Whinging Spongers

Posted on 17-05-2011 11:32 | By Hebegeebies

This Art Gallery organization needs to get its act together and fast.It is overstaffed underutilized and an increasing drain on TCC ratepayers.Don't worry about the inflation adjusted increase they are very lucky Councillors do not have the guts or fortitude to slash the existing grant.The whole situation is quite hopeless and unacceptable as it stands.The financial accountability is a pigs breakfast particularly when only operating costs are involved and everything else is gratis.

Support the Arts!

Posted on 17-05-2011 12:18 | By esquire

It's daft to cut funding from the arts. I think giving no inflation adjustment for three years is a fair comprimise, but I think it definitely needs to be reconsidered in three years time. Supporting culture in the city is part of the council's must does and while this doesn't mean spending up big, they at least have to preserve where it is at presently. DONT LET IT SLIP backwards.

supply & demand

Posted on 17-05-2011 12:44 | By onthelevel

If it's that fantastic why isn't the entry fee $50 or more. It can't be that fantastic. Turn it into a mother and baby feeding and changing area. perhaps sell it and save millions.pay off some debt, fix some infrastructure like broken sewage pipes and dirty filthy park toilets.the list goes on. me,me,me,me,i,i,i,i,want!

Why any contribution at all?

Posted on 17-05-2011 13:05 | By Chris

Why is teh council giving them any money at all? This isn't the deal that ratepayers agreed to - what we agreed to was a one-off payment of $1m, after which the gallery would be self-sustaining. Why are we subsidising this thing?

Sensible Decision

Posted on 17-05-2011 14:08 | By Jitter

TCC has made a sensible and the only decision that should have been made on this matter. Graeme Horsely states it is the best regional gallery in the country. That is a very biased opinion. The building might be the best but many of the "exhibitions" are frankly rubbish and do not attract the general public. The gallery is definitely overstaffed and again I suggest to save money that members of The Friends of the Gallery staff it on a voluntary shift basis so that permanent staff numbers can be drastically reduced. Once more I reccommend that an entry fee of $5.00 per person is charged. The gallery Trust cannot expect the ratepayers to subsidise it's operation with ever increasing amounts. The Trust has to actively investigate and instigate ways for the gallery to increase it's income not bleat constantly to TCC for more money. What Chris says is correct. The deal was for one grant of one million dollars from council (ratepayers) and then the gallery had to find ways to support itself. Suitably modified it would make a great museum building.

what the story should really say

Posted on 17-05-2011 17:06 | By al pillocksworth

I think the headline should be "Council gives $847,400 of ratepayers money to the gallery per year, even though the gallery originators in the beginning said they would only seek a one off payment of one million." If people really value the gallery they'll willingly pay $10 to go in an participate, just like people who go to shows at Baycourt or good movies, or even play sport and pay a lot more than $10 a time for artistic and sports pursuits. That's what I think and believe to be fair.

Division called for?

Posted on 17-05-2011 17:06 | By Murray.Guy

When the Mayor and Councillors vote on specific issues, mostly it is done with a simply "those in support say Aye, those against, NO". No record is kept of how individual members have voted. If an elected members wants recorded how each member has voted, they ask for a 'division'. On a 'division' being asked for, all members have their vote recorded, FOR / AGAINST / ABSTAIN. Personally I would have all voting done by division as this provides the community with an actual understanding of how their representatives are voting on what issues. In regard this issue where Cr Catherine Stewart sought (successfully - just) to sent the Art Gallery Trust the signal that ratepayer subsidies may be gradually reduced, Catherine called for a 'division', no doubt mindful that a few elected members promote themselves as having a rate reduction focus when in reality their voting pattern may suggest otherwise. Opposed to Cr. Catherine's resolution were Mayor Crosby, Crs David Stewart, Wayne Moultrie, Terry Molloy and Tony Christiansen. In support were Crs Catherine Stewart, Rick Curach, Bill Grainger, Larry Baldock,Bill Faulkner and 'yours truly', Murray Guy. Interesting that Cr Catherine Stewart is likely the most passionate supporter and contributor to The Arts world of all elected members, but equally committed to representing all ratepayers.

