Strong support for new museum - Council

Supplied photo.

Tauranga City Council says three months of community engagement has shown significant community support for a new museum in Tauranga, and the redevelopment of the central library.

At a meeting on Wednesday, the Tauranga City Transformation Committee discussed the community engagement undertaken so far, outlining perspectives from community members on what they value and what they would like to experience in a new museum and central library.

This information was gathered through workshops, focus groups, school visits and stalls at community events.

Chair of the City Transformation Committee Larry Baldock thinks it was a great opportunity to talk with the community about what is important to them.

“We have been blown away by the level of engagement, discovering the willingness of people to get involved and share their views."

The feedback will be used to shape the business case currently being prepared for a new museum and the redevelopment of the central library in the city centre.

The most common perspective from people was their desire for a new museum to be able to ‘tell our story' and learn about what has shaped Tauranga to be the place it is today. 

People also thought it was important for a new museum to build cultural awareness, be a local tourist attraction, and a place to take visitors.  

Feedback recognised the need for the central library to be modernised, but stressed the need to retain some of the more traditional aspects of the library service.

Some highlighted concerns about the costs and prioritising this work over other community needs.

However, these comments were minor in comparison to the support that was voiced.

With the business case well underway, the City Transformation Committee discussed the community engagement and the potential location for the facilities.

City transformation general manager Jaine Lovell-Gadd says Council has previously resolved to look at the locations of 91 Willow Street and Cliff Road.

“The recommendation on a location will consider such factors as; strategic objectives, cultural significance, experience, cost, time to build, suitability of land and neighbourhood impacts.

"The role of the Council is to assess all the factors, and recommend a location and approach, which will give Tauranga the best opportunity for a successful museum and library."

The City Transformation Committee resolved to receive a report on August 1 that provides information to support the shortlisting of options and location for cultural facilities that reflects the information received to date from engagement with Tangata Whenua, Kaumatua and the community and the technical advice including advice from Technical Advisory Group.

Any proposed investment in a new museum and the redevelopment of the central library will be formally consulted on as part of the Long Term Plan process in early 2018.



85 Comments

Business Plan?

Posted on 25-07-2017 15:10 | By waiknot

If I read correctly council has not yet delivered a business plan, that been so I'm intrigued as to the question /terms of reference for all the polls taken so far. A fair and true poll/referendum can not be conducted untill the projected reality is disclosed. As for assuming what the silent majority believe, I could also put up a strong argument that they are silent because they are just not interested in a museum or have concluded that there view are irrelevant as council does what it wants anyway. But that's only an assumption which is exactly what is getting put forward here dressed up as facts.

@Misappropriate

Posted on 25-07-2017 14:59 | By Papamoaner

Just a polite reminder that we are still waiting for you to produce the referenda results you earlier claimed to have. Will you be long?

Dearest Robin number 6

Posted on 25-07-2017 11:51 | By MISS ADVENTURE

perhaps your views are somewhat limited? Miss does not mean Mr. Accurate, time will certainly reveal that, the information I am revealing publically here is mostly from TCC and its related appendages, they dont want you to know this stuff until they have dreamed up a scheme and plan to massage it into soemthing else "nice to have". Edit out all that Councilors may dislike and leave only that needed for the rubber stamping process approval? Discrediting TCC is not hard to do they provide some much garbage attempting to disguise teh truth that even the slightest degree of common sense can see through it for what it is. Can you "see" Robin or do you merely look with rose tinted glasses?

Miss Adventure or misnomer that is the question.

Posted on 25-07-2017 08:54 | By R. Bell

Missy has now commanded one quarter plus of all comments. Of all the so called content, how much is accurate? Council has not yet delivered a business plan. How then can the "detail"missy supplies be accurate? Answer it can't. What we have is grandstanding, similar to the $10 dollar farce intended to discredit T.C.C. Fear mongering is the name of his game, no substance, no thought for others, pure and simple, with the emphasis on the latter. Robin Bell.

Photo says a 1000 words

Posted on 24-07-2017 09:58 | By MISS ADVENTURE

The heading refers to "Strong support" but then the photo attached should depict hordes of onlookers clammering to get closer, what we actualy have is more uninterested personnel sitting that onlookers? Where is the "Strong Support"? There are more people in the background flying kites than anywhere near whatever si beign displayed? So end conclusion, does one person expressing support whilst breezing by amount to "strong support"? From that person likely yes, however what about the other 119,996 people in Tauranga?

Museum = mortgage the future?

Posted on 24-07-2017 09:53 | By MISS ADVENTURE

Yes it does, the desires of a few involved are being lumbered onto the current and all future generations, not even the current generations present today even have a choice. It is imperitive that these types of extravagant things often referred to as "nice to haves" are funded now, not by debt. It si also vital that the losses and risks inevitable are properly funded else than annual rates of the unknowning, uninformed and unadvised or consulted TCC ratepayers.

@ groutby - correct

Posted on 24-07-2017 09:49 | By MISS ADVENTURE

But the reason for the feelings of being backed into a corner here are that Dear Master Pappa-moaner has nothing of substance to support and back up what is said. The usual response to dfending ones self then has no option but to go personal. That si indeed regrettable but entorely expected.

Muesum debt burden

Posted on 24-07-2017 09:47 | By MISS ADVENTURE

We know that it will cost more than expected so $30m+ and we know that the costs of it will be massive likely around $7-8m/pa. There is no question that the only funding from elsewhere than TCC that is known of is Government and that will possible be some $6m or so. The end result here is a dead wieght of debt of some $24+m at the start and $7-8m+/pa, in ten years that will be around $100m added to either rates or debt or both. Why should the few burden the many with so much? To add to that, the shed at the Mount that already costs some $1m/pa is mostly stuff that was donated over the years, there is nothing of significance within that would need more than a double bay garage. The logical answer here is that the Museum-ites go rent space at Historical Village.

