LETTERS: School out of site?

10th March 2010

The 2001 vote by council was 20 to 1 in favour of retaining the school in its current location.
This was an emphatic show of support by a group of people who had actually researched the topic and were fully appraised on the issue. So bad idea then, but good now?
The council voted to lift the designation on the school. Why was this never done? Who within council prevented this from happening? Answer that question and you get to the core of the issue.
Obviously the Diocese has the right to sell the land and the council the right to buy the land, but is it really a good use of public money? Or just the fulfilment of dreams of grandeur at the public's expense?
To quote from the recent article in City Scene: "A peaceful retreat. A place to experience arts and culture".
Translated: "No kids allowed!"
Nick Batterton
Onehunga

In a recent Herald article about the preservation of Auckland's volcanoes, Mayor John Banks calls the volcanoes a "taonga" of Auckland. But, he says, there is no money to help preserve these unique features: "It is a matter of ordering our priorities. There is no spare cash around."
Yet, on February 4, Auckland City Council's arts culture and recreation committee voted 6-2 to spend an estimated $15-$20 million on the forced purchase of Monte Cecilia School.

The Aucklander's story on the plight of Monte Cecilia School identifies the Auckland City Council as the real enemy. This is patently far from the truth.
The quoted statement of Deputy Mayor David Hay makes it clear that the council is able to oust this primary school from its present location off Hillsborough Rd only with the connivance of the Catholic Diocese of Auckland.
The 2001 agreement that denied the council the option of buying the property until such time as Monte Cecilia School might cease to function there constitutes a legal protection.
The council could not force any sale before such time and now has no need to even try to. Why? Because the Catholic Diocese has obviously decided not to invoke that protection but instead to set it aside and get as much of the ratepayers' money for the land as it can.
Diocesan spokeswoman Lyndsay Freer unconvincingly points her finger at the council, maintaining that there was no question of moving the school before the council showed a determination to get the land.
The initial determination dissipated as long ago as 2001. If the Catholic Diocese has not been sitting tight ever since waiting to quit the land at the most favourable opportunity, then such a popular school would surely have been the beneficiary of capital works and ongoing improvement.
I should like this spokeswoman to reveal what major development has taken place on the school site since 2001. I should like to know what percentage of the maintenance funding generated by this school since 2001 has actually been spent on it by the Catholic Schools Office.
Board of Trustees' chairman Duncan McGill accuses the council of ignoring the 2001 agreement and the school's desire to remain where it is. He should be directing these very accusations against the legal proprietor of his school, the Catholic Diocese of Auckland.
It is principally this entity that is disregarding the recent history of the site and the commitment and vision of past generations of Catholics who have laboured on it.
At most, the Auckland City Council is guilty of exploiting the church's greed and being the minor party to contempt for the moral rights of the Monte Cecilia School community.
A S Collins
Te Atatu South

Further to the article on the possible/probable relocation of the Monte Cecilia Primary School, I haven't seen any reports on what may happen to the home units next to the school.
Will these residents also need to be relocated from their own homes? If so, where?
Just so there can be a prominent entrance way to the Wallace Art Collection, who has their priorities wrong here - Auckland City Council, or David Hay, or James Wallace and the Wallace Art Collection, or the Auckland Catholic Church, or the children and residents of the area?
Heather Stonestreet
Lynfield