Buy-out of private properties affected by slips Debate

Economic Benefits - Costs

Option 1

The primary argument supporting Option 1 is centered on the concern that accepting other options would expose the council to future liabilities and financial burdens, particularly from properties affected by slips originating from private land, for which the council has no legal obligation. Residents argue that property damage should be managed by the property owner and their insurance, not by council funds, to prevent setting a precedent that could lead to increased financial responsibilities for the council in managing future natural disasters. Additionally, there is a strong sentiment that council funds should be reserved for essential infrastructure and mitigating broader community risks rather than individual property buy-outs, which could encourage underinsurance and reduce the incentive for private risk management.

Table of comments:

Point No	Comment
11.2	Other options will open council up to do much future liability / demands for compensation
77.2	Damage to property is the responsibility of the owner and their insurers
171.2	I submit the council should only apply the buy-out offer as this applies to properties affected by slips from council owned land.  In these instances the council has a clear obligation to recompense property owners affected by slips starting from council owned land.  However extending that buy-out support to slips from private land significantly extends the councils liability into areas where it has no equivalent obligation and creates an unnecessary precedent and future financial burden that reduces council's financial capacity to upgrade infrastructure and mitigate the future impacts of climate change for which the council has real and foreseeable obligations.Private land owners have access to EQC and insurance payouts and the council should not be stepping in to socialise private sector losses due to homeowners choosing not to take out appropriate insurance cover.  That precedence would only encourage the private sector to under and non insure their properties and reduces the market value signals relating to property values that should be responding to the likelihood of losses due to foreseeable climate change impacts.  Nelson is very highly exposed to property losses due to flooding, slips and sea level rise and rates increases and future funding capacity should be targeted at covering the community for those expected losses.It is the council's responsibility to remain within its agreed responsibilities and to ensure that it meets the communities infrastructure needs over the medium to long term.  Previous council's have clearly failed in that requirement leading to the current infrastructure deficit and the need to raise rates significantly this year and in future years.  That was probably caused by council members trying to minimise rates increases while ignoring the impact on future generations.  That failure needs to stop now and the council members accept they can't fund every potential worthwhile request.  Time for the council to be financially disciplined and honest about the likely track of future rates obligations.
171.2	I submit the council should only apply the buy-out offer as this applies to properties affected by slips from council owned land.  In these instances the council has a clear obligation to recompense property owners affected by slips starting from council owned land.  However extending that buy-out support to slips from private land significantly extends the councils liability into areas where it has no equivalent obligation and creates an unnecessary precedent and future financial burden that reduces council's financial capacity to upgrade infrastructure and mitigate the future impacts of climate change for which the council has real and foreseeable obligations.Private land owners have access to EQC and insurance payouts and the council should not be stepping in to socialise private sector losses due to homeowners choosing not to take out appropriate insurance cover.  That precedence would only encourage the private sector to under and non insure their properties and reduces the market value signals relating to property values that should be responding to the likelihood of losses due to foreseeable climate change impacts.  Nelson is very highly exposed to property losses due to flooding, slips and sea level rise and rates increases and future funding capacity should be targeted at covering the community for those expected losses.It is the council's responsibility to remain within its agreed responsibilities and to ensure that it meets the communities infrastructure needs over the medium to long term.  Previous council's have clearly failed in that requirement leading to the current infrastructure deficit and the need to raise rates significantly this year and in future years.  That was probably caused by council members trying to minimise rates increases while ignoring the impact on future generations.  That failure needs to stop now and the council members accept they can't fund every potential worthwhile request.  Time for the council to be financially disciplined and honest about the likely track of future rates obligations.
206.2	Is this not what home insurance is for?
308.2	start buying out affected properties now starts a precedence for any future ‘events’
441.2	It makes no sense for Council to set the precedent of buying out flood/slip damaged private properties - as the damage from climate change continues to mount in the years to come NC will have it's hands full dealing with damage to its own infrastructure, let alone bailing out private housing. For example at some point in the future when the housing in Monaco gets inundated (again) there is no way that NC should be offering financial support. The council should be engaged in managed retreat, not looking at bail outs.
497.2	Privare property is an isnurance issue. The Council should not be putting costson to rate payers unless it is liable for poor past planning decisions.
623.2	It creates a precedent that rate payers will have to wear forever.  Don’t start the precedent even if it comes with money.  Let the Central Government buy-out the properties.
623.2	It creates a precedent that rate payers will have to wear forever.  Don’t start the precedent even if it comes with money.  Let the Central Government buy-out the properties.
786.2	This is what Insurance is for. Why should tax payers buy personal homes. We should not waste money on these individual homes, why should the council be responsible for the weather affecting individuals homes.
943.2	The owners should have conducted due diligence as to pre-existing land conditions. Therefore, we strongly disagree with using rate-payers money to buy out. it sets a dangerous precedents. Instead. rates should be spent on mitigating climate change to avoid future damage and adapt to climate change.
1024.2	Caviat emptor.
1050.2	I don't support NCC socialising the cost of private liabilities.
1273.2	Leave it to the insurance to pay people for their loss and offer support for the less wealthy people that are affected by this issue.
1278.2	People need to do their own research on the properties they buy and if they choose to buy at the bottom or top of a hill, they need to be aware of the choices they are making. It is not for council to bail people out of their poor decisions.
1373.2	Council  is not an insurance company and will set a precedent .Yes if its the fault of NCC