HELLO IS ANYONE HOME?

Posted on 17-05-2011 17:58 | By Hebegeebies

JITTER & CHRIS you both make very valid points.TCC Ratepayers have been very badly misled over the Art Gallery and Council commitment(which will be never ending)to this useless adornment.Of course the TCC mindset has carried through to every project attempted since then with disastrous financial results.Ratepayers are now up for the thick end of $1m+ PA on the Gallery forevermore.Graeme Horsley's statements that Tauranga is the best regional gallery can be treated with some scepicism but his farcical statement that Gallery faces a future shortfall and operating loss is really precious and if it wasn't so serious would be laughable .Wake up Mr Horsley your outfit is losing money hand over fist. Now that is why you are getting the megabuck bailouts from Council every year.

Kick out the council

Posted on 17-05-2011 19:10 | By The author of this comment has been removed.

Why do we have a council funded Art Gallery anyway? There are several Privately owned Galleries which are run by passionate Arts lovers who could do a far better job than any council employees. These people are paying rates and rents for buildings to host their businesses, and who dont have their hands out every 5 minutes for a handout. Kick out the council - get them out of the arts and entertainment business altogether - and rent the building out to one of those people to run a gallery. If somebody like Hayley Brown or Lynette Fisher had it the place would be a hive of activity and a roaring success. WHY? Because its their passion

Support your local artists

Posted on 17-05-2011 19:14 | By artist11

instead of trying to have this elite style gallery why not have either the top or the bottom floor dedicated to local artists being able to exhibit and moving the likes of creative tauranga in the art gallery, get some real art programmes happening, support the arts and artists and create a real genuine art environment in Tauranga, which the area really lacks.

STOP the wanting NOW

Posted on 17-05-2011 22:00 | By Nigel Barker

Close the gallery now before it gets any deeper in debt.Let private enterprise run it. Probably cost less even if they got free rent. Paying thousands to display some one's art is absolutely outrageous in today's environment. How the hell do you justify even the time to discuss it Mr Mayor?? You are The Boss aye? Pay thousands or $$$'s for an exhibition and get 36 people pay to see it ~ OUTRAGEOUS!! Who the hell makes these decisions?? And TCC cry about mowing the lawns in a public reserve. DUMB absolutely! "Citizens Monitoring Council"

Food before frivolities

Posted on 18-05-2011 06:18 | By grahamwood

In hard times when the Foodbank is struggling to feed those who have little to eat because of lack of funding, it seems to me that a publicly funded Art Gallery is verging on immoral. Honestly, I am certain that only a small minority have interest in the Art Gallery and most who do are the well-heeled "arty farty" types who can afford to pay for it. I am a strong advocate for user pays for non essentials services and the Art Gallery is clearly non essential. Nearly a million dollars a year to subsidise the Art Gallery when rates are getting beyond some people's ability to afford them is so wrong (and a very socialist way of conducting business). It is just not fair on the majority of ratepayers to continue with this misuse of public funds. I, personally, will be looking for candidates who think along these lines when the next elections are held.

This nonsense makes no difference to our every day lives lets rid ourselves of it

Posted on 18-05-2011 08:14 | By Hebegeebies

Graham Wood ,Artist11,Nigel Barker,Tomahawk Kid etc etc you are all absolutely correct and no doubt 90% of Tauranga agrees with you the question is what can we do about it.The gallery is elitist it should not be exhibiting most of the stuff which to put it bluntly is second rate 'artwork' more like museum pieces.We should be supporting our local artists, talent and the private galleries that are passionate about their art not discouraging them.The 3 times I have been there over the past year or so the gallery has been virtually deserted with more staff than visitors in the place.The gravy train mentality of the Art Gallery crew seeking to provide meal tickets and the arts puffery associated with it has to stop . Million $dollar losses are being racked up every year and it is not even being run as a proper business. Councillor Guy you are onto it every Council decision needs to have details of the voting recorded. If that can't or won't be done then we don't need an unaccountable CityCouncil lets just go with the Local Govt. Commissioner