A little more education for groutby.

Posted on 24-07-2017 09:37 | By R. Bell

The poll papamoaner refers to was taken by T.C.C. it is verifiable on line using references already posted many times, 49% for, 31% against 19% undecided. Last year Simon Bridges and his team polled 2,000 people and came up with 71% for, with certain conditions also posted many times. Larry Baldock's poll of 600 also showed a majority for a museum with conditions. Can you please point out the relevant "content"you find in missy's postings. Please edit the meaningless waffle, that should make it easy for you. Robin Bell.

@Groutby

Posted on 24-07-2017 08:49 | By Papamoaner

You titled your last post telling me I need to "be thoughtful" Then in the very next breath castigate me for playing the man before the ball. My obvious response to that is "Touche" I can hear the black pots and kettles on the boil. Seriously though, I'm not at all offended by your comment. We all do it from time to time, usually out of frustration from suffering distracting fools. On that note, the character in question is indeed one. The epitome of debating incompetence who I note still continues to address those two pivotal questions asked of him/her/or composite. These irritating individuals serve only to clog up the debate and slow everything down, so I make no apology for kicking the odd empty melon into touch now and then. Regretfully I'm not qualified to perform frontal lobotomy's.

@groutby

Posted on 24-07-2017 08:31 | By Papamoaner

Yes, why would I not confirm that? I have not alleged any formal referenda apart from a poll (note different words and pluralisation) conducted by Cr McIntosh. Those allegations came from the Nays. What I HAVE suggested, is that it is a psychological trait that the masses only promulgate their disapproval against that which they strongly object to. It is a reasonable conclusion therefore, that the silent majority are generally comfortable with mooted projects. For example, were a new highway proposed between Tauranga and Katikati, would you expect the masses to write in and say "we agree with this"? Certainly not! It is only the objectors that are normally vocal. Therefore we can fairly presume the silent majority have given tacit approval to the new road. Hey, this aint rocket science as they say.

@ pappa Moaner plague?

Posted on 23-07-2017 22:47 | By MISS ADVENTURE

It is indeed completely naive to assume that the silent majority becasue they are silent means automatically that they are 100% supportive. In fact the "silent majority" have not been consulted (deliberate by TCC) and little truthful informaiton is out there except from the likes of me (again deliberate by TCC) and the numbers to date, and the numbers planned and the number resulting from a blowout of costs and the massive costs resulting from opening the doors is frightening stuff. Then add the typical over paid and over staffed situations of all things TCC, all then that was completely unbelievable becomes wildly crazy and massively out of control. You may ask for evidence, I quote former Cr Bill Faulkner, he said "... all that Council (TCC) does costs three times anyone else ...". The simple conclusion resulting is that the less TCC does is better for "EVERYONE" else.

Papamoaner..be thoughtful please...

Posted on 23-07-2017 18:59 | By groutby

...you are passionate and we accept and love that, but be aware you are almost, just almost attacking the writer rather than the content, I imagine (as I would), that you feel you are being backed into a corner here. Everyone is entitled to a point of view and although we who have been around for more than 6 decades and read a lot think so, but we must ALWAYS be open to alternative thoughts fitting today's society.Back to the topic though, you ask Miss Adventure to produce certain evidence to a ratepayer referendum which was asked of you by myself on a previous post. A privately funded telephone poll of just 600 asking a very leading question is not such. Can you now confirm there was no actual ratepayer poll on this subject. The answer is yes or no...again I say, do tell.....

@ ROCCO - referendum

Posted on 23-07-2017 16:01 | By MISS ADVENTURE

Only way to go, must be binding, there can onlty be one, then over rover out and gone forever.

@Miss Fired

Posted on 23-07-2017 11:24 | By Papamoaner

You have made false claims alleging a number of Sunlive surveys, but as usual, include no reference. I have been around for more than 6 decades, read a lot, and don't recall these surveys you claim to have happened. Perhaps you are confused and are thinking of council meeting discussions and votes, which are NOT citizen polls, but I'm more inclined to suspect you have just manufactured it all. However, I now admire your courage in finally putting your head on the block in your last post by claiming to have all the data and suggesting you could post it here. Please do - FEEL FREE. I doubt I'm the only one waiting for this revelation Missy. Give us every survey or poll date with accompanying result. No ifs, no buts, no maybes.

@Missadventure

Posted on 22-07-2017 15:46 | By Papamoaner

Produce the exact dates and titles of the polls you claim were carried out, and also the result data. Otherwise you are just rambling incoherently with made-up bullshit as seems to be your usual modus operandi. Don't give us waffle. Back up your rambling with actual figures so we can debate it objectively.

Thank you and good luck TCC

Posted on 22-07-2017 12:22 | By Papamoaner

Thanks to Mr Baldock and those people who carried out this survey. You have quite professionally explained how you got your data. Your finding of strong support for a museum is research-based and well reported. You have done your homework well. Apart from a very small group of dissidents on these threads (you'll always get that so can ignore it ), there has been no public outcry against the concept of a museum. That alone implies public support for the concept. We now welcome a call for public submissions on the technical aspects of the museum, with ideas and suggestions on various displays, interactive displays, and their presentation. If the place gets filled up with young people queuing out the door, reasonably well sustained, (a good measurement), you have got empirical evidence of your success. Well done!

@ Pappa Moaning ... Polls and things

Posted on 21-07-2017 17:03 | By MISS ADVENTURE

Whee have you been for the last decade or so? Obviously not with a nose in the media, aimed at TCC for any reason. Lets sart with an easy reference, look at Sunlive and the polls that have been run online ehre, the voting was public, open and able to be seen by all. I would simply post the final reesult here but I am sure you would dispute it simply because of the results. This si part of the "vested interest" issue, a predetermined and desire answer then blocks anything else from being considered at all. Good luck in your mission ...

