The Great Property Sale
From the agenda for yesterday's Community Development meeting (less than ably chaired by a particularly Diva-devoted Nicki Higgie, as reported over at CouncilWatch) comes this little gem - the minutes of the Tupoho Working Party meeting on June 15.
We wonder if it should even have been included in the public copies of the Community Development agenda because the agenda for the working party notes that the "Sale of Council Properties" item was "taken in confidence for protection of information" (which, by the way, is not a legitimate reason for secrecy under the LGOIMA - a reason for protecting the information must be stated).
There seems no doubt that the Diva wants to flog off around 90 properties and that finding the $2.5m promised to his splash centre mates is getting desperate.
About 60 of the properties potentially for the chop are either Harbour or City Endowment and this report says the proceeds of any sales of those properties have to be reinvested in more property.
So why is Kevin Ross saying (in the second-to-last paragraph) that "some [presumably harbour endowment] sites have a river view and council may be put under pressure to sell"? Pressure from whom? Perhaps the same source that Nicki told artists was applying "some push from within Council" to sell "a little bit" of the Sarjeant's collection.
Of the remaining 30 or so properties that are not endowment it seems there's a fair number of reserves. The Diva's meister plan is no doubt to drive all the sporting bodies into the Springvale sports stadium so he can flog off the likes of Wembley Park and the Gonville hockey grounds. But the reserves are one of the features that make Wanganui so attractive.
Has someone told Winston of his mentor's plans? NZ First policy is to "actively discourage local councils from selling off key strategic assets". Instead, public assets should be "commercially managed in the public interest and ownership". He's even going to specifically "review the process of local government sales of infrastructure assets". Hey Winston, how about starting that review in Wanganui?!
Interesting also that Ken Mair apparently wants further meetings "to discuss concepts Iwi may wish to process further and to look at each property individually". Ken has made clear the Iwi are not amused by the Diva wanting to flog off properties under treaty claim (pdf file).
And since there's also trouble brewing over his aversion to a Maori ward (and his tactic of putting it on the referendum, thus letting the racists have a field day) and the H in Whanganui, it seems unlikely the Iwi will be keen to see a Great Property Sale. So interesting times lie ahead.
Still, given that property developers are renowned for their aesthetic sensibility, we're sure the infill housing on previously publicly-owned land will look just lovely.
Comments on this post are now closed.
91 comments:
So if the splash cash isn't likely to be flowing from property sales anytime soon, and hell will freeze over before it comes from the Sarjeant artworks, just how is the Diva going to keep his old mate Unsworth happy?
That's the same John Unsworth who was quoted in the good old River City Press back in June as saying "the council" had committed $2.5 million over two years to the Diva's favourite swimming pool, with $1.25 million available from July 1.
So if it was in that august organ River City Press it must be true, mustn't it??
But wait, that was July 1 2005 they were talking about, wasn't it??
NOTE TO DEBBIE AT RCP: Engage brain before mindlessly printing Diva spin. How about asking some (non) controversial questions like "you wouldn't be pulling my tit, would you, Spin Fairy?". Even "nice" newspapers ask questions sometimes.
Selling public assets?
I wonder how Mickey intends sleazing that one past the minister. Surely section 140 of the LGA applies
Meanwhile, back at the port:
Isn't it time someone asked what happend to all the do-re-me that flowed out of the council and into the Ocean Terminals dry-dock under the inglorious reign of our almost-late unlamented CEO?
We can ask, but since the companies involved are private, and Council dropped the ball, what chance do you suppose we have of getting an answer?
They won't even tell us what they spent $30k on Auckland architects for. The sooner Whitlock goes the better.
Why was GK and Laws having a heated discussion the other day at council? Could it be over the Splash cash?
Well, we could hazard a guess where the $800k for the airport losses is going.
I am very concerned at how these anon posts are happening. They are creating unsubstantiated rumours and I've heard some vile ones lately.
Let's have a rule here: you give dates/times/facts and some corroborative proof. LawsWatch is turning into a cesspit because of the troll posters.
"...because for Mr Murray to approve of political attacks or intrusions into a politician's family space
What a load of crap. You've obviously been drinking too much of the Coonawara cabernet. I just read that letter again and there is no suggestion anywhere that David Murray approves of what happened.
