Buy-out of private properties affected by slips Debate

Community Wellbeing - Equality & Inclusion

Option 3

The comments supporting Option 3 emphasize the need for equitable support across various property owners, regardless of their insurance status or property use, advocating for consistent treatment of all affected properties. There is a strong sentiment that support should prioritize those in dire need, such as individuals with no alternative housing options, rather than broadly compensating wealthier landowners. Additionally, some respondents argue for individual consideration of unique circumstances, such as disability and lack of alternative income sources, to ensure that the support provided is both fair and inclusive.

Table of comments:

Point No	Comment
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.
541.2	Nelson Councillors are being shown as the most heartless in New ZealandMost other councils have already paid out the unfortunate people who have lost their homes through no fault of their own.The council has also some responsibility for allowing building on unstable land.The 80% payout to uninsured houses is too high compared with the payout to those people who did everything they could to safeguard their housesThis decision should have been made by councilors (thats what they are there for) rather than put out as part of the plan
569.2	These people need to be supported. The principle regarding whether it is a principal place of residence is wrong, as is commercial/residential use of a property. If a fully consented and insured property is damaged it should be treated the same.
570.2	Amend the buy-out principles on primary place of residence and shared use of property for residential and commercial purposes so that all are treated equally.
1003.2	It would be best to offer support to those homes where residents have no other option to live other than the affected property. Compensating wealthy land owners with taxes taken from hard-working citizens sounds too much like feudal Europe for my liking.
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.