Tauranga City Council today heard the community's feedback on a future museum and the central library in the city centre.
As part of the Heart of the City programme, council held two free and interactive sessions seeking residents' input into what they want to do and see in a museum and library.
The three-hour sessions at Level 1, 2 Devonport Rd, were open to the community.
SunLive caught up with what some of the city residents had to say.
Sessions will be held at Level 1, 2 Devonport Rd on:
Tuesday, May 16, 5.30pm-8.30pm
Wednesday, May 17, 11am-2pm and 5.30pm-8.30pm
Friday, May 19, 9am-12pm
To register for one of the sessions, contact: jennifer.butcher@tauranga.govt.nz or phone 07 577 7165.
For more information, see: www.tauranga.govt.nz/culturalfacilities
28 comments
GO FOR IT !
Posted on 13-05-2017 17:59 | By Papamoaner
The whole city will benefit.
here we go again
Posted on 13-05-2017 18:40 | By old trucker
NOBODY WANTS a MUSEUM,but theyTCC are still trying to slip it in somewhere,TCC will not listen to these folk who want their say,(Maybe its already signed off) more meetings more lunches, meetings again and so it goes on,we donot have a say, ratepayers have already said NO NO,but TCCstill harp on, NOW has a NEWSPAPER BEEN TO SEE these relics at all,somewhere hidden in TGA,and paying HUGE RENTto store them,(NOW) wonder does someone on COUNCIL own that building, and sucking on the teat,IMMMMMMM,my thoughts only,Sunlive is the BEST for news,Thankyou 10-4 out,PS, I heard a whisper that someone does.immmmmm.
No democracy
Posted on 14-05-2017 07:48 | By Angels
Democracy should be our first thought, we the majority have voted for NO museum.Now no one is paying attention, What happened to democracy.In the past 15 years in NZ we have had 2 referendums , the first totally ignored by the national gov,t now we are being ignored locally. But supported by national gov,t to go against this local referendum. Simon bridges is supporting this musuem even when the people say no museum.Notice national party has no respect for the people's vote except at election time. Election are coming.
@OldTrucker
Posted on 14-05-2017 08:38 | By Papamoaner
You have hinted at a councillor having a conflict of interest in "owning a building" I would like to point out that at the beginning of all council meetings and all council procedural gatherings, those present are required to DECLARE ANY CONFLICT OF INTEREST. This is mandatory, backed up by law. If you go to any NZ council website and look at MINUTES OF MEETINGS, you will see that the first agenda item is always a declaration of conflict of interest. It is dangerous to make accusations like that without including reference to evidence.
Are you accusing Sunlive,
Posted on 14-05-2017 08:55 | By R. Bell
of false news trucker and angels ? There has been no referendum. The four people above all want the museum that's 100%. The trucker works on whispers, hope they are more accurate than angels. Robin Bell.
Wrong old Trucker, I very much want a Museum.
Posted on 14-05-2017 13:15 | By michael.oneill@nzindependent.org.nz
We build our future on our past we must keep these memories / lessons for the many generations to come. Our past helps define who and what we are, where we have come from our culture, our heritage let us not forget.
MUSEUM
Posted on 14-05-2017 14:52 | By jeancraven@kinect.co.nz
A definite YES - look at the one in New Plymouth which was also controversial and what a huge city attraction it is.
Two debates in parallel
Posted on 14-05-2017 16:10 | By Papamoaner
There are two debates running simultaneously on this subject, with a gabble of sniveling whingers complaining about a museum "they don't want" I'll bet a pound to a knob of goat dung that not one of them will have the guts to accept the Council's invitation and go down there to debate the issue face to face. They prefer to throw stones and skitter back under their rock. They are not interested in hearing about the huge success of modern museums in other cities. Ignorance is bliss
Museum?
Posted on 14-05-2017 20:48 | By waiknot
I'm not against a museum, but I would like to know what the ongoing yearly costs are predicted to be. Museums traditionally do not run at a profit, what are the financial situation of some other comparable museums please.
