Otago Daily Times: Survey shows big swing against stadium
http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/33258/survey-shows-big-swing-against-stadium
Of almost 1400 returns so far, preliminary analysis indicates 73.3% of respondents do not support public funding.
That is a major increase in opposition since a Dunedin City Council telephone survey of 2200 residents early last year showed 62.2% thought it should be built and 51.9% thought the council should help fund it.
That survey, and larger city and regional council mail-out surveys at the time that indicated closer to 40% were prepared to pay for the project, were heavily criticised by stadium opponents, who claimed they gave a skewed result.
The latest survey was sent to 5000 randomly-selected Dunedin homes earlier this month, after Otago University School of Business lecturer Dr John Williams and marketing department lecturer Dr Ben Wooliscroft heeded a call from Stop the Stadium president Bev Butler for a survey.
The pair put together a question they said would be based on “neutral” research, despite the parties involved being unable to agree on facts and figures to be included. The $7000 cost of the survey was raised by donations after both councils refused to fund it.
Asked by the Otago Daily Times for an update yesterday, Dr Williams said raw data showed 70% opposed the stadium. After the data was adjusted to deal with demographic irregularities, adjustments based on information in the last census, that figure increased to 73.3%.
Dr Williams emphasised the results were preliminary, but he would be “very, very surprised” if they changed by more than 1% or 2%.
The results of this survey and the councils’ mail-out surveys were comparable and he had no problems with their methodology.
Asked if he was surprised by the result, he said he was not, as it reflected both his “gut instinct” and conversations with colleagues.
Contacted yesterday, Dunedin Mayor Peter Chin said the council was still working to the conditions set in March that the Carisbrook Stadium Trust had to meet, which included funding and other goals.
The survey question was prefaced by the sentence “considering all that you know about the costs and benefits of the proposed stadium”, and Mr Chin said he, and the public, would not know fully what those were until February, when they would be considered and a decision made.
“We haven’t got all that information.”
He agreed the global financial crisis may have changed people’s views on the issue, but “if the council reacted that way on everything, where is any kind of future planning?”
Stop the Stadium president Bev Butler said she did not believe the results of the previous surveys. She believed a majority had always been opposed to the project. There probably had been an increase, though, because of the financial crisis.
“It’s time the councils listened to the voice of the people, rather than pushing this unwanted stadium,” she said.
Dr Williams said the survey had no deadline, but there were 1000 returns in the first week and 60 on the first day of the second week.
A preliminary report was expected before Christmas.
• THE SURVEY
“Considering all that you know about the costs and benefits of the proposed stadium, please indicate whether you support it. The current proposal is to finance the stadium using money from both private investors (approximately 25%) and also public money (approximately 75%), mainly from rates gathered by the Dunedin City Council and the Otago Regional Council.”
Respondents were asked to tick boxes marked “yes“, “no” or “undecided” to the question: Do you support the proposal to finance the Otago Stadium using public money?
The rest of the survey asked for personal information, including whether respondents were ratepayers, their gender, age, employment, education and income.
November 26th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Now is the time for the DCC and ORC to listen to the peoples voices that they do not want this stadium.
November 26th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Mayor Peter Chin’s comments in response to the survey fool no one.It is business as usual for the wealthy, self interested people pushing this project. The overwhelming number of Dunedin/Otago people against the stadium are being held in contempt.
Make no mistake,Peter Chin, anger is boiling in the community and you are ultimately responsible, as Mayor of Dunedin, to unite the community, not divide it. This is about leadership for the many over the few.
Peter Attwooll
November 27th, 2008 at 12:19 am
Peter, a strong majority of the people who responded to this survey oppose this development, not the majority of the public, don’t confuse the two issues. Considering we are talking about 1400 surveys returned, and considering I know not one person who was sent the survey, like all survey’s they are a snap shot of the people surveyed not the total population.
Also I wonder what the response will be in 2011 when the stadium is built, people have gone to a concert and Rugby World Cup matches, with the prospect of Football U20 world cup matches the following year, and low and behold the sky hasn’t fallen in. What would a survey response show then?
November 27th, 2008 at 9:08 am
Paul - I think that many people will not be able to even afford to go to the stadium should it go ahead - that is the real issue here.
December 2nd, 2008 at 8:59 am
And Jan many people will. I can’t afford to take my kids to the Butterflies at the Museum, that’s not a reason for it to have not gone ahead, it’s still a wonderful asset for the city.
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:59 pm
I would have to agree with Jan yes many people will not be able to afford to go the the stadium if it dose go a head or buy season tickets as well for the stadium.
December 7th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Hey Paul
You trot off to concerts all over the country but you can’t afford to take your kids to the butterflies at the museum ?????????