Theres a real story here which deserves to be told

Posted on 18-05-2011 10:40 | By what a waste

As demonstrated by the comments over the last two Art Gallery stories, there is a real story here that deserves further investigation and reporting on. Does Sun Media do investigative journalism or just reprint media releases? It takes a strong editor to take up a cause against ineffective elected members being unduly influenced by special interest groups. Funding scope creep frequently appears over extended time as the elected members have very little focus and visibility beyond the three-year election cycle. Independent media have both the long-term future view and the benefit of documented history to perform balanced journalism. It takes a media organisation that is truly independent of influence, but the respect and rewards by the current and future readership will clearly differentiate the media product from its corporate opposition! Don't let those who know how to work the political system, achieve their personal outcomes / crusades, whilst burdening those who cannot afford even current necessities with unsustainable rates for years to come. Keep it real!

Move the council into it...

Posted on 18-05-2011 13:38 | By Gringo

Why doesn't council downsize its staff and move into the gallery? less windows equals greater focus. Sell the council premises to private enterprise thus reducing debt. Council staff can all catch the carbon belching (usually empty) buses they love so much to work, setting an example for the rest of the public, then sell all the staff cars also. Then ratepayers may be a little happier. The established commercial Galleries will more than compensate for the loss of this ratepayer funded abomination. There's plenty of exceptional art at MONZ a short drive or bus ride away.

Re Whingeing Spongers

Posted on 18-05-2011 14:21 | By Jenny Argante

The only one whinging so far is you, Hebegeebies. And you don't even put your name to your whining. A city council is responsible for providing not only the necessities, but also some if not all of the things that make life worthwhile. For some people that is green spaces; for others it is sports facilities; for others, it is culture - and culture tourism is a boom industry that brings visitors to the city who contribute to our costs overall. Per capita of the population across the nation Tauranga Art Gallery provides the best value for every dollar spent. Let's have a bargain. I won't moan about what you want public money spent on, if you won't moan about what others want public money spent on. And incidentally did you ever add up what VOLUNTEERS do contribute to the arts?

Good on you, Esquire!

Posted on 18-05-2011 14:28 | By Jenny Argante

Yes, do support the arts. Some of the claims made here are outrageous. Art pays homage to creativity - and without that we'd still be living in caves and chipping flint into axes. Art encourages expressiveness - and it is the inarticulate who need it most because if we can't express what we feel, those feelings can destroy. Why do you think they use art therapy in prisons and with disability and mental handicap or illnesses? Because art frees something in us. I often pop into an art gallery just to meditate and always come out a better person. Others may express themselves by kicking a ball around. That's good to - their choice. Choice is what it's all about. Why this ferocity in attacking the arts? Is it fear or what?

A

Posted on 18-05-2011 15:24 | By morepork

There are good points here on both sides. We should definitely be promoting local artists but I believe the Gallery does that. Although the costs may seem high when things are tight, it is still the best value in the country. Freezing the inflation increase, although it may seem tough to Gallery staff, is probably a fair compromise. I have to agree with Jenny about the ferocity of the attacks on Art here; I was surprised by it. Just because something may be "intangible" on a balance sheet does NOT mean it is worthless. We take "goodwill" into account when valuing businesses (and it is a very subjective judgement). I hope the people affected by the freeze will recognise that some funding cuts are inevitable and not be too dispirited by this. Tauranga has a lively Arts community and it is being recognised around the country. (Sometimes even further afield). They deserve support rather than vitriol.

Promise and trust the real issue

Posted on 18-05-2011 16:47 | By al pillocksworth

If, as suggested, the gallery broke a promise to the people of Tauranga to only seek a one off payment of a million dollars, then that is what the problem is in my book. If that's not the case, we need to know. There's a big difference between one million once, and about $800k a year. Perhaps Jenny, Morepork, Esquire and others could address this because the gallery has kept quiet on this issue. My clear recollection is that such a commitment was made. I value integrity as well as art. I want to hear the truth on this. I also want to know why art lovers won't pay even a small fee of 5 to $10 to attend the gallery. If I like ballet, I have to pay to see it at Baycourt and I don't get it paid from rates.

