One of the issues of tension between Tront and NTHC has been the House of Tahu. This proposal is to erect a building for the tribe on the old King Edward Barracks site in central Christchurch. The building is to be the cultural centre and tribal headquarters. Parts of the building leased out to non- Ngai Tahu tenants. The proposal has been around for years. When I was on the board of NTHC the property company put forward a plan to Tront on a brief from a Tront sub-committee.
Tront wanted an “A” grade building. There are very few potential tenants in Christchurch who need “A” grade accommodation or are willing to pay “A” grade leases/rents; including subsidiary companies of NTHC. There were and are potential tenants for a “B” grade building. The “A” grade option did not stack up financially. NTHC subsidiaries would be paying than they need to; higher rents and this would impact on their profitability.
Forward to recent times. NTHC becomes obstinate and does not come up with, a “B” grade option. Tront goes out to a well known construction specialist that comes up with a viable option; the numbers stack by adding an additional floor to the building. A rose for Tront, a brickbat for NTHC.
Now for the funding. Busted Blond (BB) over at roarprawn here (she is Ngai Tahu) claims that the building is to be funded by monies that will come from the execution of the relativity clause in the Ngai Tahu claim i.e. if claims by other tribes go over a certain sum Ngai Tahu will be compensated. This also applies to Tainui the two tribes being first to settle with the Crown. BB goes on to say “ Ngai Tahu has estimated that because of the extra money they will get they will increase the staffing levels by 33%”. And “ When you get more money you build a big house because when you have more money you have to employ more people.”
Cannot think where that logic came from except from some of the mad hatters at Tront (tight- how many now?) - BB does not elaborate.
My view is that monies from the relativity clause should be invested and money to build the House of Tahu should come profits or borrowings.
But why do we need the HoT now? It has always been an obsessional issue with some Tront reps.
Its my view that Tront should do the planning but wait for a more appropriate time to build if that is the wish
One of the issues of tension between Tront and NTHC has been the House of Tahu. This proposal is to erect a building for the tribe on the old King Edward Barracks site in central Christchurch. The building is to be the cultural centre and tribal headquarters. Parts of the building leased out to non- Ngai Tahu tenants. The proposal has been around for years. When I was on the board of NTHC the property company put forward a plan to Tront on a brief from a Tront sub-committee.
Tront wanted an “A” grade building. There are very few potential tenants in Christchurch who need “A” grade accommodation or are willing to pay “A” grade leases/rents; including subsidiary companies of NTHC. There were and are potential tenants for a “B” grade building. The “A” grade option did not stack up financially. NTHC subsidiaries would be paying than they need to; higher rents and this would impact on their profitability.
Forward to recent times. NTHC becomes obstinate and does not come up with, a “B” grade option. Tront goes out to a well known construction specialist that comes up with a viable option; the numbers stack by adding an additional floor to the building. A rose for Tront, a brickbat for NTHC.
Now for the funding. Busted Blond (BB) over at roarprawn here (she is Ngai Tahu) claims that the building is to be funded by monies that will come from the execution of the relativity clause in the Ngai Tahu claim i.e. if claims by other tribes go over a certain sum Ngai Tahu will be compensated. This also applies to Tainui the two tribes being first to settle with the Crown.
BB goes on to say “ Ngai Tahu has estimated that because of the extra money they will get they will increase the staffing levels by 33%”. And “ When you get more money you build a big house because when you have more money you have to employ more people.”
Cannot think where that logic came from except from some of the mad hatters at Tront (tight- how many now?) - BB does not elaborate.
My view is that monies from the relativity clause should be invested and money to build the House of Tahu should come profits or borrowings.
But why do we need the HoT now? It has always been an obsessional issue with some Tront reps.
Its my view that Tront should do the planning but wait for a more appropriate time to build if that is the wish
March 6th, 2009 at 9:49 am
Kia ora Richard
I find myself totally bemused by this post.
If I understand you correctly, you chastise TRONT for pursuing the extraordinary monument to ego that will be the building on the KEB site, at least in all the iterations that I have seen over the years, culminating in the proposed $52,000,000.00 2009 proposal. If this is true, this may be one of the rare moments that you and I agree.
Further, whilst there are people at the Table who seem to want the physical House of Tahu regardless of cost or common sense, it is my understanding, from public utterances, that most of the opposition at the Table has been amongst the much reviled, by you and others, ‘tight 9′ and ‘tight 7′. Could it be that they, along with the Board of NTHC, are more concerned about fiscal responsibility and their fiduciary duty than those who have advocated for the HoT? Surely not!
Perhaps you need to ask your local representatives whether they are for or against the HoT, even ‘in principle’. Also, given that the Kaiwhakahaere, his Deputy and the current member for Waihao are on NTHC, have their votes on this been in line with NTHC or TRONT?
If we ever receive the ‘Fiscal Envelope’ relativity top up, perhaps a debt free HoT would be an attractive idea. I certainly don’t consider borrowing and needing to make a commercial return a viable idea for our ’statement building’ whether or not it houses all of our employees. We forget the lessons of Hereford Street at out peril. The Property Company, rightly, has a commercial imperative whereas the HoT should be, like our whare nui, a taonga for all time and, therefore, impervious to the whims of market forces.
Of course, as almost everyone knows, I have no particular business acumen so perhaps I have misunderstood about the need for commercial tenants to make the HoT financially viable in the current business environment. I could be mistaken, but isn’t that why we have NTHC and why they are supposed to be at arms length from the iwi politicians? If their advice is ‘no’ and they have stuck to that irrespective of the wishes of the Table, isn’t that a sign that the commercial returns don’t add up?
By the way, if we need all our employees on one site and with a ‘Ngāi Tahu presence’, why don’t we do something with Ngā Hau E Whā. Even better, why do we need a building that competes for attention with our papa kainga at all?
$54 million, a ‘mere’ $2million more, would give each of the papatipu rūnanga $3 million to invest in local initiatives and people instead of feeding a Christchurch bureaucracy. Of course, that would entail some people recognising that we are supposed to be a flaxroots up organisation, not one that is there to do only what the centre and staff decide is good for us.