The Star: March 07, 2024

Thursday March 7 2024 The Star
Latest Canterbury news at starnews.co.nz
LETTERS 23
Concerns over safety of apartments
YOUR FRONT page fire story
(February 29) and photos have to
be a wake-up call for many.
Christchurch residents’
associations have long opposed
the proliferation of lower-end
multi-apartment developments,
on aesthetic grounds and
because of the destruction of
trees which provide shade and
bird habitat, plus the additional
stress they place on parking and
other infrastructure. These are
all valid concerns.
Association members have
been called selfish nimbys. I
never bought that label, but
we obviously didn’t see the fire
(literally) through the smoke
(screen) we conveniently created
for developers, investors and our
council, in fluffing about with
our first-world whinges.
We did not see the much
bigger and truly sinister picture.
How did we all miss this
significant safety and health
issue? And now we know about
it, we surely can’t unsee it, can
we?
It’s true these places are aimed
at the vulnerable. Three quarters
are owned by investors who
let them out at huge rentals to
people who can ill-afford them,
many being subsidised by the
taxpayer. They’re not long-term
homes; there’s no room to hang
out a decent load of washing,
let alone swing a cat or a tennis
racket. They’re stepping stones,
to nowhere some will say, and
they won’t age well.
But until we walked past the
scene of the fire on New Brighton
Rd, and imagined the terror – of
being on the high second level
while flames raged up the stairs
– we didn’t truly understand the
extent of that vulnerabilty.
Like other onlookers, we
shocked by the pitiful and futile
attempts a desperate mother
must have made to smash
double-glazed windows which
don’t open more than 15cms.
We saw buckled stays which
showed us how desperately she
must have tried to force them,
before dropping her baby from
such a height, and then smashing
her own way out. Most such
FIRE TRAP: Readers say property developers bear some responsibility for the recent fire at
a block of apartments on New Brighton Rd, Shirley.
apartments do not have secondfloor
doors or balconies.
In the days since, I’ve heard
of a man in his 60s who made a
rope ladder when he was housed
in a three storey unit in Salisbury
St. One could not get a more
third world solution, surely? And
of a profoundly deaf woman
who has been refused by her
landlord an upgraded fire alarm,
consequently sleeping in her
downstairs living area.
Is this what the Fire Service
means when it exhorts us all to
plan our escape routes in case
of emergency? Does it have any
say in the consenting process of
these developments?
I live next door to a block of
five, and although I am first to say
they are not the bogey houses we
feared, I now look at the tenants in
a new light.
For the first time I’ve looked
at their window design and
configuration. I know I would
never be able to get out of those
in an emergency, and I sincerely
hope they have taken all possible
steps to protect themselves, until
someone in authority steps up
to the plate to look after them.
And I hope that is very soon, as
accidents will always happen.
– June Peka
Of course it’s good news no one
died at the fire at one of the flats
on New Brighton Rd opposite The
Palms.
Of course it’s good that the
firewalls in between the flats
stopped the fire from spreading.
However, there is no mention
of the fact that only a very small
part of the top-floor windows
can only be opened, making
it almost impossible to get out
quickly.
Why were these flats allowed
to be built with such a lack of
fire-safety planning?
Who is responsible, the
developers, council?
– Ann Vanschevensteen
Smart poles
I am firmly against the
installation of smart poles in our
city. These poles are promoted
as tools to enhance safety, yet
their actual effectiveness is
questionable.
First, the surveillance cameras
on these poles might merely shift
anti-social behaviours to areas
beyond their reach, failing to
address the underlying causes of
crime.
Furthermore, the effectiveness
of these cameras is dubious
without swift police intervention,
which appears to be waning.
Additionally, features such
as car and pedestrian counting
provoke concerns about the real
intentions behind these poles.
Are they truly aimed at security,
or do they serve a more sinister
purpose?
We must not overlook the
broader consequences of
perpetual surveillance. These
poles are a step towards
We want to hear your views
on the issues affecting life
in Canterbury
Send emails to:
barry@
starmedia.kiwi
Letters may be edited or rejected
at Star Media’s discretion. Letters
should be about 200 words.
A name, postal address and phone
number should be provided.
Please use your real name, not
a nickname, alias, pen name or
abbreviation.
normalising invasive monitoring
throughout our city, all under the
pretence of developing a ‘smart
city’ and enhancing our ‘safety.’
In truth, this is surveillance
masqueraded as advancement.
Intrusive cameras have already
been installed at our intersections
without our consent. As the adage
warns, sacrificing privacy for
safety leads to the loss of both. We
must oppose this infringement on
our privacy and freedoms.
– James Andrews
THree smart poles are to be built
in Christchurch to keep us safe.
Pedestrian and vehicle counting
are part of the functions and
we are told they are completely
anonymous. I feel safer already.
Security cameras on the poles
will be linked to the police but as
understaffed police reportedly
didn’t even look at CCTV
camera footage of an attempted
abduction of a primary school
aged child in Lyttleton and
another in Woolston earlier this
year, I fail to see how this will
make anyone any safer.
These poles will also feature free
WiFi to add to the EMF (Electro
Magnetic Field) pollution and
keep us looking at our phones. I
really feel safe now.
Funding has come from
the previous government’s
support package for community
wellbeing.
What a relief it’s only my tax
money that’s being wasted not my
rates money.
– D Downward
LIVE ON SENZ RADIO 1260 AM