He was merely saying that Laws had no justification for putting the blame on arts people and that it hurt his credibility to do so.
Take another look when your blurred vision passes and leave the spin to the experts at Guyton St.
This wdcobserver is about as pathetic a poster as we've had yet - and there have been a couple of low-lifes with recycled personnae crawling out of the vision woodwork.
Are you suggesting that anyone who is paid by the council in any capacity waives their right to publicly criticise (or presumably support) any of its elected members?
If that's your (di)vision of the kind of city you want to live in then good luck to you, plonker.
I presume wdc observer, fresh from his triumphs at the masters' games, is here training for the big event at the mayoral mile circus.
It's called the Spin Spectacular and entry is restricted to paid up members of LawsMob.
The Spin Fairy will be the sole judge but she will wear an earpiece with a direct link to Her Boss's Voice.
So far, my money's on wdc observer.
Oh for goodness sake: I hope all our elected reps have heated discussions from time to time.
It's an indication of nothing, true or not.
"WDCObserver said...
GK and ML weren't having a heated discusson"
Since this poster was obviously present when GK and ML WEREN'T having a heated discussion, he/she might care to tell us what they were discussing so, well, tepidly. And, dear Observer, you are clearly well placed to enlighten us as to where the splash cash IS coming from.
Who cares where the Splash money is coming from. That's why we elect Mayor & Councillors, so we don't have to worry about things like that, just enjoy the facilities. This Mayor & council is pretty transparent and doing a great job.
"That's why we elect Mayor & Councillors, so we don't have to worry about things like that, just enjoy the facilities."
This is clearly from the Diva himself so we shouldn't be surprised at the level of hypocrisy in the Lord of the Referenda ("Let the people decide) now telling us that we elect councils to "worry" about things like funding issues.
Or, excuse me while I choke on my bacon, that this council is "pretty transparent". If it's so bloody transparent why haven't we been told why no splash cash has been delivered yet and where this "transparent" lot are going to get it from, if indeed they have a clue about that.
Perhaps soon we'll see Mr Unsworth in the gun for making up big porkies about the mythic $1.25 million.
Of course, Michael really is right when he talks about this council being "pretty transparent". He and his diVision lackeys (and ring-ins like Rangi) are so transparent that 90% of Wanganui can now see straight through them.
marion said...
Who cares where the Splash money is coming from. That's why we elect Mayor & Councillors, so we don't have to worry about things like that, just enjoy the facilities. This Mayor & council is pretty transparent and doing a great job.
Marion, it's good to have someone who's prepared to stand up for Michael and his gang, but when they've spent $30k of our money on architects drawings (or whatever) and refuse to show them to us, you're going to have a hard time convincing me they're "transparent". As for "doing a good job, do you really think the current uncertainty around the future of the Sarjeant collection is a "good job". Do you really believe they did a "good job" on the film festival? Do you think that applying pressure to sell Harbour Endowment land is "a good job"?
You might think you don't need to worry, but the reality is that awareness is a vital part of participatory democracy. Perhaps you're one of the 7% (or whatever) of people who trust politicians...
Back for a second bite, Marion:
"enjoy the facilities?"
Cooks Gardens - "an embarrassment" with an uncertain future
The Sarjeant Gallery: "Crap", with an uncertain future.
The Splash Centre: The contract expires in December. The money was never there. They've barely decided what properties to sell, let alone applied to the Minister to sell them.
Wembley Park: friends who play there complain of Council (the Mayors) interference: "Leave us alone" they say. An uncertain future.
The Heart of the City: Councillors have just been released from bedlam, but are the only ones equipped to understand the plans. An uncertain future.
Help me embrace your Vision, Marion. Explain what Council is doing for us.
what absolute bullshoit from Matt Dutton. The man is so ignorant he could only have come from England.
Wow! I was told about this site and expressed my opinion of the new council. I didn't realise so many so damn passionate about council goings-ons. Thanks for the food-for-thought.
Must agree. The guy is a liar and let's go through all of Dutton's lies. No wonder the mayor runs rings around him and his Code mates, basically because the guy doesn't come from here & has no knowledge of Wanganui's recent past, civic or otherwise.
Cooks Gardens: great facility but TWICE the council has had to bail out the trust board for getting ahead of itself and not attending to the basics.
