Summary: Buy-out of private properties affected by slips

Short Summary: Buy-out of Private Properties Affected by Slips

Issue Overview:

• Nelson City Council is faced with decisions regarding the buy-out of up to 14 private properties severely impacted by landslides during the August 2022 severe weather event. The landslides have left these properties uninhabitable, posing intolerable risks to life. The decision is complicated by the involvement of slips originating from both public (council-owned) and private land.

Options:

• Option 1: Reject the government's buy-out support offer. This avoids future liabilities and financial burdens but loses $12.3 million in government funding and leaves affected homeowners with uncertain futures.

• Option 2: Accept the government's buy-out support offer and apply the draft eligibility buy-out principles. This option supports affected property owners by providing close to market value compensation, securing additional government funding for resilience projects.

• Option 3: Accept the offer but amend the buy-out principles to potentially offer compensation based on current market values, which could be lower due to the impact of the landslides.

• Option 4: Attempt to renegotiate the terms of the buy-out offer with the government to focus only on properties impacted by slips from council land, avoiding new liabilities from slips on private land.

Public Opinion:

• Option 1: Some residents support this option to avoid setting a precedent for future liabilities. They emphasize personal responsibility and the use of insurance, arguing that council funds should be reserved for broader community benefits rather than individual property risks.

• Option 2: This option has significant support from the community, particularly from those directly affected or empathetic to the plight of the homeowners. Supporters argue for moral responsibility and the need for swift action to provide relief and certainty. They believe accepting the government's offer is a compassionate response that aligns with actions taken in other regions.

• Option 3: Supporters of this option seek a more tailored approach to compensation, suggesting adjustments to buy-out principles to reflect current market values and ensure fairness across all affected homeowners.

• Option 4: This option is seen as risky and potentially less favorable as it could result in losing all government support. However, it is favored by those concerned about the long-term financial implications and the desire to limit council responsibility to properties affected by council land slips.

Recommendation:

Given the strong community support and the ethical considerations of aiding affected homeowners, Option 2 is recommended. It offers a balanced approach by providing necessary support to the most affected residents while securing additional funding for community resilience projects. This option also aligns with the council's strategic objectives of community support and risk mitigation. It is advised that the council proceed with clear communication and transparency regarding the financial implications and manage community expectations about the scope and scale of future disaster responses.

---

---

Issue Description

From Consultation Document

We have choices to make about purchasing private properties that were impacted by slips during the August 2022 severe weather event. Background The August 2022 severe weather event caused significant damage to the region, including to private property. Some Nelsonians have suffered damage to their properties and face uncertain futures. Council wants to support the most affected residents but we need to know what you think about the options available. Central Government cost-sharing support package The Mayor of Nelson has advocated strongly on behalf of our region and has been successful in securing a one-off deal for Nelson which is similar to those offered to North Island regions affected by Cyclone Gabrielle / severe weather events. The Government has offered to pay up to $12.3 million to support the city’s recovery: • $6 million towards repairing slips from public land so that land is safer than it was before the event. This amount is 50% of the betterment portion in dealing with slips that have originated on Council land and are affecting private properties. (Betterment here means improving resilience instead of like-for-like replacement.) • $300,000 towards ongoing monitoring of the Tāhunanui slump ($30,000 per year over the next decade). • $6 million (which is 50% of the total cost less any pay-outs from other sources like home insurance) to purchase up to 14 impacted properties where the landslide risk is too high for the property owners to return to their homes, and the cost of works to reduce that risk is prohibitive. Like the offers to North Island regions, the support is offered as a package – Council needs to accept all three parts to be able to access the funding. Council has accepted the support package offer subject to consulting with the community on the buy-out component. The buy-out support offer Central Government is offering to support buy-out of properties that have been severely impacted as a result of the August 2022 severe weather event, where there is an intolerable risk to life and it is not feasible to mitigate that risk. These are similar to properties that have been “red-stickered” as a result of the severe weather-event. The offer to contribute to buy-outs is based on a $6 million cap from Central Government with Council contributing the other 50%. It also comes with conditions on Council, including responsibility to: • liaise with affected residents, administer the overall programme of all purchases, and manage insurance claims that are assigned to Council • take ownership of the land purchased and ongoing management of that land (including demolition). The cost of any buy-outs will be less any Toka Tū Ake Earthquake Commission (EQC) and insurance settlements that property owners have received or will receive for damage to their properties. And any buy-out would be voluntary for property owners. We want to hear your views on the buy-out support offer Council is proposing to accept the Central Government buy-out support offer and purchase up to 14 eligible private properties impacted by slips from both public land and private land. Progressing these buy-outs would aid the wellbeing of the affected property owners. Taking this approach has costs and requires careful consideration. So, we want to understand if you support Council purchasing private properties affected by slips before making a final decision. Although there is no distinction in the Central Government offer, there are two different categories in the buy-out approach: • private properties impacted by slips from public (i.e. Council) land • private properties impacted by slips from private land. Council has certain obligations, as a neighbouring landowner, to private properties impacted by slips from its (public) land. In this situation, Council may choose to purchase individual properties on a case-by-case basis. For instance, we are doing this in relation to some properties impacted by slips from Council land in the Brook Valley. Council does not have any such obligations where slips are from private land. To purchase properties affected by slips from private land would be a significant new activity for Council, as Council has no obligation to get involved and there are ongoing financial consequences for Nelson residents from taking ownership of slip-prone land, including immediate remediation costs and costs of managing future instability. Council would not contemplate these purchases of private property if it was not for the 50% funding offer from Central Government.

