Let people rank the projects
So Mark Stewart, chair of Christ Church Cathedral Reinstatement Ltd, admits (Cathedral ‘could have vermin and razor wire’, April 17) admits he has no idea how the funding shortage of $134 million will be met.
That is one of several astounding admissions, eg “Stewart acknowledged that CCRL could have been a part of longterm plan discussions (the best avenue for city-wide consultation and allocating ratepayer money), but it didn’t want wider public consultation because it believed in ‘quality, not quantity’”. This obfuscation translates to “he didn’t want to get an answer from the ratepayers that he didn’t like”.
There are more eye-popping revelations but that will suffice to get the picture. It seems pretty clear that given the Anglican church has sufficient funds to complete the job, that is exactly what should happen now. It is ultimately the church’s responsibility to fund this.
I urge the city council to conduct a citizens’ survey to rank the many projects currently begging for ratepayer cash. These projects seem to be the cathedral, the Adventure Park, Orana Park, and more. If ratepayers’ funds are needed then give to whatever project the public want most. That is their job as responsible councillors.
Mike Stockwell, Riccarton
Rate addition
If the cathedral is not finished now, it will never be.
Suppose the council added $100 to every rate demand for the next two years. Paid in instalments, this would not be too much of a burden.
Whether you are Anglican or not, did or did not agree with the final decision, we must recognise that the cathedral is a historic building and respect that.
Look on the donation as the privilege of living in, at this time, a reasonably safe and good place to be. Would that help? Norma Powell, Heathcote
Arighttoasay
So Mark Stewart doesn’t want wider public consultation because he wants quality not quantity. How arrogant.
Councillors are the right leaders to make decisions? Has this wealthy man forgotten they are elected by ratepayers, wealthy and not so wealthy, who have a right to have a say in how their rates are used, particularly when being asked to bail out failing projects?
Michael Gousmett, Rangiora
Imagined permanence
The ancient writer was right on the money: “For everything there is a season.”
Which is to say, nothing is permanent, either in the past or in the future. We learn to accept that change is normal and constant. We reflect on the truth of this statement as we think back on our own brief span.
Each generation gets only a brief glimpse of the tide song of history. We acknowledge that some of our earlier responses were not inclusive enough. We have seen industries come and go. We have followed the careers of the best thinkers of the day. We have seen them flourish, make their worthy contributions, then quietly move off to stage left.
So it seems to me we have the option of focusing on the future, rather than clinging to an imagined permanence of the past.
The future holds so much promise. There will be the chance to participate in new solutions. There will be ways of dealing with the challenges that lie ahead. Creativity will not be curbed.
Given a period of pause, there will be a creative team which will succeed in marrying the goals of a created inspiring space, along with a welcoming utility, and drawing on the best of evolved building technology. We will have a new, treasured and widely acknowledged worship space in the centre of the city.
Let’s work at forging a new identity. Russell Gifford, Burnside
Community need
There seems to me to be an anomaly between 10 year long-term plans for local councils, three-year election cycles and a consultation process vulnerable to emotive lobbying.
Embarking on any major project clearly carries the risk of price blowouts, which are never anticipated in the optimism of their initiation. There are then the increasing operating costs for organisations reliant on council funding.
The underlying problem is that councils have statutory and regulatory responsibilities and debt servicing which have first call on the revenue which they have access to.
Councillors on three-year election cycles, however, want to keep their constituents happy and some want legacy projects for which they will be remembered. The result is a lolly scramble consultation process from which the council only hears from those prepared to wade through their documentation and from whom it is likely to be those who present most forcefully who are heard.
There needs to be a better way for both the planning process - which really centres around acceptable rate levels - and public engagement, which reflects community need rather than sectional interest.
Local government in New Zealand needs major reform if it is going to adequately reflect community need and meet it with adequate resources.
Roy Myers, Amberley
Cycleway structure
I presume Ian Orchard (Letters, April 15) is like most of those criticising our separated cycle lanes, who do not cycle regularly and have no idea of the considerable dangers faced by cyclists on our roads.
At peak times especially, a percentage of motorists are looking for gaps to squeeze through, and for this reason, the space taken by painted cycle lanes and flush medians is often occupied illegally by drivers who face little chance of being caught or prosecuted.
It is commonplace for cyclists to experience this level of bullying from motorists on our roads every day. If a simple line of paint or a rumble strip actually worked, there would be no need to install physical medians down major roads for safety.
Your correspondent also appears to be unaware, like many, that the total cost of cycle lane projects in Christchurch incorporated significant consequential safety work on the roads where they have been installed, which increased expense. PJR Dunford, St Martins
Burning to save
Shane Jones has always appeared to enjoy his own rhetoric, and now he appears to be attempting to break the record for doublespeak. It would be humorous if it weren’t so dangerous where the future is concerned.
It is true we need to look at ways for the country to become more self-sufficient, and that we need to address the climate crisis with urgency. Well done to Mr Jones for recognising that. But to achieve that through economic growth? Really?
Mr Jones wants to open up the whole country, including areas of ecological significance, to extract coal, fossil fuels and minerals for local consumption instead of importing these products... No doubt any excess would be exported. This, he says, would provide us with sufficient resources to address climate change. By this logic we burn the planet to save it. Does he really believe in this insane logic? I suspect not.
However, by “saving” the mining industry and re-creating employment (for the moment) our politicians could become heroes, ready to be re-elected for the next term. Could that be the motivation behind the doublespeak? Meanwhile the planet heats up, all life suffers, as political doublespeak leads us further down the path to extinction.
Juliet Neill, Lyttelton