Sarjeant Gallery: I know the mayor didn't call it "crap" because I read my Sunday newspapers where he made it plain (as Dull Dutton must know) that he was referring to an installation there, and not the collection.
Splash Centre: There is no contract. Dutton is delusional. The commitment to fund has been made, unanimously, by the council and they've appt Barbara Bullock I'm told to head the working party.
Wembley Park: when did this end up on the 'for sale' list? It's not in the sales approved for the council's fund-raising. It would make more sense to sell Victoria Park anyways than Wembley. Get more.
Heart of Wanganui: My council papers make it plain that there are going to be drawings publicly presented at the end of the year. It's September.
I'm amazed by how dumb the opposition is to Laws and his lot - little wonder he has strong mainstream support.
Small point.
Any ale of endowment land must be reinvested in community assets. True. The Splash Centre extenson is an asset. The Sarejeant a liability. One makes money, is vvery popular & runs itself - the other bleeds it and no-one goes.
December has been referred to as a deadline after which, I daresay, preices go through the roof with the building trade as it is.
I obviously touched a nerve. :)
Michael, when you publish such a weak retraction in the SST, then go on to initiate foul abuse of art lovers, you can't expect it to be taken as being sincere.
Your animus against the Sarjeant Gallery does you no credit. For one thing, a large proportion of Wanganui residents love the place, and want our rates money spent on it. As was demonstrated quite clearly last night.
Anonymous claims about me have no credibility, especially when mixed with quasi-racist abuse ("from England"). You're a bigot, and that's a shame.
Hi "Marion".
Anonymous said... "Small point. Any ale of endowment land must be reinvested in community assets." (I presume he meant to write "sale" because it's sure as hell not small beer we're talking about here)
So who is lying? The Tupoho minutes quote Rowan McGregor, Council's Assets and Property Manager, as saying
(of City Endowment properties:
*The proceeds from property sold is put into a separate Capital Account and the money must be used to reinvest in more City endowment property.
And (Harbour Endowment):
The proceeds from property sold is put into a separate account and must be spent for reinvestment in property.
None of this seems to provide for swimming pools or other "assets" apart from property.
Of course, if it was Rowan telling the porkies it could be that he's taken on board his boss's criteria for making lying acceptable, but it's all to complicated philosophically for me.
Perhaps however it could be applied to deliberately misleading the iwi to lull them into a false sense of security in order to save the mayor's arse. But from what I know of Rowan he's not Machiavellian enough for that.
There are always visitors in the sarjeant Gallery. Anon, since you don't go there, you wouldn't know that. QED
"Sarjeant Gallery: I know the mayor didn't call it "crap" because I read my Sunday newspapers"
No Michael, you were quoted by a journalist as calling the collection "crap". There as no official retraction or correction of that in the Sunday paper, and I heard from someone who wrote to the editor that they were standing by the reporter's version.
You later tried to cover your arse, as you are wont to do, by claiming you were referring to just one installation work. It was yet another case of forgetting that when you're in a hole, it's wise to stop digging.
The installation work in question was immediately reminiscent of a marae, or perhaps a buddhist temple. So it came as no surprise when it meant nothing to the mayor.
Wonder if this new council will stop the support of the Arts Weekend next year?, I think I heard the Arts Festival has already been axed. Such a same it was a good weekend for businesses.
Oh, sorry 'shame'...
No event will receive support unless it is one of the mayors personal initiatives. In my opinion, that is.
That won't stop other events from going ahead, of course. It just means that Council has abandoned the principles of good stewardship with which they are charged.
Dull Dutton: I'm not the mayor. I'm just a ratepayer who reads council minutes and gets pissed off with foreign freaks like you telling us locals how you want to spend OUR money.
I hope the mayor did say the Sarjeant is crap because it is. It's a third rate provincial gallery with no great works of art other than a few European derivatives. The local stuff is provincial pap and yes, call me an elitist.
A collection of old shoes equals a Buddhist temple? Didn't realise you had to be on drugs to make sense of the Sarjeant although I can see how it would help.
The referendum shows most people want the Splash Centre extended, but don’t want the Sarjeant Gallery extended. When I have taken my children to the Gallery, there is plenty of room for us to visit. When we have gone to the Splash Centre for a swim midweek, there is not enough room for the children to swim because there were schools there. Children excited about swimming and being turned away, is not much fun either for Mum or the kids. Children should be taught art appreciation but that’s never going to save their lives. Children need to be taught water safety and how to swim, that may save their lives.
