Buy-out of private properties affected by slips Debate

Option 1

The residents supporting Option 1 argue that the council should limit its buy-out offer to properties affected by slips originating from council-owned land, where there is a clear legal obligation to compensate the owners. They express concerns that extending buy-out support to properties affected by slips from private land would create an unnecessary financial burden on the council, setting a precedent that could lead to reduced financial capacity for essential infrastructure upgrades and climate change mitigation. Additionally, they emphasize that private property owners have access to insurance and EQC payouts, and the council should not socialize private losses, which could encourage underinsurance and mismanagement of property risks related to foreseeable climate impacts.

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.
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.
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.