@ pappa Moaner - Greedy

Posted on 21-07-2017 12:58 | By MISS ADVENTURE

Yes, where someone wants something for themselves to have, benefit or whatever (no indication whatsoever of wider benefit to Tauranga, allthough lots of garage reports of regional benfits all in laa-laa land and some) and they expect that others pay (ratepayers) then that is greed. If so important go out there pay the money and do it. Why suck off everyone else?

@ Papps - strike four and out

Posted on 21-07-2017 12:55 | By MISS ADVENTURE

The truth of it is that Rotorua does not greatly benefit from Tourisum, the hotel chains, bus companies and the few Tourist site only benefit and virtually all are overseas owned, that means the profits leave Rotorua and even NZ. No benefit in that to NZ. So back to it, Council interring with a Museum will only add to the burden of TCC ratepayers. The proof: - Katikati had a go at it, a society of volunteers could not make it happen, what meek kind of chance would a $30 million massive building and huge operational costs have of breaking even? Answer is not a hope in hell! The evidence is all around NZ and overseas, they are a unnecessary liability. Then add that the shed TCC paid around a million annually for all up to store stuff would have been best sent to the tip (90-95% anyway).

@ Papps - strike three and out

Posted on 21-07-2017 12:49 | By MISS ADVENTURE

The nearest thing you are talking of is like the Matakohe Museum - all about kauri's history in NZ. It is well run, community based, profitable. Now there is a template to see, gasp and implement. Key factor: - no Council involved and no Council sponging. Just a Inc Society that is focused and organised and self managed. These things only work it properly organised. The simple fact is that the lack of and the involvement of Councils only means that it is a financial disaster for TCC ratepayers. Tourisum being a good thing economically for NZ is another laa-laa dream and some. Take a good hard look at Rotorua, millions of tourists annually and the place mostly is poor, low paid and economically rather low ... why if tourism is so wonderful? (see part 4)

@ Papps - number 3 - vested interests

Posted on 21-07-2017 11:25 | By MISS ADVENTURE

I am sure that the phase is clear of itself, to assist: example: - TCC COuncillors allocated $125,000 of ratepayer hard earned money to investigate the feasibility/options for a Museum. Other resolutions set some boundaries. Thise appointing themselves were all "Museum-ites" or Museum lovers. The obvious result was that the results were all about how wonderful it was, what was desired and nothing about how to pay for it in line with the resolutions of Councillors. The results was in fact a collosal waste of rates and time with not meaningful answers or options to achieve anything. There is the "vested" interest factor, despite the obvious failings of the idea onward we go. Those involved have a tainted view before they started, the views that they then express then lack any credibility for very obvious reasons. A feasibility study needs to be more than "I want" or "I/we need...".

@ papamoana - anecdote

Posted on 21-07-2017 10:35 | By MISS ADVENTURE

Plato made similar comments when alive, it would seem thise comments are still applicable now according to you. However for some reason we are still all here. So the implicaiton of your piost is that the world has changed as it does and as it always will. However not always for the best or for the right reasons. In end result here you appear entrenched, sad! The world has changed, you need to, accept it and "evolve" or die out. The same aplies to a Museum, it is of no use, no benefit and is only in the media because a few wee moaners have bleeted a little to often, nothing else is material to this discussion except when it will be over once and for all like the majority want.

@FunnyGames

Posted on 21-07-2017 09:47 | By Papamoaner

Thanks for the compliment !! But I prefer to hear you on topic so we can get our teeth into the argument. But if you are going to quote figures and polls etc., make sure you reference the source of your information so it can be validated, otherwise it's just bullshit like the crap produced by a couple of other posters on here that just make up numbers with no authentication.

Papamoaner

Posted on 21-07-2017 08:23 | By FunandGames

You are so much fun.

@Miss Adventure

Posted on 20-07-2017 21:53 | By Papamoaner

Stop indulging in dishonest bullcrap by making false claims of "recent polls over years" without referencing them. Put your money where your mouth is and quote dates and exact figures of the results, so that they can be validated, like most genuine debaters normally do. Otherwise you are out of your depth and just wasting everybody's time. Provide the appropriate figures or get off the stage..

3rd part of the equation

Posted on 20-07-2017 21:34 | By Papamoaner

With wool gone, and dairying being depleted, our new primary industry will be tourism and culture. And as with our historic primary industries, this one will be competitive too, because other countries are in the same boat. Sharpen up or get left behind. That means we must stand out, and world class interactive museums are a good way to go to achieve those goals. Granted, not the whole solution, but an important part of it. Why have most of our kids never seen a horse getting shoe'd? Bring your horses to the museum let the farriers generate revenue. Why do our younger people pay so much to go to the Gym when they could pit-saw timber at the local museum like our pioneers did more than a century ago? The ideas are endless, as is the potential.

Have no faith in these Dingbats.

Posted on 20-07-2017 21:27 | By ROCCO

Unadulterated bulldust to say there is strong support for a museum but then you would expect that from these sort of people wouldn't you ? Settle the thing once and for all by way of a binding poll taken from TCC Ratepayers.Questions to be asked do you want a museum at all ,what build price you would accept,then spell out how much ratepayers will contribute to the build cost and last but not least how much TCCratepayers will need to front up with for annual operating costs. Outcome if TCC tell the truth and staff do not interfere with the process there will be at least an 80% vote against it because the costs will scare them all to death.Remember TCC have already said TCCRatepayers would not be required to contribute and to now say otherwise is telling porkies.

