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?
Is there anything else you would like to tell us?
1) Councillors have urged cyclists to lobby them to reallocate money to new cycleways. I do not support Councillors using rate-payers money to urging their favoured social group to lobby for Councillors to spend money on them. Cycleways are not shared pathways so exclude other users. I do not support expenditure of a resource intended to exclude the majority of users forced to pay for it *by design*.
2) The Otago Peninsula Community Board is fearful Council will switch out road safety improvements in favour of more populist spending. I fully support expenditure to improve the safety of the road for the remaining length of the Peninsula.
See attached document for further comments.
Local Water Done Well feedback
Which water services delivery model do you support?
Why did you choose this option?
I have not chosen an option because there is inadequate information about the option Council does not prefer to be able to make an informed choice.
The absence of information means I also *do not* support the planned Smooth Hill landfill, although for additional reasons such as the absence of need to burden rate-payers with the cost of building a “state of the art” facility when one that is effective is all that is required. The location may have been suitable last century, but is not suitable in this one. The claim rate-payers preference for retaining Aurora means they wish to retain ownership of a landfill plainly does not apply because Aurora was an income generating asset, while rubbish disposal is a liability.
Rubbish disposal is an activity common to all Councils and therefore suitable for combined solutions. I support a genuine investigation into the use of facilities built by other Councils instead. Noting this does not abdicate responsibility to others for our waste, it utilises existing facilities developed for the sole purpose of processing waste, and welcoming of rubbish from other sources.
Do you have any other feedback related to the proposed water services delivery models?
Supporting information
Submitter
Submission id number: 1132867
Submitter name:
Karen Anderson
Organisation
n/a