Eden Park Residents Association, Eden Park Neighbours

Eden Park ground member Gavin de Malmanche made an unfortunate misinterpretation in his Perspectives article when he described the park as privately owned, as if to imply that it is owned and operated by private interests for their own benefit rather than by a statutory trust for the benefit of the community.

The so-called private owners are the visionaries who took over what was previously a waste area from which they created a sports ground in 1900, leased it to the Auckland Rugby Football Union in 1914, and vested it in a trust in 1926.

The trust deed stipulated that the trustees were to hold Eden Park in trust primarily for the benefit of Auckland cricket and rugby.

In 1955, Parliament passed the Eden Park Trust Act 1955. It remains in force and incorporates the legal framework for powers, duties and functions of the trust board, which thus became a statutory non-profitmaking body corporate.

The enhanced stadium that Eden Park has become was maintained and developed without one cent of public funding until 1998 when, as part of the Genesis project that introduced floodlighting and the handsome new ASB Bank north stand, the Auckland City Council granted a loan of $10 million at concession interest rates for the first five years, reverting to commercial rates thereafter.

Eden Park is one of the few major sports stadiums in the world to have developed without public funding.

For all that time, the people of greater Auckland - and for major international fixtures, the people of New Zealand - have enjoyed the advantages of a world-acknowledged sports stadium worthy of comparison with rugby's Twickenham, soccer's Wembley, cricket's Lords, rugby's Landsdowne Road rugby's Murrayfield in Scotland, rugby's Cardiff Arms Park, rugby's Ellis Park, and the Melbourne Cricket Ground.

They have one important thing in common - they are all smack in the middle of their home cities, in built-up residential or commercial areas.

There are two major flaws in the arguments of those who propose scrapping Eden Park and building another stadium built scratch.

First, apart from the Tank Farm on the waterfront, there is no handily available area of suitable land.

Second, given that stadiums such as Eden Park are used only so often, and on most days stand idle, why would anyone consider such a facility on prime waterfront land which could have other popular public uses seven days a week?

The cold, hard fact is that Eden Park is there, ideally situated, not that far from the central city and Dominion Rd, and has enough space to accommodate the increased spectator capacity demanded by the International Rugby Board for staging the Rugby World Cup in 2011.

Furthermore, the imaginative and practical design for the stadium upgrade has taken into account the concerns of the Eden Park Neighbours Association about lighting, noise and parking to the extent that those neighbours now appear comfortable with what is planned.

So the argument has come down to the cost, and how it will be paid. The cost of $320 million is certainly beyond the Eden Park Trust Board on its own, and needs acceptance of the inevitability of public funding.

De Malmanche, an Auckland City ratepayer, has protested, understandably, at the prospect of his city's ratepayers having to bear too much of that cost, especially when rates revolt is in the air as councils throughout greater Auckland - with the notable exception, of the Auckland Regional Council - have announced considerable increases.

Auckland City acknowledges it has an obligation to make a major contribution but feels that Eden Park offers benefits to the residents and businesses of other cities in the region and that North Shore, Waitakere and Manukau should come to the funding party.

But Auckland City's insistence on regional benefits begs the question of where the ARC is in all this. The same ARC that has restricted its increase in levies this year to a comparatively modest 4.9 per cent. When consideration is given to the benefits of Eden Park, and the Rugby World Cup, it must be admitted they will be shared by the region and the country. This suggests that more of the funding burden should be shared by ARC and the Government.

The ARC can't use any limitation of its powers as an excuse. Legislation now empowers it to strike rates for the provision of recreational and sports facilities.

It already owns Mt Smart Stadium. It cannot argue that Eden Park is not a regional amenity. ARC has a clear responsibility, and would have no difficulty raising a loan to meet its share of the capital cost, eventually repaid by patrons who could expect to contribute to interest and capital repayment through a levy added to ticket prices.

Unlike other infrastructure costs for which councils like ARC levy rates with no possibility of revenue return, here is an investment that will make a return as users pay, and the Eden Park Trust Board passes back ticket surcharges.

As for the Government, the enthusiasm of Sports Minister Trevor Mallard, and the presence of Prime Minister Helen Clark in Dublin to add impetus and mana to the final push that won the 2011 nod for New Zealand, has painted it into a corner from which it can escape only by a major increase in its funding allocation for Eden Park.

There was a surge of national pride when we were awarded the Rugby World Cup. Now is the time for us to put our money - and our votes - where our hearts are. Next year is local body election year, and the following year is the general election for Parliament.

Let's encourage those standing for ARC and Parliament to understand that we look to them to ensure we get the chance to enjoy the boost to our national pride and fortunes that hosting the rugby extravaganza will bring.

* Terry Dunleavy, of Takapuna, is an ARC ratepayer, a founder member of the Auckland Rugby Union Supporters Club, and a rugby season ticketholder at Eden Park since 1972.