---

Options

Title	Option
Don’t accept the buy-out support offer	This option would mean we would not carry out a programme of voluntary buy-outs for residential properties impacted by slips. This is the lowest cost option for Council (and the community as a whole) as it avoids purchase costs and the ongoing costs once we take responsibility for slip-prone land. However, all of the $12.3 million Central Government funding would be lost and Council would need to cover all of the costs for monitoring the Tāhunanui slump and the betterment portion of public land slip repairs. This option protects the community from subsidising risks and liabilities impacting private property owners, where there is no current obligation for Council to provide financial assistance. However, this would leave those property owners with ongoing uncertainty as to their future, as they are unlikely to be able to afford repair costs that exceeds the property’s value, and won’t be able to live in the properties because of the risks. Slip-related issues on the private properties are unlikely to be resolved, with properties left derelict and with the potential to cause additional damage and costs to the community during future storm events. In the proposed Long Term Plan budgets, Council has provided for $6 million towards the purchase of private properties. This $6 million would be removed, while the other recovery costs would need to proceed as planned. Council would also lose access to the $12.3 million funding provided by Central Government. Therefore, the total cost of this option would be $6.3 million. Impact on rates: Additional $6.3 million of rates to repay the additional debt over the 10 years of the Plan. There would also be additional interest to be funded by rates annually on the outstanding balance of the $6.3 million until it is fully repaid. This would be $306,000 in year 1, with the amount per year decreasing as the balance reduces. Impact on debt: Additional $6.3 million of debt to be repaid over the 10 years of the Plan.
Accept the buy-out support offer and apply the draft eligibility buy-out principles (Council’s proposal)	This option would involve purchasing up to 14 eligible properties impacted by slips from public and private land. The draft eligibility buy-out principles would apply to purchases, including maximum payment of 95% of the market value for insured properties and 80% of the market value for uninsured properties. Council will assess properties against the final eligibility buy-out principles, however at this time we are unaware of any potentially eligible properties being uninsured. Council’s contribution to purchasing properties would be capped at a maximum of $6 million to match the 50% funding offered by Central Government and depending on the number of eligible properties these percentages may need to be adjusted to fit within that cap. It would support Nelson’s most affected property owners, no matter the origin of the damaging slips, and give them a purchase price which is close to the market value of their home. This option would secure the rest of the Central Government funding for other resilience and risk mitigation projects. Having different percentages for insured or uninsured properties makes clear that Council is not the insurer of last resort. While this is a one-off package, it highlights for the community the importance of being responsible for their own insurance and reflects private insurance pay-outs. It would also align with the buy-out approaches of other North Island councils, such as Auckland Council. On the other hand, Council (and the community as a whole) would take over the current property owners’ liabilities as the new owner. This could also create an unrealistic expectation that Council will take the same approach to damaged properties in the future. This option would be one of the most expensive with ongoing financial consequences for the community due to taking ownership of slip-prone land, including short-term remediation costs and any future land management costs. The remaining cost to Council (after up to $6 million Central Government buy-out funding taken into account) is estimated to range up to $13.5 to $17.5 million over the 10 year period. Council has provisionally budgeted for $6 million of this cost in the Plan. The timing and amount of the remaining costs are too uncertain at this stage to include in our budgets. Impact on rates: $6 million of the $13.5 to $17.5 million has already been included in the proposed Long Term Plan budgets, and is proposed to be repaid by the $300 (including GST) Storm Recovery Charge over the 10 years of the Plan. The remaining costs and repayment timing will be budgeted when we have more certainty. Impact on debt: As outlined above, $6 million of additional debt is included in the proposed Long Term Plan budgets (and repaid from the recovery targeted rate). Additional debt will be budgeted when we have more certainty on costs.
