Cheaper option to replace cathedral? Well worth the cost

I see the dreadful shortfall cost scenario is rearing its head again regarding the reconstruction of Christ Church Cathedral. It seems it is going to be met by the ratepayer. Goodness knows what the east-side residents think of this.

Once rebuilt it will be admired briefly before quietly remaining in the background of a busy square as it was before the quake.

At an incredibly lower cost, thought should be given to building a modern quake museum filled with historic meaningful parts of the cathedral, ie the spire cross and parts from the CTV building. Top this with an Imax theatre showing documentaries, including on historical Christchurch. This concept would provide a real permanent visual historic record which would be well patronised by residents and tourist alike. Brian Perry

Burnside

Council’s own ATM

Paul Grainger (Letters, Feb 17) would have been interested to see his question on how a budget blowout for the cathedral would be funded was answered on the front page: By none other than Christchurch’s ratepayers – the council’s own ATM; and income tax which will be funding the Government’s largess; as well as tax concessions to those who donate to the fundraising appeal.

So ratepayers who pay income tax will be hit three times – directly in their back pockets through rates, and indirectly through tax concessions to entities with charitable status as well as the distribution of funds that might otherwise have been used for healthcare. Dr Michael Gousmett Rangiora Before the earthquakes, the cathedral brought a lot of money into Christchurch. It was the most visited cathedral in the country, drawing overseas tourists who would spend money in the city. We want all this money to start coming in again, so let’s pay whatever it takes to ‘‘resurrect’’ it. Peter Banens Addington

Against our will

So, the council is going to charge us a levy to rebuild the cathedral. What about those of us who didn’t want it rebuilt?

Furthermore, when have we ever seen a levy or price increase removed once applied? Usually a reason is made up as to why it should stay in place. Keith Moyes Belfast

Ratepayers overburdened

Isn’t it time the burden of council spending was spread across everyone who lives in the city, and not just related to the value of owned property. A combination system of property rates and a poll tax would be more fair.

Also, I’d guess that the cost of repairing the cathedral has risen a lot, in part due to the negligence of the Anglicans in leaving it open to the weather. I hope the levy on my

Stop using us as cash cows

As for Raf Manji’s sob story about not being given enough money from the Government to pay for our infrastructure repair: Well, this goes back to the council underinsuring our infrastructure in the first place.

Stop using us as cash cows and for once accept some responsibility for this financial mess. You went ahead with the Victoria Square upgrade when the majority didn’t want it, spent millions on cycle lanes while ruining businesses in the process, and now you are going to contribute $10 million to the cathedral which you can’t afford. Cate Morrison Fendalton

It’s not that much money

As the mayor explains, the council’s rates increases are almost entirely due to its need to spend $4.2 billion over the next decade recovering the city’s quake damaged infrastructure.

By comparison council’s $10 million contribution towards the cathedral’s recovery is tiny and inconsequential – 1/416th of the infrastructure spend. For ratepayers, the article tells us, the cathedral levy cost is just $7.19c per property per year – about 2 cents per day.

Councillor Johanson’s whingeing about council’s (rates-based) contribution to the cathedral reeks of political game playing. Mark Belton Governors Bay