True, but not said together
I write in response to statements in the story Arts Centre market evicted in favour of expanded Saturday event (March 26).
Chris Archer said “…some weeks there were as few as five stalls and the decision to have a Saturday market instead was ‘commercial’….”
These are two statements that are true but do not belong together. Yes, there were at times five stalls BUT that was in the middle of winter, pouring rain, strong winds and flooding within the leased site. This in itself is not conducive to most people being there, let alone stallholders with their creations ready to show and sell to a new home.
And yes the Saturday market was a commercial decision BUT putting these two statements together make it sound as though the Arts Centre gets paid per stall. It does not! The Arts Centre gets a set amount for the lease of the land as well as the lease of the power for the food stalls. This is a given whether there are 0 stands, five stands, or 30 or 50 stands.
For Chris Archer to say that if Sunday stallholders present a strong business case to grow the number of stalls then centre bosses would consider keeping it implies that we are being kicked out due to the size of the market.
Thirty stalls is not tiny compared to 50 stalls.
So I ask what is the actual reason for evicting the Sunday market and why can’t it operate alongside the Saturday market? Why not both?
I thought it would be a win-win for the Arts Centre as it would then be getting income from both markets.
Tanya Townsend, Burnside
Stuff of dreams
The Arts Centre’s financial sustainability, highlighted by Michael Gousmett yesterday, is indeed in need of rescuing by the city council but his assumptions need correcting.
He has used the 2022 cashflow that mixes The Arts Centre’s operational income (mainly from tenancies) with the capital funding for finishing off the $205 million five-year restoration.
The financials he was studying show that in 2022, operational income from tenancies etc was $2.1m (including $382,000 from operational grants and donations). The remaining funding on the books in 2022 was quickly used up over the next 12 months to finish restoration work on the last two buildings, including the old Court Theatre, now the Health Tech Centre and Cloisters Theatre.
Capital expenditure in 2021 was similarly skewed to paying for the restoration. To claim the Arts Centre’s day-to-day operational income was once as high as $7 million (in 2021) is what dreams are made of. I wish it were true!
The 2023 accounts, as he intimates, will of course show a much lower throughput still, and with good reason – capex is all spent, the restoration, for now, is done and The Arts Centre is humming once more. With a council grant, it can stay that way. Felicity Price ONZM, former chair, Christchurch Arts Centre
Contract signed
Loath as I am to extend this news cycle further, didn’t Russell Coutts, or someone in his business empire, sign a contract to stage SailGP in the harbour conditional upon measures to protect endangered dolphins?
I presume SailGP, like any other competent business, analysed the potential risks and factored in contingencies and/or tempered expectations accordingly, especially since dolphins delayed proceedings last year too.
If anybody’s at fault for his disappointment, it’s not the people he petulantly blames. If they were, he’d have solid grounds for a pretty straightforward legal action.
I see Australian Jimmy Spithill is sticking his foil in now, and rather than admitting he was praying for a pod of indolent dolphins within 10 minutes of Sunday’s start, he claims disappointment on behalf of the spectators.
But if the spectators weren’t aware of the risks of a non-event - whose fault is that?
Honestly, I enjoyed Sunday’s spectacle from the comfort of our balcony, and god knows it was spectacular - but it’s not a luxury worth indulging an entitled CEO who can’t take any responsibility when contract terms don’t go his way.
I feel sorry for the dolphins. They’ve got enough to deal with driving David Seymour to work in the mornings... or getting out of his way… or something (no, I know, it didn’t make any sense to me either).
Andrew Bennett, Lyttelton
Marine mammals
Harrison McEvoy’s letter yesterday states that the law outlines it is an offence to harass or disturb marine mammals.
So why are we boaties, jet skiers etc allowed to go at speed in both Lyttelton and Akaroa harbours, not knowing when a dolphin may be close.
I suppose this will now open up a new career for some spoilers to police the waterways and speed restrictions, or even no water activities allowed if there’s a sighting.
The majority of us boaties are respectful of all mammals of the sea and enjoy their company when they surf the bow wave. Andrew Tabb, Lincoln
Dirty work
Irresponsible accusations, the Chinese Embassy says? (Govt reveals Chinese hacking, March 27). Not when the US and Britain make the same claims.
More likely China is secretly using North Korea to do its dirty work. That’s irresponsible.
Phillip Rex Robinson, Waltham