By the way, I have never read or heard anywhere that the Mayor doesn’t appreciate art even though he is against the Gallery extension.
..telling us locals how you want to spend OUR money...
My money too, I am a local: I've lived here for 15 years. My son was born here. I have just as many rights here as you do. Get over it.
yes that was me
Dull Dutton - you're as Wanganui as any migrant I suppose but you weren't born or raised here and don't understand us. That much is obvious by the way you and your other migrant mates prattle on about what's good for us. If you don't like it, sod off!
This is not about weather we should 'pit' the pool against the gallery, the city should work as a whole to make every thing happen. Government money was offered to the gallery because it's collection is important, so why turn that away? If Te Papa had been put up against a new pool in Wellington we would have had the same outcome as in Wanganui. But, now you can see the benefits the museum / culture / art has done for the capital. We just needed a vision to full-fill all our community needs. Not someone to divide us.
A collection of hand-painted (ie: loved) pairs of shoes, to anyone who's been to any of Thailand's uncountable goddamn wats, is immediately redolent of the piles of sandals and shoes outside them. The owners reclaim their shoes on leaving.
You've got a good memory of the mayor's columns: keep a scrapbook, do you ;)
...what's good for us. If you don't like it, sod off!
I couldn't care less about you, actually, you abusive no name nobody. I claim the right to influence how my money is spent, tough luck if you don't like it.
I didn't mean we should 'pit' one thing against another and I agree we should work as a whole to make everything happen but if we have to make a choice between splash extension and sarjeant extension because of financial restraints, go for the most popular.
The Govt money was only available if there was already money there and most of it wasn't there as it turns out. We have an excellent Gallery but it doesn't need extending.
Anon 'I have never read or heard anywhere that the Mayor doesn’t appreciate art even though he is against the Gallery extension.'
It seems along time ago now, but I'm afraid our mayor did go on national radio and TV saying how art was irrelevant and how most artist were just losers. He also wrote a ton of stuff in his columns all along the lines of a 'put down' to the arts in general. As you have kids Marion, like myself, you can understand we have little 'artist' in every family. It's a sad when a person of standing in the community has to put down part of the culture which makes for a more exciting population in a small city like ours. Here is just no need for it.
"It would make more sense to sell Victoria Park anyways than Wembley. Get more.
"
Whatever .. can't you just imagine, say, the netballers or hockey people telling Laws to sod off and then having to to ask his lapdogs Janes and Morris et al for funding? This new community funding regime is all about playing (mayoral) favourites and for everyone/thing that's crawled onto his favourite's list there's an equivalent on his hit list.
It's very sad and backward-looking for our community to have that as the main criterion for how ratepayers' money is spent.
At least they're going to go through some sort of consultation farce over the new community contracts "philosophy" but why he doesn't just stuff it in the referendumb/by-election envelope, I don't know.
I'd always considered Dull Dutton a bit thick but his "we could have both" bullshit is the final proof.
This city's finances are down the toilet, the Splash extension we all wanted (50% Splash v 8% Sarjeant: you figure out the maths, Matt) costs $4.5m, the gallery extension about the same, and then there are the highest rates in NZ (according to independent and Consumer mag surveys) ... so yeah, sure, we can all afford it all. Just before we're bankrupt, you dull Pom.
Mayoral favourites? Is that your new word for "projects favoured by the MAJORITY of Wanganui residents"? The extension will never be built because we true Wanganuians didn't want it.
Marion said:
"I agree we should work as a whole to make everything happen."
Which is one reason I'm interested in how the brief for the Heart of the City was developed: not the concept sketches Council are promising, the actual brief for the job. The original brief for the WM extension design was developed according to community determined outcomes like "it must not compete with the existing architecture", and was flawed as a result, so what Council have told van Raat to do is of interest, to say the least.
Well said, Marion.
The pool will take 2.5 million of our rates and the gallery asked for 2.6, so we must have the money somewhere. However, the mayor could have put the galleries 30 year dreams to bed without hurting it's standing. He instead attacked it. I'm sure if he had just asked the Trust Board to go away and look for other ways to lessen the burden on the Wanganui ratepayers, some solution could have been found without hurting people good intentions and dreams.
I don't know why you're so worried about Laws selling off the collection, Chester and Don are probably going over the valuation list right now figuring what they can flog off to pay for their tax cuts.
The Gallery extension is going ahead according to everything we've heard: not according to the WM design, which I didn't much like anyway, but its still happening. Don't put words in my mouth. Laws has rubbished the Gallery, though, not just the extension. I have yet to see any satisfactory evidence that the Splash Centre extension can be funded either. I have been advocating that we reinstate the SGTB and have their fundraising continue with new volunteers.
"True Wanaganuians". Better be careful defining that, puppy. 'Cos plenty of people who've lived here longer than you support the Sarjeant.
The reason was that using the Sarjeant Gallery as a political football in this manner is not in the best interests of the region. "The Sarjeant" was not on the referendum. In any case, 46% boycotted the poll. Including many Sarjeant supporters. It is quite clear that a lot of things that would be "good" for Wanganui (like stormwater separation, for example) will never go ahead if they require majority support. Wanganui, through the Sarjeant Trust, has been given $12M plus worth of art, or the money to buy it. That's not a liability, it's an investment in education, and a snapshot of who we are as a people. That Michael has no time for it is his prerogative, but to attack one of Wanganui's acknowledged strengths in this manner is stupid and irresponsible. Incompetent, in fact.
That's the main problem with ML, not knowing how to handle people, here was no need to upset so many people in the first place. It was just plain stupid.
I think the main problem with Michael is his spinning. The constant manipulation of the facts. Look how the spin on representation has developed. Remember the "annual plan submissions up/down" spin? This has very little to do with what's good for the district, and everything to do with Michael Brian Laws. This man indulges his hobby of "gratuitous recreational trouble" at Wanganui's expense. The up-coming by-election is our chance to slow or even stop his divisive agenda. Vote wisely, Wangavegans.
WDCobserver opined:
"...the $1m promnised by an Auckland art lover/supporter."
Dr. Robin Congreve (google him sometime) reckoned he could get $1,000,000 for us, and I think he would have been as good as his word. Someone, not on the SGTB or Laws would have said so by now, used the "pledged/promised" line. Just like John Unsworth said the Splash Centre had "secured the funding" from Council.
Are there any checks in place to make sure the Splash centre extension dosn't blow out? How do we know it won't cost the ratepayers more money than the council are telling us?
It will, but that's the nature of these things. Inflation etc. The grim reality is that unless we want to carry on losing population to larger centres, we'll have to invest heavily in our town in all areas and keep on doing so. The arts community in Wanganui has effectively been told by council: we'll take your money, and give it to sports. The mayor of New Plymouth recently commented that having the anti-arts mayor to the South just made his job of "growing" New Plymouth so much easier, 'cos skilled workers love art. (Skilled workers also create jobs, and get good money, which they spend in the local economy).
Wonder if Laws Watch could post up a copy of Keith Hindson report about the gallery in 2004. That would clear up a lot of the misinformation going around this blog.
I sincerely hope the Hindson paper you refer to is the one that fictionalised the $1 million as "promised" by an Auckland arts lover, or that said that the gallery needed $3m to just keep it open. This WDC council has reduced Sarjeant funding by 5% and, guess what, it's still open.
...There are a number of "hobbyists" here who hang their wretched work in a few galleries...
WDCobserver clearly has an arts degree and several years experience of fine arts criticism. Not. The works of Prakash Patel, Ross M-A, Leigh M-A, Julie Grieg, Emma Camden, David Murray, David Traub, Maiangi J Waitai, Joan Morrel, Catherine McDonald, Vicki Rogers, etc. has clearly escaped him. Then there are the arts-related industries such as architecture and design. Wanganui is well by these industries also.
Every town has artists. Wanganui's artists (including some of those mentioned) have done very well on the national and international stages. WDCObserver sounds bitter and ignorant, but not only that, is clearly intent on damaging other people's livelyhoods.
What a creep.
...well served...
WDC, oh wise one, please publish your methodology for ranking these artists. You seem awfully sure of yourself, considering that we know the importance of an artists work is only truly judged by people in the future, not the present.
It's obvious that some haven't actually read (esp Dull Dutton) the letters and background papers on the "mythic million" allegedly "promised" by Dr Congreve.
The most salient factor is that in both 2001 and 2003 Dr Congreve expressly told Bill Milbank and David Cairncross that he would NOT promise or pledge any money let alone $1 million.
Both men deliberately deceived the council and the Wanganui public by suggesting otherwise. The evidence is obvious & I picked up my copy of all the correspondence from the library.
Bill & David "suggested otherwise". Prove it. Because in the "First 100 days" article, Laws is quoted as saying he doesn't know. If you do know, why don't you fill Michael in?
O, Dullness! Read the letters made publicly available. Milbank and Cairncross didn't even tell theor own board let alone the council or public!
WDC, you are the one obsessed with ranking people. I merely stated that these people work as successful artists. You then started up some sort of league table, as though it had any relevance. You like putting people down, do you?
WDC, your second post was untrue and defamatory to David Murray, and you claim not to be intent on abuse. Your first post called someone anonymous a "malicious wanker". Later you talked about "hobbyists" and "their wretched work", and you're not intent on abuse?
roflmoa
(That means: rolling on the floor laughing my ass off, and can be susbstituted for *guffaw* if you like)
Thanks for the insight, Joan - so, Michael, how about it?
And while we're on the subject of populism, here's an idea. I've long thought that I wouldn't mind paying slightly more in rates.
WDC could add a "levy" option, so you tick the box (arts, sport, whatever) as to how you want your levy spent, and specify how much extra you'll pay.
I'd happily pay an extra $10 per month if it was guaranteed to get spent on the Sarjeant. Or martial arts facilites ;)
Just a spelling mistake on my part, Joan. Nothing sinister.
Joan said: "as a person he is great value"
Joan, I don't know how anyone can reach this conclusion because as you've virtually said, he is driven by ego and impulse, and extreme destructive tendencies, and seems simply unable to back down or apologise for even the most stupid remarks and actions. To try to separate those characteristics out from him as a "person" raises some interesting questions of what you're left with. A hollow shell, I'd say.
If by the person you mean a willingness to charm and manipulate when it suits him, you need to put that against the "other" Michael and you come up with the classic psychopathic personality.
His "personal" life comes across as an ongoing shambles and he appears interested only in personal relationships where he has control - just look at the Vision councillors and his predilection for hiring young women who he feels he can rely on for unquestioning loyalty.
Joan, if Michael's employers have to "appeal" to him to behave reasonably, he's unfit for office.
Laws' comments in the Chron. today: he sounds like he's actually trying to construct an argument, as though he respects people's point of view or something. I wish they'd thought to mention Nicki Higgies belief that the money can be raised elsewhere.
In any event, well done Mickey, your new-found desire to bring people along with you is a refreshing change.
However, you must realise that the value of a work is no reason to sell it. You're thinking like a bean counter.
Nicki - better get that fundraising drive up to speed.
And again, the Chron fails to remind people that giving Laws the ability to sell artworks on the grounds that it's only for conservation funding, is like letting an alcoholic into a bar so he can just have a glass of lemonade.
I've heard Nicki is supposed to be meeting with some prospects for her "Sarjeant friends" today and presumably had hoped to be able to get them to trust her and her boss.
Well, he did a neat job of blowing that out of the water with the Chron story, didn't he?
Could this be the last straw for poor Nicki's desperate efforts to believe she has his support?
The best thing her hand-picked new friends can do is sit her down and tell her to jump overboard right now. She can't go on trying to bail out the leaky diVision boat much longer while the captain is determined to steer it onto the rocks.
The mayor suggests selling one art work to better conserve the other 5,999 and you guys get hysterical.
You're a scream!
But I don't think he was intending to convince you arties. He was out to convince us mainstreamers and the argument he outlined this morning will work every time.
I found it interesting that both the last council AND the SGTB had committed to selling art works (plural) to fund the proposed extension. That sets the parameters for this debate and Laws is well within it.
On reading this morning's Chronicle, I find the mayor's arguments well put. I think we get upset if art works are sold for other activities or amenities but if their purpose is to protect and promote the gallery then we can't really object.
We can object when opportunities for fundraising the cash have been denied, as in the case of the SGTB, or ignored, as in Nicki Higgie's commitment to find the money.