What price culture?

Posted on 18-05-2011 18:16 | By sparrow

Without art and 'the arts' we remain peasants. There's plenty out there to cater to lowest common denominator entertainment values - few of which are of real value except as distractions. When friends come from out of town, Tauranga Art Gallery is one of the places I take them - its a feature of their visit. That some people don't understand a particular paintings or style doesn't make the painting less meaningful for those who have an open mind and are willing to use both sides of their brain. Perhaps current budgetary pressures are a valid reason not to increase support, but bashing our local gallery is not helpful.

@pillocksworth

Posted on 19-05-2011 02:14 | By morepork

I believe your point is valid if it is actually the case. However, it seems that the original agreement for a one time spend was later changed by agreement of both parties. Now it is the "new" agreement that is being broken, inasmuch as it is difficult for the Council to honour it. The circumstances are understandable. If we were not in debt, and there was a cash surplus, it probably wouldn't be a problem. However, the state of Tauranga finances is not the responsibility of the Art Gallery/CNZ Staff who do the best they can, and perform to a higher level than they are paid for. The state of the City's finances rests with the Council, who are moving to do something about it by looking for ways to save money. That is right and proper and cuts are going to be inevitable. The important thing is to value what we have and not blame the innocent. Both parties are seeking to implement their respective legal and moral responsibilities, (the Arts people to provide a service, the Council to save money)unfortunately, there is a conflict of interest. It isn't cause for stinging attacks on the Arts in general, any more than it would be cause for attacks on anything else the Council is legally required to provide. To your point regarding admission charges: I don't think anyone expects it to be free and most people would make a contribution after visiting. (I'm a Ratepayer, but I don't think that absolves me from a donation when I visit the Gallery or get information from Creative Tauranga.) The important thing is that the OPPORTUNITY should be available to all, irrespective of means and income, and that is why it is currently free. It is the same idea as not charging people to kick or throw a ball around on a local park. Culture is a right of all NZers, (just as sports and recreation are), and just as we have the right to embrace it or reject it. (You can play sport on Saturday or stay in bed; your choice...) The Government sees a duty for Communities to make the opportunity available. I believe that is right; but I admit to bias, having found comfort, solace, inspiration, amusement,entertainment and deep satisfaction from the Arts over the years.

What about principles

Posted on 19-05-2011 09:11 | By al pillocksworth

I believe that when a group makes a commitment, that commitment should be upheld. No later changes by some sort of agreement that almost doubles the one off commitment into a subsidy paid every year probably forever. That's no small change. One million one off in my book means just that, and you don't go back for more. I also don't believe in vitriol attacks on the arts or sports or what. But truth is important and even if its uncomfortable should be acknowledged. If Morepork is right about culture being a right, I look forward to attending ballet, opera, theatre and whatever else at Baycourt for free. Instead of buying a ticket, I'll simply be trusted like at the gallery to give a donation of whatever I think its worth. Maybe morepork can let us know what the average gallery donation is.

