Get a mop and wipe it up!

Other Reasons Not To Spend $1billion+ on a Waterfront Stadium

, posted: 16-Nov-2006 10:42

Bob Clarkson (MP for Tauranga) estimates $1,800,000,000 for a 60,000 seat stadium on the waterfront. He should have a better idea than most, having built a stadium before! There is a continual battle between residents who move into an area, that already has a long-established noisy activity (such as speedway, industry, cafes, airport, motorway, etc), and proceeding to complain vociferously about the noise or lights. Despite being the newcomers. Turning down the Eden Park upgrade will only encourage such people further, and jeopardise similar ventures (not named, to avoid giving people ideas). Having spent all that money on a "national" stadium, the govt and the rest of the country will be even more begrudging about any further large projects in Auckland requiring taxpayer funding. Such as urgent roading networks, or electricity generation and transmission. (Incidentally, no local Maori should have any prior claims on the land being considered for a waterfront stadium, for one simple reason -- that land was not reclaimed until long after 1840.) There have been no figures presented demonstrating the on-going need for a 60,000 seat stadium. How many times in the last 10 years has Eden Park been full to capacity? No details are forth-coming of who is paying the bill. Those are our taxes that Labour is perched on, and it is not an attractive proposition to see potential tax cuts being squandered on a monument to St Helen or Trev (Mallard) that the majority of Aucklanders do not want. What I would like to see is a poll along these lines. Which of these options would you prefer: - a national stadium on the Auckland waterfront, - an upgraded Eden Park, and a toll-free western ring motorway, or - a second grandstand at Albany, and a cut in business and personal taxes across all of NZ?

Other related posts:
Surf Life Saving Flags at Long Bay could be Killers
Open Letter to Minister of Police: Don't Lower "Ticketing" Speed Limits
5 Reasons Why You Should Hear Christopher Monckton

Comment by freitasm, on 16-Nov-2006 11:03

It seems Labour wants to give people Bread and Circus, instead of focusing on actual issues.

What about a better traffic management and motorways for Auckland? Or the Transmission Gully for Wellington? No, their priority is on a stadium...

It seems to me Labour wants to leave something big that people can later rename "Helen Clark Stadium".

Comment by juha, on 16-Nov-2006 11:27

To be fair to everyone, New Zealand should not host any RWC games in the country. Not build a waterfront stadium, not upgrade Eden Park, not play games in ChCh either. That way there'd be no begrudging anywhere.

Well, might annoy some people when the Aussies get all the games, but...

Nice to see Burqa Bob has something else on his mind than muslims and pooves.

Author's note by dmw, on 16-Nov-2006 13:30

Here are links where you can provide feedback to the Auckland Regional Council and the Auckland City Council

What is particularly disturbing is the lack of detail for where the money is coming from. So the bigger the project, the bigger the risk of cost overrun, the bigger the temptation to use taxpayer funds to bail it out.

Comment by steveo, on 16-Nov-2006 23:23

How people can hoesntly believe the crap that is coming out of the den park camp is beyond me. 1 billion dollars for a stadium that size? Stadium australia didnt even cost $700m NZD, its insiane. Auckland will never be a world class city be no one has any vision, it will always be the poor cousin to sydney! Whenever we have a chance to do something great, auckland blows it. well done! We can all look foward to anouther 100 years with eden park along with the lack of events and congestion problems that come it it.

Comment by Ropati, on 18-Nov-2006 17:08

Stadium Cost: Locality: Transport:

The best way to settle the cost debate is for the Govt. to offer only to provide fast access e.g. wider footpaths, bus parking, rail to the door, and throw stadium costruction & management over to private enterprise. If no one takes it up you know it was a dead duck from the start.

Anything any government, local or central builds always costs 3 times as much as others could do it.

Much as I dislike Eden Park in its present form it is the best option given the time constraints.

And it is the parochial heartland of Auckland rugby.

The savings made by revamping Eden Park (over other options) would build a rail link from the airport to Newmarket.

Buy more land nearby, e.g. a school & a few old houses & construct multi-story car park with coach parking underneath. Park & rides dotted around the city ring route would reduce car numbers.

Then of course there's the Sir Barry Curtis option at Wiri. Why is this not on the list?

I'll answer that.

We are being cleverly manipulated, first with the tempting offer of the money to build.

That got us talking...but, true to Aucklands form, not agreeing.

So then came the threat of losing it...agree or it goes to Jade Stadium.

So those against the waterfront option began to weaken...well we don't want to lose it, we'd never live it down.

Stand firm against the waterfront on cost alone but push your local government to see the wider opportunities for improved infrastructure as part of any other option.

Add a comment

Please note: comments that are inappropriate or promotional in nature will be deleted. E-mail addresses are not displayed, but you must enter a valid e-mail address to confirm your comments.

Are you a registered Geekzone user? Login to have the fields below automatically filled in for you and to enable links in comments. If you have (or qualify to have) a Geekzone Blog then your comment will be automatically confirmed and placed in the moderation queue for the blog owner's approval.

Your name:

Your e-mail:

Your webpage:

dmw's profile

David White
New Zealand

Goon fan, .NET developer, contrarian seeker of truth