Tuesday, March 22, 2011

OPEN LETTER: Serious concerns of many of the people of Christchurch City

Further to my post this morning about the travails of Christchurch business owners in getting their hands on the property in their businesses, protest leader Kurt Langer has sent this email/open letter out. [HINT: Why not copy and paste it into an email, and send it around to every one you know!]

Please forward this email/letter on to all that you know who can help us make this happen!

The people of Christchurch who own businesses and buildings within the Central area of Christchurch have the following concerns.
1. We have lost faith in the competence and willingness of the Civil Defence and the Earthquake Authorities to be effective caretakers of our property.

  • Civil Defence is not adequately protecting property in the central city from looters.
  • Civil Defence is demolishing buildings and businesses without consultation and against the declared interests of their owners.
  • Civil Defence is destroying property without any due diligence or care about the value of what they are destroying.
  • Civil Defence does not even care to consult with owners of property in any meaningful capacity.
  • By any meaningful standard, the actions of Civil Defence are far more destructive to Christchurch businesses and business owners than the petty pilfering of looters.

2. We have lost faith in the ability of Civil Defence and the Earthquake Authorities to bring about meaningful recovery in the Christchurch central district.

  • If recovery has any meaning at all, it is the recovery of Christchurch businesses.
  • The "recovery" to date has been micro-managed, alienating the very individuals whose recovery is essential to restart business in Christchurch.
  • There has been no interest in working with the very people of Christchurch whose business it is to run business, rather keeping the attempted recovery within the hands of too few individuals.
  • Four weeks after the quake, and very little has been achieved beyond the original rescue effort. No surprise when the people who run Christchurch's businesses are excluded rather than embraced.

3. We call upon the New Zealand Government to:

  • End the State of Emergency on Friday. With rescue and immediate recovery complete, responsibility, risk and stewardship for property should revert to its owners.
  • Immediately reinstate personal property rights, guaranteeing property owners the final say in the determination of their property.

We say: “Tear down this State of Emergency and let Christchurch businesses begin the job of getting back on their feet.

Kurt

--------------------------------

Photographer
Kurt Langer
Now no longer and maybe never accessible:
91 Cashel Mall
Christchurch 8011
New Zealand
M: +64 (0)21 407 506
mail@kurtlanger.com
http://www.kurtlanger.com

Labels:

12 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's time the Civil Defence learnt to be public servants rather than dictators.

It's been four weeks and such a letter was a long time coming.

3/22/2011 02:39:00 pm  
Anonymous Moist von Lipwig said...

John Hamilton is well and truly out of his depth here. He is indecisive and a muddler. God help you Kurt, because this
self-important wanker won't.

3/22/2011 02:44:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well instead of doing this shouldn't you get on and follow your business continuity plan to get your business up and running again? I'm assuming your plan includes lost of acres and property eg a fire

3/22/2011 03:11:00 pm  
Anonymous Michael said...

Anon says:
I'm assuming your plan includes lost of acres and property eg a fire

The property being demolished may or may not be insured. It is beside the point. If something of value is destroyed, it no longer exists. Decisions are being made carelessly which are destroying value.

An insurance policy may provide an adequate or generous transfer of wealth, but it won't create wellbeing.

3/22/2011 03:21:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not talking about insurance talking about a business continuity plan. It is a plan that all business have in place which outlines their plans and contingencies of how to get back up and running during or after an event. Lots of businesses relooked at their BCPs during swine flu about how they could run their business while people were sick and there would be possible restrictions on movements so people would have to work from home. But should also cover fire eq flood theft. I know organisations that spare offices or split their business over cities for this purpose. Notice none of the bigger firms are complaining they are all just executing their pre prepared plans and getting on with it. It seems to be that a lot of small business have skipped this preplanning step.

3/22/2011 04:58:00 pm  
Anonymous SylviaM said...

Anonymous moron, please enlighten us with the business continuity plan you already had in place? We're keen to know. Do you understand the meaning of property rights? If you don't then STFU. It is not about business continuity plan idiot! It is about property rights. Do you get it or not?

3/22/2011 05:13:00 pm  
Anonymous David said...

What a fool, his problem if he wasnt insured or had a continuity plan, after 5000 aftershocks its clear he shouldnt be in business. The CBD is rooted he should concentrate his efforts on getting up and running again elsewhere like the rest of us.
As a taxpayer i dont want to fund his medical care when a building falls on his head. CD should get on and knock over the buildings, clear up and reopen.

3/22/2011 05:22:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sure CD has knocked down a few too many buildings. Access and demolition is one issue. They are playing the safe card they don't want the fall out if someone gets injured while they are in a building or hit by falling debry from another building. I'm sure the VIP tours are carefully planned to stay in the safer area from falling objects and no buildings are entered.

Then there is a seperate issue of businesses getting back up and going again. This should have been preplanned and should cover the situation of getting things up and running again from zero assuming all property is destroyed the worst case.

They are two seperate things and seems to me because people didn't have plans in place they are trying to point the blame elsewhere. These two issues should stay seperate.

3/22/2011 05:47:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's 'separate' for fuck's sake.

If you're going to harp on with your point, at least get the damn spelling right.

Sean

3/22/2011 06:13:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hang on- CD tried to contact building owners before demolition but could not. Say's much about rate records etc.

3/22/2011 06:15:00 pm  
Blogger peterquixote said...

People are disallowed to re-own their property, utterly and obviously safe, at their own risk.
And we will not accept that,
and still the cock is crowing until late at night, and in the morning

3/22/2011 08:24:00 pm  
Blogger Alain said...

Have dealt with several CD people over the years. Wall to wall wallies.
Al

3/23/2011 12:31:00 pm  

Post a Comment

Respond with a polite and intelligent comment. (Both will be applauded.)

Say what you mean, and mean what you say. (Do others the courtesy of being honest.)

Please put a name to your comments. (If you're prepared to give voice, then back it up with a name.)

And don't troll. Please. (Contemplate doing something more productive with your time, and ours.)

<< Home