@Miss Adventure

Posted on 20-07-2017 19:37 | By Papamoaner

Two questions? You claimed that folks who want a museum have a "vested interest" Got me stumped! Can you please elaborate on that? Later in the same post, you say we are "greedy" Can you please also elaborate on that? I am so bloody old now, I don't have a vested interest in anything, and my "greed" is exclusively confined to quaffing Bluff oysters with red wine when I can afford it.My singular motivation for a museum is to leave some cultural benefit for our young people. I am reluctant to accuse you of contradicting yourself. Your chance to prove me wrong should I have done that.

Survival part two

Posted on 20-07-2017 19:26 | By Papamoaner

Albert Einstein said "the world will not be destroyed by perpetrators, but by those who watch and do nothing" (or words to that effect). Thus far, he has mostly been right, so we ought to learn from it. Computers will soon become intuitive. As soon as that happens, they will begin to make humans redundant. Once that is done, they will begin to make each other redundant, so there will only be one very powerful computer left. To the next species on the planet, if humanoid, the surviving computer, or its remains will be worshipped as a god. (yes we are that primitive). It seems to me, the only thing that will save us, is culture, with Museums a vital part of it, so that kids have at least some idea of what passed before. The alternative is unthinkable.

@Misadventure

Posted on 20-07-2017 19:05 | By Papamoaner

Reasonable but most of it is anecdote. My philosophy on why culture is now paramount to our survival as a species;- (it could take two posts) Our primary industry was once wool, with huge sheep stations that kept rural towns buoyant, with trickle-down benefits to cities and the whole country. To a lesser extent dairying albeit now under threat as we all know. Rural towns now have too many empty shops for comfort. Engineering skills and craftmanship globally is under threat due to additive engineering (call it 3D printing if you like). The whole world is under threat from intuitive computing including CAD eg; Solidworks. Wonderful stuff that I use myself, BUT it will eventually be our demise. Look how GPS is creating zombie drivers who don't need nor want to know where they actually are, only interested in their destination.

Repeat of history times ten

Posted on 20-07-2017 17:25 | By MISS ADVENTURE

The Tauranga Art gallery saga is a very clear reflection of the class of all involved. The saga also reflects just how far some will go to get what they want and how demanding that will be of the desire and need to spend monies belonging to the wider community. The community leaders that we ratepayers elected to represent us all wisely, honourably and of course with all citizens considered fairly and equally failed completely. They were rail-roaded via selective informaiton and mis-information to believe that all was good. But it was not and could not be. The end result is that TCC ratepayers have been burdended with a circus, a financial disaster, a payout annually to keep the doors open and yet the leeches with continue extolling the virtues of it all. Credibility here has long since left the room. The same mob are hung-up on a Museum!

Wasted $125,000 due diligence from ratepayers?

Posted on 19-07-2017 18:12 | By MISS ADVENTURE

Nothing meaningful came of it except back to the endless moaning about "I want ...". Then the weak as excuse erport came out behind closed doors, that they wanted TCC ratepayers to pay the entry fee for local residents to get in the door. That clearly cuts across the TCC Councillors resolution already. TCC staff have "created" a lovely feel warm story that suits the moaners and well sadly the short memory of Councillors kicks in and so we are now on this wild ride of fairytails and mythical stuff to self justify what otherwise can not be justified. Teh real question that TCC staff refuse to answer and will always do so is "What is it going to cost and whose paying?"

@ Papamoaner - fair means or foul

Posted on 19-07-2017 13:58 | By MISS ADVENTURE

Regrettably that is the game here being played by the few with a vested desire in a there being a Museum. The sad part is often that that demand it all be provided for their indulgence but at no time are they prepared to pay or do anything for it to happen otherwise. The mondset is that they desire that otehrs provide, pay for and pay them to run it all for their own self betterment/indulgence. The objectivity needed has long gone, its replaced by self-desire and greed shown by demands of "I want" or "the community needs ..." or "it's wonderful for ...". All of these standard rolled out clap-trap has not basis or evidence and in fact they get angry if one insists upon the evidence to back it up. The anger of course is an attempt to deflect attention away from the fact that there's nothing!

@ FunandGames - morally corrupt

Posted on 19-07-2017 13:52 | By MISS ADVENTURE

That is correct, to desire, demand and push forward onsomething when all faxcts are not available, when the truth is fudged to a desired result means the gun is loaded, the mind is closed to anything else, any evidence, anything contrary in anyway. There are a number of obvious commentartors on here that display these very serious limitations. The depth of that ingrained mindset is breathtakingly extreme. One should always be open to hear, consider, review, judge the views of others and give respect where it is due. Sadly some cant get to the first base.

Reality of a Museum

Posted on 19-07-2017 13:48 | By MISS ADVENTURE

It is postulated as being a wonder, a "need" when in fact it is a economic disaster and massive handicap for a community. The numbers speak for themselves. Look at the Art gallery in reality it is a "Mini-me" of a Museum, 80% of the annual costs are paid by TCC Ratepayers and that was never the deal. It was to be self funded. They report these wonderful "surpluses" but in fact they are completely in noddy-land. The 80% ratepayer subsidy is called income, this si the fudgery-do stuff that Councillors have in front of them now from TCC staff.

A binding referendum

Posted on 19-07-2017 11:09 | By MISS ADVENTURE

Now that would be a great idea, It would resolve the issue one way or another clearly for all.

TCC Councillors resolved ...

Posted on 19-07-2017 11:08 | By MISS ADVENTURE

That TCC fully supported a Museum and put up $125,000 to a hand picked mob of Museum handout freaks as a committee to carry out a feasibility study etc. Councillors also resolved at that same time that any plan, concept, project for a Museum would have land and consent provided by TCC, otherwise it needed to be "Community funded". That means the build and ongoing massive losses that it will generate. That committee decided (briefly) that: - preferred site was Cliff Rd, that needed TCC to pay for from rates (contrary to TCC resolutions) for locals to attend/visit for free. In otherwords despite the clear instructions there was a complete lack of funding from the community to get it off the ground. This then would end up as a replica of the Art gallery, a huge ratepayer burden that was never meant to be, but a lot bigger/worse.

