Editorial
The closure of any city service provider is sure to have emotions running high.
And in the case of the Aubert Home of Compassion, that is profoundly more apparent given the nature of care and service provided.
Since revealing the decision by the Sister of Compassion to close the facility in St John's Hill due to the buildings' earthquake risk factor, several people have commented on the move. Almost all have spoken in glowing terms of the care and service provided and what a loss the closure will be to the city.
They are right and it's refreshing to see that people haven't turned on the owners, who really have little alternative. They are merely responding to a situation and responding according to heightened fears surrounding building safety and earthquakes.
No one would want our city to suffer a tragedy similar to what Christchurch has endured. So it is understandable to have some sympathy for the plight of the Sisters of Compassion. Surely questions will be asked whether management has reacted too soon, and in too drastic a fashion. But as Terry Dowdeswell pointed out, if there are to be any accusations of knee-jerk reaction they must be targeted towards authorities whose stringent requirements around safety mean that many businesses and service providers will face no such option but to close the doors.
This will be cold comfort to residents and staff at Aubert Home of Compassion, who now face a period of uncertainty over where they will live, and if they will be able to find replacement work.
There can be little doubt that they will not be alone with their plight - we are at the beginning only of a complicated and likely lengthy process.
Wanganui District Council faces a similar dilemma over many of its buildings with costly alternatives. And, while in the early stages, some detail has been released on certain buildings, such as the Sarjeant Gallery.
It is understood groups and organisations that use the gallery are being forewarned of its potential risk in the event of an earthquake and some are opting to not visit. This is a rather tragic turn of events. We shouldn't forget that the risk today is no higher than it was last year, only we now have a risk factor based around a set of criteria to determine the likely damage in a hypothetical event.
It's crystal-ball but the impact is real; these are real lives being disrupted and jobs lost.
No one wants to have their safety put in jeopardy and, as Christchurch so graphically illustrated, we simply don't know when or where these catastrophic event will occur. That makes it imperative we get these decisions right. But, as Mr Dowdeswell states, we must ask if closing facilities and knocking down buildings is the answer.
The Sisters of Compassion should not be vilified for their stand. If we are to be critical of anyone, it must be the authorities, of whom we must ask whether there has been sufficient guidance for organisations such as this to make these most difficult of decisions.
Feedback: editor@wanganuichronicle.co.nz