@Pillocksworth - principles

Posted on 19-05-2011 16:26 | By morepork

While it is true you will be unlikely to attend an Arts performance at Bayfair for simply the cost of a donation, (this is because Bayfair imposes a charge for the facility, which must be covered), there are many smaller events where admission IS by a donation. Local artists and arts groups do provide such events and some of them are really excellent. As for the average donation at the Gallery I have no idea what that would be and to be honest, I don't care. It is none of my business. (I am not affiliated in any way with the Art Gallery or CNZ and my exposure to them has been as a user of their services, not as a provider.) Your question was "What about principles?" I think we are much closer on this than you may think. You expressed disapproval that an original agreement was later changed. But if you think that through, it would be impossible to ever do anything unless you got it right first time. (While that is an admirable way to approach things, we live in the real world.) Sometimes, the shortcomings of an agreement do not become apparent until after it thas been in force for a while. It would be completely unacceptable for either party to change the agreement unilaterally, but there is no reason why they can't discuss and try to reolve issues. An agreement is an agreement as long as people agree to it. (I have said that before in these forums, but I believe it to be so...) If there are issues around an agreement then people sit down across a table with goodwill and try to resolve and renegotiate the agreement. In this way a better solution "evolves" which is more likely to last for the long term. If the issues cannot be settled, then the current agreement will terminate at the end of its term, without renewal. Conflict resolution is quite a specialised subject (it is often taught as an adjunct to Negotiation) and I found the study of these subjects (I am qualified in both) to be fascinating and absorbing. The popular idea that a "good" negotiator is out to screw the other party could not be more wrong. Good negotiators can be trusted, they do what they say they are going to do and they keep their agreements. They also want what is fair to both sides. Unfortunately, we don't see professional negotiators being employed very often because most people think they can do it with their innate street smarts and what they learned from movies like "Wall Street" ("Greed is good"). I learned these things as an adjunct to my real job and I don't recall anyone actually paying me for having that skillset, although I saved several companies large sums of money by applying what I learned. Trained or not, there is no doubt that having principles is far better than the alternative. I had a friend (now passed on) who once exclaimed angrily: "Principles?! Don't talk to me about principles! Principles are just fossilized prejudices!" Worth thinking about... :-)

Feelgood nonsense

Posted on 19-05-2011 19:54 | By The Tomahawk Kid

I am an artist (a musical one) and I vehemently disagree that people should be forced to fund my art. If they like it they will come and pay to listen - if they don't like it they wont. Why should people be forced to pay for artists to have somewhere to display the things they produce? Why are they any different. There are several local galleries all quite willing to display work by local artists. What Jenny Argant says is nonesense, and she wants everybody else to be forced to pay for this nonsense. Those passionate about their art - on canvas or on the stage - will find a way for it to be seen or heard - it is those that cant be bothered to go the extra mile (ie those who are not passionate or serious) about their art that who cant be bothered promoting it that demand others pay. good artists will eventually succeed, while those crappy ones whos work is artificially inflated with other peoples money will come crashing back down once the funding is removed.

Posted on 19-05-2011 20:25 | By The Tomahawk Kid

Why are women called the fairer sex? I often wonder why it is women who are often the staunchest advocates of using force and bully tactics on others to get what they want! Do they not get the concept of what they demand? Do they not understand that demanding council pay for things, that other peoples rights are being destroyed! - or do they just not care? Jenny Argante says this: I won't moan about what you want public money spent on, if you won't moan about what others want public money spent on. Well how about this instead: I wont demand the council steal and bully YOU, if YOU dont demand the council steal from and bully ME! That way You keep your money and spend it on what YOU want, and so do I. By the way. A volunteer is somebody who sacrifices their own time for no reward, and under their own terms - no force is any part of this process. You cannot FORCE people to be community spirited - I doesnt work, and has the opposite effect to that which you wish to achieve.

WANTS v NEEDS

Posted on 20-05-2011 10:39 | By WOMBLE

The Art Gallery was meant to be "community funded" yet we find an annual allocation of our dollars to it, perhaps the gallery needs a passionate group of supporters who actually get out there and raise funds so as to keep the door open, then lets see how many are 'passionate' about the place or not!

Get the facts right

Posted on 20-05-2011 18:37 | By Jenny Argante

Look. You pay for - say - a new swimming pool through your taxes and rates - taxes if the Government chips in, which they often do, through a direct grant or through funding organisations. You pay again through your rates, because the council also puts up some of the money, so as to provide those things which are laid down for them to provide - not only sewage, but, e.g. a library. You pay again when you use that service, and normally there is a range of services so you can pick and choose what you want. If you don't want to pay again, you don't use that service - and you have already contributed to it. You might prefer to use another service. Then you get volunteer input - people who donate, time and energy to add something a bit extra, like - let's say - Aquarobics for the Arthritic Over-60s or TGoddler Swimtime or Dipping the Disabled. So everything is a combination of all the different strems that go into it. I am very happy to pay to swim, or to visit the art gallery, or to kick a football around at Blake Park. (No, not really, that last one.) All I am saying is, I don't complain what other people want or that it is subsidised to a certain extent(as outlined.)I just don't want them to keep moaning and whining about what I want (even if it is subsidised to a certain extent.( That's all!