@ Papamoaner

Posted on 19-07-2017 10:59 | By MISS ADVENTURE

Recent polls from the last several years, they have been consisently around that percentage. The worse one I have ever seen as 65% against, that one was oddly low. The reason TCC staff think that there is "massive support" is that they have organised meetings about how wonderful (loaded teh dice) and solicitied thise few who support the sessions. If you put 20 people who want it in a small room, then a simple mind will always get fooled into teh notion that "there's a lot of support ...". It is a simple error to make for one of simple mind.

@FunandGames

Posted on 18-07-2017 17:48 | By Papamoaner

A tad colloquial don't you think? Do you REALLY think I was advocating "fair means or foul"? It causes me to question your intelligence to be honest. Quoting me out of context on a throw-away comment, you have taken a literal meaning out of "by hook or by crook". My poor choice of words I must admit, "sooner rather than later" is actually what I meant and I should have said just that, so I stand corrected on that pedantic point;. Now, that done, down to business;- can we see you present some tangible debating arguments on topic in preference to searching through posts looking for skeletons in empty cupboards?

@Funandgames

Posted on 18-07-2017 10:53 | By Papamoaner

Yes, I agree that is correct, but it is simplistic. That is not how this kind of citizen's referendum is operated. The way it would or should be conducted, it to present a general proposal with public submissions included. Then after that debate is deemed to have been concluded, and any adjustments made, the referendum question should be "do you support the proposal" ?

Papamoaner

Posted on 18-07-2017 10:26 | By FunandGames

The biggest nail in the coffin for your debate was made by you in another debate. You said, by hook or by crook we will get our museum. This clearly illustrates you are morally bankrupt on this discussion and will manipulate and twist and turn anything to get what you want. Before you choose to tarnish and twist my comments please have a good look in the mirror.

BECAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR?

Posted on 18-07-2017 10:12 | By FunandGames

All I wish for is the public to be informed as to exactly what they are getting. That includes assets and liabilities. EG: a museum and then what costs up front and ongoing. I don't believe any of the polls referendums to date have been that clear. You will always get the answer you want if you word the question correctly. Another example if asked would you like it if Tauranga had a museum? I assume not many would object. Alternatively would you like it if Tauranga had a museum and this is what it will cost? The answer most likely will be very different.

@Waiknot, on generalisations.

Posted on 18-07-2017 09:52 | By Papamoaner

From as far back as the Roman empire, at any AGM or SGM the chairman's casting vote goes to the status quo by convention unless there are extenuating circumstances. That's because it's acknowledged that the silent majority will happily tolerate or even support a mooted proposal granted maybe a few grudgingly. But if they have passionate objection, they will vent it! Of that we can be certain. So it's always only the objectors that are heard baying in the herd. Excuse the cliche, but this aint rocket science. So with respect, I think you are getting into weasel-word territory out of desperation, running out of logical argument. I've sensed a whiff of you swaying a time or two, so maybe there's an element we all have, of enjoyment in the sport of a lively debate.

Miss Adventure's dream

Posted on 17-07-2017 17:35 | By Papamoaner

I think Miss adventure is hiding under a rock somewhat embarrassed, having been being unable to authenticate his/her 85%-against figment of invention. No need for Groutby's mirrors here. More than enough smoke to reflect a rather amateurish attempt at sleight of hand. You're out of your depth here Missy.

No smoke, no mirrors groutby,

Posted on 17-07-2017 09:31 | By R. Bell

There have been numerous polls over the last few yrs. The one papamoaner quotes was a city council telephone poll referred to by councilor Mcintosh some yrs ago. At no time, in any poll has there been a majority against a museum. It is fair to say the proviso has always been, that a museum should not be TOTALLY funded by ratepayers only. My understanding is that the current proposal requires that be the case. 85% against !!!!!! miss- taken is at it again. Robin Bell.

@GROUTBY

Posted on 17-07-2017 09:25 | By Papamoaner

You're bordering on gobbledegook now. You know as well as I do that all these various polls, surveys etc can fairly indicate a direction when added together or fair estimates got from extrapolation and interpolation. But I concede it's only an estimated direction. Call it smoke and mirrors if you want, but it tells me I can be reasonably confident of the potential outcome of a fresh formal citizens referendum, including ratepayers, especially given the reaction the council got last week. Bring it on, but as I said to Waiknot - BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR because if you push hard enough you might get it, and then have to live with the outcome.

@Waiknot

Posted on 17-07-2017 09:16 | By Papamoaner

I don't disagree with that, but it's a reasonable extrapolation. And as I said earlier, I welcome a fresh official referendum, but BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU ASK FOR

@Missadventure

Posted on 17-07-2017 09:13 | By Papamoaner

OK, you've got me stumped! Where does your 85% figure come from??

Reality check in case you forgot ...

Posted on 16-07-2017 23:19 | By MISS ADVENTURE

Around 85% of ratepayer citizens dont want it and certainly dont want to pay for it either. To be clear, that will be around $30m cost upfront (excludes land, consent, all the costs to date (millions already). but then it gets worse, the annual cost will be around $8-10m and that will be a ratepayers cost the way the Museumites are going about business. To be clear on that Councillors voted that a Museum was fine, as long as no cost to ratepayers. of course that is why it has not got off theground, who would be silly enough to pick up the tab for it all.

Papamoaner, the help is appreciated...