December 8th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
Caz,
The concert ticket was a gift from my wife for birthday, the flights were air points and the accommodation was with brother, sum total sod all.
The difference being, that it is incredibly expensive nationally let alone internationally to go to the Dunedin Museum’s discovery place. Doesn’t mean we don’t go to the rest of the museum more or less every other day, there’s a hell of a lot there to see and do for free.
Answer your question.
December 10th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Paul said “…The difference being, that it is incredibly expensive nationally let alone internationally to go to the Dunedin Museum’s discovery place…”
which is precisely my point Paul about going to any type of event that may be held at the proposed stadium - it will be incredibly expensive. After all, the powers that be will want to try and make money somehow because the stadium overheads will be sky high. The Butterfly House at the Museum is either $10 or $15 a ticket (I can’t quite remember the exact cost but it was something like that). You can bet your boots ticket prices at the proposed stadium will be a lot more than that!
December 13th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
I would have to agree with Jan on tickets for proposed stadium would be very expensive also the same for season tickets as well the price for season tickets at the proposed stadium would be about the same price as flight up to Hamilton.
December 15th, 2008 at 10:00 am
Jan “it will be incredibly expensive” You know this as a fact, or assumption. Besides which, I would prioritise my discretional spending for sporting events and the like at the stadium over an overpriced butterfly show.
the difference Jan is, that each time I fork out the $10-$15 (which doesn’t include the kids), I get the same show. If I was to attend a football match there, that would be considerable different to if I was to attend a rugby match there, likewise a concert (which would be upwards of $75+).
How can you people speculate what the price will be, when you have no way to assume what it will be? My suggestion that tickets for a season pass (I’m assuming you’re talking rugby?) will be 50c. Because if you’re making wild assumptions based on no figures just pure negative conjecture, then I am allowed to be wildly optimistic too. See how silly it sounds when you play this game. Until you know the figures there is no way or point in playing the oversimplified negative speculation game.
Finally, what’s the lotto numbers going to be this week, you guys seem to know the numbers before they are out?
My grumble with the Museum and it’s pricing has nothing to do with the stadium, it stems from 7 months in Vancouver last year, where for less then the price of two admissions to the Aquarium I was able to get a a year long family pass (with a complimentary Adult ticket). This was the same for the Science Museum. Yet to get an annual pass for the Museum here is more expensive than a rugby season pass - now that’s just ludicrous.
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:01 pm
This website is practically dead given the current lack of comments and the imposed moderation before a posting features - it used to be vibrant and community orientated. The recent entries are not comprehensive in terms of all the media references to the stadium available in any one week. And no-one appears to be managing the appearance and content of the front page. A disaster. If you want a stadium…the website is surely helping in the absence of a visible campaign.
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:03 pm
That’s weird…maybe the site isn’t moderated before posting, it certainly appeared that way on the weekend as my post back then did not appear. I will reissue it later today, it’s with regard to Bill English’s comments in Saturday’s ODT 20.11.08.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Oh the site is moderated - what a great disincentive for everyone to participate.
December 22nd, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Comments are moderated and will continue to be moderated.
This is due to two main reasons, 1. that many comments received in the past have been abusive or actionable, and 2. there is a danger of spam comments.
As the site is maintained by volunteer labour, comments sometimes take a little while to be processed.
December 23rd, 2008 at 12:36 am
Giving people some rope might be conducive to restoring activity here on the website, which is better than nothing. It’s called restoring trust.
Then too, I understand the trials of the past, not only on the website but for the society as a whole in view of governance.
Perhaps the best thing to do is ensure website entries are vibrant and timely and a dribble of posts from other people will ensue. Good luck. But the front page still needs work - thinning, pruning and information on where Stop the Stadium Inc is going now.
Let’s hear what the executive are doing and planning, and what sort of help they need from members.
The executive have a responsibility to keep members informed as well as the general public with an interest in stadium affairs.
Another public march (well and good) before the council meeting(s) is hardly turning the tide on Dunedin businesses who are signing up for seats and corporate boxes. But will they be able to pay for them later we ask??? Contracts can be broken.
Why hasn’t Stop the Stadium’s executive been meeting with the Otago Chamber, professional groups and business houses to get the message across that the stadium is unaffordable for Dunedin City. If STS has any grip on the facts and figures, for goodness sake SHARE THEM - WIDELY while you eyeball people in a trustworthy proper manner.
This takes leadership, integrity, persuasion and insightfulness, not a barrage of mail to the Ombudsman’s office or the councils’ executives.
Avoiding going into dialogue with the groups of people in this city finding the money to support the stadium is almost risible. Hello STS.