Accept the offer and apply amended eligibility buy-out principles	This option would involve purchasing up to 14 eligible properties impacted by slips from public and private land. The draft eligibility buy-out principles would be amended to incorporate feedback on how best to set a fair purchase price, subject to what Central Government will accept as being consistent with the approach of the North Island councils. This option would have many of the same advantages and disadvantages of option 2. The key difference would relate to the upfront purchase costs. Alternative eligibility buy-out principles are summarised below, and could include others suggested by the community through this consultation. We could, for example, set a maximum purchase price of up to the Nelson median house price (which is $765,000 based on sales for the 12-month period prior to August 2022). This would limit the initial cost to the community for something Council is not required to do. Owners of higher-value properties would likely receive a lower proportion of their property’s value compared to the proportion received by owners of lower-value properties. We could proceed with purchases at 100% of market value (based on a market valuation pre-August 2022). This would mean property owners would receive full compensation, which is the approach taken by some North Island councils. This would support affected property owners’ wellbeing, particularly property owners with higher-value properties who would receive buy-outs that match the asset’s value. However, it would result in the highest upfront costs to the community. We could apply lower maximum purchase prices for properties impacted by slips from private land of 75% of the market value. This principle would recognise that Council has no legal obligation to purchase properties impacted by slips from private land and that acquiring this slip-prone land will expose Nelson residents to more ongoing costs. The savings to upfront costs would help with the expected ongoing land management costs, while still providing a reasonable level of support for the wellbeing of affected property owners. For all of the above alternative principles we could differentiate between insured and uninsured properties where 15% less would be offered to owners of uninsured properties. This would recognise the greater cost to the community of purchasing uninsured properties and the responsibility of property owners to protect their asset. The remaining cost to Council (after Central Government buy-out funding is taken into account) could increase or decrease the upfront costs compared to option 2 depending on the eligibility buy-out principles chosen. The costs are estimated to range up to $12.5 million to $18 million over the 10 year period. Council has provisionally budgeted for $6 million of this cost in the Plan. The timing and amount of remaining costs are too uncertain at this stage to estimate. Impact on rates: $6 million of the $12.5 to $18 million has already been included in the proposed Long Term Plan budgets, and is proposed to be repaid by the $300 (including GST) Storm Recovery Charge over the 10 years of the Plan. The remaining costs and repayment timing will be budgeted when we have more certainty. Impact on debt: As outlined above, $6 million of additional debt is included in the proposed Long Term Plan budgets (and repaid from the recovery targeted rate). Additional debt will be budgeted when we have more certainty on costs.
Seek to renegotiate the buy-out offer with Central Government	This option would involve Council attempting to renegotiate the terms of the buy-out support offer with the new Government to target properties impacted by slips from Council land only. This option would avoid Council entering into a significant new activity of purchasing properties impacted by slips from private land when it has no legal obligation to do so. It would set a clear expectation that Council will not subsidise private individuals’ risks and liabilities related to slips on privately owned land. If successful, this option would limit the number of properties purchased and level of responsibility and cost taken on by Council to manage land purchased. The key downsides are it would not provide certainty for affected property owners impacted by slips from private land and would delay resolving slip issues, running the risk of potential further damage during future storm events. Also, it is a high risk option – Central Government is unlikely to support a change in the intent of their support package and all of the $12.3 million funding could be lost to Council. There would be less immediate cost to Council, except for prioritising staff resources to renegotiate with Central Government. Following negotiations there may be a decreased cost to progress more targeted buy-outs, however there is an increased risk that Central Government funding would no longer be available. The likely impact on rates and debt would depend on the renegotiation, so the implications are unclear at this stage.

