Majority oppose grant for cathedral
The majority of Christchurch residents who submitted on a city council grant to help restore Christ Church Cathedral do not want ratepayers’ money used.
Christchurch City Council is considering contributing $10 million towards the $104m cathedral restoration but decided to consult the public before making a decision. Some 1063 submissions were received and 54.5 per cent (579) did not support the move, while 45.2 per cent (481) wanted the council to grant the money.
The council proposed to fund the grant via an annual targeted rate of $12 a year for six years, a total of $72 for each ratepayer.
But a summary of the submissions showed people did not want ratepayer money spent on the church because they believed the Anglican Church was a wealthy organisation that should be able to fund the work.
People were already struggling to cope with rates increases and did not want the cathedral grant to add to the burden. Others believed the council should focus on repairing roads and footpaths first.
An unscientific poll by The Press also found a two-thirds majority of 2200 respondents voted against the ratepayer donation.
Those in support of the council granting the money believed the reinstatement of the landmark building was crucial to the city’s recovery and it was only right that the council contributed towards it.
Pensioner David Smith said in his submission that adding another tax to the annual rates bill was stretching the superannuation rubber band to ‘‘breaking point’’, no matter how small any financial contribution may be. ‘‘If the council provides financial backing for the cathedral, can the ratepayer expect a similar outcome for the Catholic basilica?’’ he said.
Submitter Tracy Abbot said the voice of the poorest people in the city, who would be most affected by the extra rate, should be the deciding factor on the issue.
Charlotte Murray said the cathedral should be the last in line to be fixed using public funds. She wanted to see all the roads repaired first and all the homeless people housed.
Dale Coulter wanted to know
‘‘Can the ratepayer expect a similar outcome for the Catholic basilica?’’ Pensioner David Smith
what the council was going to do if he refused to pay the rate. ‘‘This is not a rhetorical question. I suggest you make this targeted funding (rate increase) optional.’’
However, hundreds of submitters supported the grant being made.
Gavin Hardie said the building was part of the city’s historical heritage and must be valued.
‘‘I’m happy to know that my rates are supporting this generous grant. It is a very worthy cause.’’
Julie Tobbell said the building was a true symbol of how the city would not be defeated by disasters and the council and residents needed to pay to help restore it.
Patricia Allan said she had just been awarded a PhD for her thesis on the cathedral and her research clearly demonstrated the significance of the building to many people in the city and beyond.
‘‘I applaud the council’s current initiative.’’
A council panel made up of all councillors will hear submissions on Thursday. Councillors could decide on the grant at the close of the hearings or at a full council meeting the following week.
In its consultation process the council said its contribution would not be called upon until other agreed sources of funding had been used and if cathedral fundraising exceeded targeted levels it would adjust the size of its grant accordingly. However, it did not say what could happen to its $10m pledge if public submissions were against the proposal.
The $10m council pledge was part of a larger funding package for cathedral restoration that included a Great Christchurch Buildings Trust promise of $13.7m in donations, a $10m Crown cash contribution and a $15m government loan that would not have to be paid back if certain conditions were met.
The pledges, along with the church’s insurance proceeds of nearly $42m, amount to just over $90m of the estimated $104m restoration.