How city councilors voted on the Christchurch $683 million stadium proposal continues to create division as some say a “deliberately misleading” social media post creates a “toxic discussion” online.
The post shared by councilors Phil Mauger, James Gough, Sam Macdonald and Aaron Keown says “Te Kaha (Canterbury multi-use arena) will be built!”. It is followed by a table of those who “voted for”, “voted against” and “declared conflict”.
Sara Templeton, Celeste Donovan and Melanie Coker – the only three councilors who voted against spending an additional $150 million on the stadium — saying it suggests they were against building a stadium, not its cost. .
“The vote was not about whether or not to build the stadium, it was about whether or not to spend the additional $150 million,” Templeton said.
READ MORE:
* Work is already underway on the three city blocks set aside for Christchurch Stadium
* Party politics: a blessing or a curse for local government?
* The $50 Million Hole: Chasing the Money to Build Christchurch’s New Stadium
A majority of commentators on the posts congratulated Mauger, Gough, Macdonald and Keown, but some attacked Templeton and Donovan, with Templeton specifically calling them “crazy,” “pungent” and “stupid.”
“It’s really disappointing,” Templeton said.
The dissenting councilors always knew their votes on such a “controversial issue” would draw heat on both sides, but Templeton emailed those sharing the post on Saturday asking them to take down the misleading image, she said.
Donovan agreed that they should delete the post and apologize.
“It’s important that in any discussion of a very emotional topic for a lot of people, we just stick to the facts… We’re all aware that the debate was around the extra $150 million, it wasn’t a for or against a stadium.”
CHRIS SKELTON/Things
Christchurch City Councilor Sara Templeton voted against spending an additional $150 million on the city’s new stadium.
She said councilors had a responsibility to fairly represent their own views and those of others.
“They really let themselves down there, and I think that fuels a very toxic discussion.
“We all know that social media tends to lean towards the negative and I think they should be aware of that when they’re posting those posts.”
Coker said it could be seen as a “political stunt with the election in mind”.
“They’re trying to polarize the public in some way.”
She was “not too fussed” about the social media post, but agreed that it didn’t reflect that no one was against the stadium, “we are against the cost of this one”.
stuff
Shared on social media, this image shows the distribution of councilors’ votes on the Christchurch stadium proposal.
She hadn’t worried about what it would mean for the council’s debt limits three years from now.
On Saturday, mayoral candidate Phil Mauger said he saw the post and thought “it just said how people voted”.
“I don’t want to do my best to piss people off, I’m not. I haven’t read my emails, but I’ll check it out and I’ll…if it upsets people I’ll definitely get rid of it.”
After reading some comments, he later agreed “that’s not a flash”.
“But Sara has been against the stadium for a while. When we voted to go from 25,000 seats to 35,000 seats, I think she was the only one who voted against. So she’s been consistent, and I really take my hat off to her, because she follows what she believes in.”
The message was still on his page on Sunday afternoon.
Gough said he was not aware of derogatory comments made on his post and that he would usually remove inappropriate comments if warned.
CHRIS SKELTON/Things
Christchurch councilor James Gough says he would remove inappropriate comments from his social media if he knew about it.
He thought it was an appropriate “way of responding to community interest in this issue” and would not remove it.
Claims it was misleading were “complete semantics,” he said.
Macdonald said his graphic designer created the image and shared it “to be open and transparent” about an important topic.
“There’s nothing evil about it.”
He hadn’t seen anything poisonous come out of it and wouldn’t remove it.
Innes Ward candidate Ali Jones stuck to her decision to share the “factually correct” post, saying that records of elected members’ decisions were important for democracy.
CHRIS SKELTON/Things
Council candidate Ali Jones says it is important to record the decisions of elected members.
In a statement on Facebook, she said it had “provoked a very positive and intelligent conversation from a range of people”.
“It has also seen appalling and insulting reactions from people who have posted messages in support of the councilors who voted against the resolution.”
stuff The reports were pointed out by a taxpayer who was concerned that those who voted against were being abused online as a result of sexist and derogatory terms.
For example, they said they saw a comment that said “what would you expect from women when it comes to sports”.