You might recall that 18 months ago they asked the government for $60 million. They got a no. So this time, they’re targeting Christchurch ratepayers. They say they’ve stopped any meaningful fundraising and they’re asking ratepayers to plug the gap — a gap of about $45 million. This will now go out to consultation. If ratepayers say yes, the additional cost will simply be added to rates. Whatever your rates are now, expect that cost on top.
I don’t rate the Anglicans’ chances here because rates in Christchurch — like everywhere in the country — are already at record highs. And in Christchurch, they’re proposed to rise another 8% this year. On top of that, the Canterbury Museum has also just asked for another $260 million for its rebuild. There is not a lot of spare money around.
I have to say, as I did 18 months ago, I still find it slightly cheeky of the Anglicans to do this when they own $3 billion worth of assets in this country alone. And that valuation was done six years ago — with inflation, they almost certainly own more now. There is enough there to pay for the entire reconstruction of the cathedral, not just the first stage they’re talking about.
Every year the Anglicans spend trying to find someone else to pay for the restoration of their church, public appetite to restore it must surely diminish. Because every year that passes, more new venues open in Christchurch. Whether small — restaurants, bars, shops — or large, like the convention centre or the new stadium, the city is rebuilding. It’s becoming increasingly beautiful and increasingly fun.
I know the cathedral can’t be replaced by a stadium or a convention centre or a shop. It has a special place for Christchurch. But the Anglicans risk that special place being diluted every single time another special place opens up.
Heather du Plessis-Allan is a journalist and commentator who hosts Newstalk ZB's Drive show. This article was sourced from Newstalk ZB.

No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.