KEY POINTS:
What's the point of setting aside a day like today to commemorate our past if, for the other 364 days of the year, we stand aside and allow our heritage to be hacked and bulldozed down?
This Waitangi Day week has been particularly bad. It began with proposed reforms of the Resource Management Act which, among other "improvements", appears to leave Auckland's coastal pohutukawa at the mercy of the property owner. Then the Auckland District Health Board revives plans to demolish the historic Building 5 at Greenlane Hospital because the site "would be suitable for support buildings in the future".
Then yesterday we read the Buddhists of the huge temple on Stancombe Rd, East Tamaki, are trying to wriggle out of their commitment - agreed to as part of their resource consent for the Fo Guang Shan Temple - to preserve and maintain an 1877 former schoolhouse, a listed heritage building.
As far as the schoolhouse and the hospital are concerned, this is the behaviour you might expect of the shady property developer, not the acts of a religious organisation or a public body. In the case of the schoolhouse, I'd like to be able to say to the Buddhists that in asking the majority to respect their culture, it might be a smart move to respect ours. However, when it comes to preserving old buildings, our culture seems to preach preservation, but do the opposite, so I'd better hold my tongue in case they take me at my word and follow the example of the health board.
The health board should be following the "Policy for Government Departments' Management of Historic Heritage 2004", which was released with great hoopla, claiming government would lead by example in the care of heritage buildings. Associate Heritage Minister Judith Tizard unveiled it with the ringing commitment that "Government departments have a large number of heritage properties in their care. It is important that we set a high standard in the maintenance and upkeep of these properties."
Yet a year ago, and despite a claim from board chairman Pat Snedden that the organisation was "not blind to heritage", it decided the best way to maintain and upkeep Building 5 and "set a high standard" for the rest of us was to apply for a demolition permit. Which it got.
Thanks to the campaigning of health professional Helen Geary, heritage activist Allan Matson and the outrage of ARC chairman Mike Lee, Auckland City mayor John Banks and others, Mr Snedden and his board called for a truce, offering a two-year breather in November last year "where people can look at alternative uses of that building". Now, just three months on, the two-year pause seems to be at an end. On Wednesday the health board voted to reactivate the plan to demolish the century-old building.
I must say the cynicism of the review process has been breathtaking. Last November, with the property market in free fall, the board advertised for a lessee willing to fund the estimated $4 million refurbishment costs in return for a long-term lease at a peppercorn rental. Seven interested parties visited the site and five made formal replies but none met "the fundamental requirement of funding the restoration".
On the strength of this one marketing exercise, board officials recommended the board "progress the steps required to demolish the building, in accordance with future requirements for the site and in the knowledge that adaptive use has been revealed to be impracticable".
Mr Snedden issued a statement claiming "we work hard to meet our obligations to be a good corporate citizen and act in the public good, even though this is often very difficult to achieve given our primary role is to deliver health infrastructure and services to Auckland".
Fair enough, but what about their government department obligation to set a high standard in the upkeep and maintenance of heritage buildings on their patch?
To go to the market seeking expressions of interest for a property development, when the world is facing the worst financial crisis in living memory, was hardly a good test of whether this historic building could be adapted to other uses.
The health board has no plans for this site except to create a few extra car parks. To bowl the existing building in these circumstances is just vandalism.