TURKEY SHOOTERS

Posted on 20-05-2011 19:08 | By Crash test dummies

This place is like a way out west turkey shoot. The Art gallery was paid for by TCC debt, ratepayers throw money at it every year when they were never meant to. Prime CBD site destroyed in the process and all anyone can talk about is "community spirit"? It just does not figure? if the art gallery was not step by volunteers then it is meaningless to the community. You pay TCC staff (or at least those of that mind set) to run it and all it does is run up even bigger bills HELLO folks, there is a consistent problem here.

@ JENNY

Posted on 21-05-2011 10:06 | By Vomit

You are off the track my dear, I am happy that my rates contribute to "a Pool" but not five, I am happy to contribute to a library but not five with plans for several more (Welcome Bay, Lakes, Bethlehem etc). I am happy for the essentials but not gold plated with 100 staff on the payroll that you never see. I am happy to pay for facilities and so on but not paying for somethign like Mt Greens whose prime use is drinking and gambling ... there are many more like this and of course that is why the annual rates are rocketing up into space.

PEACE to all the world - except the French

Posted on 23-05-2011 16:45 | By The Tomahawk Kid

You people remind me of a comedy sketch by English commedians Hale and Pace: Everything is OK while they spend money on things YOU approve of - ie - I am happy to pay for a library, but not a soccer field etc. Its time to wean yourselves OFF your addiction to other peoples money and property, and what they do with THEIR lives - its none of your business. It went something like this: PEACE TO ALL THE WORLD (said Hale) (Except the Germans - they bombed our chip shop said Mr Pace! PEACE TO ALL THE WORLD - Except for the Germans(said Hale) . . . And The Japanese (said Mr Pace PEACE TO ALL THE WORLD - except to the Germans and the Japanese (said Hale) . . . And the French - nobody likes the French OK - PEACE TO ALL THE WORLD except the Germans and the Japanese and the French (said Hale) etc etc

Supply & demand

Posted on 24-05-2011 16:20 | By Jenny Argante

Diddums! Obviously you didn't stay on the breast long enough.

Peace to all the world...

Posted on 24-05-2011 16:25 | By Jenny Argante

... except the French. Can anyone see the logic in this argument from Tomahawk? Perhaps a study of the arts will help you find the Golden Mean.

Jenny to Vomit

Posted on 24-05-2011 16:30 | By Jenny Argante

Vomit? Are you serious? I'm expected to listen to the arguments of someone called Vomit?

@ JENNY

Posted on 24-05-2011 18:24 | By Vomit

I agree about the french, but well that was 20 odd years ago, I have moved onward since then, catch up please.

@ THOMAHAWK

Posted on 24-05-2011 18:27 | By Vomit

Definitely to many swing on the tit, Jenny is a good example of the arty lot wanting all others in this community to pay for "ALL" of the wants, it has nothing to do with cultural, understanding and all that. It is all about "THERE IS NO MONEY LEFT ... there are seven people a day in there and four of them are staff, do the math, add it up!

Art like beauty is the eye of the beholder

Posted on 24-05-2011 20:20 | By Hebegeebies

Ms. Argante let's get one thing straight no one is attacking local artists the genuine local art community or the arts generally which I do support. It is the elitist concept of the Tauranga Gallery that is the issue along with its predilection to overspend, lack of achievement and underwhelming performance. These failings have nothing to do with the arts it is more about freeloaders, 'troughers' and wannabes. As a sometime writer can I respectfully suggest you look in the mirror before you throw stones around the glasshouse.Were you the writer that was involved in the Historic Village bunfight ? Incidentally, you can't count either because by my reckoning a large majority of bloggers are unhappy and the whinging as you so quaintly put it is not just limited to me. Clearly the arts, counting and money are a very poor mix.