Posted on 16-07-2017 23:05 | By groutby

....I now know that a telephone poll asking people if a museum is "not" or "somewhat" important was asked of 600, just 600 people. This led to your result. It seems that it was not Cr McIntosh or indeed Hon Bridges but Cr Baldock who funded this one question poll. "Clarity" is essential in decision making. I would also have answered this specific question with a "yes somewhat" if the funding question was not asked. So, smoke in mirrors again methinks, the question I had previously asked, I ask again, where is the ratepayer referendum poll results you indicated give a clear "yes" vote for a museum?..you know the answer, I want you to tell me....

Papamoaner

Posted on 16-07-2017 22:19 | By waiknot

It's also a sweeping generalisation to say that the silent majority welcome the concept of a museum. And that's the problem nobody really knows for sure.

Isn't it interesting

Posted on 16-07-2017 22:16 | By waiknot

I can't help noticing people generally believe that the silent majority believes the same as they do. And yes Papamoaner we are small sample commenting here, but man the museum topic gets a lot of comments.

@R.Bell

Posted on 16-07-2017 11:48 | By Papamoaner

Thank you Robin. You have reminded me of a very "different" museum my wife dragged me into kicking and screaming because I knew it was going to be boring. How wrong I was! It's called "window on the world" and is in Shenzen in China. The youtube video of it on the web does it no justice. If we don't address the cultural attractions a vibrant city needs, we will get left out in the cold by these other tourist magnets. I am happy our council are attending to these important issues. We have a beautiful harbour and city with additional cruise ship berthing potential on the city side, and it's encouraging to see that we are about to get off our conservative parochial backside and exploit that potential.

@Groutby - Does this help?

Posted on 16-07-2017 11:19 | By Papamoaner

I haven't authenticated it, but in a Sunlive article in February entitled "Simon calls for a museum" the following passage is copied and pasted here by me;- "Last year 71 per cent of Tauranga respondents to a poll commissioned by the MP gave a resounding Yes' to the plan for a museum". It only took me a few minutes to find that, and I'm sure if you naysayers have a crack at your own research, you will find similar polls, surveys, referenda etc., against a museum if they indeed exist at all. In a nutshell, I am illustrating that it is quite easy to find pro data, but near impossible to find anti data. What message does that send? There are a range of search engines you can use to find this stuff. Go for it - Your move!

@Waiknot

Posted on 16-07-2017 09:29 | By Papamoaner

It's a sweeping generalisation to say the museum debate has "fired up people" It infers the whole community, but it's just a small handful of folks on here debating issues. In that context we are a minority, or statistically, a miniscule sample with a low sampling rate.It's guesswork what the huge majority out there think, but the sampling is much better, and I for one feel confident that all indications thus far point to a majority in favour being a significant probability. Yes, we could include a vote in the next local body election, but then the negative thinkers would seize on that precedent to force other issues to the vote, creating chaos. It makes more sense to elect a council, then let them get on with the tasks at hand instead of trying to micro-manage them every 5 minutes.

Waiknot, dissent will never go away,

Posted on 16-07-2017 09:13 | By R. Bell

that is a given. Those who oppose a museum seemingly do so out of fear of ongoing "cost"to themselves via rates. Those favouring a museum do so for more social benefit type reasons. they seem incompatible. In the end it will depend on the ability of those entrusted to make the right decision. The business plan is not yet complete, therefore on that basis alone, no final decision can be made. I stand firmly with Papamoaner, having seen many of the modern museums he talks of, and endured the pain of waiting in line. Can we do it? Absolutely we can. Robin Bell.

The silent majority

Posted on 16-07-2017 08:52 | By Papamoaner

There is little doubt in my mind that the silent majority welcome the concept of a museum. The council got the same impression last week from their overt public reaction. Remember that the majority don't indulge in online debate, so these threads by definition are normally populated by naysayers on various issues, and it needs to be remembered that they will always be the minority - simple human nature. Meanwhile, it matters not what evidence supporters come up with, naysayers will always respond with a narrow "oh but" way out they can squeeze through, usually pedantic and questionably on topic. I am not against another higher profile referendum, but -BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR! @Groutby; do your own research. I suggest you start at Sunlive June 2015, (3rd or 6th, from memory) then contact Gail McIntosh. Maybe also BOP Times.

The Silent Majority

Posted on 15-07-2017 21:58 | By 01bazza

We do not want or need a museum, maybe when we can drive to and from work in a reasonable time, have good water and sewage plants, no hungry kids, no homeless people, we could consider such a luxury. I would like to know how much money the council has spent on the museum so far and what we could have/ should have spent this money on instead. Councillors need to think very carefully before spending any of our money it is not a bottomless pit.

Papamoaner, I know......

Posted on 15-07-2017 19:44 | By groutby

...I have invited you to supply some detail of the information re: Museum interest, you have and I thank you for that. However, I have not gone quiet (on this issue), I just cannot find any detail referring to a (ratepayer) referendum on such issue. A poll involving Cr McIntosh has come up with numbers, but have you a link or detail as to any detail please, to be truthful anyone with an agenda could run a "poll" with a small and just perhaps "leaning" group of people, and I cannot (as a ratepayer of some 20+ more years) remember such referendum, or indeed poll, can you enlighten me please?..a link to the detail maybe? I have not contacted SunLive directly yet, but maybe you can help?

Robin Bell

Posted on 15-07-2017 15:39 | By waiknot

This museum question for or against definitely has fired up people. As for validity of referendums to date, it's hard to know as they appear to be unofficial making it hard to gage the sample size and methods etc. Perhaps the question should be included in the next council election? It just appears to me the dissent will never go away otherwise.