---

Comments

Comment	Point ID
Other options will open council up to do much future liability / demands for compensation	11.2
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."	13.2
I support the Govt buy out and I would also like to see the section turned into a park. It is right next door to Day's track and I would help the council plant native trees on it.	16.2
This process for these families has been going on far too long. NCC needs to press on and get it done under option 2 ASAP. The other options are an embarrassment to our community. These people have battled to get this done for over 18 months.	19.1
I think this whole saga has dragged on long enough and needs to be pushed through asap after consultation has finished and hopefully with the 5 months from October 2023 to now NCC have the pathway well set for getting this finalised and these properties purchased!	22.2
This has been a long drawn-out process and I think things should be expediated.  The transparency hasn't been there to the level it should have.  Our position hasn't been made clear where we stand, still, which has caused a lot of stress.I support the option the NCC support to proceed with the buyouts on private property ASAP.	30.1
This has been a long drawn out process and I think things should be expediated.  The transparency hasn't been there to the level it should have.  Our position hasn't been made clear where we stand, still, which has caused a lot of stress.	30.2
Based on other similar cases in the North Island.	34.1
It is the humane thing to do to help the folks out who have lost their homes	37.2
Need to make sure it is clear and transparent. There is a risk that a precedent is being set for future events	40.2
This is disgraceful how NCC have treated those affected. They need buy out support from NCC immediately.	43.2
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. So much time has passed since the slips and other councils have already taken action for their slip damaged properties - its time to gives these members of our community a resolution and a way to move forward.	44.2
As noted, it will not set a precedent for the future but is a human response within our community in very difficult circumstances.	45.2
I prefer option 3 as I think that amending the buy out principles to use a more realistic 'current' value would be fair. Using the values prior to August 2022 event would pay out the home owners at a value more than their house would be worth if they hadn't been effected - all homes in the slip zone have had significant value drops and it would not be fair to pay effected parties out at a very high value when all home owners have taken a hit in value because of this event and subsequent changes to zone risk assessment/insurance premiums etc. Some sort of current average value for the area could be calculated and this figure used in order to be fair to all and not give a large financial windfall to the property owners being bought out.	46.2
These poor people have been out of their homes, and unable to move on due to no fault of their own. Council approved building there in the first place, and have to bear some responsibility.	47.2
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.	51.1
Councillors have had long enough time on this. You have already decided to accept the Government proposal. It’s time to get on with it, nearly two years after the event.	52.1
The future use of the land needs to be considered as part of this decision. It could be held as recreational reserve with stabilisation works, or it could become productive public land as community gardens. Either way will require demolition and cleanup – neither of which is discussed in the four options.While it is important to support individuals in crisis, and to prevent people from falling into crisis, it needs to be remembered that landowners are already far ahead in that they own land at all: support for them should be fair alongside e.g. support for the disabled who own nothing and are not able to work. As the prime minister's view is that a person unable to work should work ten hours per week, Council must be prepared to receive and implement a similar requirement for landowners unable to live in their current houses. It has never been unknown to current landowners that much of Nelson sits on steep hillsides and a floodplain, and that the soils here are quite challenging.It should also be recognised that "the market value of their home" is surely not very high when the land is deemed unsuitable to live upon, or for which insurance is unavailable or available only at extremely high cost. We need a more forthright choice of words in these options that tells homeowners more frankly and accurately what they can anticipate.	56.2
We must support our fellow ratepayers in their time of need. Option 2 is consistent with other similarly affected households in other regions.	57.2
NCC needs to get on with it this has taken far too long. Let these effected people get on with their lives. A buy-out is the only right thing to do.	58.1
My wife and I have been following this and can not believe that it has taken the Nelson Council so long. There will be probably all kind of excuses and hiding behind reports and commissions. But why nobody has said after 6 months this has taken long enough let's get it done is disappointing. Please arrange the buy-out now (not another few months) so these people can finally move on with there life.	60.1
I support Option 2 and commend the Nelson City Council for considering a timely buyout for displaced ratepayers, aligning with actions taken by North Island councils. This decision reflects a compassionate and rational approach to support those in need, providing stability and certainty after nearly two years of challenges. Adopting this option demonstrates the council's commitment to community solidarity and care, showcasing our shared values and the positive impact of collective action in times of crisis.	61.1
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.	64.2
I support buy-out where the failure cause is Council property including land slip.	67.1
There can surely be no other sensible option, given the precedent set by councils in the North Island for their similarly affected ratepayers. Not to agree to a buy out at market values, would make Nelson council the laughing,stock for the rest of the affected areas, and who would want to come and invest in a home in Nelson, with a Council so ignorant of its ratepayers.Councilors' have had long enough time on this. You have already decided to accept the Government proposal. It’s time to get on with it, nearly two years after the event.NCC has to get on with it. The buyout is part of a package it cannot afford to turn down.	70.1
I do not have a view on this issue.	72.2
