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 a Dunedin ratepayer. Right now, a silent economic collapse is unfolding across the world. This is no ordinary cyclical short-lived recession. What we’re facing will be far deeper, more structural, and more enduring. I have been a supporter of The Fortune Theatre in the past, but we need to face facts that assets like this are not essential to our survival.
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?
I enjoy the Public Art Gallery but it is not an essential service and can't be delivered 'for free'. Charging international visitors this small fee is a start. I would argue that there should otherwise also be a 'token' fee of $2 (or $5/family) for any other visitor (including locals) to start encouraging people to think about how rates don't come near to covering costs, which in turn will spark robust debate about whether such services are actually essential in the context of a global financial reset.
Is there anything else you would like to tell us?
I am a Dunedin ratepayer. I hope councillors are aware that the world is entering a long, grinding come-down from a 50-year binge on debt, delusion, and financial engineering. A 'Greater Depression' is looming and decisions made now will impact people's survival. Local (and central) government debt is staggering and nations are essentially insolvent. Climate change is an existential threat, but not in the way that we are being told - the next Grand Solar Minimum is the crisis that we need to be preparing for. I urge councillors to start focusing on the 'present' - not a historical past which can't be 'fixed', and also to stop obsessing about the future (at least for a moment).
PRIORITY ONE: Rates to only be spent on delivering robust infrastructure that is essential for life, limb and liberty. That's it.
A vibrant, attractive city is 'nice' . . . but a populated area without affordable access to water, warmth, and food will turn ugly. It's going to be hard and excuses will be made. Socialist-leaning individuals and organisations will play every card in their Marxist handbooks to calamitise the decision-making. But councillors need to ask 'does spending on this item directly support human survival?" If not, the funding needs to be wound down until the currency collapse and financial reset plays out. Ratepayers simply won't have means to pay and we will become prey to globalist interests motivated by greed and social control. I hope Dunedin's strong community spirit will allow us to get through this (and people will divert any righteous anger about funding cuts towards individual and community-led solutions instead). We all need get real about the precarious economic situation that the working and middle class are facing first. Hopefully, the next era of economic wellbeing will be focused on more solid foundations than the debt, derivatives and greed that characterises the present. Once the dust settles, the community will rally to prioritise and sort out the nice-to-haves in the future.
Side-note - I think submissions from ratepayers should be given priority weighting in terms of decision-making by councillors. I find it curious that basically anyone from anywhere in the world could make a submission on this plan. There should be a question that asks whether the submitter is a ratepayer.
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?
Debt as a financial instrument is deservedly dying. I support this measure solely because it limits the amount of debt that can be obtained, which will hopefully constrain projects to focus on basic delivery only.
Do you have any other feedback related to the proposed water services delivery models?
Rates need to focus on services that are essential to life, limb and liberty. That's it. Wind down spending on nonessential services for several years and get the water infrastructure sorted as a priority, so that it is robust, resistant to natural and man-made disasters, and reliable in terms of basic delivery (potable water for sustaining life; safe treatment and disposal of waste water). Stop spending millions on consultants to organise consultations with various 'stakeholders'. Focus on the present and make sure we have a solid and affordable approach to delivering the basics now. And push back on allowing central government to use the water supply to deliver population-wide public health interventions such as fluoride. Let people choose.
Supporting information
No associated documents with this submission.
Submitter
Submission id number: 1132854
Submitter name:
Anna McIntyre
Organisation