Response to Canterbury Communities’ Earthquake Recovery Network – CanCERN My first step would be to address the issues of transparency and accountability. I would establish online Council and Community Board forums with the active involvement of the various communities, allowing people to work together and with the council. Many of our communities are facing similar problems and it would be highly beneficial to have a structure in place to promote cooperation. I would modernise and streamline the approach to communications and introduce video broadcasts of council meetings. As well, I would list the commitments that the elected councillors have made and allow residents to rate their performance on each separate commitment. Council, for its part, could also obtain input from the communities on issues and matters of concern. I would endeavour to hold CERA and EQC to account, and establish regular meetings where issues could be discussed with the involvement of community leaders on a suburb by suburb basis. The minutes from these meeting would be posted, the action to be taken decided on, and regular reports published showing the progress of implementation. The CERA Community Forum is in place specifically for part of this process, but unfortunately almost everything has been done behind closed doors, with little or no flow of information to the public. Most of the infrastructure for this is already in place, but the elements of transparency of communication and accountability are missing. There is still a lot to do to improve the flow of information from Council and the authorities to those affected by the earthquakes. Long-term planning is a vital element in the recovery process. Some of the TC3 land is worse than some of the red-zoned land. This is a known fact and needs to be discussed openly. At least one bank has now identified these properties and decided that they do not meet the requirements for mortgage security and/or are not insurable. Logically, if the land is so badly damaged, it is unsustainable to build on it. Even if our council is unable to provide the required services, it still has legal obligations to do so. I would therefore insist that EQC and CERA honour their obligations and come up with a suitable solution for the people affected (e.g. relocation). Furthermore, I would provide full access to land information for residents. It is inexcusable that landowners are not being given access to their own land information. Council planning needs to consider what is likely to happen with groundwater and identify which areas will return to swamp and the likely timeframe for the timely relocation of population groups. This needs to be planned for and decisions have to be made on whether repairs or rebuilds should be permitted in certain areas. Coastal management policy has predicted these problems and recommends managed retreat as the best possible solution in view of predicted rises in sea level in coastal areas of Christchurch. The earthquakes have forced our city to face these unpleasant facts between 50 and100 years sooner than was planned. Certain areas have also been ignored in the next three-year Council budget. South Brighton and Southshore, for example, have no budget for flood protection. The only logical reason I can see for this is that managed retreat has been planned, but residents are not being informed of it! This will be a "forced" managed retreat as people face flooding and losses in house values. Yet, at the same time, the coastal pathway has been budgeted for in other areas where the decision has been made to protect residents (in Sumner and Ferrymead for example). This should provide adequate flood protection for the areas. It is irresponsible for Council to allow this risk to be pushed on to residents. We need to see this disaster as an opportunity and use it to make the City more resilient and sustainable. Stay strong - Kia kaha Hugo Kristinsson votehugo.co.nz
Posted on: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 11:13:13 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015