Though I've supported the waterfront option to date (even emailled the Herald for their silly bleaters poll and commented on the Auckland City online thingy) I just listened to Rod Oram (stadium opponent) on Nat Rad ( audio hereabouts) and he sounded like he had a couple of good points.

Apparently we won the hosting rights for 2011 on the promise to temporarily extend Eden Park to 60,000 seats at a cost of about $120 million. Given that cost, the event was supoosed to have a net benefit to the country of about $500 million.

He posits that if the government is happy to spend that $500 million in Auckland there are better things to spend it on than a stadium (a stadium that will compete for events for the rest of its natural life with Eden Park and the Vector Arena across the road).

Rail network electrification anyone ($350 million)?

He mostly seems worried that a) there is no business model for waterfront stadium b) costs of building new stadia always blow out c) given the current choice in venues in Auckland (North Harbour, Eden Park, Vector Arena, Mt Smart) a new stadium is not required.

If people are determined to to put $500 million into a stadium I guess I'd still rather see it on the waterfront instead of the current car yard - but maybe its not too late to question whether we need to spend that cash at all??