Press poll slammed by Restore Christchurch Cathedral Group

Mark Belton, spokesperson for the Restore Christchurch Cathedral campaign has slammed the Press poll as being dumb and unhelpful because the result was swung by respondents whose thinking is driven by irrational fear. Belton says the Church has constantly put out safety and fear propaganda to justify choosing the option to completely demolish.

The reality is there is a detailed plan prepared by the Church’s own engineers for maximum retention of the building that only required minor additional detail on worker health and safety to be able to be implemented. The scandal is the Church pulled the plug on completing this plan because it did not want the option to stablise and make the existing building safe to see the light of day. This plan for making safe and stabilising the entire building was in the 1000 pages of CERA reports released several weeks ago on the instruction of Minister Brownlee. The Press poll respondents would have been entirely unaware of the existence of this plan to make the existing building safe and secure.

Belton says people are becoming increasingly aware that engineering experts are adamant the building can be recovered and fully restored and built to meet 100% of the most stringent new earthquake code that applies to buildings used for public gatherings. This is a more stringent level of code than will be required for most new commercial office buildings in the city.

‘If you take out the fear driven respondents, the Press poll result becomes two thirds to seventy five percent calling for the building to be saved. Of those who want it demolished 39% cited fear and safety. Another 19% cited the building as being is too damaged to retain. Yet both are 100% wrong and misinformed views that the structural engineering sectors have been steadily debunking for the last 6 weeks…without a single dissenting voice.'

The poll was also confusing on the issue of cost. No one is proposing landing any major extra cost for recovery and restoration of the Cathedral on rate payers or taxpayers. The major funding would come from international and NZ wide fund raising, and insurance.

Furthermore the cost of rebuilding and restoration would be greatly reduced if the current plan to completely demolish the building is prevented. The most expensive option is to undertake full demolition, and then to have to completely rebuild from scratch. Under the maximum retention option the entire roof structure would be secured and retained along with sections of walls with only minor damage. The more severely damaged wall sections would require deconstruction and rebuilding. Overall the maximum retention /rebuild approach could save up to 50% of restoration cost compared to the current full demolition approach.

‘Polls are only useful to our community to extent respondents are well informed and questions intelligently framed.’

The Restore Christchurch Cathedral campaign suggests the question the pollsters need to asked is:

If the Cathedral could be restored so that it would be as safe as any modern building and meet 100% of the most stringent earthquake code requirements, and if funding was principally from voluntary contributions, would you support its recovery and restoration? YES/NO

We believe 80%+ of respondents would vote YES.

‘It is not helpful for to add to the confusion of the public mind by giving prominence to uniformed opinions. The safety issue is a red herring that now needs to be put aside’.

ENDS

© Scoop Media