Damage to property is the responsibility of the owner and their insurers	77.2
Let’s finally give these people who can never return to their homes some certainty at last for the future.	80.1
give these people who can never return to their homes some certainty at last for the future	84.1
I don't have any information regarding what the current offers are. I can foresee more issues in future with locations of houses near rivers or encroaching sea rises so this could become extremely expensive.	87.2
In principle I do not agree with a buy-out of properties that could be considered high risk (Will we be paying for all of Monaco next, when it all floods?), but if, as it seems, the council wishes to buy out affected properties the buy-out offer assistance of central government is a generous.	89.2
Councillors have had long enough time on this. You have already decided to accept the Government proposal. It’s time to get on with it, nearly two years after the event.	95.2
Councillors come on you have had long enough to sort this out. Would it have taken this long if one of you had been directly affected? You have already decided to accept the Government proposal. It’s time to get on with it, nearly two years after the event.	99.1
It has been nearly 2 years since some Rate payers have lost their homes and can not move on. You have decided to accept the government proposal- now is the time to pkease get on with it	107.2
No strong view	108.2
Let’s finally give these people who can never return to their homes some certainty at last for the future.For a one-off assistance to people whose lives have been turned upside down, we just have to do it. As decent human beings who care about others, it’s a short-term rates price I’m sure we would all be prepared to pay if we were in the same boat.	111.2
Its long over due that these people got some certainty and allow them to move on with there lives, councillors need to try and put themselves in there shoes and have some empathy.	132.1
There is already strong precedent for this around the country. These home owners have been out of their homes for nearly two years now and their lives massively compromised. They are rate payers and need to be able to move on with their lives.Totally agree with Councils proposal lets get on with it	134.2
Totally agree with the Councils Proposal.	135.1
People should be responsible for own insurance.Weather events will increase not magically be "fixed".	155.2
Don't know enough to be able to answer this fairly.	164.2
It's just a shame that after 2 years there are still people not in their homes.No transparency.	166.2
These effected folks, after complying fully with Council rules, regulations and costs in the total renovation of their home and property, and thereafter paying commensuratey higher rates associated with that property’s location and value, are deserving of our council doing the right thing by them and accepting the Governments buy-out proposal as has been actioned in the North Island. We are pleased and encouraged that this is indeed the Councils prefered option.	168.2
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.	169.2
Let's give those unfortunate affected people the means to move on with their lives. It's been going on long enough.	170.2
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
This was an extreme and unpredented event that Central Govt has recognised as needing an urgent and caring solution for the relatively few families effected.It would be unconscionable for Nelson City Council to not leverage the govt offer and demonstrate it can make such decisons with unanimity and committment to helping these families at a time when the stress of the actual event is now compounded signifcantly by other economic factors.This is one fo those rare opportunties to show we care and will help families far less fortunate than the rest of us and put all our energies into helping them get on with their lives.	174.1
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.	175.2
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.	176.1
I generally support the Council's recommended proposal, but do worry about the precedent that this sets for future events.	184.2
No one wishes for their home to be affected by a natural disaster.  In our changing environment where weather events are becoming more common, it is important that as a community we take steps to protect our natural environment for future generations.  I am supporting this submission because those who lost their homes should be granted the opportunity move on from this weather event and receive a fair value for their home. But I also strongly believe the remediation work needs to occur on the impacted land. This will mean that neighbours and others in the community can trust that remediations have occurred to protect others in the community from future weather events.	188.2
There can surely be no other sensible option, given the precedent set by councils in the North Island for their similarly affected ratepayers. Not to agree to a buy out at market values would make Nelson council completely out of step .	189.1
Is this not what home insurance is for?	206.2
You have already decided to accept the Government proposal. It’s time to get on with it, nearly two years after the event. These people need to move on with their lives.	209.2
considering how many developments that are made on flood prone land, slip prone land and other not suitable land, this will be a massive cost for ratepayers in the future.	223.2
dont believe council should buy out any properties.	240.2
I don’t know anything about the offer	254.2
unsure	275.2
So bad that families have had to wait almost 2 years to have any outcome.Council allowed building in the first place!   Perhaps a lesson in this misfortune-don’t allow more building on slopes, hills unless geotechnical reports show certainty of solid building platform and land around!Get the pay out completed as soon as possible!	295.1
I'm not sure what your options mean. I think private land owners and their insurance should be responsible for their own properties.	297.2
start buying out affected properties now starts a precedence for any future ‘events’	308.2
i was bought out of my property at xxx xxxxxxxxxxxx by nelson city council this year  and was fairly pleased with the process	314.2
BUY OUT OF PRIVATE PROPERTIES  AFFECTED BY SLIPS.	346.5
I see no reason why rate payers should buy out properties impacted by slips from peoples own private land, people should have insurance! It also concerns me that then council will then be responsible for that land, which could mean much more costs in the furture.	353.2
I haven't studied the issue...no idea	359.2
Lets get these affected home-owners sorted :-)	378.1
i do not have enough infotmation to have an opinion	413.2
