Buy-out of private properties affected by slips Debate

Option 4

The comments supporting Option 4 emphasize the need for the Council to adhere to existing legal frameworks, such as those used by the Earthquake Commission (EQC), rather than setting unsustainable precedents for disaster response. Citizens argue that the Council should only be responsible for landslides originating from Council-owned land, and not for those from private lands, as private homeowners have their own insurance and EQC support. Additionally, there is a call for the Council to establish a clear, future-proof framework to manage similar events, highlighting the importance of this being a one-off support mechanism and not an expectation for future incidents.

Table of comments:

Point No Comment
427.2 while there is somewhat of a moral obligation, it is an unsustainable precedent in a major disaster. Following standard EQC approach is fine. Also central govt should be negotiated with to apply a similar apprach to the east coast storms
939.2 Nelson CC are responsible only for land they own that is impacting homeowners. That must be remedied, or the affected homeowners bought out. Not at QV though because we all know that they were ridicously over-valued. Homeowners whose property is impacted by another property owners' land is not and should not come under Council support. They have EQC and their insurance company for that. Those who did not do their due diligence before buying should have done their homework.I would never expect the Council to bail me out if my neighbours property started to slide onto mine.Council need to have some clear framework looking forward because Aug 22 will happen again without a doubt. There will be many more properties in the gun. Homeowners need to seek legal advice around insurance and EQC responsibilities, and Council need to make clear this is a one off.