Jenny's swimming pool analogy

Posted on 24-05-2011 20:55 | By al pillocksworth

Jenny mentions that you pay for say a swimming pool through you rates, and probably taxes if a govt grant is given. The you pay again if you use it, the admission fee. This isn't the case with the art gallery. You paid once through your rates with a million dollar one-off cost, then despite it being a on-off with your rates again pay almost as much every year. In my opinion you probably wouldn't have agreed to a Gallery if you'd been told the reality about yearly funding in the first place. But the real funding difference with the Gallery compared to a swimming pool, is that at the Gallery you don't pay any admission fee, you just give a donation at the end of your visit if you feel like it. I'd be surprised if the average donation even got to $5. So much for placing a high value on art. Then you can pop across the road to another ratepayer subsidised gallery. No wonder the galleries that were privately owned and paid rates instead of being paid for by rates, closed down.

How can culture come down to a price?

Posted on 25-05-2011 08:48 | By LatifahDedah

At our ladies arts appreciation meeting the other day we discussed the plight of the Art Gallery over our trim lattes and cake. We used to have our meetings at one our ladies' apartment but sadly one of our number spilt coffee and cream which totally ruined the shag-pile and we've had to move on. Anyway, coffee and cake, plus a light luncheon in the CBD is now costing about $30 per person. There's no way we can be expected to pay for our trips to the Gallery on top of this expense. Council it seems is required to provide this for us, Indeed many feel they should be providing more. Our sonnet recitation group is thinking of asking Council to provide us a comfy recitation room, but more about that later.

Poetry in motion

Posted on 25-05-2011 10:22 | By Hebegeebies

Ms Latifahdedah: no problem TCC have noted your concerns and predicament and are happy to report that the establishment of the upmarket Transportation Center cafe is well underway including high class toilets.On presentation of your free entry ticket to the Art Gallery it is rumoured you will receive free of charge a full English morning tea or a High tea of your choice.In better economic times TCC would in all probability have created a flash upmarket restaurant in the Gallery complex with gold plated restrooms catering for free lunches and dinners to those that visited the gallery.Alas times are tough but please accept apologies for the downgrade and the fact you will have to walk 20meters across the street to the cafe.Silly me nearly forgot about the sonnet recital room and yes you are welcome to use the huge high vaulted gallery entry lobby as it is not much use for anything else currently.

CULTURE HAS A PRICE!

Posted on 25-05-2011 11:08 | By PLONKER

@ LatifahDedah, the problem my dear is that you can have all the art, latte's, lunches, drinkees or whatever your heart desires. The only thiong I ask is that you don't ask me to pay for it all day and night in "MY RATES". Apply a very simple concept to this, YOU want it, YOU pay for it! Take a look at HEBEGEEBIES: If you want a "flash upmarket restaurant in the Gallery complex with gold plated restrooms catering for free lunches and dinners to those that visited the gallery" then an oppurtunity avails itself in teh new building next door at the Grump Mole site. That of course seems somehow appropriate!

NEW BUILDING

Posted on 26-05-2011 13:56 | By DRONE

@ PLONKERS ... There is no way the private owner is going to provide a "free" top floor in the new office block amidst that redevelopment block there, Anyway TCC will never agree to that building anyway because it 'may' cut into some of there water views, then they would have nothing to do all day ....

ARTY AIR HEADS ALOFT

Posted on 27-05-2011 16:35 | By PLONKER

Jenny's recital more or less sums it up about why Creative Tauranga gets $2m a year, Art gallery $1m odd + TCC debt odf $10m, Interest $750k, and an assortment of other extravagances all over the place because "I want syndrome" pollutes all and sundry for ever and a day.

Bunfight at the Not-OK corral?

Posted on 06-06-2011 15:04 | By Jenny Argante

I have been asked if I am the writer involved in a bunfight at the Historic Village. No. I don't even know what is meant by this or what it has to do with an argument. I am also NOT, by any definition, a freeloader. Anyone who studies my record for the past twn years will see I have contributed over and above the norm of time, money and energy. And that is my choice, and has been great fun as well as hard work. We all make choices. None of us like choices imposed. Get over it. Choice is choice. By the way, councils have a duty laid down by law to provide a range of services. They don't have a choice about that. Argue with your MP for a law change if that's the way you want to go.