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?
Nostalgic as we (the performing arts community) may be for the heyday of Fortune Theatre, 231 Stuart Street will never again be a viable arts venue. It is simply too small, too constrained (layout), inaccessible, and poses too many health / safety issues (rising damp). Keeping it as a strategic asset, when there is no clear vision for its development, makes no sense. And its listing as a Category 1 Heritage site ensures that nothing dire can happen to the space if it is sold for re-development.
We wish to strongly tautoko Stage South's recommendation that 231 Stuart Street be removed from this list and sold for sympathetic development. The building was purchased by DCC to support professional theatre in Dunedin, and its sale must be flagged -- in all good conscience -- to the same end. All profits from this sale must be ring-fenced exclusively for performing arts infrastructure, specifically the similarly protected Category 1 Athenaeum site. It is already a thriving arts hub with a sustainable plan and clear intentions for 21c upgrades to support the arts community. We leave it to the experts at DCC to determine how city investment in a private property is best managed, but this vital support would at least fulfil part of Council's derelict commitment to support the arts community.
We also tautoko Stage South's recommendation that DCC develop Sammy's as part of its Music Action Plan. And if it cannot or will not, that the derelict property likewise be sold for sympathetic development, with all profits directed toward the creation of a suitable music space in the Athenaeum.
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?
We are not opposed to the principle of an entry fee for adult international visitors, but urge Council to consider a lower fee to ensure that droves of visitors are not deterred from experiencing these taonga spaces. As former tourists to NZ (now proud citizens), we can attest to the mental "block" between a $10 vs $20 fee. From our own experience, we can assure you that many more international visitors will opt for a $10 entry fee, while a $20 fee will be enough to dissuade large numbers (especially when you start multiplying that figure by couples, groups, etc). We want to see these invaluable spaces supported, while not excluding travellers who are wary of added expenses as they tour our beautiful but pricey (by world comparison) country. And we have some concerns as to how NZ residents will prove their eligibility for free entry, as that begins to smack of "show us your papers". Still in favour of the general idea, but a word of caution re: cost and implementation.
Is there anything else you would like to tell us?
Arts are not a “nice to have”. We are the vital, beating heart of a healthy, participatory democracy. Council have kicked this can down the road for almost a decade. We have wasted precious time and money on aspirational briefs, biz-speak consultations, and post-it note vision boards — producing lofty policy documents that translate to grossly insufficient support for our dwindling artistic community. Investment in our artists and their spaces must be made NOW, before the heart of Ōtepoti Dunedin withers and dies.
If you have not read the submission by Rosella Hart, please do so now. [And if you have, please do so again. Seriously.] She captures in plain speech the dire state of artists with “boots on the ground” (vs corporate consultant visions), and calls out Council’s reticence to make the difficult but vital choice to invest in the city’s artists and infrastructure. We particularly support her proposal to fund people before places. This is not Field of Dreams, where “if you build it they will come”. A new Performing Arts Venue — while vital! — will ultimately sit vacant unless Council also makes a substantial investment in Dunedin’s remaining artists. To say nothing of luring future residents to town with a vibrant arts scene, which other cities in NZ do demonstrably better.
Similarly, please (re-)read Stage South’s compelling submission, advocating for the restoration of the $17.1m in capex for a PAV from the last long term plan. It is indeed “appalling” that a UNESCO City of Literature cannot or will not support its artists and infrastructure. [For a city of this size and with a reputation as NZ’s heritage capital, we were truly embarrassed when colleagues from across the motu came to perform here in recent festivals!] We strongly tautoko their proposal to redirect 10% of the proposed stadium subsidy for attraction to destination events to an operational budget for Te Whare o Rukutia, and to the Playhouse (a vital arts incubator which nearly burned down when we plugged in low-consumption LED bulbs). And we second that the Mayfair will never be fit for purpose or culturally responsive to our diverse communities. We’ll further advocate not just for preservation but an increase to PTF funds: these have been static over the past 7 years (while production costs have skyrocketed), and only support ~5 projects at sub-par levels each year. This dearth is further compounded by Council’s preference to give everyone a slice of the pie, allocating lesser amounts to all applicants on the assumption that “something is better than nothing” (vs making actual choices to support high-quality projects).
Make no mistake: we are painfully aware of the cost of living crisis, the increase in costs to Council services, and the general outcry over rates increases or public debt. Our income consists of a disability payment and minimal arts contracts (always at sub-par fees that would shock anyone on an annual salary); and if it weren’t for rates rebates and public health, we’d have lost our home in recent years. We absolutely appreciate that Council cannot magic money out of thin air. But it is their responsibility to provide essential services to their constituents. And even in a time of fiscal constraint, ARTS ARE ESSENTIAL (not a luxury).
I’ll reserve for the hearings my overview as to how arts (in particular, theatre) have functioned for millennia at the heart of any civilised society. But I will append a DRAFT OF A FEATURE ARTICLE that I was recently commissioned to write for Playmarket Annual (a national publication with international readership), about the current state of professional theatre in our city. It is an objective account that has been thoroughly fact-checked with all contributors, yet it paints a dire and embarrassing picture of our arts support and strategies. A very bright spotlight is about to be shone on southern artists. Council can continue to abrogate their civic duty; or they can choose to purposefully INVEST now in artists and spaces for the good of our entire city.
[We also strongly tautoko the planned completion of Te Awa Ōtākou / Peninsula Connection in the proposed order during Years 2, 3, and 4 of the draft plan. These are essential improvements for safety and to mitigate climate change which benefit the entire city (as OP residents, we can attest to the sheer volume of users each day). They also represent a clear commitment to mana whenua which must be upheld.]
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?
As with Aurora, it is essential that Council maintain effective, streamlined control over public assets. Even if a CCO would be indirectly guided by Council, the added layer of bureaucracy -- as well as the potential for even more public debt -- is a larger detractor than the minimally higher water rates of the in-house model. We feel Council has fully explored the viable options, and concur with their preferred choice.
Do you have any other feedback related to the proposed water services delivery models?
Supporting information
Submitter
Submission id number: 1132875
Submitter name:
Dr Kimberly Morgan
Organisation
Dunedin Summer Shakespeare (and) Hic Sunt Dracones Productions