@waiknot
Posted on 15-05-2017 08:22 | By Papamoaner
I don't have time to look up balance sheets for other people, but if you go on the net and look up any city you will find them. I did however recently look at Dunedin city council investment portfolio at $95 million for 2016. Even if only a modest part of that was profit, there would be a worthwhile rates reduction as a result. It is normal now for councils worldwide to invest in museums, art galleries, property, etc etc as a second form of income. Prior to Rogernomics, museums etc were simply funded rather than operated, so that they can now actually return revenue. I suggest you start by looking into Wellington's Te Papa. You might get a big surprise and become a converted advocate. I hope so. This proposed museum will potentially be an asset for Tauranga.
Museum
Posted on 15-05-2017 11:44 | By Angels
From some very foolish people to think a museum would be profitable here in Tauranga. I would then suggest free enterprise should do it , not on the back of the tax payer. In business when one see,s there is potential for profit there are always takers. I have seen none for this money losing proposition. Beside the people voted against it and again a few rich want the whole to pay for another losing proposition
Papamoaner
Posted on 15-05-2017 14:52 | By waiknot
TE Papa is anationsl museum not a fair comparison. And it is very good by the way. Secondly just saying a museum will make a profit is not the same as actually making a profit. Thirdly it is not my job to do the homework on viability of a museum, it is however the job of the council to do this and show the ratepayers before making a decision. Just like the Art Gallery I'm guessing it will cost the ratepayers.
@Waiknot and Angels
Posted on 15-05-2017 20:51 | By Papamoaner
Waiknot - you are clutching at straws now. If you don't like the TePapa example on the weak excuse it is "natiional, so an unfair comparison" Look at others. They are abundant. @Angels - you keep rabbiting on about past "voting" but have produced no evidence. What is this mysterious "referendum" you keep referring to? When was it? who hosted it? what were the questions? what were the result figures? I think you are whistling in the dark.
How to measure viability,
Posted on 16-05-2017 09:10 | By R. Bell
Museums are not a business in the conventional sense. Profitability is therefore difficult or impossible to measure. For instance ,how do you measure the benefit to society i.e the profit from the educative value to children, who are inspired by the visual connection to their history? How do you measure the value visitors get, who decide to return to a city they enjoyed, including the museum. Visitors who stay at Motels, enjoy the restaurants, enjoy the shopping downtown rather than having to shop elsewhere. It all adds up to a more dynamic city, and the trickle down is assured even for Angels. Council have to be involved, their responsibility is to everyone, not only ratepayers. Robin Bell.
@R.Bell
Posted on 16-05-2017 10:21 | By Papamoaner
Thanks for that Post Robin. You expressed it far better than me. I got a bit distracted focusing on financial benefits because the naysayers are only really interested in their rates. For that reason, some of what you say will fall on deaf ears. Due to the diversified nature of our species, some people don't see cultural advantage in a village. For them, it's all about cold cost. But happy days are ahead - we will have our museum, and by no means least, our library. It is true, even these days, that the kids who succeed the most in life are those who are prolific book readers from a young age. This project will benefit future generations, not just us here now. I guess they call it the big picture.
Same old song
Posted on 16-05-2017 11:41 | By Angels
We heard the song when council introduced the art gallery, same bs. Now we are stuck with a major bill for it every year. Take out the student attendance, count the adult attendance and wow, useless building costing taxs payers tons for nothing. The musuem will be the same. Build it and all shall come!!, heard that bs song already does not fly. They who want musuem which are very few should finance this pipe dream not the public. My taxes has gone up 140% in 14 years. Why because of this crazy thinking build it and all will show up. No more dead horse deals. Private funding
You are not stuck with anything Angels,
Posted on 16-05-2017 13:25 | By R. Bell
you can exercise your democratic right to object.Do it. I think you will find some important facts. (1) Rates only fund 60% of council spending. The rest comes from user charges, of which presumably a museum will contribute. (2) Many other organisations, including District council contribute. (3) The probable benefit from councils social responsibility will be less delinquency, more interest for the elderly (very important). For me the overriding consideration is the proven value to children's education. Self interest and exaggerated tax payments have no place here. You could take the other option, by taking the next bus out. Robin Bell.
