Nazareth House

Press, 2 November 1985, Page 18

Nazareth House

Sir, — The comment by Stephen.. H. Rice (October 30) that “theo« Sisters of Nazareth are inthe,>business of preserving people, not-. , buildings” really gets to the heart f-' of the matter. I like the published drawing of the low-rise retirement f . a lex that the sisters propose to,-,' in the shadow of Nazareth House. And that is just what it will,.' be for. the best part of the day — the shadow — if the the old,-,, building is not removed. — Yours,,,. ; etc., , HUGH R. TAYLOR. November 1, 1985. Sir,—Stephen Rice has a won-*”' derfully trusting attitude. Simply because the Government money to demolish Nazareth 1 ’ House, he says “we may ably presume that such money had- 1 to be spent in the most cost- It - effective manner” ("The Press,”” 1 October 30). Mr Rice obviously’; 1 cannot prove this. He simply be- 5lieves that Government decisions are always wise and wellresearched. He is mistaken. Simply because a Government hands money to someone is no proof that their decision is best Can Mr Rice cite any survey proving it cheaper to demolish Nazareth House and rebuild than merely to restore? Mr Rice is also premature in declaring Nazareth House an earthquake risk, as I understand that no formal structural survey has been done. In any case, old buildings can be strengthened. In caring for their patients the owners are not entitled to ignore their obligations to the city and people of Christchurch.— Yours, etc., MISS L. T. TAYLOR. October 30, 1985.