Remark
Despite all the talk of courage and leadership over a stadium, a trio of Wāhine councilors said it best, writes David Williams
Opinion: Name them – Melanie Coker, Sara Templeton and Celeste Donovan. But don’t judge them.
They are the three dissidents, the Christchurch city councilors who voted against finding another $150 million to fund a stadium, Te Kaha, which, as it stands, will cost $683 million.
The drum roll of the business and sporting elite has been beating for weeks and demands the green light from council members. Some have made a public commitment.
Take, for example, mayoral candidate Phil Mauger, who on June 16 in a slick Facebook video reversed his previous opinion to put the project on hold. “We can’t do without this stadium, we have to have it. So let’s move on.”
Others were not so open, but made their pro-stadium views known.
James Gough praised an “excellent” op-ed by Press columnist Mike Yardley, asking if Christchurch, “the sports capital of NZ” is a mundane metropolitan backwater†
And on the eve of the first All Blacks test against Ireland, at Eden Park in Auckland, Aaron Keown wrote: “You wish NZ’s second largest city had a stadium big enough to host. If you want the stadium to go ahead, make a submission.”
During yesterday’s pivotal city council meeting, which at one time was watched online by about 1,200 people, councilors were faced with three options: green-light the costs, pause or cancel the project.
Mayor Lianne Dalziel warned councilors not to pre-determine their decision, urging them to take in the hours of briefing material with an open mind. But many people thought the vote was a foregone conclusion.
Much will be written about the views of the 13 councilors who voted in favour, which is fair considering they were in the majority.
(It’s a turning point for five “thrifty” councilors—Mauger, Gough, Keown, Sam MacDonald, and Catherine Chu—who have a last desperate attempt to put a brake on a $300 million bike path program and call for cuts in personnel costs.)
At a game of stadium bingo, many of the comments were predictable: about keeping promises, the people of Christchurch who had spoken, and the need to get on with the work.
The danger of summarizing Donovan, Templeton and Coker’s views is that they will be written off as naysayers or insomniacs. Doubters with no civic pride, who ignored pleas from other councilors to be brave.
However, that would overlook the nuance and thoughtfulness of their arguments.
Coker, who has a PhD in biochemistry, represents the Spreydon district, in the south of the city. She said many of the people she spoke to — the silent majority — had not submitted entries. They feel that the congregation is not listening to them.
“I listened and I heard you,” she told the meeting.
Many people she spoke to had fixed incomes and were concerned about rate increases to cover the additional debt for the stadium. The predicted peak of annual tariff increases is 8.5 percent, in three years.
“I’m afraid the fares will come down for those who can’t even afford the ticket price to go there.”
While the economics of sports stadiums don’t add up, Coker was willing to admit that the lack of economic gain could be made up for by eventsa sense of civic pride and a boost to investor confidence.
But is the smell of economic returns worth the risk?
Fare payers she spoke to felt the city should try to live within its means, rather than borrow more. Perhaps the stadium can be scaled down?
There were other, higher priorities, Coker was told, such as repairing roads, community projects like swimming pools, spending on transportation and water infrastructure, climate change and moving a smelly organic factory.
The day before the vote, councilors were told that the contract had a fixed price. But even low risk can occur, Coker said.
“There are people in construction who think this is too good to be true.”
A city like Christchurch, which had to build a new sports stadium due to earthquake damage, knew a thing or two about unforeseen costs. Or foreseeable costs such as rising interest rates.
Uncertain financial times are coming. Coker said it is not a good time to bring the council’s finances so close to debt limits.
“While I want to see a new stadium in Christchurch, I cannot support it today,” said Coker. “The risks are too great, the price has gone too far.”
Templeton is a councilor for the Heathcote ward – which stretches from Sydenham to Sumner – who shot at national fame for exposing an online troll.
