Buy-out of private properties affected by slips Debate

Option 2

Residents supporting Option 2 emphasize the council's moral and ethical responsibility to assist affected homeowners, highlighting past council actions such as property rate levies and building consents that did not previously acknowledge the now-recognized risks. They argue that rejecting the buy-out offer would contradict the intentions of the central government's support package and leave property owners in untenable situations, potentially setting a negative precedent that could impact community trust and future council actions. Additionally, proponents stress that accepting the buy-out aligns with practices of other councils in similar situations across New Zealand, ensuring consistency in governmental responses to natural disasters and reinforcing the council's duty to support its constituents in crisis situations.

Table of comments:

Point No Comment
13.2 As one of the affected red-stickered properties, this is hopefully the last stage in a process which has put our lives on hold for the last 20 months or so and left us incredibly anxious about our future. Without councillors endorsing their own decision to accept the Government buy-out plan, we have a worthless home and bleak prospects for our retirement years. Not to follow the precedent set by North Island council would be contrary to the intentions of the central Government proposal and make NCC a complete outlier. In 18 years at Moana Ave, NCC has continued to levy rates with no suggestion we are living in an unsafe property. That risk is now, according to geotechs and the council itself, not acceptable. Just before the storm event NCC granted resource consent for a major renovation of our garage and installation of a bathroom. Option 3, as the council itself has stated, is not consistent with the Government's buyout principles and the council too has acknowledged that it would be unlikely in the extreme for Government to consider Option 4. We submit it would make no sense for the council to refuse a package which includes $6m for flood remediation and "betterment."
34.1 Based on other similar cases in the North Island.
51.1 This option must be carried out as has happened with other Councils throughout NZ. This unfortunate turn of events could not be foreseen. Insurance / Rates have always been paid and to think no recompense in return through no fault of the Owners. If I was in the same position, I would be beside myself thinking everything I have worked for is gone. Please put yourselves in their position and buy-out.
64.2 Option 2 seems the only sensible one. Option three is not consistent with what central Government proposed and as the council itself notes in its LTP document, it is hardly likely the new Government will re-negotiate a package which other councils have already adopted.
175.2 Given Central Government's support for the package, NCC should have already moved on this.  It's been 2 years of uncertainty for those affected.  While some slips might be on private land, Council (or its predecessors) consented that land be subdivided/ sold so I believe Council should go ahead and move on this quickly while central government contribution remains available.
176.1 Option 2 is the right thing to do for our fellow ratepayers in desperate times. As noted, it will not set a precedent for the future but is a human response within our community in very difficult circumstances.
475.2 The owners of these currently red sticker properties, that are unsured through no-fault of their own should be compensated at this stage And then work with the government to make a statute that insurance can be acquired in the future to cover these circumstances.
568.1 Option 2 is the right thing to do for our fellow ratepayers in desperate times. As noted, it will not set a precedent for the future but is a human response within our community in very difficult circumstances.
659.2 I don't feel I know enough about this. I feel that the house owners should be responsible for having adequate insurance, but perhaps I am missing some details. I'll defer to the councils judgement.
792.1 Option 2 is the right thing to do for our fellow ratepayers in desperate times. It will not set a precedent for the future but is a human response within our community in very difficult circumstances.
1225.2 I support the Second Option – provided- it is applied strictly- with no extension of eligibility;- with no extension of quantum of compensation;and provided the Government meets its share as set out in the draft LTPMy Comments include that I consider it “wishful thinking” (and completely unrealistic) to say (p 20 of the draft LTP) that such buy-outs would not set a precedent
1290.2 The people affected by the slips have been living a nightmare - let's finally give them some certainty so they can get on with their lives. Each severe weather event is a different situation, so this will not set a precedent for future events. I'm sure if we all put our feet in the shoes of those affected we would want our fellow ratepayers to have our back in what has been a terrible situation. Given the government's generous support package, there is only one option that is financially sensible for the council to take that also gives the households affected a decent outcome.
1324.2 The draft eligibility principles need wider consultation.  Hiding them within this already daunting process for many ratepayers is not good enough.  It needs to be clear that this is a one off.  I think too many people are still buying property in areas that will flood believing that someone will buy them out.  It will be unaffordable.  Serious engagement with central government is needed to come up with a national strategy.  Also Council needs to ensure you have the power to stop new development in areas that are already highlighted as future flood zones (due to sea level rising or river flooding).  In the meantime we need to move forward and give these ratepayers certainty and also accept the money from central government.