@Angels
Posted on 16-05-2017 13:26 | By Papamoaner
All
@Angels
Posted on 16-05-2017 13:27 | By Papamoaner
ANSWER THE QUESTION!
@Angels
Posted on 16-05-2017 13:27 | By Papamoaner
ANSWER THE QUESTION!
@Angels
Posted on 16-05-2017 16:22 | By Papamoaner
Talking about BS (your words) How about answering the question earlier asked of you, regarding your phantom referendum. Or are you full of your own BS?
R Bell & Pap
Posted on 16-05-2017 17:13 | By waiknot
Pap you have branded me as anti museum, I just want to know what the financial implications are before commit. R Bell yes all these things are great and of value but difficult to measure for sure. We still need to know the ongoing financial costs to ensure its viability. The world is full of wonderful things we could do in Tauranga, but they still need to be paid for and that takes cash.
@Waiknot
Posted on 16-05-2017 19:30 | By Papamoaner
No I haven't categorised you as being anti-museum because it was apparent earlier that you were more analytical than blindly naysayic (I just invented that word). In fact, I earlier identified you as a potential converted advocate. But there are a number of blind naysayers on here (brick walls), and also a dive bomber (OldTrucker). A dive bomber because he swoops in and attaches his comments to news articles, but never comes back later to debate, or even for a voyeur's glance.
Papamoaner
Posted on 17-05-2017 07:53 | By Angels
To your question, I was wrong about referendum, the council rejected it and went a different way to get info. They then stopped with the museum, the next election we had the pick Rick group etc either for or against the museum. The against one that election.You seem to think the tax payers should pay for every far fetched idea. There is a cost to everything. You if you are a tax payer don,t care how much you waste. The most do.Maybe we should put in theme parks, Disney rides,water slides,etc etc. what the heck the tax payer should pay for .You are totally irresponsible to keep adding major losing things. time for you to jump on the bus and get out of town. Overspending fools are easy to come by.
Waiknot,
Posted on 17-05-2017 09:18 | By R. Bell
I know you to be a reasonable person. You are right to question council on matters of viability. However the level of council debt and its management becomes highly subjective and or political. At some point we all have to trust those we elect to find the compromise we as individuals can never find in matters like this. believe council debt is being managed well, given the rate of increase in our population. Central government is offering interest free loans, they don't do that if the establishment of places of learning are not critical to our development. Robin Bell.
@Angel
Posted on 17-05-2017 09:58 | By Papamoaner
Good on you for admitting an error. Most don't. We all make them. But I think you are confusing Taxpayers with ratepayers. I imagine a museum/library will have some taxpayer subsidy, some generated income, and predominantly ratepayer funding. You mentioned theme parks. Many museums worldwide are now generating substantial income from interactive displays. If I'm not mistaken, the Smithsonian and the Imperial War Museum might be famous examples. Certainly TePapa in Wellington. So mini "theme parks" within museums are not a bad thing, culturally and financially. A really successful one could potentially reduce rates. I notice not many of you mention the most important mooted facility - A library. Libraries and museums together are so important for any community. By no means extravagant as many of you seem to think.
Just to clarify, papamoaner,
Posted on 17-05-2017 11:17 | By R. Bell
The survey ( not referendum) referred to by angells was taken by city council in 2006. Results were 49% for a museum, 31% against with 20% undecided. Hardly the "nobody wants a museum"claimed by old trucker, angells and others. Robin Bell.
@R.Bell
Posted on 17-05-2017 16:44 | By Papamoaner
Thanks. That clarifies it. Hell, that was more than 10 years ago. No wonder I couldn't find it! Scratching the bottom of the barrel alright. Going back even further, I think libraries and museums have changed a fair bit since pre early 1980's. I am no defender of Rogernomics but have to admit it has broadened our outlook in things social and cultural, but took a while to kick in. Twas at a high price having ruined many peoples lives, mainly by job losses.
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to make a comment.