the public shouldn't be paying to bail out private landowners.	418.2
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	427.2
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.	441.2
This needs to be settled. Having close friends whose house, business & land were obliterated in the Esk Vally, the cost of uncertainty takes an insidious toll on those affected. It is now too late to call any settlement 'timely', but working towards a settlement as soon as possible is crucial.	447.2
they boight there its there problem, why should we fork out to fix it	450.2
Absolutely think option 2 is the fairest option for those whose lives have been devasted through no fault of their own, and who have been waiting for far too long for a sensible conclusion and equitable outcome.	470.2
only buyout if it was caused by Council land slips	473.2
These people have been through enough !! NCC has taken rates and charges off these properties for years  - Time for NCC to step up and support their ratepayers !	474.2
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.	475.2
Privare property is an isnurance issue. The Council should not be putting costson to rate payers unless it is liable for poor past planning decisions.	497.2
Again this comes back to proper forward planning ---with the massive flooding in the Mahitahi Bayview subdivision --is this really sensible to put a new subdivision in an area already massively hit by flooding....Individual people whove been affected by flooding must be given assistance......	504.2
Not informed enough	519.2
I would like to see remedial work in the Brook Valley competed - this includes the one-lane road and the continuing slippage/slumpage at start of Tantragee road.	529.2
Councillors have had way more than enough time on this. You have already decided to accept the Government proposal. It’s time to get on with it, nearly two years after the event.	539.1
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	541.2
I would like landowners take more responsibility for preventing their land from slipping or at least doing things to help mitigate future slips on thier land. Landowners need to be made more accountable for water run off from their land and slips on their land damaging neighbouring properties. For instance, the Tamaki steps walkway was damaged in the 2022 floods and the private landowners whose land has slipped and damaged the walkway appear to have done absolutely nothing to repair the damage done or to mitigate future slips onto the walkway. This appears to be the case in many other parts of Nelson as well.	559.2
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.	568.1
These people need to be supported. The principle regarding whether it is a principal place of residence is wrong, as is commercial/residential use of a property. If a fully consented and insured property is damaged it should be treated the same.	569.2
Amend the buy-out principles on primary place of residence and shared use of property for residential and commercial purposes so that all are treated equally.	570.2
Our house was given a red sticker in the August 2022 weather event.  My husband and I left our home early on the morning of 20th  August 2022.  All night we heard loud banging and the house shaking.   Then the power went out, we had total darkness, pouring rain and our house was breaking up  while we were in it.  We were scared and surprised that no one had come to assist us.  We got out and I ran to the neighbours to warn them that our house was falling down the hill.  They did not answer so i thought that they had already been evacuated.  We got in our car and drove to the evacuation centre at Saxton fields.  We were still in shock, not believing that our home was so damaged.  We never went back to sleep in our house.  The only time we have been back is to get out our belongings while a warden was present.  Fortunately our detached garage is not damaged so we moved our belongings there.  Sometimes I go to the garden there and look at the amazing view.  I am still surprised that our neighbours on both sides received minimal damage.  This weather event has affected me in many ways.  Being out of our home, having to find temporary accommodation and buy new furniture as we did not have access to ours for several months. I had to decrease my hours at my workplace due to stress  and I am still working reduced hours.  This has affected my earning potential at a pivotal time as I am saving for my retirement.  This has affected me as a ratepayer I feel that the council should buy out our section.  This would ensure that this damaged land is not built on again.  My husband and I need to have closure this has been hanging over our heads and weighs heavily on our minds continually since August 2022.	591.2
Nelson City Council options for the Central Government buy out support offerWe support option 2.  Accepting the buy out support offer and apply the draft eligibility buy-out principals We were subject to the high intensity rainfall affecting the Nelson Region 15 -17 August 2022. This causing natural disaster land damage with the deep-seated Tahunanui Slump.  Our location was subject to shallower instability within the Tahuna slump area. Ground movement in the Land damaged areas led to our evacuation on 20th August 2022 (at 5am).  This caused, our house to move on its foundations. Prior to self-evacuation we could feel our house moving.  The floor in several areas dropped; cracks were opening up in the wall boards which sounded like shot guns firing; we were unable to open doors; Window frames had moved; Stair balustrade warped and damaged. When we were in our rental accommodation also on Rocks Road for the first 6 months (or so), when we were sleeping and could sub-consciously hear rain on the roof, this would waken us up, no matter how heavy the rain was. We support Option 2 (Council Proposal) as we are one of the properties impacted by the Tahuna slump.We also support the intended valuation to be completed by Duke and Cooke.EQC have advised us that they will not make any payment to us and we have paid an excess of $20,000.00 to our insurance company We agree with the following points covered in theNelson City Council Eligibility Buy-out PrincipalsEligibility for Buy-out offer point 3A and 3B Content of offerPoint 8 Offer based on an independent pre-weather event valuation and subject to points 9 and 10 We would be very receptive to the buyout criteria and hopefully a proposition presented to us will be to our satisfaction.	592.2
Current central government strategy is austerity.  This means more costs on individuals for unaffordable tax cuts.  Current government wants to cut red tape - it is what has lead to the current situation where houses are built in poor locations.	599.2
