Splish Splash, we're going to take a bath
Once more into the Valley of Death rides … Keith Hindson and the Splash Centre Working Party.
Buried in the report to Monday’s Strategy meeting are a couple of paragraphs that will raise eyebrows, to say the least, among observers of the Diva's Sarjeant Trust Board Demolition Derby 2004 and his peculiar anaphylactic reaction to the (misrepresented) prospect of council underwriting of that particular project.
To quote Mr Hindson:
The funding is another issue that requires urgent clarification as it has the potential to backfire and leave the council with a potential bill of $3.5m or more for a building which fails to meet its criteira and is costly to operate thereafter.Then, in a masterly piece of arithmetic, Hindson points out that raising $1.5 million to enable a December 2005 start equates to $20,000 per day.
The group also wants to start work on the extensions late in 2005 so that the centre will be open by mid-2007. This would require the council to underwrite the project to enable an early start. At this stage the council is being asked to underwrite the outstanding funding of around $1.5 million [that’s on top of the $2.5m which council has so generously “committed” to] to enable an early start to be made.
There are considerable risks associated with underwriting the project to have an early completion date. The main risk is that the council could be liable for any shortfall in funding, currently standing at $1.5 million.
It was clearly panic stations at the first working party meeting as the realisation sunk in with Swimming Pool Czar Unsworth and his Cossacks that the fact the people (and the Diva) had given forth a rousing cheer for the pool didn’t actually mean that it was in the bag.
Some itsy bitsy teeny weeny matters that weren’t on the agenda as the champers flowed at the post-referendum booze-up have since raised their ugly little heads, including, apparently:
- Role of the council
- Funding issues
- Technical issues
- Role of the working party.
Sounds like a Royal Flush to us.
And apparently Keith hasn’t been copied in on the mayoral diktat that any increased operating costs incurred by the referendum winners would have to be met by the organisations concerned, (also known as “cutting their cloth”), because he tosses around likely figures of from $300,000 to $525,000 (at 2004/05 prices) and then says:All of these will need to be budgeted for and included in the LTCCP as well as the current Splash Centre’s funding of $342,000 per annum.
Sadly, we're only now seeing the sort of information that the Diva said would be available before the referendum to allow informed box-ticking by the citizens. Wonder how many people who thought "Oooo, I fancy a nice wee swim" and duly put the Splash Centre top of their list, assuming nil impact on their back pocket, feel just a little short-changed (as it were) by the Diva's pre-referendum hype and rhetoric.And to think, only a few months to go till the population gets to make their next batch of "informed choices"!
Oh, and since we're not the good news blog, seems Mr Unsworth isn't too keen on answering our earlier questions, even though we offered to print, unedited, his answers. Much better to keep the spin for the unquestioning Stepford Journalists at the River City Press.
Comments on this post are now closed.
63 comments:
Look, mate, everyone knows you're a bunch of commie lefties trying to bring Wanganui down; Council only puts out this stuff to wind us up: Michael's going to take care of the Splash Centre out of his salary. I read it in the River City Press.
Hey morons, since when has Keith "dont insult my heritage" Hindson ever told the truth. The joke within the building is that half his reports deserve the Booker Prize for Fiction as he just says what he wants to hear.
He isnt exactly popular with Councillors either after his last little spat. Even the old ones would vote against his proposals just to spite him
You're sad people.
Council unanimously decided what info was relevant & what wasn't and the issue was all about how MUCH council would contribute ($2.5m) and what priority it should have (first - where the gallery extension get again? And public art works?)
Also interesting - this blog carried the annual costs as $800K not the $500K you've quoted Keith Hindson. Oops, more egg.
The problem here is what exactly?
The issue is not funding but how much council takes control of the project. You've missed the main point here and that is Hindson pushing the bureaucrat line that council not the Splash promoters should take conrol of the project.
Yes, the Sarjeant Gallery extension debacle would have made them nervous.
this blog carried the annual costs as $800K not the $500K you've quoted Keith Hindson. Oops, more egg
We assume you're referring to this post which says "The forecast cost to the Council to operate the original pool and new extension in today’s dollars is $825,000".