Perhaps you (STS) could direct their charity and good faith into supporting, for example, the public hospital system, finding accommodation for Dunedin’s homeless or regular donations to the foodbank - in the same way Mercy Hospital’s charity has paid for children’s ear operations. Being charitable, approachable and of good character - rather than some harem scarem activist executive - has its charms, and holds the potential for positive trade-offs.
Where for example, is the update on provisional results from the independent survey - someone said on the weekend that the results show 95% against the public funding of the stadium. The last I heard it was &5% so can the higher figure be real. The website could feature an interview with the marketing lecturers updating the facts.
I will quit for a while and hope that others come back to give their thoughts on their chosen subjects.
December 23rd, 2008 at 12:39 am
Nearly gone.
Second last bit should read:
The last I heard it was 75% so can the higher figure be real. The website could feature an interview with the marketing lecturers updating the facts.
December 23rd, 2008 at 2:54 pm
I also posted two short items which were supposedly ‘moderated’.
One can only assume ‘moderated-to-death’ as no trace has been seen of
them on this site. They were constructive attempts to put in front of members two aspects of the proposed Stadium which have not yet been aired by anyone else, one of which was possible competition with the ‘Edgar Centre’ for Court-based Sports, a reference to a recent ODT
item which said that International Netball fixtures could possibly be held
in future at the Stadium. I asked as to what members felt about the possibility of two ‘lame-duck’ sports venues in the city. It was couched
in the most moderate terms possible, and made no mention of personalities whatever. However, it ‘evaporated’ into thin-air, it seems.
So, honestly, what’s the point in my contributing further?
Ian Smith
December 24th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Please don’s stop, Ian. Your essays are brilliant, and you are able to pen many of the ideas I’ve had and all the things I wish I’d thought of - but didn’t.
Don’t know what is going on, probably due to the silly season -
Just know that for every piece you write, there are a bunch of us out here thinking, ‘wow, I couldn’t have said it better!’
Keep up the good work, and happy holidays.
=)
December 26th, 2008 at 11:19 am
If you’ll allow me another bite at the cherry, I’d like to underline my
concerns about court-based sports being siphoned-off to make the
Stadium look better than it is. We currently have the Edgar Centre
operating, I would suppose efficiently, as a base for court-based sports
in Dunedin. It also has the advantage of being enclosed and independent of Dunedin’s weather. I noticed, some time ago, that a
large hoarding in support of the Stadium featured a game of either basketball or netball being played at the Stadium, a projection, I would surmise, that netball/basketball fixtures will might possibly be played there in the even of the Stadium going ahead.
I have heard no expressions of discontent about the Edgar Centre, and it appears to be well-patronised. But ‘Internationals’ were quoted
recently in the O.D.T. as a possibility for the Stadium. Those can only be
held there by relocation from the Edgar Centre; I very much doubt that
the presence of a Stadium will bring more International matches to Dunedin than we obtain now; so it would appear to me that the most
lucrative potential business fo the Edgar Centre will be lost in favour
of making the Stadium look as ‘multi-function’ as possible.
Further, I don’t think a netball court plonked down in the middle of a
Rugby field offers anything like the ‘ambience’ or immediacy of these matches when held in a venue better suited to seating everyone closer to the ‘action’. The playing surface would have to be of a high standard
to satisfy requirements and minimise the chance of injury to the players
and I cannot see this being possible with a surface which would, obviously, have to be laid-down in sections.
Does anyone else see the issue this way?
December 26th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
Yes, Ian, I agree - I think that any type of sport (except, perhaps for rugby) would suffer from being held in the ‘arena’ setting of the proposed stadium. I queried the CST about the supposed uses of the stadium, as indicated on their web site - namely the non-turfed uses (swimming, netball, ice hockey, concerts) as well as ‘turfed’ (equestrian and junior league) events.
My concern was - what would it do to the grass on the playing field ? Laying down a wooden plank floor for netball or concerts would surely compromise the turf, as would a portable swimming pool or ice rink. Horse-riding on the turf would surely necessitate grass replacement not to mention a clean-up of the poo on the playing field.
As time ticks down, there will probably be more and greater focus on the multi-function aspects - however I don’t think very many people are buying into the arguments.
I am skeptical that prospective users (renters of the stadium) could afford the extra fees associated with turf coverage and replacement. I reckon just one afternoon or evening of ice hockey on the turf would create a huge replacement expense - and what team or league is going to go along with that?
Does it seem odd that these types of costs are never brought up when the multi-functionality flag is raised?
In a nutshell, once again Ian, you are on the spot. This is just another example of creative promotion. We already have perfectly fine facilities for a large number of the event (and sport) uses the CST is pitching for the stadium.
I believe they call it ‘grasping at straws…’