Buy-out of private properties affected by slips Debate

Community Wellbeing - Cost of Living

Option 3

Residents supporting Option 3 emphasize the need for fairness in the buy-out process by suggesting the use of current market values rather than pre-event values, which they believe would provide a more equitable financial outcome for all affected homeowners. They also advocate for setting a maximum purchase price at the Nelson median house price or just enough to cover existing property debts, ensuring that homeowners are not left financially burdened after losing their properties. Additionally, there is a strong sentiment that the council should not heavily subsidize the risks of uninsured properties, reflecting a broader desire for personal responsibility in property ownership and insurance.

Table of comments:

Point No	Comment
46.2	I prefer option 3 as I think that amending the buy out principles to use a more realistic 'current' value would be fair. Using the values prior to August 2022 event would pay out the home owners at a value more than their house would be worth if they hadn't been effected - all homes in the slip zone have had significant value drops and it would not be fair to pay effected parties out at a very high value when all home owners have taken a hit in value because of this event and subsequent changes to zone risk assessment/insurance premiums etc. Some sort of current average value for the area could be calculated and this figure used in order to be fair to all and not give a large financial windfall to the property owners being bought out.
56.2	The future use of the land needs to be considered as part of this decision. It could be held as recreational reserve with stabilisation works, or it could become productive public land as community gardens. Either way will require demolition and cleanup – neither of which is discussed in the four options.While it is important to support individuals in crisis, and to prevent people from falling into crisis, it needs to be remembered that landowners are already far ahead in that they own land at all: support for them should be fair alongside e.g. support for the disabled who own nothing and are not able to work. As the prime minister's view is that a person unable to work should work ten hours per week, Council must be prepared to receive and implement a similar requirement for landowners unable to live in their current houses. It has never been unknown to current landowners that much of Nelson sits on steep hillsides and a floodplain, and that the soils here are quite challenging.It should also be recognised that "the market value of their home" is surely not very high when the land is deemed unsuitable to live upon, or for which insurance is unavailable or available only at extremely high cost. We need a more forthright choice of words in these options that tells homeowners more frankly and accurately what they can anticipate.
631.2	I would support a buy out on the basis of setting a maximum purchase price of up to the Nelson median house price or if up to the amount needed to ensure that debts on the properties were repaid, to ensure the homeowners are not left with debt on a property they no longer own.
1131.2	As the owner of 537 Rocks Road. Your current proposal excludes me from the buy out option as the property was my second and a rental house. I believe I have exceptional circumstances that need to be looked at individually. As a quadriplegic with no earning capacity I purchased this property as a way to support myself and my 5 year old son. This has now been taken from me. Then the option of any support/buy out package is also taken by the current eligibility criteria. I do not get any financial support from the district health board or Winz and have now lost money means of income.
1226.2	Payout eligibility should prioritise properties where slips occurred from Council land. A much lower payout should be paid to properties affected by slips from private land (even less than the proposed 75% - more like a maximum of 50%). Agree that a lower payment should be offered to uninsured properties.
1379.2	I am concerned about the precedent of NCC paying for slips from private property. It is a tricky problem where NCC has historically granted building and resource consents within inappropriate areas. However, I am also aware that some people and companies have chosen to build, develop and sell / buy in areas against expert advice or relevant background information or simple common sense. I do not want to encourage this. I reluctantly support accepting the offer to ensure that the rest of the government funding is available. I am against providing such a high percentage rate of buyout of uninsured and insured property as proposed in option 2 hence my choice of option 3. I am particularly opposed to such a high rate for uninsured property as proposed in option 2. If you choice to not insure your property, you must take the risks.