Buy-out of private properties affected by slips Debate

Environmental Benefits - Sustainability

Option 1

The residents supporting Option 1 argue that the council should prioritize its financial resources on broader community infrastructure and climate change mitigation rather than extending financial aid to private property owners affected by slips from private land. They express concerns that subsidizing private losses sets a precedent that could lead to reduced incentives for private insurance and proper risk assessment by homeowners, potentially increasing future liabilities for the council. Additionally, they emphasize the importance of focusing on sustainable practices like managed retreat and preparing for inevitable climate-related challenges, rather than using public funds for individual property buyouts.

Table of comments:

Point No	Comment
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.
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.
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.
965.2	We do not use rates to pay for rents for those who needs to live in rental properties. The house owners are the privileged and therefore they should have done due diligence. We should use the rates for future adaptation and also mitigation of climate change instead.