Stadium gets tick, opponents get bill

The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against the Dunedin City Council’s funding of the Forsyth Barr Stadium. Stop the Stadium which brought the action will have to pay up to $17,000 for costs.

That’s how it should be.

Ratepayers will have spent a lot more on the council’s defence of the action and if the opponents didn’t pay court costs the taxpayer would have to.

5 Responses to Stadium gets tick, opponents get bill

  1. murrayg1 says:

    The Stadium shouldn’t have happened, but not for the reasons thus far discussed.
    We have a short – perhaps three year – window of opportunity to get positioned for fuel scarcity. Dr Fatih Birol, CEO of the outfit all Governments listen to (the IEA) has shortened his estimate for the peak of oil supply, from 2050, to 2030, to 2020, and now speaks of “supply constraints from 2010”. That shift has taken one year. He ‘seeked to please all men each way’, and now has to merge the optimism with reality.
    Folk like me could have told him – anytime from 1975 on in my case – that peak supply would be this decade. By 1999, we could have said “peak light sweet crude 2005”, and “peak all liquids” 2007-9. We were right.
    Any rev-up of economic activity will now run into the sinking lid of energy supply. Which is why Rudd is arming frantically, even as he sells gas. Why Mrs Clinton did her whistle-stop through Africa.
    All of which says that the Council should have been getting us ready for permanent energy shortages,
    The staduim simply doesn’t do that. They were told – very clearly. Ask the ODT why you didn’t see it..

  2. Neil says:

    murrayg1 would be better writing about the stadium than “worming” into the peak oil debate.
    As far as the stadium. The anti-stadium should pay costs but like many of the environazi groups will declare themselves bankrupt and head for the hills.
    Obviously murrayg1 is a Greenie. Peak Oil is very disputed. For an interesting balance on the oil situation read “The End of Oil” by Paul Roberts.The same author has written a rivetting book called “The End of Food” which is equally scary.
    Peak Oil is being used by the Green movement along with global wareming as a means to swing arguments their way. Be wary of politicians who use this fear. Hence Al Gore to me is enemy number one and in NZ the Green movement with its anti-industry pro-doomsday scenario.

  3. murrayg1 says:

    I prefer dealing in facts, and physics. I’ve noticed, over the years, that emotions and attitudes don’t change truths.
    There is a legend about a maths-curtailed king, who owed a favour. He agreed to repay it, with a grain on the first square of a chessboard, two on the next, then 4, 8, you get the picture.
    The last square (calculated around 2000) would have contained 400 times the global crop. Arguably more grain than has ever been cultivated.
    We can presume it didn’t happen, and that the chastened king went back to night classes.
    Exponentially increasing extraction rates of a finite resource, hit the wall pretty fast. A physical example is filling a wine bottle from the tap. No matter how much you anticipate, the incremental rate of increase beats you every time, and you never get the tap off before it shoots out of the neck.
    Hubbert predicted in 1956, that USA Peak production would be 1970 (it was). He predicted it at 3 bbl, it peaked at 3.6 bbl. That quite large difference in volume, altered the date by about two months…
    Maths, geometry and physics are my yardsticks.
    From a removed viewpoint (no vested interest, no allegiance to creed or crowd) I always try and work out who has the vested interest, and filter their comments with that in mind.
    Those books are interesting, right in places, not in others, but I suggest that EROEI is the linch-pin, along with depletion rates, and export vs internal-use rates in producing countries. Bear in mind that global discoveries peaked in 1964 – that’s not a typo – and that we currently use 3 times more that we find per annum. That’s not an ‘if’, it’s a ‘when’.
    Few people get their head around the exponential function, but it’s well worth the effort. Just remember, if the planet had unlimited oil reserves, so too would my gas-tank – they’re both finine vessels.

  4. Neil says:

    murrayg1 continues to surprise us with his wordy verbosity about the Stadium.
    Am I Rip Van Winkle coming back from a long sleep finding aliens on the planet?.
    Discuss the topic rather than wasting time on your specialist topic for Mastermind !!

  5. murrayg1 says:

    OK. Think of it like this. If the Titanic is sinking, is it worth redecorating the ballroom? Perhaps you should be turning the match-lining into liferafts…
    Everything needs energy – you need your brekky, your car it’s tankful. All activity – arguably all economic activity – is work, and work needs energy.
    The peak of supply of the most important energy, overrides and effects every other subject. Oil makes your roads, makes your food, packages everything, transports everything. A City Council facing a powerdown scenario – and it was told – is absolutely wasting it’s time with Stadiums, Chinese Gardens and Town-hall clip-ons (much as I appreciate some of the architectural bravery).
    There is a strong argument that a permanent power-down scenario is an end-of-economic-growth scenario, which raises the valid question as to whether the debt will ever be repaid. No serious debate has been had about that, yet.
    That’s the connection. Sorry, I’ve had it as ‘underlying knowledge’ for thirty years, sometimes I just assume everyone else does too.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: