BayBuzz - Be in the know

Loss of Fertile Land -
30 hectares of our precious fertile soil is not an appropriate place to site a sports park.
Council has lost focus of makes the Heretaunga Plains and Hastings prosper. The fundamental issue is that our soils are among the best food production soils in the world. With massive overpopulation and food shortages the world is in crisis. We cannot feed the world but we must ensure we protect these soils so we can feed ourselves and our future generations. We cannot afford to bury the plains with residential development and industry. Future urban and commercial development needs to be upwards and contained within current boundaries. Let’s face reality.

Carbon Footprint-

The Percival Road location will create more traffic congestion and emissions. We are supposed to be reducing car use and emissions. The complex will drain a huge amount of electricity while struggling ratepayers go cold because of power cuts and unaffordable bills. Water, waste water and storm water will put more pressure on overstretched community resources.

$56 million – We can’t afford it.

The whole region’s population at 2006 was 147,783. Probably one third are ratepayers between three councils.
HDC is currently spending $300,000 per annum to Kelt Capital to manage this project.  Where does this money come from? The sale of Nelson Park reaped $18.6 million. Council intends to contribute $11.35 million of this,  plus $5.33 million from “fundraising” and “other” money towards stage one of the development. What happened to the other $3 ½. Council has committed  $33 million of funding to the whole project and wants to increase it’s contribution.
Council already has a large debt burden – Opera House and Splash Planet for example. Council is presenting this project as a foregone conclusion, even though the planning is not concrete. How can you make accurate presentations or cost predictions when the plan is not even certain?

Where will this money come from?

There is reference to groups being approached for funding, but nowhere is it stated that actual funds have been offered or confirmed.  Napier and Regional Councils are supposed to have committed funding to the project – but hey doesn’t that mean a double Rates whammy for all of us?

Where is “other money” to be found – Will existing sport facilities and green spaces be sold off to fund the Sports park? Smaller clubs and community spaces are already being compromised in order to fund the big projects that cater for the elite sports fraternity.

85% of the general public are happy with the sports grounds now provided by Council. Why are you forcing on them a huge burden of $56 million. Many people, especially those with young families already have heavy financial commitments. They are struggling with basic living costs – mortgages, rates, food, petrol. They don’t need increased rate demands to benefit the elite sports fraternity.

Hawke’s Bay is well endowed with excellent sport facilities. Many of these  are underutilized. Yet another would create further redundancies of existing facilities and loss of smaller local areas. Why not swap around facilities between groups who’s grounds are too big with those which are too small? Some of these grounds could be put to multi use with good planning. Why not negotiate with schools to use their grounds for some activities? This could be of mutual benefit.

Consultation-

The Council has not adequately consulted with the public – the only true consultation to date has been with the selected sports groups directly involved, and on the extension to Percival Road yet the project has already been started. The public have not consented to the location. The Project  is being promoted as a Regional Sports Park – yet Napier City Council and Regional Council ratepayers have not been consulted. Much recent time and funding has been put into marketing the idea to the community, but the public are not being given realistic alternatives, nor are they being presented with the downside of the project.

Cost and Revenue Predictions

The impressive sounding computer generated figures on funding and costs do not stack up for those of us who have been and are involved in the real side of running sports programs, fundraising, and managing venues and events.
Why don’t the Council honestly present real facts and figures to the community. Check out the costs and income generated by existing venues in the region and, actual income from events run by the codes wanting the park?  The HDC Sports Centre for starters recoups only 25% of it’s operational costs.
Perhaps figures have been based on “Horse of the Year” income to Hastings. The horse fraternity are usually wealthy people who spend money easily. Other sports, especially children’s codes, involve a mixed cross section of society who are not often wealthy so spend very little. We can now add the fuel crisis to the equation which will reduce the numbers of visitors and participants to events. Also the state of chaos of the global economy is affecting us.