Indeed we did carry that - but it's not our estimate, it's a direct quote from a report to the Council from December 2004.
If there's any egg apparent, it's not on our faces. Our whole point is - Council seems to have no real clue just what your hero's blind promise to his Splash Centre mates will end up costing ratepayers. The $300,000 difference in estimates of operating cost between December 2004 and September 2005 rather proves the point.
So thanks for pointing that out.
Yeah but that surely that only proves Laws' point: that preliminary estimates as to annual running costs (from the architects, not from council) were over-estimated. Sometimes this mayor gets it right you know (a little too often for comfort if both the Port of Wanganui & the Exclusive Brethren are any indication). I may have to rethink my opinion of this guy. Arsehole personality - great mayor.
No, the $825,000 pa running costs for the extended Splash Centre are not the architects estimates, they are the Council officers( Hindson, Sims)estimates.They includes interest on $1.5M borrowing( $100,000),It would be interesting, Lawswatch, to get some info about the Splash Planet complex in Hastings- That is a real hot potatoe for ratepayers there- the running costs are in the millions. The Mayor is pulling a fast one by minimizing the annual costs for the Splash Centre.
Face it, LawsMob
The shit is about to hit the fan over MLs splash centre madness and no amount of spin is going to save him this time. There is no way the ratepayers are going to take a bath on this one, especially from the man who gave them the Sarjeant Screamer.
As someone who is still to be convinced as to who is on the side of the angels over the gallery, I have no doubt that I won't be buying this sort of bullshit from the Diva and his spin fairies.
The money's not there, full stop. And not even Unsworth and co are going to come up with $20,000 per day from now till Xmas.
Underwriting by this council? No way, Jose!
Ask me no questions and I'll tell you no lies,
Splash Centre's turned into a nasty surprise,
Vision's been here a year,
And what do you know,
Art collection in jeopardy,
It's all got to go,
And now we can't even,
Get a new swimming pool,
This guy's Mickey Mouse,
An incompetent fool.
TAPLOL
You're going to hate this, losers.
The Splash Centre extension will be built, the monies raised and the mayor will cut the ribbon. Choke on that Vinsen, Webb and all you other losers.
And if they have to sell a painting a year to fund the running costs, then Wanganui would back them.
Then Wanganui would have the country against it.
Yeah, right! The rest of the country doesn't give a stuff about art, let alone Wanganui. A few pointyheads aren't going to tell us what to do - internal or external.
LawsWatch - a reminder from the files of the 'Wanganui Chronicle' from 14 July 2005 ...
----------------------
The Watchers said they could confirm, however, they were not the Code of Conduct complainants against the mayor.
“No one ever changed the world by complaining about it after the event. Especially when you’re uncertain of what you’re complaining about half the time. Read the blog, you’ll see we dissect the failings of The Wanganui Six as well as those of the Diva of the Ditch.
-----------------------
That's not true, is it?
Both Carol Webb AND Matt Dutton are actively involved -
L-I-A-R-S
Whose credibility is at stake when the Fourth Estate lie about themselves?
There are more people interested in this new council then before, and realising we made a mistake.
Matt Dutton said...
"Right then. I've stated publicly that I am not the "owner" of Lawswatch. Neither is Carol. However, I intend to start supporting the Watchers by paying for the odd advert here and there. I wouldn't want to be accused of fibbing, so if financial support implies an interest, then I'm interested."
7:50 PM, August 15, 2005
Who's lying again?
Help!
I got in a 'discussion' with a Laws lover last night at a party and I was telling the jerk what a disaster his hero was. I got all the usual shit in reply (dealing to you arts tossers etc) but on one point I got lost. I'll see this guy again (going out with a friend of a friend) and I want the appropriate response when he says that if Laws is so bad then how come he has his own TV and radio shows, own newspaper columns, etc etc. How comes the rest of Enzed wants to watch, listen & read the guy? In other words, we're the ones out of step.
Please - need a decent answer to that.
