The reaction to relocating 85 jobs from Invermay shows an unusual political process at work, which is heartening in its potential.
It relies on people with differences finding common ground and pulling together. It is focused on agricultural science but might be harnessed for other purposes, including the arts.
At the same time, misunderstanding and needless division continue to surround the waterfront hotel/apartment project which could produce poor outcomes in different ways. It's worth looking at the cases to find the best ways of getting optimal solutions.
The Invermay reaction is reminiscent of the one over neurosurgery and, back in the 1970s, the one to get Port Chalmers designated a container port. In each case, the principal opposition was in Christchurch.
In each case central government was at some distance from the issue but nevertheless key to getting a desirable Otago or Otago and Southland outcome - which, as it happened, was also better nationally.
It was significant to the success of both the container port and neurosurgery campaigns that the facts told heavily in favour of the desired objectives. This seems true in the Invermay case and I wish the campaign every success.
There were also calls to arms by newspapers and concerted action by elected representatives of different regional bodies which don't have the same constituencies and whose representatives are not all of the same political hue.
The Otago Daily Times took the lead over neurosurgery and has again over Invermay. If you thought the days of printed media influence were over, here is a striking counter-example. The paper has taken the lead again over Invermay and has galvanised significant action.
The issue has sparked discussion about current political arrangements.
Some have called for a South Island party, which I think in none of these cases would help, because they all involve Dunedin, Otago or Otago and Southland battling Christchurch and Canterbury interests.
Where success was achieved it was because Otago or Otago and Southland managed to make themselves heard by central government by speaking together, outside of the normal political structures.
The mass meetings and rallies were necessary to show the depth and breadth of support. These were not apolitical campaigns.
But, as I said, it was also crucial that the facts and logic supported them. In the neurosurgery case it made a difference, too, that a lot of local money was raised, which may not be necessary every time.
There has been concerted action to influence new government rules about earthquake-prone buildings which has mitigated what might be very poor outcomes for the disproportionately large number of heritage buildings in Otago and Southland.
It's possible similar action might be needed over government support for southern theatre and orchestral music. A powerful case could be made over government funding of museums where Canterbury and Auckland would be natural allies, not opponents.
A key in all this is people of different persuasions looking for common ground. As yet, this doesn't seem to be really happening over the proposed waterfront project.
The Hearings Committee declined to give it consent. Betterways has appealed and Ms Song, one of the principals, has indicated she might be willing to lose a floor or two of the full 28. But she seems unwilling to consider a site other than that initially proposed, in Wharf St.
Betterways' principal Steve Rodgers has made it seem as if a few tweaks to the design in consultation with the city's planners will make the proposal acceptable. The Otago Daily Times in an editorial asked if new architecture can't be made to look good with old.
It can, but unfortunately, that's the wrong question. I think the same confusion is afflicting Ms Song and Mr Rodgers. Even if the proposed building were as good as the Sydney Opera House, it would never fit the rules for this site.
The committee's decision was at pains to point out that maintenance of the city's heritage character is central to the plan. The city's heritage buildings are revivalist.
The proposed building is not. Given its purpose and height, or even at 26 floors, it couldn't be. And, given its location it cannot help but change the character of the central city of which it would become a dominant part.
There are still people fulminating that the committee didn't just give consent as if it were in a position to do so. It was applying the rules, not making them, and the rules exist because many people over many years have acted democratically to put them there.
The people urging this project, in this form, on this site should notice most of its opponents welcome the proposed investment. Here is common ground. To reach it what is needed is another site and if it's in the CBD, a different configuration.
Peter Entwisle is a Dunedin curator, historian and writer.
