For those unaware, the ReStart project saw a temporary shopping mall built on the site of a number of demolished CBD buildings. The project sees a number of retail spaces created from recycled shipping containers. There has been some criticism of the initiative, both in terms of process (as an example, he two cafes involved where apparently unaffected by the September and February earthquakes) and the fact that CERA is spending a large amount of tax payer’s money on the initiative. So, my thoughts;

• This is about catharsis. I visited ReStart today and the feeling is one of residents returning to the scene of the horror. As such it is an important step in the healing process. Other than some time spent in the CBD in the week after February 22nd as part of emergency services work, I haven’t been back into the city. It was haunting to see food still on tables in the food court opposite Cashel Mall and to walk down the street where many people died under crushed buses and falling buildings. In the weeks ahead ReStart will move from being about closure to being about re-building commerce. But the closure aspects are important and can’t be overlooked
• The execution is fantastic. The ReStart precinct has been created beautifully and is a vibrant and contemporary space. I am a fan of container architecture. The use of containers, the use of strong primary colours, the native planting and the general flow make this project one which can be considered world class
• This investment is entirely appropriate. CERA have done the right thing putting money into this – both from a commercial aid perspective and from a perspective of helping Christchurch residents to begin to find closure after the event. There has been much argument about where money is being spent, I support CERA spending money on this and other similar initiative (such as the weekend bus tours through the CBD)

This project is a step in the direction of rebuilding Christchurch. That’s a good thing.

• Over charging CERA and insurance companies for demolition work
• Widespread looting of demolition sites

So here we go again. It has been reported that March Construction demolished the Securities House building. During the demolition the building tenants were told that no salvageable items remained. Contrary to this however it appears March completely stripped the building, going so far as to empty locked filing cabinets of their files – which were then dumped, the filing cabinets allegedly finding their way to eventual sale and the fattening of March’s bottom line.

March Construction director Buzz March shrugged it off saying that every floor was saturated and no recoverable items remained. This despite the fact that one of his employees was stopped for drink driving and was found to have two laptops belonging to the tenants of the building in his car. Further jewelry that was on site has found its way into the hands of demolition workers.

I have been contacted by a party who has had a demolition company owner offer his as much furniture, household items and even jewelry as he could possible want – it seems this looting by demolition companies is long standing and systemic.

All this despite the Council’s statement after the February quake which said that;

Demolition contractors undertaking commercial or Red Zone demolitions are not allowed to salvage materials. Where possible, goods of value, such as business equipment, will be returned to the owner or tenant. Building materials will be recycled as much as possible.

I have every respect for Roger Sutton, head of CERA, but on a daily basis stories are being uncovered that point to a total and utter rort occurring in Christchurch. While one demolition worker has been arrested, my assessment is that he is merely a scapegoat and that it is the insurance company owners and managers who are controlling this programme of wholesale theft.

I challenge Roger Sutton and Gerry Brownlee, Minister for Earthquake Recovery, to actually provide some answers and direction around this

This is especially so after receiving an invoice for close to 500% of what we should have paid or the demolition of our building. After notifying CERA that we wouldn’t be paying the invoice, we received a reasonable response asking why. In the interim we’ve also had discussions with a number of people involved in the demolition industry who allege that looting by demolition companies is widespread and blatant. It appears that we’re only now seeing authorities begin to clamp down on this.

Below is a copy of the letter I sent to CERA’s Demolitions Finance Team outlining our reasons for disputing the invoice – I’ll continue to inform readers what eventuates from this situation.

To – David Jones

Demolitions Finance Team

CERA

David,

I refer to our letter dated 14 October and sent in response to our advisory that we dispute the invoice for the demolition of our building situated at 165 Lichfield Street, Christchurch. In your letter you requested our reasons for disputing the invoice, our reasons include, but are not limited to the following;

1. On the afternoon of February 22^nd, and in the days following, we spent extensive amounts of time in and around our building and, while it undeniably needed demolition at some point, we dispute that the building presented a clear and immediate danger and hence the need for an emergency demolition

2. As we have mentioned previously, we made significant attempts to engage with both Civil Defence and the Christchurch City Council, in fact our phone number was displayed prominently outside the building, despite this, and in contrast to repeated assertions by both the Civil Defence Controller and latterly CERA, that every effort was made to contact building owners, the first contact we had from any official party was your invoice dated the end of August. As such, and given our contention above, we dispute the invoice on the basis that discussion regarding a reasoned approach to the demolition of our building was denied us

3. Prior to the February 22^nd earthquake we had already engaged a demolition company, Southern Demolition, to effect the demolition of the building. We were in discussions with them following February 22^nd and despite them being ready and prepared to continue work under out pre-existing contracted, Civil Defence chose unilaterally to take charge of the process