@Kaimai

Posted on 15-07-2017 12:59 | By Papamoaner

Here are the figures you seek. - 49% for a museum. 31% against. 20% undecided. For the undecided, another commentor on another thread has already calculated at the same ratio as the for and against, and added that correction, which you would agree is fair enough, but there could be a small margin of error. It results in 59% for a museum 41% against. A clear majority for a museum would you not agree? These figures were published in Sunlive in 2015 from a survey conducted by councilor Gail McIntosh.

Modern museums

Posted on 14-07-2017 18:56 | By Papamoaner

I suspect many negative commentors on here visualise a museum as a musty old dimly lit building full of glass cabinets and everybody whispering. They actually have no concept of what today's museums are, let alone a vibrant citiy. You can see it in the way they pedantically focus on peripheral issues like storage of artifacts Those days have long gone guys. Modern museums with interactive displays are so popular they have long queues. Try getting onto the flight simulator at RNZAF museum Wigram without a wait! And that's just one small local example. Overseas museums have similar attractions using real helicopters and real flight simulation systems that kids can fly. One uses a Sioux (Mash) chopper that folks from that era flock to in droves. Imagine something like that here, with our local history and culture blended in.

UNBELIEVABLE

Posted on 14-07-2017 14:18 | By waiknot

To quote: "Some highlighted concerns about the costs and prioritising this work over other community needs.However these comments were minor" Wrong wrong Wrong Larry, I don't care if you are for or against a museum the financing and viability is vital. Reading the article it is clear as Murray said a predetermined outcome that will not tolerate an opposing view. Read the article its full of comments about selecting the correct location etc as if its a done deal.

Bring it back to the historic village...

Posted on 14-07-2017 13:33 | By Shaun Belcher

The TECT hub building would be better used as the new Museum.This would accompany the Historic village perfectly and would solve the problems with having it in the middle of the CBD. There is strong support on the facebook page https://www.facebook.com/tgahistoricvillage

Your at it again Murray,

Posted on 14-07-2017 13:28 | By R. Bell

negative criticism not so much of the concept, but a chance to discredit those who beat you at the last election. It's equally valid to suggest that many people don't vote because they are happy with the status quo. Who knows?. If democracy is so precious to you and those wanting a referendum, you fund it. It's as ridiculous as asking those who want a museum to fund it. Councils are voted in by all, not just ratepayers, therefore they are responsible to the whole community and their collective interests, including the education of our children. A museum fits part of that responsibility. Still waiting for you to call in for our chat. Robin Bell.

Dissapointed

Posted on 14-07-2017 12:54 | By rastus

Can I say just how disappointed I am with Larry Baldock - here was a man who promised all the ideals one could wish of their representative and then once in power has reverted to the same old squeaky wheel follower. Having been a resident (and ratepayer) for a very long time, I can only say that Larry is typical of so many before him - promise to be a principled, honest representative and then disappoint. Larry if you really mean to be principled then put this whole charade on the back burner until the ratepayers have a proper referendum to decide the issue.

Items in Storage and opportunities.

Posted on 14-07-2017 12:39 | By Murray.Guy

Even with a 'new stand along museum', museum storage costs won't cease, reduce at best. Museums do not have all of it's potential display items on display at any given time and expensive storage will still be required. This argument is typical of much supporters 'throw up'. Likewise the 'cut & paste' rhetoric that implies the world will end, we deserve an iconic rate cobbling edifice to our ego, CBD or nowhere, our children will suffer and our economy dry up ... all bollocks, albeit with a smidgen of validity lost in the smoke. Museum folk choose NOT to display what we have, ignore opportunities to rotate, utilizing existing assets such as The Elms, the Historic Village, our libraries and Art Gallery, perhaps Classic Flyers and others. Me, I favor enhancing The Elms and The Village. Perhaps Coronation Park?

TGA CENTRAL

Posted on 14-07-2017 12:15 | By surfsup

The council has been consulting for months on this: Unfortunately they always seem to pick times when the average hardworking rate payer can't get there. The Mayor and several of the councilors got elected on the promise of reducing the council debt, this sadly does not appear to be happening. The museum may be a nice idea but it is not essential to the growth or development of Tauranga, the council needs to sort out the major roading issues it has before spending $$$ on other things.

Nonsence

Posted on 14-07-2017 12:02 | By Kaimai

"Strong support" - how about numbers for, numbers against and numbers that didn't vote / don't care. Bet the numbers for didn't vote wins by a landslide.

here we go again

Posted on 14-07-2017 11:57 | By old trucker

For goodness sake tgacentral TCC dont look at these comments as they cannot read,AND DO NOT CARE, (IVE HEARD) from a source that if you speak up about things in TCC you are hammered, so they are scared of losing their jobs,person(EX) TCC says its VERY TOXIC working there,over 600 staff NONE WITH a BRAIN between them.WE do not need a museum,was it not printed in paper that it costs $600.000 a year to store these,(NOW)does anyone in above have a CONFLICT of interest in this or own the BUILDING they are stored in,here is a idea ,show them in one of the empty buildings at 17thAve down the hill,BUT hang on its got to be FLASH,when in another town they built a Museum ,and now its a white elephant and NO ONE goes to it and costs $$$thousands a year to run,my thoughts only on this subject,Thankyou,10-4out.

@RawPrawn

Posted on 14-07-2017 11:42 | By Papamoaner

I challenge you to produce all details on your claimed "recent referendum" There has only ever been one official referendum among ratepayers, some time ago, (not as recent as your imaginary ghost referendum) and it was heavily in favour of a museum. Those details are available if you want to embarrass yourself by challenging us museum supporters to produce them. Feel free! A small gabble of minority moaners on these threads do not represent the views of the community.if you want to see how a professionally operated museum can eventually become self supporting, you need look no further than the Kelly Tarlton aquarium museum which was sold to private industry for $13 million and is now running at a profit. I don't advocate a commercial venture museum here. I am merely using it as an example.

