That’s how a Wellington Councillor described the new $17 million interactive centre at the Karori Wildlife Sanctuary, otherwise known as Zealandia.

Any lessons here for Napier City Council and any new eco-friendly, wildlife-centered Marineland?!

To create the facility, the Wellington Council put up an interest-free loan of $10 million, which was supplemented by a $6.5 million Government grant. Then the Council topped that off with another $740,000. Now the Council is being asked to consider up to $700,000 in extra funding. And there’s no end in sight.

Sound familiar?

Why the ongoing financial need from Council?

Because Zealandia must attract 157,000 visitors a year, in Wellington, to pay all its operating costs, plus pay off the loan and fund depreciation. Failing to achieve those numbers, and with some locals complaining it’s already too expensive to get in, the Karori Sanctuary Trust board is back at the Wellington Council’s treasury window.

As reported here by the DomPost, the unfolding debate sounds exactly like what we’ve become accustomed to in the case of certain Hawke’s Bay facilities.

One side, represented by Wellington Councillor John Morrison, says the visitor projections “were totally unrealistic” and that the centre “is a bottomless pit that we’ve been throwing money into … you cannot just keep consuming money and being totally uneconomic, which is what they are. If they want money from the council, then I think it’s gunfight at OK Corral time.”

The other side says, essentially, give it time … and more ratepayer money.

One must ask, if Wellington, with its population and tourist base, cannot support such a $17 million centre, how in the world could Napier/Hawke’s Bay expect to support a pale imitation?

Sooner or later, Napier City Council will need to table a plan for the Marineland site. And maybe that plan will have some eco-wildlife-education component in it.

But no one should commit to that path with unrealistic financial assumptions. If Napier Councillors ultimately decide some significant public good is accomplished by building and operating a facility that will require public subsidy in perpetuity, then they must have the courage to present realistic capital costs, visitor and revenue projections, and ongoing operating and maintenance costs.

And of course the same logic should apply to any other proposed public facility our Councils become infatuated with … such as a regional aquatics centre.

This is not to say Hawke’s Bay doesn’t require and deserve high quality public amenities. Only that ratepayers must be able to make an accurately-informed decision about spending priorities, understand clearly to what extent any facility is for ‘us’ (locals) versus ‘them’ (visitors), and — in the case of catering to the latter — not be swept away by fantasy scenarios that envision all of New Zealand and Australasia beating a path to the door of ho-hum attractions.

Tom Belford

Join the Conversation

1 Comment

  1. Good on you Tom. This was exactly one of my arguments against the sports park – if anyone wants to go back and read my many submissions on the matter. Many of the figures touted then in it's favour were plucked out of the air by consultants. Our family's background in athletics in HB and nationally were sufficient to tell us the predictions were unrealistic for our region both from the perspective of available events which could be attracted, and the population base. Ratepayers are slowly waking up to the reality of these grand schemes and realising it is not only the cost of building, but also the ongoing operational and maintenance costs which have to be considered. The other argument is employment for the projects – but the reverse awaits at the end with unemployment. People may move into the region for the work but what is there after the project is finished? Increase the population and more infrastructure is needed – we can't even keep up to date with that! What is needed are small multi purpose facilities in communities that double as sport fields or activity attractions basic shared amenities within walking distance of local community centres and one regional facility which caters for top level needs. A pool is needed but needs to be centrally located and should probably be adjacent to the EIT. However the community cannot afford it at this point in time. There are a lot ideas among community members for replacing Marineland but nobody on Council seems to want to listen. Also why not plan a project and develop it in small steps as finance becomes available?

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.