4. We note that at the time of demolition CERA did not in fact exist. As such we dispute CERA’s right to retrospectively invoice companies for works undertaken prior to its existence

5. With regards the amount charged for the demolition, with extensive experience in the general contracting industry, and after closely monitoring the demolition process, we contend that the amount charged is in no way proportional to the amount of time spent on-premises and generally accepted charge-out rates. As such we do not intend to pay an undocumented and, in our opinion, highly inflated invoice

6. With regards the waste disposal component of the invoice, we have had discussions with demolition company personnel who have alleged that the waste from our building did not in fact pass through a transfer station but was surreptitiously removed to privately held sorting yards where demolition companies extracted any salvageable items. As such we dispute any and all waste disposal charges

7. Despite assurance from the Controller of Civil Defence that demolition companies did not have salvage rights to the materials recovered post February 22nd, and despite being told by the supervisor in charge of the works that all materials were sent to transfer stations and no recoverable items remained, we publicized our concerns about looting by demolition companies. Subsequent to my interview on Radio New Zealand, a number of items mysteriously appeared on site being a very small proportion of the recoverable items. Given our belief that Civil Defence essentially granted demolition contractors a wholesale right of salvage over the items within our building, we will be taking legal advice over our rights to counter-invoice CERA and/or the demolition companies for the estimated value of the recoverable goods

8. Finally given the unilateral nature of these works, and also given the fact that it did not exist when the demolition took place, we dispute CERA’s right to charge a project management fee or the demolition works

Hoping this answers your questions, should you require any further clarification please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.

Please also note I have sent a copy of his invoice to our insurance company and various media outlet

Yours sincerely,

Ben Kepes

Director – CGK Holdings

At the time we mentioned, in passing, that we had had zero contact from either Civil Defence or the council (CERA hadn’t been formed at that time). That was still the case until recently – unless been on site ourselves, we would have had zero official confirmation that our building had actually been demolished. The other day however, I was advised that one of the co-owners had received a letter from CERA. The issues around delivering that letter are worth telling, if only to show the ineptitude of the process.

The letter was posted to the address for service of one of the directors of the company owning the building. It appears that CERA went to the companies office website, picked the first person appearing in chronological order – and sent them a letter. This is a little odd considering we had registered with both Civil Defence and the Council, including giving accurate addresses and contact details. CERA chose not to use these details and rather picked a means of contact that was ineffective – ah well.

In order to explain the astonishment we felt at receiving the letter (and the invoice it contained) it is important to set the scene. Subsequent to the September earthquake, but prior to the February event, we had made the difficult decision to demolish our building. We actually obtained a quote from a demolition company for effecting the works for the sum of $54000 and these works had been started the week before the February quake. The demolition company spent a week or so on site, before being forced to move off by the February 22 quake.

After February 22nd, Civil Defence decided that our building was a signifciant risk (a fact that could readily be disputed) and ordered an emergency demolition. Once the emergency demolition had happened we understood that there was the possibility that we may be charged for this work. And we even expected that, given the changing situation, the price might rise a little. What we were wholly unprepared for was receiving the invoice shown below;

Yes, we were being charged 400% more than the price quoted by the original demolition company. 400%! Highway robbery anyone?

Wanting to dive deeper into this travesty, we looked into the breakdown for the invoicing, the following is a breakdown of work by the companies involved – Frews, Dormer, Paul Smith and March construction.

We can see some pretty astronomical charges for waste disposal, and some interesting contracting charges. Frews salvage in particular was on site with a couple of excavators for around three days. They have seen fit to charge nearly $36000 for this work – I have friends in the general contracting industry and they would be supremely excited to be able to charge anything close to these sorts of rates.

We’re lucky that we had taken a subsequent insurance policy out, only a week before the February event, to cover the costs of demolition should there be another event. While it looks like our particular costs will be covered, that is entirely not the point. There is a moral obligation to try and get to the bottom of this situation as many other people don’t have the luxury of insurance and are being bled dry by CERA-mandated over-charging with seemingly no right of appeal. All this renders somewhat laughable the comment that one demolition worker left on my original post when he said;

We came to CHCH days after earthquake and have been risking our lives, 10hr days 6 days a week, near, above, or in(after strengthening) condemmed buildings for months. We know if there is a major aftershock we are in trouble unless we can get under crane/digger immediatly, but are willing to take risks as some of us were born in Canterbury, [all SIC]

The issues here are legion, but for a start;