A supporter of Michael Brian Laws alleging that others are liars. Let me ask you, given your support for Laws, if you're right, does that mean you'll support Matt & Carol. I mean, it would follow logically - Laws' whole philosophy is that he tells lies whenever it suits him - he is after all, a politician. So it seems, well, hypocritical for you to worship Michael but loath M & C.
You're like a stuck record.
"Bleat bleat, Matt & Carol stole my baby. Matt & Carol shot JR, Matt & Carol rolled jaffas under the seats."
Cry baby.
Matt Dutton said...
"Right then. I've stated publicly that I am not the "owner" of Lawswatch. Neither is Carol. However, I intend to start supporting the Watchers.
A lie of ommision can also be a lie. Vision is way more open about who is in it than Lawswatch is about who runs it. If they fear reprisal then they must be doing something wrong otherwise legally there is nothing can be done. So who does run this blog is a fair question. Is it the Aussi bloke, is it the chron in disguise, is it lawsmob, is it SOS, is it emma and her glass cronies? Why is it a secret?
How comes the rest of Enzed wants to watch, listen & read the guy? In other words, we're the ones out of step.
Have you seen the letters of disgust that appear in the SST after his more puerile columns? We're not alone.
Have you seen the way Laws and his "helpers" use Matt & Carol's names. Have you noticed the foul abuse of anyone from Joan St. to Judith Tizard, who disagrees with Laws?
I don't blame the Watchers for not wanting to buy into these disgusting tactics.
Letters of disgust? I asked for a reply, not that sort of silly response. Columnists are meant to generate reaction - I've read as many letters of support. Yeah, that'll work with my misguided friend - "some people write letters getting upset with him". C'mon people, some real answers!
"A lie of ommission"?
Matt told Sean that he posted on this blog, and that was the extent of his involvement. That was true. When he decided to pay for advertising, he posted here beforehand. The bleater's comments amount to nothing but crude personal attack.
Well, the poll shows many who support him will never do so again. The General Election poll shows that there's a bias towards Labour supporters, and of course we're a self selecting group to begin with. I know quite a few who voted for him who feel betrayed.
Matt told Sean that he posted on this blog, and that was the extent of his involvement. That was true. When he decided to pay for advertising, he posted here beforehand. The bleater's comments amount to nothing but crude personal attack.
Bleat bleat bleat.
You're missing the point about Michael Laws. He DENIED being knowing that the signature was forged. If you're going to judge others (& call them liars) then best not be caught on a lie yourself.
Vision is way more open about who is in it than Lawswatch is about who runs it.
Oh really?
To "join" Lawswatch: post a comment or, if you think the information you hold is of greater relevance, send us an email and it might make it into a post. You've "joined" LawsWatch by commenting here, since the blog is merely the sum total of it's parts. There's no secret meetings, no "public excluded" parts of the blog.
To "join" the "open" Vision "party": Ummm... errr... has anyone managed to join yet? Let alone score an invitation to one of their private meetings?
There's one huge difference between the mayor and the LawsWatch liars.
Laws took his lumps, paid his dues, rebuilt his career. Nine years ago.
LawsWatch's founders are still in denial that they lied. Nine minutes ago.
Yes, that will work too - "there was this poll and some people who voted for him last time said they won't again."
The dude I had to deal with didn't vote for him last time, but will now. And the sample bias of this poll hardly makes it representative of Wanganui - Labour by miles & the Greens second. That is a very unlikely result given the uselessness that is Jill Pettis.
what do you mean "owner" of LawsWatch, Matt?
Its obvious that Carol W provies the bulk of the posts, and that you assist her from time to time. To access the blog to post the original stories, you have to have access to the password/username etc.
We know Carol W is a bit of a whizz with computers - if you google her she was actively involved in computer societies & runs her own company Webbwords which incl computer stuff.
So - what's wrong with Carol putting up her hand & saying "yeah, it's me". Half of Wangas knows anyway & a Chron journo told me.