Dont know enough about this issue	610.2
Option two appears to be the most sensible option and the people affected need some certainty going forward, they have been in limbo too long. There is similar precedent in the North Island.	612.2
I live in Hawkes Bay which was hit by cyclone Gabriel 6 months after the Nelson Floods. Our land had over 5m of water flood over it. Settlement has alraedy ocurred and restoration. We have movedon. It is hard for anyone unaffected to appreciate the impact such devastation has, so the sooner Nelson Council confirms that they will accept the govenment offer and match payouts, the better for everyone. Peoples wellbeing is affected by the delays and this has gone on too long. Do the right thing and allow people to be compensated as recommened so they too can move on.	614.2
This has gone on for a long time now.These poor people need support and not stress.Time to step up Nelson.	619.1
Council must also stop issuing consents for development on land which has potential to create landslide risks in future e.g. consented development behind 205 & 207 The Ridgeway.	621.2
It creates a precedent that rate payers will have to wear forever.  Don’t start the precedent even if it comes with money.  Let the Central Government buy-out the properties.	623.2
Very important to support all citizens.	626.2
more investigation is needed... not fair for those who have insurance or exist in a slip prone area	629.2
I would support a buy out on the basis of setting a maximum purchase price of up to the Nelson median house price or if up to the amount needed to ensure that debts on the properties were repaid, to ensure the homeowners are not left with debt on a property they no longer own.	631.2
Councillors have had long enough time on this. You have already decided to accept the Government proposal. It’s time to get on with it, nearly two years after the event. Let these people move on with their lives.	634.1
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.	647.2
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.	659.2
no oppinion	676.2
I don't feel I know the facts to make an informed decision.	682.2
I support anything that allows Council to improve the stability of the Tahuna Hill region.  For many years, residents have paid engineers for Council requirements, paid building consents etc, and the Council has agreed and allowed progress of this area.  Sadly, infrastructure was not improved after the 1960's event, nor 2011 and in 2022 many people have suffered financial losses because Council changed the grading of this land in the swipe of a pen - reducing property values and have ensured a very real impact on the ability to get insurance.    I understand stormwater upgrade is currently being worked on, but continuing to enchance the stability and return the land to it's previous grade or status is paramount.	685.2
We must help these people who have now been out of their homes for far too long - we need to give them security and certainty for their future.  There is no other sensible option.  Please move on with this and give these people the homes they deserve.	686.1
Imagine if this was you. You can't sell, you can't live in it, and you're still paying for it. We definitely need to help these people move on with their lives.	712.1
it’s clearly the right thing to do!! It’s happening around other areas, these people have paid their rates, yet they cant access their properties nearly two years later!!	718.1
other regions are paying out for these desperate people just pay and let them move on.	719.1
If every there was a need for community and government empathy, this is it. Provide thee people with the relief they need quickly and efficiently.	720.2
That those affected have had to wait so long in limbo is a travesty whilst the North Island Councils have been far more proactive for their flood affected people. Given that the government is providing an extra 6million $ for flood works it would be foolhardy not to accept this package.	730.2
Over the past almost 2 years I have observed the growing mental and financial distress of my long term business colleague and friend (XXX) as a result of her inability to live in and freely enjoy her home. As a superannuitant she had prepared it well for their possible longterm in-home care needs. The care suite they set up for this purpose is beyond what is reflected in the RV. As a result, and in order to allow them to meet their future health and welfare requirements without becoming a burden on the aged-care sector and the taxpayer, a payout less than 95% of the pre-flood value, as adopted in the North Island, would be totally unconscionable. I would entreat the Council to do the right thing and give her the opportunity to reinstate them in a home which will function well for them in their dotage.	731.1
I believe that the percentage of market value offered for the buy-outs should be lower that the draft principles in the case of uninsured properties and properties impacted by slips from private land. I think it is a dangerous precedent for council to be taking full responsibility for these scenarios. While unfortunate for the landowners, council should focus spending money on proactive land-use management and hazard mitigation, rather than reactively spending money to bail out a few individual landowners. There will undoubtedly be future events where there is significant damage from storm& earthquake induced landslides and it will be unaffordable to offer these kinds of buyouts in future.Any money saved by offering lower % buy-out offers could be directed to better education about hazards and hazard mitigation for private properties.	732.2
This is the only fair response for those affected in an incredibly unfortunate situation.	744.2
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	745.2
People know the issues when they buy	749.2
We are	765.2
Certain land and housing is built in non-sustainable locations. This requires hazards to be evaluated and agree in the retreat vs. continued shoring up of instability and risk prone areas.	773.2
I fully support this option as the only humane and credible action which the NCC can take to allow these people to move on with their lives and secure a new home.  In the case of some of the homeowners it was not their properties which slipped during the weather event, rather, neighbour's land came down on theirs and rendered their homes unliveable. The council has delayed long enough, the homeowners have been extremely patient, the government has provided a way through this situation so bring it to a close and enact Option 2 please.	776.2
Councillors have had long enough time on this. You have already decided to accept the Government proposal. It’s time to get on with it, nearly two years after the event.Its just a travesty that these few homeowners have been left in the dark for over two years without a solution, come on Nelson Council	777.1
