stuart Street is an important building for our heritage. However, as it is not in use by the council, the council should look at selling the premiesis. If they can do so for a profit, they should. This buyer should be held accountable for respecting the building and its heritage
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?
International visitors should be charged entry, but not at a level that will push them away.
Is there anything else you would like to tell us?
I think the cost of many of the proposed projects are too large and some projects are inappropriate.
I am against the bathroom changes at the rail station. I believe two large accessibility bathrooms are far more appropriate than the extravagance currently planned. The shower is an absolute no from me. It is a rail station, not a sports ground.
I think climate reducing activities should only be undertaken when infrastructure reaches the end of its useful life. For example, electric busses should only be considered when the current fleet needs replacing. Your public transport such as the bus to St Clair is far too slow, if you want to fight climate change then climate friendly services need to be efficient. A 40 minute bus ride (as it took me on Thursday 17th April at 6pm) or 5 minute drive is a clear chose to most Dunedinites. Charging parking on Sundays won't change that.
The cost of the Otago Vine bike path is also wildly inflated. The Portobello leg is expensive, but $6.9 million dollars for the Harwood leg is outrageous. The land is flat, straight, inland, and there are no structures blocking the path - this should not cost so much. Finally the 3rd stage leading to Ōtākou Fisheries. 550m of bike path should NOT cost $8 million. I know that you plan to extend the sea wall, but there must be a better solution.
The cost of Māori engagement should be negligible. As those of other races do, Māori should take it upon themselves to engage with governance, not at the rate payers expense.
Schemes such as the rural water plans should not cost so much. Your bureaucracy is appalling and slow and should either be cut, or performance improved to a level reflective of its size.
All in all, the price your paying for most projects is just too high.
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?
Whilst I can see the potential benefit through additional expertise and lack of politics in a CCO, I am not confident that the bureaucrats will act in the interest of the people. I believe that at this moment water infrastructure should be kept in council control where ideology can be toppled come election time.
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: 1132005
Submitter name:
Organisation