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?
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?
The age should be raised or a carve out made for international students studying in Dunedin. Additionally the income from this should be used to improve these facilities rather than for the reduction of rates.
Is there anything else you would like to tell us?
It is disappointing to see the pausing of the councils capital program for new community housing. This decision comes at a time when the central government is also retreating from building new community housing. In 2011 Dunedin City Council had 954 units of community housing and in 2025 there are 936. Underinvestment in community housing will lead to increased homelessness and housing poverty in our city.
I would like the council to reconsider its decision to cut spending on new community housing units and to invest in building more over the next 9 years. The money spent on this is a worthwhile and necessary investment for Dunedin to make and will have additional benefits besides the additional units. The council would be providing work for local builders in a time when many are struggling to find enough jobs to keep their business afloat. This in turn ensures that these people remain in Dunedin rather than leaving the city to find work elsewhere which would leave us with less builders and businesses. The units built will also become an asset for the council to pass on to future generations and will allow us to care for the most vulnerable in our city.
While the concern around the affordability of rate rises and debt is valid it is not an excuse to ignore the needs of those without secure housing in our community. I would much rather future generations inherit a city with ample community housing then a city with low debt.
I would also urge the council to further invest in reducing carbon emissions and I was disappointed to see that plans for future investment were not included in the draft plan for consultation. While it may be unlikely that the additional investment would allow the city to reach it’s 2030 goal, this should be a call to action for the council rather than capitulation.
Again, the council needs to consider the big picture of what that investment provides for future generations. Investment in reducing carbon emissions has multiple benefits besides carbon emission reduction such as healthier transport habits, reduced waste, and cleaner air.
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?
This option allows the council to continue consideration of collaboration with Christchurch City council and to pursue that if possible. If the council is able to provide in house water delivery below debt limits then that should be the preferred option.
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: 1132777
Submitter name:
Matson Kyte
Organisation