• While it sounds a minor point, why does CERA refuse to use the communication channels that were put in place subsequent to the February event. How many other business owners have massive invoices that they have no knowledge of, only because CERA has been using old address details?
• What was the process for ordering emergency demolitions following February 22nd. While our building was obviously doomed, it wasn’t a time critical demo. Some might think that demolition companies had a hand in advocating that some buildings be demolished.
• Whatever happened to independent supervisors on-site during demolitions to ensure these contracting companies were being honest with their invoicing?
• Will CERA be investigating or peer reviewing these invoices or will they simply hand them over to building owners and “damn the torpedoes”?
• On a much more fundamental level, what is central Government doing about this? We run the real risk of cleaning building owner’s insurance cover out just on demolition costs and that may well lead to a greatly reduced appetite to rebuild Christchurch as a whole

I always knew that bad things were happening in the weeks and months following the earthquake, I’m not lying the blame for what went on at CERA’s door, clearly they’re the face of a system that is completely broken and that, alas, some parties have decided to manipulate for their benefit. This story needs to be told, if for no other reason than to show the reality of what is happening in Christchurch.

Readers will recall my ongoing tales of tribulation at the hand of natural forces and bureaucratic nightmares resulting from those forces. Well I’m stoked to see that next month sees the holding of an event that seems a perfect example of what TED is all about. TEDxEqCHCH aims to re-imagine the future of Christchurch, and will be held on Saturday, May 21st.

I’m stoked to be involved, albeit in only a small way – I’ll be blogging the event (as I did for the last TEDxCHCH held late last year). I’m excited to see the caliber of speakers already confirmed – Cameron Sinclair, CEO of Architecture for Humanity and TED Prize winner, will be speaking, along with Roger Sutton, CEO of Orion.

Big ups to the sponsors and organizers of the event – this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to reimagine a modern city. We need to grasp that opportunity with both hands. Come along, or watch this space…

This is a standard approach with demolition contracts – the company performing the demolition has the rights to any salvage materials.

But here it gets far murkier. You see Civil Defence had deemed the building unsafe and hence the tenant, Meyer, was not allowed access to remove his own fittings and fixtures.. The demolition contractors therefore made off with the materials recovered from the building itself, but also those from the individual tenancies.

Meyer has since had to pay the demolition company to recover some of the materials, while others have been found for sale in other parts of the country.

There is a case here that I believe needs to be heard. As far as my Laws 101 training would indicate, at no point did title on tenants good move from the tenant – not to Civil Defence, not to the building owner and certainly not to the demolition company. As such, and notwithstanding any costs incurred in removing the items from the building )more on that later), the tenant has every right, as far as I can see, to reclaim those goods.

As for costs claimed by the demolition company, anecdotal evidence suggests that demolition crews were seen simply walking into the building to remove these goods, that being the case, the onus must surely fall on Civil Defence to determine honestly whether the building is unsafe to enter or not – if it is then both tenants and demolition crews should be held to the same standard.

This is a case that needs to be heard, I believe there is a barrister somewhere (as opposed to a barista, Meyer can fill that role) who would be prepared to take on this case pro bono. I’d be prepared to put up some cash to cover filing costs and disbursements. A precedent has been set in Christchurch for mandated looting, we need to right that wrong and protect the property rights of business and building owners. I believe there is a case to answer, by Civil Defence for not policing the disaster scene, by the building owner for not protecting the rights of his tenants, and by the demolition company who profited from the removal of assets they had no right to. Who’ll join this quest?

Last week, while I was in the US, my business partner sent me an email to tell me that our building in Lichfield Street was bring demolished – he handily sent me a photo, snapped from just outside the cordon. Included is a post September and post February pic, there is no argument that the building was in need of demolition.

Now, despite the strong assertions of the Civil Defence controller, Steve Brazier that Civil Defence was doing everything possible to contact building owners prior to demolition, we had zero contact. This despite the fact that we had registered with the earthquake recovery website, the name of the company we own (and that in turn owns the building) is on the certificate of title and that a 30 second companies office search would have given them our names and contact details. So, unless we had coincidentally been in the area, we would have zero knowledge that our building was being demolished. As an emergency worker myself, I understand that in the week following the disaster some things had to happen very much off the cuff. But now, a month on from the event, there is no excuse for such tardy communications. It’s not the Wild West out here.

Not good – But alas it gets worse.

Upon my return from the US, I managed to snap some pictures of the demolition site. In the first one you can see diggers from several companies doing a great job of clearing the site.

The next picture however tells a sorrier tale – it appears that the operators had cherry-picked some particularly special pieces of timber and piled them carefully away from all the demolition debris. While we don’t know for sure that the intention was to make away with the good, the evidence is fairly compelling that this was in fact the plan. For the record this pile has some pretty amazing Australian hardwood beams, and a bunch of native timber as well – attractive items to a salvage company.

