How stupid can they be? (3 Jul, 2022)

[aardvark_admin]

This column is archived at: https://aardvark.co.nz/daily/2022/0603.shtml

Gosh, it seems that the SWDC just can't get over itself and recognise the huge value it has in its airfield, both as a potential hub for unmanned aviation industries and also as a drawcard for national and international visitors.

Now (once again) they're planning to pull down the "most-seen" part of the South Waikato -- for no apparent reason perhaps other than I am associated with it.

What sort of idiot thinks it's a good idea to remove something that is already promoting the district to tens of millions of people a year, around the world? Why would you destroy an icon that attracts hundreds of people a year to your district -- something the "award winning" million-dollar poo-tubes fail to do?

And how will this look to the country that has just been shown how effectively my videos (which have allowed this tower to be seen around 140 million times via YouTube) promote the district?

It doesn't take much to read between the lines and see that this appears to have far more to do with *me* than the tower. Is this acceptable?

Do you think the SWDC has the resources to deal with the fall-out that would occur if/when they demolish that tower?

I feel there is a disaster-movie in the making here.

[GSVNoFixedAbode]

How much would an independent structural review of the tower cost I wonder? Add in a global campaign to repair it ($1 donation would amall a good kitty very quickly I suspect) and done.

[aardvark_admin]

When we said we wanted to repair and repaint it we were told that before we could do anything we'd need an engineer's report that would cost around $5K.

Strangely, someone repaired and repainted the woodwork without such a report and without a single fatality (or at least the bodies were well hidden).

It's not rocket surgery to determine what's good and what's bad -- paying an engineer $5K seems a little excessive.

Besides which, surely if the council can pay 100 times that amount for a lame "rebranding" that I know will achieve zero results, *they* could cover the cost of such a report when it involves such an iconic structure.

[aardvark_admin]

Here's the council's report on the tower in which it recommends its disposal.

So many bogus claims!

Apparently "it has not proved of any value" -- unless you consider 100+ million views on YouTube to be of "no value" in promoting the district!

"The building has effectively been abandoned" but adopted by a global community of people who have shown a propensity to want to come and see it in person. Surely if it has been abandoned then the council can take ownership of it and thus add it to the assets of the district which is a win for everyone.

"Further costs could be incurred to ensure the structure does not deteriorate to an usafe state through vandalism or neglect" the ony vandalism and neglect is that performed by the council themselves. They removed an important structural element and lost it, then they refused to give us permission to repaint it -- but we did anyway. The cost of maintenance has been ZERO and would remain zero -- permissions are all that are required.

As for claims that it poses significant H&S risks... prove it! And it is no more a "fire risk" or at risk of vandalism than any other property on the airfield.

They are correct though when they claim "leaving this building in such a condition for an extended period could also have a reputational risk for council" because people around the world are not impressed that such an iconic structure has not been maintained and is now at risk of demolition.

[goldedge]

It would appear the the abandonment of the tower by the council is grounds for it's destruction,
the obvious solution therefore would be for thew council to un abandone it ( re adopt ) and maintain.

It may be time that the management of council assets and ratepayers funds be reviewed to look
at any legal recourse available to the community?

In other words sue the sods

From NZ