What's happening here, at the Palace Hotel ?

'Council has a hidden agenda and they're not releasing the full report on why they pulled it down. I need to see that report, I just need fair treatment and I need to see a full report about why they pulled it down,' said Michael Chow (reported in Friday's NZ Herald.)

Does Mayor Len really think it is legal or moral to condemn a building (a historic building no less) first of all refusing the legitimate owners the opportunity to obtain their own report on the need for demolition, or at the very least inform the owners that they could seek an injunction against the decision. Len Brown in another life is a lawyer and now as the leader of this city where he has pledged to bring people together he has either forgotten his knowledge of the law or more deliberately held silent on it to the detriment of it's owners and to the detriment of the City of Auckland.

Just to put things in context again, the area surrounding the building had already been made safe from the prospect of the building falling, including the exclusion of people. There was no need for haste. The Chow brothers were anticipating spending $12 million on the site. Chow had at his disposal experts and the necessary dollars to privately secure the area if necessary despite the Council having already done so. Chow had contractors capable of making the building safe in a very short period, through spraying resin, spraying concrete and sheeting or wrapping the walls externally all to prevent its collapse. However, it is clear the whole building was never going to fall and that needs to be remembered. There is no certainty that any of the building was going to fall in fact, let alone the whole thing.

The Chows have been poorly treated over this issue, I think they have been treated in a illegal manner as well. I think it is unprecedented that an owner of a building (or house) demolished without their consent has reasons for the demolition withheld from them - that's not democratic or just. At all times the should have been kept informed including their options explained to them should they not agree with the Council decisions. And I wonder what it tells us of the new Mayor and his 'inclusive' approach. The Chows, millionaire businessmen are surely no mugs, and no doubt capable of reaching the same decision as the Council 'engineers' regarding the need for demolition if the proof was before them and tested to their satisfaction. The behaviour of Auckland City appears similar to the situations I've read about overseas when Governments want land cleared - they send in the thugs.

An Auckland City spokesman, Glyn Walters said a trespass notice excluding Council from the site was 'just a publicity stunt.' I think Walters should learn to be a good spokesman and shut his mouth instead of blaming aggrieved parties for standing up to defend their property and rights.

These men (the Chos) might be the subject of racial disquiet, or moral judgement, both issues that have no place in the proper running of a city where citizens come first and heritage buildings are not dropped at the whim of a new Mayor unwilling to provide the 'secret' reasons for doing so, or inviting that those 'reasons' be tested by law if necessary. When demo men gather to knock down a building, there is a type of lust to have it down a type of fever that appeared gripped Council that fateful night - the city, the heritage and the citizens are the losers for that uncontrolled lust, not to mention the men who own those bricks broken and crushed without their consent.