Buy-out of private properties affected by slips Debate

Community Wellbeing - Cost of Living

Option 2

Residents supporting Option 2 emphasize the critical importance of the council's decision for their financial security and mental wellbeing, highlighting the dire circumstances of those unable to use their homes due to safety risks. They argue that accepting the buy-out offer is a moral obligation, reflecting a collective responsibility to support community members in distress, and stress that the financial assistance would alleviate significant personal and financial hardships caused by the slips. Additionally, there is a strong sentiment that the community would support the financial implications of the buy-out, recognizing the fairness in aiding insured homeowners who have consistently fulfilled their civic duties by paying rates and insurance.

Table of comments:

Point No	Comment
13.2	As one of the affected red-stickered properties, this is hopefully the last stage in a process which has put our lives on hold for the last 20 months or so and left us incredibly anxious about our future. Without councillors endorsing their own decision to accept the Government buy-out plan, we have a worthless home and bleak prospects for our retirement years. Not to follow the precedent set by North Island council would be contrary to the intentions of the central Government proposal and make NCC a complete outlier. In 18 years at Moana Ave, NCC has continued to levy rates with no suggestion we are living in an unsafe property. That risk is now, according to geotechs and the council itself, not acceptable. Just before the storm event NCC granted resource consent for a major renovation of our garage and installation of a bathroom. Option 3, as the council itself has stated, is not consistent with the Government's buyout principles and the council too has acknowledged that it would be unlikely in the extreme for Government to consider Option 4. We submit it would make no sense for the council to refuse a package which includes $6m for flood remediation and "betterment."
51.1	This option must be carried out as has happened with other Councils throughout NZ. This unfortunate turn of events could not be foreseen. Insurance / Rates have always been paid and to think no recompense in return through no fault of the Owners. If I was in the same position, I would be beside myself thinking everything I have worked for is gone. Please put yourselves in their position and buy-out.
111.2	Let’s finally give these people who can never return to their homes some certainty at last for the future.For a one-off assistance to people whose lives have been turned upside down, we just have to do it. As decent human beings who care about others, it’s a short-term rates price I’m sure we would all be prepared to pay if we were in the same boat.
659.2	I don't feel I know enough about this. I feel that the house owners should be responsible for having adequate insurance, but perhaps I am missing some details. I'll defer to the councils judgement.
685.2	I support anything that allows Council to improve the stability of the Tahuna Hill region.  For many years, residents have paid engineers for Council requirements, paid building consents etc, and the Council has agreed and allowed progress of this area.  Sadly, infrastructure was not improved after the 1960's event, nor 2011 and in 2022 many people have suffered financial losses because Council changed the grading of this land in the swipe of a pen - reducing property values and have ensured a very real impact on the ability to get insurance.    I understand stormwater upgrade is currently being worked on, but continuing to enchance the stability and return the land to it's previous grade or status is paramount.
718.1	it’s clearly the right thing to do!! It’s happening around other areas, these people have paid their rates, yet they cant access their properties nearly two years later!!
731.1	Over the past almost 2 years I have observed the growing mental and financial distress of my long term business colleague and friend (XXX) as a result of her inability to live in and freely enjoy her home. As a superannuitant she had prepared it well for their possible longterm in-home care needs. The care suite they set up for this purpose is beyond what is reflected in the RV. As a result, and in order to allow them to meet their future health and welfare requirements without becoming a burden on the aged-care sector and the taxpayer, a payout less than 95% of the pre-flood value, as adopted in the North Island, would be totally unconscionable. I would entreat the Council to do the right thing and give her the opportunity to reinstate them in a home which will function well for them in their dotage.
780.2	Let’s finally give these people who can never return to their homes some certainty at last for the future. Option 2 is the right thing to do for our fellow ratepayers in desperate times. As noted, it will not set a precedent for the future but is a human response within our community in very difficult circumstances.There can surely be no other sensible option, given the precedent set by councils in the North Island for their similarly affected ratepayers. Not to agree to a buy out at market values would make Nelson council an outlier.Councillors have had long enough time on this. You have already decided to accept the Government proposal. It’s time to get on with it, nearly two years after the event.Option 2 seems the only sensible one. Option three is not consistent with what central Government proposed and as the council itself notes in its LTP document, it is hardly likely the new Government will re-negotiate a package which other councils have already adopted.NCC has to get on with it. The buyout is part of a package it cannot afford to turn down. For a one-off assistance to people whose lives have been turned upside down, we just have to do it. As decent human beings who care about others, it’s a short-term rates price I’m sure we would all be prepared to pay if we were in the same boat.
946.1	I support Option 2 identified in the LTP consultation document - Accept the Government’s offer of financial assistance and apply the Council’s draft eligibility principles, while urging the Government to amend criteria for EQC payouts.
972.2	It is time NCC came up with buy-out support for private land onto private land.  It is absolutely appalling that this Council did hold secret that they had already paid out to homes where Council land that had impacted private homes.  I have seen the impact of what NCC has caused to my family by delaying and delaying meetings with no firm confirmation of any payout.  My family has had to sell their business and put off 10-12 staff, while finding and paying out rent for coming up close to two years.
1047.2	In supporting the Council’s proposed approach, I want to also express concern about the likelihood of similar events in the future, with implications for the affordability for ratepayers. The Council needs to actively discourage people from building or improving homes in high-risk areas. That said, I feel the community should support people who had insurance but now find their insurance (and EQC) won’t pay because the house is not damaged, even when the house is not inhabitable due to slip risk.
1057.2	I support Option 2 identified in the LTP consultation document - Accept the Government’s offer of financial assistance and apply the Council’s draft eligibility principles, while urging the Government to amend criteria for EQC payouts.
1216.2	Council must rely on householders having insurance. Where householders do not insure their property risk should not fall to Council.I do not support Council investing $24m in the private Kaka/Mahitahi subdivision. Expert testimony at the RMA hearing stated that the subdivsion will increase flood risk for downstream properties. This risk has not been quantified as no whole of catchment flood risk assessment has been done.Nelson rainfall in the age of climate change looks set to increase. By supporting this massive subdivision Council is exposing itself and Nelson ratepayers to millions of dollars in future compensation claims should a major flood occur that is exacerbated by the loss of a natural flood plain and the huge increase in run-off due to the increase in hard surfaces from the subdivisions housing and roads etc..
1367.2	In future need to stop paying out to people who knowilngly purchase property in areas of high risk, especially if they don't bother insuring themselves
1494.1	Support Option 2 - Accept the Government’s offer of financial assistance and apply the Council’s draft eligibility principles, while urging the Government to amend criteria for EQC payouts.