By: Mike Yardley | Saturday, June 02, 2012 9:00 AM

As the new-look central city emerges in the coming years, there is one common denominator that I think stitches together all of my favourite world cities – an indoor produce market.

Whether it’s Queen Victoria in Melbourne, Central Market in Adelaide or Granville Island in Vancouver, covered food emporiums provide more than just fancy fare to the heart of these cities. They provide gathering places of colour, verve and zest – normally in urban rustic settings. 

In keeping with Christchurch’s population base, even sleepy Canberra and huggable Hobart have splendid indoor produce markets. Weekly farmers markets are one thing, but warm, toasty, covered markets are daily, year-round attractions, for locals and visitors alike. Canterbury is richly blessed with boutique food producers and purveyors. Why don’t we showcase our finest fare under one roof?  Specialty cheeses, wine, chocolate, breads and pastries, meats and seafood, fresh fruit and veges, cafes and condiments.  A whirlwind of wafting fragrances, an aromatic orgasm, is the point of difference our new central city deserves.

Circling the wagons

As the city council prepares to consider oral submissions on its annual plan, will the Canterbury Employers Chamber of Commerce get a fair hearing?

Chamber Chief Executive, Peter Townsend, has been a prime advocate for the future of council assets to be front and centre on the agenda, and will address councillors accordingly, this month. Given the stampede of “no sale” rhetoric from councillors and their pooh-bahs in recent days, would the Chamber’s oral submission be better shared with a brick wall?

Christchurch City Holdings CEO, Bob Lineham has warped my comments last week, in accusing me of suggesting councillors are biased. I merely relayed concerns voiced by former deputy mayor Carole Evans, who questions whether councillors who profit from plum appointments can reach “open-minded, detached” decisions on rationalising assets.  Councillors are duty-bound to consider proposals with an open mind. Mayor Parker and Crs Wells, Corbett and Carter are all CCHL board directors. Should they recuse themselves? Frankly, I think any “silverware” decisions should go to a referendum.

Meanwhile, I’ve received correspondence from various accountants taking issue with Bob Lineham’s interpretation of CCHL’s balance sheet. Lineham calculates the annual dividend return to ratepayers at 3 percent, not 1.4 percent. Let’s accept his figure is a fairer assessment.  The fact remains that rate of return is far inferior to interest earned on term deposits from any mingy bank.

As an exponent for public debate, we should embrace it, not shut it down . However, I suspect the Chamber of Commerce would not be energised on asset sales if this year’s proposed rates rise wasn’t four times the rate of inflation. Selwyn is shooting for 4%. Waimakariri, 5 percent. Christchurch? 7.5 percent. That’s the lifeblood of this debate.

Photo: Getty Images