Buy-out of private properties affected by slips Debate

Option 3

Residents supporting Option 3 express concerns about setting a precedent for future council responsibilities in managing properties affected by landslides, particularly those on private land where the council has historically granted building consents. They highlight gaps in the home insurance system and EQC rules that fail to cover properties at high landslide risk that haven't yet been directly affected, suggesting a need for stronger advocacy for policy changes. Additionally, there is apprehension about the council's financial capability to manage similar situations in the future, emphasizing the need for careful consideration of ongoing land management costs and the implications of setting legal precedents.

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
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.
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.