We have been told Venue programs will help prevent youth suicide, crime, make people healthier and more active -

Sports facilities and green spaces are needed in the community centres. The programs to get the kids out of gangs, (they join at 8) off school rooves, stop them robbing dairies, and away from the spray cans and dope, need to be provided in their local communities. They have to be physically rounded up and inspired to get involved in anything worthwhile. They will not come to the sports park themselves. Programs providing physical activity opportunities are more effective operating in local communities rather than being concentrated in one large facility. Young and older people who need the facilities have transport and financial limitations.

————
I object to the proposed “Regional Sports Park” on the following grounds -

-the large debt already accrued by Council on projects such as Splash Planet and Opera House. Rate Payers are facing increasing difficulties with mortgage, rate payments and high petrol and food costs.

-Regional implies that the concept is needed and approved by the whole Regional Community. Only the HDC ratepayers have so far been consulted, and that only of late.

-The region is already well endowed with high quality sports facilities which are underutilized. Half empty grandstands for international events.

-The fact that the only funding currently assured is the proceeds from the sale of Nelson Park. Only $11 million of the $18 ½ million is feeding through to the project.

-The fact that the project planning is not even finalised. This could result in doubling the final costs.

- Why do we need a 2,500 seat grandstand for athletics? Over the 15 years when Nelson Park was my second home, I was present most weeks for all types of athletic events from national to local. I only once saw the 1,000 seat grandstand close to full . That was for the NI Colgate Games. My club then had 280 members. Several clubs have since folded.

-Why are we looking at an $11 million velodrome?
Track cycling is a minor sport. It is a declining sport in the top cycling countries. In spite of high density populations and the busy programs offered, most overseas velodromes are huge financial burdens on communities.
A good outdoor track could be built for a few hundred thousand – Dunedin is more than happy with theirs which is new, and they have held the World Junior event. There is already an indoor track in Invercargill for the elite cyclists to train on. The Olympic team are doing so now. One covered velodrome is enough for a population of 4 million people. There are already 11 velodromes in New Zealand – four I think closed down.
Track cycling is a hi tech, expensive sport which few can afford to participate in. A leading world track cycling promoter and builder of some of the  major velodromes, tells us he has built a number of “white elephants.” Most are not economically viable. Only about four world track events actually make money. Road cycling is the cyclists choice, and the “crowd puller.” There is a large amount of information accessible on the web about cycling and velodromes. Look it up.

-The computer projected analyses of income and benefits for the region does not stack up with reality. Were actual venues and events costs profits and losses used for each code?  For example the inaugural hosting by Hawke’s Bay Centre of the NI Colgate Games attracted 1,600 athletes. The profit for that meeting amounted to $16,000 – $10 for each entrant. $60,000 was collected each day.  Most went to administration costs. When we hosted Inter-provincials we either billeted athletes, or accommodated teams in halls where they self catered.

-A multi purpose facility will create problems with access for other code users when one code user holds a major event

-The fact that the facility will compete with other venues around New Zealand for national events. For international events it will compete with bigger and more accessible facilities overseas in countries where the sporting code has a high profile and large population base to draw on, and extensive facilities for accommodation etc.

-The population base of Hawke’s Bay at  the 2006 consensus was 147,783 – insufficient to support the huge debt and ongoing costs of operating the proposed complex.

-The inappropriate use of  30 hectares of prime food production land (not just locally significant, but some of the best land on this planet) This land is the basis of our economy. The prosperity of Hawke’s Bay is dependent on the preservation and protection of this precious land.

-The location of the proposed Sports Park is too far removed from existing population centres. It will increase vehicle usage and congestion on our roads and corresponding emissions. This in turn will be prohibitive to many who are finding vehicle use increasingly unaffordable.

-The promotion of the park on the basis of improving health and participation by the community, and the claim that it will reduce youth suicide is flawed. Sport is big business and targeted by high power marketing of clothing, body image, equipment and performance enhancing food, drink etc. which can actually be quite harmful.
Consequently little is said about the costs to taxpayers through ACC funding from sport injury, sport generated hospital bed usage and consequent surgery, chronic fatigue syndrome, stress on families and relationship breakdowns, (a common cause of suicide), loss of quality time spent with children when sport becomes  a compulsive obsessive disorder, the financial drain on households, and the loss of work performance. People actually do die from sports – several each year and some of them very young.
Sport is good for you yes, but in moderation where there are proven physical, mental and social benefits.