Put it to a BINDING VOTE for the TRUTH!

Posted on 14-07-2017 11:38 | By NZAdventurer

The Tauranga "CBD" is a small, now very desperate, run down town centre that has little to offer its citizens or visitors, thanks to a decade of mismanagement by TCC and its plethora of organisations. Take the Tauranga Art Gallery some are very quick to boast about the increasing visitor numbers, but what they dont mention is that every year, thousands of school children are increasingly dragged through this loss making venue to boost the recorded visitor numbers. It will be exactly the same with a museum. Just more bragging and spin about wonderful community support and collaborative engagement that serves as window dressing to justify a predetermined agenda. LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE OF TAURANGA - have a binding vote for this nonsense Museum, the antiquated Art Gallery, the $5Mil Mount iSite palace, the diabolical and embarrassing TBOP alphabet soup logo & slogan, theCivic Heart, all the costlylossmakingorganisations...

Do any of you ...

Posted on 14-07-2017 10:35 | By chancer

... realise that council (i.e. we ratepayers) are continually paying a huge amount each year to keep the historical artifacts in special place. Why pay all this money and no one can enjoy them, that's the total waste of money in this whole argument. You have to take risks to make gains - get us a museum council.

A proper referendum is required

Posted on 14-07-2017 10:20 | By Border Patrol

It's all very well going to schools, holding workshops etc, but that doesn't mean that all ratepayers/citizens of Tauranga want a museum. A lot of people work and can't make it to these things even if they wanted to. The fairest way to see if it is supported would be to hold a proper referendum which would then be binding one way or the other. After reading about the council taking on a government loan of $230m, funding $4m for the information centre at the mount just to name a couple of larger projects, I would suggest that ratepayers are very concerned about where their money is going and what appears to be a lack of proper consultation.

You Missed Your Chance to Speak

Posted on 14-07-2017 10:20 | By tgacentral

The council has been consulting for months on this. It has been in the news (some of you below probably commented on articles then) and all over local media. You had your chance to have your voice heard then along with everyone else. Those that took that opportunity were overwhelmingly in support of a museum . Sorry to tell you people but comments on here don't count, you actually have to make an effort to be a part of the democratic process.

Hers a Thought

Posted on 14-07-2017 10:20 | By Dazed and Confused

Why don't those who don't what it to go ahead pick a day..Say next Tuesday and lets all phone TCC all day to register our objection. Blow the phone system out of the water.A few thousand phone calls from 8am to 5pm .Maybe they will get the message that all is NOT all good in the Hood

Thank you Murray Guy

Posted on 14-07-2017 10:05 | By Angels

You have stated what needs to be done. Hopefully council might pay attention. They only want to fill their own objectives and not listen to the ratepayers. We the public should have made this a platform at the last election. We must not let them blow smoke up our backsides with misinformation . The majority do not want a museum. Give us a vote

Support?

Posted on 14-07-2017 09:46 | By Anbob

No one has asked anyone I know. They need to put it to a ratepayer vote! Most people I know are opposed to the museum. I would like a museum, only when there is no council debt on the books. We seem to be losing our democracy as a way as a way of life in NZ.

Muse of the museum..

Posted on 14-07-2017 09:40 | By Me again

yes, because Rotorua's museum has closed down, so now we can cash in on it. But we need to hurry before they open up again.Ha! I for one hope this museum will NOT go ahead. A waste of time and money mostly my rates which I prefer for roads, infrastructure, for our city.

museum

Posted on 14-07-2017 08:50 | By dumbkof2

lets finish this once and for all. have a binding poll and those that want it pay for it

Absolute Bollocks Baldock, manipulated processes to support predetermined outcomes

Posted on 14-07-2017 08:23 | By Murray.Guy

Councillor Baldock campaigned heavily on 'enhancing democracy' in our city, promising surveys and referendums on issues of significance. To date, along with the majority of his fellow like minded Councillors, he has further removed integrity and credibility from consultation processes. Approximately one third of our eligible community don't bother voting and this is in part due to the total mistrust, a valid perception of being used and abused by Tauranga City Council staff and elected members, the reality of 'shadow dwellers and puppeteers' enjoying the support of our elected members BEFORE 'best community outcomes'. Councillor Baldock, conduct 'open and honest consultation in regards museum aspirations 'from a blank sheet' perspective, devoid of the predetermined bias, the refusals to consider any option other than the CBD and stand alone. Councillor Baldock, honor your election promises, add value to democracy rather than further erode.

This is crazy

Posted on 14-07-2017 08:05 | By Angels

This is another attemp to try to convince the few people wanting the museum that we the majority don,t want this debt driven venture add unneeded costs to the ratepayers. What will it take to prove to a few ( very few) that this is Unwanted. We should have had a vote when paying our rates. Why does the city not give us a chance to vote. They know it will not get the ratepayers approval. It is easier to lie and blow smoke up our back sides. The council are very low life trying to railroad this farce through for there rich buddies. Give us a vote and stop this bs.

Rubbish

Posted on 14-07-2017 08:00 | By RawPrawn

I know of no-one who supports this pipe dream! And a recent referendum made that quite clear.If you want to spend time at a museum there's an excellent one in the Capital and it's only a short plane ride away!!

Tin Ears Council.

Posted on 14-07-2017 07:09 | By Bazza 78

How many times do we have to say no to a museum before they get the message. Look at other cities, museums are nothing more than over priced public toilets that soak up rate payers money.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to make a comment. Login Now
Opinion Poll

Are organised gang-fights a good way to stop gang rivalry?

Yes
No
I don’t know

VOTE
VIEW RESULTS
Bay Today


Silhouetted sunrise on July 14th. Photo: Janet Hetherington

Send us your photos from around the Bay of Plenty. kendra@thesun.co.nz