Now I need to point out that we really don’t care about a few thousand dollars worth of timber – the insurance payout for the building is going to be several million dollars – a few wooden beams are neither here nor there. But what really annoyed us was the fact that the Civil Defence controller had gone on record stating emphatically that there was a robust accreditation system for demolition companies, and that no salvage of materials would take place. The assertion seemed to fall down, at least in our case.

Suitably up in arms, we decided to do some investigative work. My business partner, pretending ignorance, managed to contact the overseer of all the demolitions in our area of town. This employee would appear to be a Civil Defence appointment, charged with overseeing the demolition activities. When asked whether any salvage had occurred from our building, said employee emphatically denied that anything had been saved and that all material had been chipped and sent to landfill. At the same time my eagle eyed business partner managed to spy what suspiciously looked like our materials semi-hidden from view near the demolition site.

Our backs suitably up, I contacted both Civil Defence and the Christchurch City Council who both advised there was little they could do and to contact the Police. I did so and was told that the Police in Christchurch were under-resourced and would be unlikely to investigate the incident. Later that evening I was contacted by the local Police officer in the rural area that I live – since my address was on the complaint form he would be dealing with it. Despite taking a statement he was realistic in telling me that there was little chance of a positive outcome for us.

I also made contact with one of the demolition companies who had been working on site who told me that we should be happy that we got a free demo job and that all materials had been chipped and sent to landfill – he too was adamant that nothing remained. Stranger and stranger it seems…

Leveraging my media connections, the story was run by The National Business Review which in turn led to me being interviewed on Radio New Zealand the next morning (listen here). All this attention seemed to miraculously change the situation. My business partner managed to corner the overseer who, just 24 hours earlier, had told him that no materials were salvaged (bear in mind that this overseer sits in an office roughly 20 metres and in clear line of site to our building). He said that in fact some materials had been recovered and they would be dropped off on our site – where they had gone in the interim, and how he had managed to not see a massive stack of timber is a mystery that only he can answer.

As I said, the materials themselves are neither here nor there (although it would be nice to be able to repurpose some of the historical materials from the site into the new building that we create on site). What is of issue however is a double whammy to building and business owners that simply must not be ignored;

1. Under the auspices of a national emergency, business and building owners are being refused entry to locations, regardless of the actual danger. This means they are unable to assess the state of buildings or businesses, and are unable to have any oversight over emergency demolitions should they need to occur
2. Civil Defence has accredited demolition companies, not generally known for their ethical behaviour, and for the main part given them carte blanche within the city. There seems to be, despite Civil Defence assertions to the contrary, very little oversight of what happens at specific demolition sights

There is a Wild West mentality that sees a few people with inordinate amounts of power run roughshod over the property and due process rights of business people. While I understand that in an emergency situation, sometimes things occur that are less than ideal, we have now entered a new phases and there is no justification for this sort of behaviour.

To this end we’ve been thinking about developing the CanterburyCloud. So what’s the CanterburyCloud? – well it’s a lot of things. In part it’s a network where start-ups can leverage the communal wisdom of their peers. It’s potentially a co-working space where companies can work and bounce ideas off like-businesses. It’s potentially a marketing platform – a network of businesses that can, to an extent, share marketing budgets and evangelise each other’s products. I guess at the end of the day it’s about creating a Cloud Centre of Excellence in Canterbury – taking the legacy of companies such as Tait Electronics and Jade, and mixing it with a healthy dose of agility and web savvy.

We’re keen to hold an unconference to explore this opportunity – it’s not going to be a tech event, rather it’s going to look at business models, strengths and weaknesses and the general appetite for working together. We’re going to hold the event on Friday 30 October at the Canterbury Development Corporation Training Room 1, Level Two, 193 Cashel Street Christchurch. We’ll be kicking off at 1pm. As is de rigeur for a tech event, there will be pizza and drinks afterwards and (hopefully) a general vibe of positivity and can-do throughout. Telecom New Zealand has generously come to the party and is sponsoring the event – so a big thanks to them for that. Thanks also to CDC for providing the venue.

For those of you who aren’t accustomed to the unconference format, here’s a nice definition courtesy of Wikipedia;

An unconference is a facilitated, participant-driven conference centered around a theme or purpose. The procedural framework consists of sessions proposed and scheduled each day by attendees, mostly on-site, typically using white boards or paper taped to the wall. While loosely structured, there are rules at BarCamp. All attendees are encouraged to present or facilitate a session.

The plan is to have six – eight sessions of around 20 minutes each. As is the norm for this type of event, session planning will happen on the day – come along pre-armed with ideas for topics!

So… who’s keen to come along and explore life on the edge? Feel free to register here, or email smina@memia.com your intention to attend. See you all there.