The big businesses which profit from the elite sport fraternity should provide the facilities and funding for these sports, not the community.

Where should Council be spending rate payers money for sport -

The Council’s responsibility is to use ratepayer funds on projects and facilities which are of true benefit to the community. This also should be the role of SPARC, taking programs to the community, not the community coming to them. The ideals of encouraging involvement and promoting social, mental and physical wellbeing would succeed if programs were run locally. The most effective way to meet the Council objectives of participation, improved health and socialization of the community, is to provide quality programs targeting all age groups. on local green spaces and within walking distance from their homes. Easy accessibility and affordability would enable and encourage wider participation in activity and revitalize community spirit. It could also reduce community crime.

My own many years of experience with sports as competitor, coach, administrator and teacher, has proved this philosophy many times. Leave the elite sports fraternities and their the venues to be fully funded by the big businesses who profit from sports, not by the communities.

.

————
As large multi-purpose facilities increase, the community loses it’s own smaller council managed green spaces and small clubs are forced to finance and maintain their own grounds. These smaller club facilities cater largely for the growing number of retired people who are more activity oriented than previous generations, but being mostly pensioners they cannot afford the costs and are unable to do the voluntary maintenance work needed. Probably proportionally to population sectors, more of these people are ratepayers than most other groups. The over sixty age group is growing faster than other groups and they should not take lesser priority to high profile sports that are more able to find funds for themselves.

For the cycling fraternity to promote the idea they will prevent youth suicide is unacceptable as justification for their veledrome. To help youth at risk involves rounding them up off the streets and supporting them in their own communities with professionally trained people running quality programs. They will not come to the venue voluntarily. Most do not have the motivation or the means to join clubs without specifically targeted programs and funding organised to meet their needs.

After many years of being intensively involved in athletics at all levels locally to nationally, and as a competitor, coach, official, administrator and delegate, I believe I am well qualified to make a good judgment on this subject. I was also involved with organizing sports in schools.

I was one of the small group of people who brought children’s athletics to Hawke’s Bay.
The principle was to provide a full range of athletic activities and full non stop programs where children could participate at their natural levels and have fun doing so.

As a consequence children’s athletics grew rapidly over the years we were involved, our own Taradale Club membership reached 280 with children coming in from as far away as Kote Maori.
There were several interclub meetings held throughout Hawke’s Bay each year from Gisborne to Dannevirke.  Some of the athletes have gone on to become top athletes and many others have continued their interest and now have their own children involved in sports. I have in later years had interesting feedback from people who were children at risk but who’s lives have been turned around because of our input and support.

Apart from Hastings all of the clubs were operated on local green areas in their communities.
I was involved in taking provincial and club teams all over New Zealand from Auckland to Christchurch. We traveled cheap and accommodation was always in church or club rooms with kitchen facilities where we did our own catering, and only one or two basins and toilets available. We slept on the floor. We did not contribute very much to local economies where we visited.
We had fun and all were highly motivated.

As our core founding group were no longer able to be so involved in the sport others took over who lacked the motivation or vision we had. Eventually the Hastings top coaches began poaching athletes showing talent and dictating the centre programs. Programs were merged so senior events were combined with children’s events and children became bored and dropped out in large numbers because they spent much of the meeting time sitting watching the seniors. Most young athletes pushed too hard are not able to cope physically or psychologically  with the pressures put on them and either break down or lose interest and we lost some very talented young people because of this.

Through organizing school Tee Ball and Softball teams in a low socio economic community I found that the parents were either not able or not interested to transport children from Flaxmere to Akina Park. The children’s ages ranged from 5 to 12. These children were very keen but relied on two parents with vans and myself to get to the venue. A small number of the older ones had bikes. After I left the school there was no one else to take over the teams and they folded. I returned later to the school to relieve on odd days and one of the older boys came pleading to me to come back to the school so they could play softball. These children were inducted into gangs at age 8 and if they had been able to continue with their sport they may have been encouraged away from the gangs.