The elephant in the corner, by the way, is the Sarjeant Gallery Trust Board, a paper entity which still exists, which Council has indicated that it means to retain, which has no current members, and which would have been expected to sign off on any handover.
Not to mention the legal implications of changing the Collection Management Policy without reference to the Board.
This is a goldmine for lawyers.
Sure it is, mattie. None of your jeremiah warnings have ever amounted to anything. Don't you get tired of trying to impersonate Chicken Licken?
Laws is crying poverty while his deputy wants to spend $150,000 on a piss up for a movie. According to his figures in the paper today, $307,000 is required for urgent conservation work. So instead of committing some of the $800,000 that just went into the Treadwell Gordon Trust A/c, or helping Cr. Higgie with her fundraising appeal, Michael wants us to sell paintings.
His criteria for choosing said paintings have everything to do with their dollar value, and nothing to do with their intrinsic worth. When Galleries de-accession work, they do so according to curatorial guidelines, whereby works for sale are selected on the basis of their place within the overall collection. In any event, the Mayor is way ahead of himself, since the team to review de-accession policy hasn't even been announced or approved by F&A.
Yes, but he's leading the team!
And your figures are wrong according to the council agenda I have - the total cost of restoration is $440K plus whatever the Egypt painting costs to restore.
And promoting Wangavegas to the rest of NZ & the world for RQ premiere is not a piss-up, you ignorant prole.
So what was promoting Wanganui by funding touring exhibitions to go overseas from the Sarjeant Gallery? Running Wanganui down? Or promoting cultural tourism?
The figure of $307,000 is 60% of the quoted $460,000. Your mayor mentioned in his press release that that is the amount of "urgent" conservation work that needs doing. If it was that house in Castlecliff we bought, the roof would need fixing. The Gallery needs fixing too, incidently. What's the point of paying to restore paintings that go back into inadequate storage?.
Good Q, Matt. Sell a lot more paintings & you might get upgraded storage. Like the last SGTB planned.
Sell the nations heritage because you and Michael Laws don't understand its value? Doesn't sound like a go to me. National collections should be protected from vandals like you.
It's not yours, pommie boy.
It's Wanganui's & we'll sell it if we want to. and aren't you a Nigel No-friends this morning? Where are your artie mates? I think they've conceded this argument.
"Argument"? Your posts consist of vague assertions, ego-stroking crap about how you claim to represent "Wanganui", and semi-racist abuse. Some argument.
Anonymous said...
It's Wanganui's & we'll sell it if we want to.
Oh, and how are you all this morning? Getting crowded in there is it? Did you have a caucus meeting before you started up your little party political broadcast?
The Conservation Report (Audit and Finance meeting) ranked the priority of work on a scale of 1 to 5.
34 were ranked 5 (would need earliest attention) and conservation work was assessed at $106,650
84 were ranked at 4 (also need to be repaired in the near future) and conservation work was assessed at $89,850
Others were rated marginal or no action needed at this stage.
So that's just under $200,000 for urgent or semi-urgent stuff. Laws is just tossing out another red herring by saying that it either has to come from ratepayers or from sales.
Face it, this is all about him getting his dirty paws on the collection and once he's done that it will be used for whatever his pet projects/best mates happen to be at the time.
It now should be clear to everyone that his attack on the trust board was part of a conscious strategy to appropriate as much cash as possible from the gallery.
It goes back to the alcoholic saying trust me and give me the keys to the bar. YEAH RIGHT!
Looks like Laws really was trying to deliberately undermine Nicki. He even betrays his own people.
Anon: 11:09 AM, September 05, 2005, said:
It's not yours, pommie boy....
Listen Bob, go sell a few more house and stop slinging racial abuse. You write like you talk and what you write is about as useful.
Have a chat with your vision supporters and you will find that most of them wanted to build a better wanganui not one split by stupidity on both sides
"Looks like Laws really was trying to deliberately undermine Nicki. He even betrays his own people."
Someone with a business in the mid-avenue tells me that whereas most of the Vision people were regularly out and about around the town before the election, he never sees them nowadays.
You can't blame them. Imagine being constantly asked things like, "How do you put up with him?" and in Nicki and Sue P's case, "How much longer are you going to try to hold on?"
Easier to stay home, I'd say.
Interesting thesis, anon. Bob has always been abusive, clueless and fatally compromised, so that fits the profile perfectly.
Post a Comment