An artist impression of what a proposed stadium at Tauranga Domain could look like. Image / Supplied
An artist impression of what a proposed stadium at Tauranga Domain could look like. Image / Supplied
Two city leaders have dismissed a poll result that indicated the majority of respondents opposed a proposed stadium at Tauranga Domain, claiming the survey was biased and contained incorrect information.
The Tauranga Ratepayers Alliance, which commissioned the poll, maintains the question used in the survey was “quite fair”.
Curia Market Research conducted the poll between April 23 and 24. It surveyed 260 respondents via phone and 160 via an online panel.
They were asked: “The Tauranga City Council’s Active Reserves Masterplans proposes building a sports stadium on the Tauranga Domain at an estimated cost of [sic] to ratepayers of $170 million and which will displace the Tauranga Croquet Club, Tauranga Bowling Club and demolish the all-weather athletics track. Do you support or oppose these plans?”
There has been no decision yet on if the proposed stadium will be built or how it could be funded, but council commission chairwoman Anne Tolley told the Bay of Plenty Times the portion of the costs ratepayers could pay “would not be anything like $170m” - an earlier estimate of the project’s overall cost.
The Curia poll found 59 per cent of respondents (240) opposed the project as it was described, 24 per cent (98) supported it, and another 17 per cent (70) were “unsure”.
The results were weighted to reflect the overall adult population in Tauranga in terms of gender and age and included a maximum sampling error (for a result of 50 per cent) of +/-4.9 per cent.
Curia principal David Farrar said the weighted results include decimals and rounding of these was why the poll listed 409 respondents despite the breakdown adding up to 408.
Breakdowns by age and gender showed about 60 per cent of women respondents and 58 per cent of men were opposed, and that older people were more likely to oppose the statement than younger people.
Tauranga Ratepayers’ Alliance spokesman Sam Hill said in a statement he believed the poll result showed local residents and ratepayers were not convinced of the need for an “expensive new stadium”.
“There are numerous council projects already planned or in progress and the burden of these costs is obviously going to fall heavily on ratepayers,” Hill claimed.
Hill said, in his opinion, the city already had several sports grounds and event facilities not being used efficiently and public consultation would be needed.
“People travelling around Tauranga each day know there are currently far greater priorities for this city than a new stadium,” he said.
Hill told the Bay of Plenty Times the poll confirmed what the alliance had long suspected - that people had concerns about the proposal.
In his view: “[Polls] give people a good idea of where the community sits on these issues, particularly the stadium.”
Tolley said in her view the poll asked a one-sided and negatively-slanted question “which, not surprisingly, has delivered a negative polling response”.
Tolley said the estimated cost to ratepayers, should the stadium proposal proceed to formal consultation with the community, would not be known until work on potential funding sources was advanced.
“That said, the cost to ratepayers would not be anything like $170m, and highlighting that figure, together with the potential displacement of some existing domain users, without any reference to positive outcomes for the community, essentially renders the poll meaningless.
Tauranga City Council commission chairwoman Anne Tolley. Photo / Alex Cairns
“The community’s view on the proposed stadium will be of crucial importance and if the council does make a decision to include the proposal in our 2024-34 Long-term Plan, we will be seeking the widest possible feedback, based on factual information rather than negative preconceptions.”
Western Bay of Plenty economic development agency Priority One has led investigations into the stadium idea and chief executive Nigel Tutt has advocated for the proposal.
He said he understood the project would need full public consultation.
In his opinion, it was a “biased attempt at a poll.”
Tutt said the poll question failed to highlight “the many positive attributes a multi-use community stadium at Tauranga Domain would bring for the city including economic, cultural, and social benefits”.
“The stadium project in no way diminishes the immense effort being applied by councils, Priority One, businesses and others to improve the significant infrastructure deficit including transport, housing, and community facilities.”
In response to Tolley and Tutt’s assertions, Hill said he believed the question was “quite fair”.
In his view: “All it does is state the actual proposition.”
“People will see the poll and decide whether it has any meaning. I think people in Tauranga should be the ones to decide whether we have a stadium.”
Hill also said he wrote the poll’s question, which was supplied to Curia, and that he thought It was “pretty fair to put the cost there because the money’s going to have to come from somewhere”.
Hill said he was happy for Tolley and Tutt to share their views as “it’s about having a conversation about having a stadium or not and who will foot the bill”.
Farrar said it was important people understood the results were a response to the question the client put forward. A slight change of wording would not dramatically change the results, he said.
“People can make up their own minds,” Farrar said.
“If the council thinks the question’s wording is not great, they should do their own poll. Consultations, while important, are not a scientific representation of the community.”
The poll was conducted in accordance with the Research Association New Zealand Code of Practice and the International Chamber of Commerce/European Society for Opinion and Market Research Code on Market and Social Research.
