Commissioners at the plan change hearing got the full force of the passion behind the stadium debate yesterday, as both supporters and opponents began to have their say.
On the first day of public submissions, commissioners heard plenty of arguments either way, but little in the way of supporting evidence that would challenge what was heard from the council's witnesses.
From early on in the hearing, it became evident commissioners were going to struggle with arguments about whether the council should build the stadium, and how it should be funded.
Dunedin Ratepayers and Householders Association vice-chairman Tony Borick was speaking on those issues when he was pulled up by the plan change hearings committee chairman Roger Tasker.
"That's not an issue for us to consider, as you know.
''If it's built, and how it's paid for, is not our responsibility," Mr Tasker said.
But Marilyn Aitcheson began the hearing with those issues.
She said she realised the hearing was about a plan change, but as a "representative of the ordinary people", her opposition was based on the project being one that many in the city could not afford.
Ratepayers paid "huge" rates, but the city could not afford to keep its hospice going, she said.
Mr Borick argued the "ethic of stewardship", under the Resource Management Act.
The ethic related to both environmental stewardship, and the responsibility of taking care of another person's property or financial affairs.
The financial burden on ratepayers was part of that, Mr Borick said.
He said a section of the Act dealing with the economic wellbeing of the community should have been addressed in the council's evidence.
Asked by Mr Matthews how many members the Dunedin Ratepayers and Householders Association had, association chairman Syd Adie said it had 6000.
Sport Otago chief executive John Brimble said there would be a cost to build the stadium, and an intergenerational impact on rates.
"We do believe, however, there is an even greater cost to our regional economy if we do not progress with this development."
The stadium could become a one-stop shop for sport, and must be more than just a performance arena.
A short-course training pool was one example.
"In regards to the stadium, we are only limited by our lack of vision."
Sustainable Dunedin member Jinty MacTavish argued sea level rise against the stadium.
Protection or relocation of people in South Dunedin, which would be badly affected by sea level rise, would require "huge amounts of investment", and should be higher on the list of priorities than a stadium, she said.
Dunedin RSA president Fred Daniel said he expected to be in a wheelchair before long, and the new stadium would allow access not available at Carisbrook.
From a veteran's perspective, he would be "delighted" with Anzac Ave as a walkway rather than a roadway.
Differing views from within the university emerged when University of Otago property services director Barry MacKay said he did not agree with the design of the arterial route.
He did not agree with the proposal to have heavy traffic on Frederick St, and said the road should be designed in keeping with its urban environment.
Asked if that was a personal view, when Prof Skegg had earlier expressed a quite different view, Mr Mackay said Prof Skegg's view was the university's view.
Co-president of the Otago Polytechnic Students Assoc-iation Ryan Ward said the stadium would exacerbate behavioural problems in the student sector, particularly if an event like the Undie 500 and an Otago loss to Canterbury at rugby occurred at the same time.
Jane Bruce ended the day's evidence, and said while she was not familiar with the jargon of plan changes, she knew Dunedin councillors would be watching how many people turned up, so she had decided to do so.
Mr Lumsden said projects in Christchurch had been opposed before they were built, but appreciated once they were, and he wondered whether the stadium would be the same.
Ms Bruce said there were many other projects more important than the stadium.
