Ignore the critics, fund the cathedral
Just when we dared hope that the future of Christ Church Cathedral had been settled, we find that might not be the case. A thousand submissions to the Christchurch City Council have suggested most people don’t want ratepayer funds to go towards the restoration project.
The consultation was about the council’s relatively small $10 million share of the $104m rebuild. The proposal that the council would put something into the kitty was part of a compromise deal thrashed out between the Government, the Anglican Church, heritage campaigners and the council to end more than six years of wrangling over the cathedral’s fate.
Under the deal, the Anglican diocese pledged $42m from an insurance payout, the Government $10 million plus a $15m suspensory loan, and the Great Christchurch Building Trust $13.7m. With the council’s $10m, this added up to just over $90m of the money required, leaving a shortfall to fill from public donations.
Christchurch city councillors voted unanimously to support the deal in June, but made it conditional on public consultation. Of the 1063 people who made submissions, 579 opposed it – 54 per cent.
The thought that the council might now bow to those objections and pull out of the deal is alarming.
The broken church has sat at the heart of the city since the February 2011 earthquake, a symbol of division and discord. It cannot be allowed to remain like that much longer. Everyone is heartily sick of the endless debate and squabbling – let us not open up that can of worms again.
One fifth of the submitters felt the cathedral was not a priority for the city – an arguable position, given the amount of discord the broken building has caused.
However, the council’s finances are stretched and rates are rising steeply, so it is understandable that some people object to being asked to stump up to fix a broken church.
Some of the opposing submissions claim the Anglican Church is a rich institution, and not a public body, and should pay for the restoration itself.
But people stating this view are forgetting that the Church did not want to restore the building – it wanted to replace it with a cheaper, contemporary structure.
It acquiesced to public opinion and the threat of expensive litigation to effect a compromise. It would be wrong now to expect the Church to pay more millions for a solution that it didn’t actually want.
The consultation results put councillors in an unenviable position. They can go with the small majority decision and risk jeopardising the rebuild deal. Or they might decide to stick with the council’s $10m pledge and be seen to vote in the face of public opinion. Either way, they will be criticised.
They should do the latter. The 54 per cent majority result does not necessarily represent the true feelings of the city – just those who were motivated and opinionated enough to get their submissions in.
And those objecting should consider the true cost to them – $1 per ratepayer per month for six years. It should not be too onerous a price to pay to close this rancorous and divisive chapter in the city’s history.