Digressing for a moment (and I have some sympathy for the earlier anon: it would be better if Carol came clean because everyone knows) -
Morgs Hunter has been sacked by the Chronicle. You'll note his usual column was missing (two Fridays now) and the goss is that John Maslin gave him the DCM. Or the DCF in this case. Don't Come Friday.
can morgs confirm?
as a wrinklie,i really enjoyed the challenge of his column
if Laws is so bad then how come he has his own TV and radio shows, own newspaper columns, etc etc. How comes the rest of Enzed wants to watch, listen & read the guy?
We suspect the presence of a troll, but seeing as it's Sunday evening and we have nothing better to do...
Radio Live isn't mentioned specifically in the ratings(presumably because it's too new) for Auckland, Wellington,Christchurch or Dunedin (Wanganui isn't included in the results for Manawatu, Taranaki, and doesn't appear to be surveyed at all, sorry).
But if one looks at Radio Pacific, which at the time of the surveys available had much of the same programming as now run by Radio Live, its performance against most stations, and especially its chief rival Nwstalk ZB, is abysmal.
So "the rest of NZ" isn't listening, just a minute percentage.
Newspaper columns are much harder to judge, since the newspaper is bought as a package. The question is, we suppose, "how many people would stop buying the SST if his (or indeed anyone else's) opinion wasn't published in it?" We'd venture the answer (in the case of any columnist) would be "not many".
TV is a very fickle medium, as Paul Holmes recently found to his cost. While a lot of people (he included) clearly believed people tuned in to watch him it became apparent they in fact tune in to watch the programme and don't much care who fronts it. Similarly, TVNZ are rumoured to be auditioning replacements for Judy Bailey and, if she goes, there's likely to be a predictable outcry, as there was when Richard Long was booted, but little or no fall in ratings.
Alas, AC Nielsen want to be paid for detailed ratings information and Sky aren't telling on their site. As for the new show on Prime, time will tell. Holmes was managing 3,600 viewers at one stage. There were probably more people through the Sarjeant Gallery this weekend ;-D
As to why the Diva has these platforms from which to rant, you'd have to ask his employers. There aren't that many people in NZ capable of hosting a radio or TV show and there's no doubt he can do so, the question is, as you've said, whether enough people want to hear (or read) what he has to say.
Those employers who've commented in the past have usually tended to give a reason akin to "he's controversial, and controversy equals ratings". However, as the radio ratings show, that's not always the case.
how come you're all anonymous? Seems to me you shouldn't bother expressing your views unless you are prepared to put your name to it. Anonymity is too easy; stand up and be a man..or woman. I can hardly be bothered reading stuff which apparently comes from the ether. Kathy
LawsWatch is anonymous, Kathy.
Duh.
What you HAVEN'T explained LW is why Fairfax, SKY, CanWest, Prime etc - all different media outlets - regard your stalkee as their man.
And not, boo hoo, yourself. Oh yes, a little thing called talent and another called personality and another called intelligence. Don't you just hate that??
There's one huge difference between Lawswatch and the Mayor.
Laws told lies in office. Nine years ago.
Laws is still telling lies in office, about the Splash Centre funding. About annual plan submissions (remember the "less is more" flip-flop). About Vision caucuses ("I don't see this council in terms of Vision and non-Vision").
What were you saying about him learning his lesson?
Fairfax, Sky, Canwest, Prime etc.
This is what I've been talking about: all these organisations employ Michael for his entertainment value. Like a clown at a kids' party.
We, however, employed him as mayor, and he is uniquely unqualified for the task. He rants when he should measure his words, when he should be there making effusive speeches he sends rude notes "I'm no hypocrite". In place of consultation he has given us a postal ballot (funny that...just like the nz 1st list votes - remember when Michael admitted to throwing people's votes away?).
And the abuse directed at any who raise an opposing view:
"any challenge...led to personal attack and an attempt to belittle one`s views and intentions"
So, on balance, what do you think? Do we envy Michael because he's a highly paid clown? Or are we genuinely concerned at his apparent lack of understanding of the nature of service he was elected to provide? And the damage that ignorance does?
Hint: personal attack is not an answer, it's an admission.
Like you've never made a mistake, dickhead!
To accuse the mayor of "lying" over Splash Centre etc is nonsense. I get the full council agendas and EVERY motion on Splash plus all the referendum info was unanimously passed by council 13-nil.
