It's a mystery

Auckland Council will help restore a derelict downtown building that is described as an eyesore.

The century-old five-storey heritage building on Albert Street has been empty for more than 15 years, is covered in graffitti and has broken windows.

Mayor Len Brown says the building is disgusting but the council can't legally force the owner to maintain it so has come to an agreement whereby both parties will pay for it to be cleaned up.

Mr Brown won't say how much that will cost the ratepayer but says it's well worth the money.

Also sprach NatRad

Questions:

• Why won't Mayor Brown tell us how much this will cost?
  
• How do we know whether it is well worth the money?
  
• Why can we not force property owners to maintain their buildings?
  
• Why can we not take abandoned buildings into public ownership?
  
• What about the St James?

On the radio (link at bottom of link above, as it were) Mayor Brown spoke of his campaign to clean up the graffiti of South Auckland. I wonder whether this involved paying property owners. The radio report also makes clear that the owner of the building has neglected it because he wants to demolish and replace it. I fail to see why we must allow this anti-social behaviour. We lost the Palace recently because the brothel-keepers wanted to enlarge the basement (perhaps they wanted a dungeon), but at least their plan was to keep the building. Other rentiers allow our civic heritage to decay and we can do nothing to stop them.

Oh well, here's Toyah dancing in her pinny: