The problem is that the Bill gives too much time to a group of buildings that is too large.
Government should create a separate category for non-structural unreinforced masonry - parapets, gables, and chimneys - because:
a. They are the cheapest to fix
b. They are the first to fall
c. They are the deadliest when they do.
Addressing the first and deadliest bits to fall off buildings will greatly enhance the Bill's effectiveness without increasing overall cost. The Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission recommended it. And GNS Science calls parapets, gables and chimneys ''dangerous'', even in Dunedin and Auckland.
It makes sense to fix the low-hanging fruit first.
The building that collapsed on to our red bus was expected to fail. Everyone knows unreinforced bricks fall. To me as a policy scholar, the most expectable losses are the least acceptable. This is especially true when the methods of prevention are as known and straight-forward as attaching a parapet.
Fixing the parapets first has the highest safety-gains-to-expenditure ratio. There is no complicated inspection required to ascertain whether a parapet or chimney is present. Parapets do not hold the building up.
Attaching them will require less business interruption than a full retrofit. They could also be replaced with lighter, and less deadly, materials as they do sometimes in California.
Decreasing human cost for little increase in financial cost is eminently efficient - and many of these buildings are not worth much to begin with.
The building that collapsed on to the 13 of us was worth $30,000 according to its 2007 government valuation. The Royal Commission heard that strapping the building would have cost $200,000.
Saving my left leg has cost $108,090.38 so far. Approximately.
Fixing parapets, gables, and chimneys first will also make the Bill more equitable. Unreinforced masonry buildings pose a greater public danger to passers-by than other types of quake-prone buildings that risk collapsing inwards. Placarding the buildings will do nothing for those in the street and on the footpath.
Allowing the parapets to persist unattached benefits only the owner. It transfers all the risk on to the public, and the future costs on to the public health system. This privatises benefits and socialises costs.
This is not fair.
Fixing the parapets first would make the Bill more equitable for Auckland, Dunedin, and other towns at lower earthquake risk. In a lower risk area, requiring owners of parapets to attach them quickly to enhance public safety seems more fair than requiring all building owners to fully retrofit to enhance the safety of occupants.
Fixing the most dangerous and least expensive bits first might render unnecessary the full building strengthening. Getting the low-hanging fruit first benefits the safety of more people for more time than getting all the fruit in 30 or 40 years' time.
The GNS report on the earthquake risk and benefits of retrofitting buildings in Auckland lends support to this idea. The benefits of fully retrofitting all 9794 buildings in Auckland below 33 per cent of code are minimal, and far outweighed by the costs.
However - and this is a big however - the benefits of fixing the parapets, chimneys and gables are much greater because they fall at a much lower shaking intensity. Therefore, GNS ''recommend that such items [parapets, gables, and chimneys] be regarded as dangerous, despite the apparently very low level benefit to be gained from strengthening EPBs''.
Parapets are dangerous, even in Auckland.
I am not saying that all buildings in New Zealand should be ''earthquake proof'' or ''100 per cent of code''. I am not arguing for whizz-bang base isolation. I am asking for cheap, effective fixes to the bits of buildings that are the cheapest to fix and deadliest when they fail.
I am asking that we first fix the bits of buildings that are the greatest threat to public safety. If we fix the deadliest and cheapest first, we'll get the greatest safety bang for the retrofitting buck. Putting parapets first will render the Bill's implementation more efficient, more equitable, and, most importantly to me, more effective.
It's not normal in the developed world to have deaths in the streets from unreinforced masonry. Even in an earthquake.
It wasn't the earthquake that killed everyone but me on the Colombo St bus. It was the building, its lack of regulation, lack of structural support, and lack of a fence. It's not OK. It wasn't bad luck. She will not be right. We can forgive. But let us not forget.
Engineers, geologists, seismologists, and injured survivors - we're all saying the same thing. Fix the low-hanging fruit first, and worry about the rest later. It's more effective, more efficient, and more equitable than the current Bill.
It's not every day when nearly everyone agrees. In that rare event, the Government should listen. Please Dr Smith, listen to us.
Ann Brower is a senior lecturer at the Department of Environmental Management at Lincoln University in Christchurch.