Are you going to accuse them all? Or just admit you hate the guy and have the pathology to prove it?
The true liars are Carol Webb and Matt Dutton saying they werent involved with LawsWatch when theyre actually running it.
I don't run Lawswatch. Stop lying.
"To accuse the mayor of "lying" over Splash Centre etc is nonsense. I get the full council agendas and EVERY motion on Splash plus all the referendum info was unanimously passed by council 13-nil."
Than why is the mayor lying about the running costs and the shortfall: he says Council will contribute $2.5M only, and that's a lie. I notice you're not going to even try and defend him over Vision caucuses. But my point was: you said he'd learned his lesson. Now you're peddling his spin. Dupe.
He's not lying. He said the costs wouldnt be $800,000-plus a year and the council papers agree. Stick to the facts, bozo.
Former councillor Rob Vinsen said the public also needed to know about the operational costs of referendum projects, such as the Splash Centre extension which would increase operational costs from $335,000 to $865,000.
Mr Laws said this figure had been put out by Splash Centre proponents
But it had really been put out by council officers.
"He said the costs wouldnt be $800,000-plus a year"
only after his original statement had been questioned. You can lie by omission you know ;)
After all, who was it who said "lying is acceptable?"
And who is Antoinette Beck?
Does a leopard change his spots after he's taken his lumps?
Get your facts right!
The $800,000 plus operational costs were put out by the Splash proponents. Council merely said that was their estimation but upon doing the research discovered them to be wrong. The mayor was right. Again.
And at least he doesn't lie publicly like Carol Webb & Matt Dutton.
"Lying is acceptable"
Michael Laws
Communication between Council and citizens is poor. Too little accessible information is made available to Wanganui people. In addition, both Mayor and councillors need to be more visible and available to meet constituents and hear their specific needs and concerns. ‘Vision Wanganui’ will;
2.1 Establish a mayoral office on Mainstreet;
2.2 Ensure that the mayor and councillors are available at that office and at allotted times to meet with residents and address any specific concerns;
"Mainstreet" is in Palmerston North
Lawswatch is a fantastic resource. If Carol Webb really is running it, aswell as all the other stuff she does, then she's doing a really good job.
Well done the Watchers.
"The Splash Centre extension will be built, the monies raised and the mayor will cut the ribbon."
I hope so. I also hope the ratepayers don't incur huge levies so that we can afford it. So far, the mayor's "information" campaign is not giving me very much confidence, especially considering
"the Splash Planet complex in Hastings- That is a real hot potatoe for ratepayers there- the running costs are in the millions."
Spin Mickey spin
Your poor pricks. Obsessed by a provincial mayor. Hope he keeps shafting you.
Your poor pricks. Obsessed by a provincial mayor. Hope he keeps shafting you.
If this anon lives in Wangavages just remember while he is shafting us poor pricks he is also shafting you.
You live there! If you don't like it, leave.
we prefer to work from the inside to monkeywrench Michael toxic agenda :)
"If you don't like it, leave"
That was a party political announcement from Vision Wanganui
No, from Marton.
'if Laws is so bad then how come he has his own TV and radio shows, own newspaper columns, etc etc. How comes the rest of Enzed wants to watch, listen & read the guy?'
When Mr laws first came to town he got the Wanganui ratepayer to foot the bill for a 'media' survey. Marty L came out really well as did the Chron. However, if I can remember rightly, out of 500 people asked, only 25 listened to our mayor. Hope this information is correct but feel free to correct me if it's not.
5%, eh Mickey?
That's tiny.
Even smaller than Marty.
The agenda for todays Strategy meeting states the increase in Splash Centre operational costs as " between $300,000 and $525,000 at 2004/05 prices"in addition to the current funding of $342,000 pa.
Will the Chron report this tomorrow? They have'nt reported in depth on the project so far, is this because Chron sales manager Milton Haig is on the Working party, and they are only publishing the "good news" stories.
ML used to have a column in North and South where he pursued his political agenda, but that seems to have disappeared. Did he get the upraised digit, do you think?
Post a Comment