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?
As long as the proceeds of the sale of 231 Stuart Street are ring fenced and invested in infrastructure that is directly useful for the performing arts and cultural community of Dunedin
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?
Though a lower fee of $10 (incl GST) I would consider acceptable.
Is there anything else you would like to tell us?
Submission to the DCC Nine Year Plan.
The Ara Toi Website states:
Dunedin is one of the world’s great small cities with art and culture at it’s core.
Core: the basic and most important part of something, the part that is protected from other forces and attacks.
However, for many in the performing arts and cultural community this statement can only be considered as a somewhat bizarre and inappropriate joke.
Why?
Because if art and culture are to be at the core of a city then art and culture needs to be supported by appropriate infrastructure.
It’s now seven years since the demise of the Fortune Theatre and many have worked tirelessly over those years to assist councillors to solve some of the numerous problems faced by the performing arts sector.
And those problems are not simple - they’re varied and nuanced because the needs of different parts of that performing community are different.
You have, on occasions, accused us of being fractured. We were never fractured - we just had differing needs. For example professional performers need different facilities from amateur performers because this is their job - they need the support and infrastructure that full time workers need. Likewise dancers need sprung floors and appropriate warm up rooms. Physically disabled performers need street to stage accessibility. Opera and Musical Theatre want a fly tower and an orchestra pit.
We were challenged to come up with a solution - told you’d ‘kill the 17.1m baby’ if we didn’t.
So we spent many hours coming up with a solution that fostered development - the Playhouse Restoration, provided an appropriate venue for musicians and a small black box theatre - the Athenaeum, and envisioned a purpose built, flexible, multi-venue Performing Arts Centre good for kapa haka, opera and musical theatre, ballet and all forms of dance, theatre and music.
We agreed that this approach was the best answer to the needs of the performing arts and culture sector in Dunedin.
Your response? Oh - we forgot to tell you while you were working through to that end - labouring for hours to a solution - that we’ve taken the 17.1 million off the table.
You don’t appear to see an amazing opportunity when it shows itself. You’re only supplying the corner stone funding - we’re faced with raising the rest. We can’t approach other agencies for financial support without having the support of the local authority.
You have the opportunity to renew the performing arts infrastructure in the city cheaply and in a way that will sustain performing arts and culture in the city for at least the next fifty years.
So what’s my submission?
Reinstate the 17.1 million in the nine year plan and activate the agreed proposal that has been submitted to you. (See attached)
Local Water Done Well feedback
Which water services delivery model do you support?
Why did you choose this option?
Do you have any other feedback related to the proposed water services delivery models?
Supporting information
Submitter
Submission id number: 1132567
Submitter name:
Ross Johnston
Organisation