Buy-out of private properties affected by slips Debate

Economic Benefits - Costs

Option 3

Residents supporting Option 3 express concerns about the financial sustainability of buy-outs, especially in future events, emphasizing the need for a more robust system to manage ongoing land instability costs. They advocate for setting maximum buy-out limits, such as capping payouts at the median house price, to control initial costs and convey fiscal responsibility. Additionally, there is a strong sentiment that the council should not heavily subsidize properties affected by slips from private land, suggesting lower compensation rates for these properties to mitigate financial exposure and discourage risky land use practices.

Table of comments:

Point No	Comment
169.2	Support the buy-out of these properties but concerned over how a similar situation may be resolved in the future. This  won't be last event of this type.  Can Council afford to do this again? There appears to be a gap in the home insurance system/EQC rules where dwellings that are subject to great landslide risk following an event, but have not yet been affected (or red stickered) aren't covered? It seems strong active Central Govt advocation is required to resolve these types of situations in the future. The 50% Funding offer from Central Govt does not seem to cover ongoing management of the land instability in these areas? And there seems to be no cost estimate of that which is unfortunate in trying to make a recommendation. I support option 3 since it appears to leave more money aside to spend on ongoing land management costs which will be substantial.
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
732.2	I believe that the percentage of market value offered for the buy-outs should be lower that the draft principles in the case of uninsured properties and properties impacted by slips from private land. I think it is a dangerous precedent for council to be taking full responsibility for these scenarios. While unfortunate for the landowners, council should focus spending money on proactive land-use management and hazard mitigation, rather than reactively spending money to bail out a few individual landowners. There will undoubtedly be future events where there is significant damage from storm& earthquake induced landslides and it will be unaffordable to offer these kinds of buyouts in future.Any money saved by offering lower % buy-out offers could be directed to better education about hazards and hazard mitigation for private properties.
925.2	Not in favour of purchasing properties affected by private slips. Insurance companies should step up.
926.2	Set the maximum buyout at the medium house price of $765k to reduce the initial cost to council and send a message that the council isnt being overly generous.
926.2	Set the maximum buyout at the medium house price of $765k to reduce the initial cost to council and send a message that the council isnt being overly generous.
1016.2	I suspect the law will use this settlement as a precedent whether you like it or not.If the property is fully insured clearance of the old building is covered so it should not be considered as an extra cost to thecouncil following pay out but should be deducted from any payment made.
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.
1255.2	Only buy out of properties that council legally must
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.