City Council Wrong to Put Cost-Benefit Before Property Rights
Christchurch City Council water and waste manager Mark Christison said in an interview by Radio New Zealand that it's
"costly" to maintain essential services in the red zone. He also spoke of "extra cost per property" as being very
significant.
Mr Christison also said the council is looking at its legal obligation to continue maintaining services to people whose
homes were red zoned by the government.
Ernest Tsao, speaking on behalf of Quake Outcasts has the following response.
"The council should not put cost-benefit ahead of homeowners' property rights and use costs as an excuse or precursor to
violate fundamental common-law right to property ownership."
"Every homeowner has the right to well-maintained essential services with their purchased homes in a built-up
residential suburb. Any abrogation of essential services under any pretext is a gross violation of one of the most
fundamental principles in our free society."
As homeowners had no say in the government's establishment of the Residential Red Zone, it is morally, ethically and
perhaps also legally wrong to even consider terminating services.
The Supreme Court will make a judgment on the lawfulness of the establishment of the Residential Red Zone. Quake
Outcasts took the government to court and won in the High Court and Court of Appeal, having both courts declare the
government buy out offer was unlawful.
ends