At yesterday’s meeting, she wasn’t afraid to take on the sacred cow of New Zealand sport. Rugby prefers to be tenants of a new stadium, she said. Or, as with the upfront cost for All Blacks gamesthe sport will charge the city for the privilege of coming to play.
“And that leaves us with service or project discounts or asset sales that already suggested†
Yesterday’s decision ties the next council to additional debt with no plan to pay for it, she said. “We know that raising rates is unpalatable. We can ask others to pay, but any contribution from neighboring districts will be small compared to the cost of the overruns.”
Templeton questioned the benefits for businesses.
The economic return is questionable, estimated at 86 cents for every dollar spent. While taxpayers will pay nearly $30 million a year on the stadium, that’s revenue that isn’t spent on local businesses.
If residents pay for libraries and water pipes, they get daily access. But to attend an event at the stadium, you have to pay a fee to a private company.
“It’s a clear case of privatizing the profits and socializing the costs.”
Templeton says the city deserves a great stadium, which she describes as the final piece in the puzzle of rebuilding the city from the earthquake. The plans are stunning and exceptional, she says, but “we don’t need to lavish” and the investment is too risky.
There is also the opportunity cost. She said the $150 million cost overrun would pay for the entire cost of the city’s public transportation infrastructure for a decade, and central city shuttle service.
“We must continue to invest in our communities and adapt to the sea and groundwater rising next to and below the city. These will not come cheap, but they are essential if we are to become a sustainable city of the 21st century and not a relic of the past.”
Templeton closed with a parting shot at colleagues.
Many people did not bother to discuss Te Kaha because they felt the council had already made a decision – “influenced by public statements from the people around the table”.
“The erosion of trust in council processes must be paramount as we go into the next term.”
Donovan, a former Green Party staffer in parliament, is the city’s most recent councilor, having won the by-election last year in the city’s east coast district, from Spencerville to Southshore.
She spoke yesterday about understanding the urge to move forward with the stadium, given the amount of talk over the past decade and little action.
“We also know that because something feels good — or is politically easy — it isn’t right.”
Donovan declared himself a rugby fan and pro stadium. But she, too, seemed to have a crack in the rugby union – which admitted to mobilizing thousands of members to make entries about the stadium.
“Many of those who have so far refused to contribute financially to the stadium have told us that we need to show leadership,” Donovan said, tapping the table. There’s a saying, she said, if you’re in a hole, stop digging.
“Leadership means looking at who benefits and who pays. This means balancing the feel-good factors against the harsh realities our communities face.”
The extra $150 million won’t matter much to the vast majority of Christchurch residents, Donovan said.
“No stadium does that. Private company, unwilling to dive into its own pockets, is the winner.”
To those grumbling about the possibility of councilors pausing the stadium project or, God forbid, canceling the stadium project, Donovan said people in the east of the city are still waiting for earthquake repairs, and the city had a duty to do so. to prepare for future shocks, such as climate change, more earthquakes and economic risks.
“It’s just not good enough to kick the proverbial can down the road to future generations.”
She’s pro stadium, but at a different price burst. “We have to create the best stadium that we can be proud of, where it’s not about doing more, but about doing the basics right.”
Risky or calculated?
The trio know that they can pay very well for their opposition in this year’s municipal elections. Against the city’s most popular consultation in over a decade, draw 30,000 entrieswill likely sideline them with much of society.
Or will it?
Donovan, Templeton and Coker are clearly encouraged by talking to people in their communities, and may have calculated that the silent majority are with them or don’t care. On the other hand, they might mind their rates going up, and the trio will be given the honor of voting against.
Perhaps the public will appreciate the criticism of the vigorous rugby lobby, which ran the Trump-esque line during the meeting that a “multi-use arena” – not a rugby stadium, you see – would “make Ōtautahi whole again”.
Maybe, just maybe, exercising your judgment and standing up for your principles, and being willing to be unpopular is exactly the kind of leadership that the public values and Christchurch needs.