I don't have an opinion on this other than building on at risk land needs to stop.	778.2
Let’s finally give these people who can never return to their homes some certainty at last for the future. 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.There can surely be no other sensible option, given the precedent set by councils in the North Island for their similarly affected ratepayers. Not to agree to a buy out at market values would make Nelson council an outlier.Councillors have had long enough time on this. You have already decided to accept the Government proposal. It’s time to get on with it, nearly two years after the event.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.NCC has to get on with it. The buyout is part of a package it cannot afford to turn down. For a one-off assistance to people whose lives have been turned upside down, we just have to do it. As decent human beings who care about others, it’s a short-term rates price I’m sure we would all be prepared to pay if we were in the same boat.	780.2
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.	786.2
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.	792.1
i have not looked at this extensively therefore i do not have an opinion	808.2
You should do right by the property owners.  In some cases there should have been no houses built in these locations.  Need to learn lessons for future developments e.g Maitai valley where housing is proposed on known floodplain.	809.2
Let’s finally give these people who can never return to their homes some certainty at last for the future	816.2
You have asked us for our opinion on buy-out of properties impacted by slips from Council land, yet you have already reached agreement on Brook St buyout.(Nelson Weekly 10 April),End of story      for those properties however the other options you have outlined are not that easy  to follow.   As far as other properties that have been impacted it is not Councils responsibility or "mine" to compensate these landowners. There is no obligation for council to buy out these properties and doing so could create a precedent in light of more extreme weather forecasts. As a ratepayer I do not want to see any of my rates going towards this type of buyout.  IT IS NOT MY PROBLEM (OR YOURS)	828.2
It is noted that:1.Council has already purchased a number of properties impacted by slips from Council owned land without any liability to do so.2.The criteria for buyouts includes uninsured properties.This will impose extra cost on Council because there will be no EQC or insurance payments to offset the price. 3.Many properties in neighbourhoods affected by slips have had their values substantially reduced by Quotable Value as a result of the weather event. Councils proposal howeveris to purchase at pre event value. Thus,those receiving the buyout would receive relatively more than their neighbours could expect on the open market.4.After removal of buildings the Council would be left with isolated pockets of land that would soon become overgrown with weeds5.It is arguable that removal of houses and driveways etc (which currently direct stormwater safely into the stormwater drainage system) will increase the instability of the land in heavy rain.It is submitted that:(a) Irrespective of comments to the contrary,the proposal would set a precedent and although opposed to the proposal I would expect to be treated equally if the proposal is adopted.(b) With higher rainfall predicted as a result of climate change more houses can be expected to be impacted by slips in the future.(c) The Council has not disclosed which properties are being considered for the buyout, what the "intolerable risk to life" is or what options have been considered to mitigate the risks. It is believed that some of the hoses being considered have received little or no damage and that the risk is from debris or rocks falling from steep land that has been left bare.There are options to mitigate this type of risk including steel/wire mesh fences and rockfall netting drapery systems.The costs are not exorbitant,particularly having regard to the values of some of these properties.(d) Since the Council will need to carry out remedial work to protect roads and other houses if it buys the properties,it would be wiser to assist the owners with the works thereby removing the need for a buyout.(e) Surely it would not be too difficult to negotiate a better use of the government money in carrying out remedial or mitigation works rather than outright purchase of the propertiesIn summary I am opposed to the buyout because:(i) It will create a precedent(ii) In addition to the $12m (50/50 Council/Government) Council is looking at spending upto a further $11.5m for removal of structures,slip remediation works and administration and other costs involved in the buyout. That is a total of $23.5m for upto 14 houses without including ongoing holding costs and loss of rates.(iii) Further investigation is needed to ascertain what options are available to remove the perceived risks. In many cases,even without any remedial works,there have been no further problems since August 1922 although there has been substantial rain events since then.(iv) Since the Council is expecting to spend upto $23.5m (including the government contribution of $6m) on the buyout and subsequent remedial work etc it would be wiser and much more economical to assist the owners with remediation work thereby removing the need for a buyout.	832.1
central government could help future builds take responsibility for building in questionable areas.	847.2
I think where a house is not longer liveable and not repairable, and where no other options exist then yes it is good for Council to step in and play a role alongside government to buy out so these families can move forwards.	851.2
What will the impact of the buyout be on rates?It would be helpful to understand the buy out in the context of the council's wider climate resilience strategy.	864.2
Why only the North Island leaving Nelson behind. This is unacceptable and should not be left unactioned any longer.	869.1
We need to have a process in place so ratepayers aren't exposed to the moral hazard of homeowners living in risky places & expecting a Council bailout if their home is red stickered. There are parts of Nelson like Monaco which have been obviously at risk from climate change & storms for decades - ratepayers shouldn't be expected to buy out people living in those areas as they've made the choice to buy property in a high-risk area.	883.2
Sounds pretty well thought out	894.2
These folk have waited long enough for a decision to be made and need certainty on their future.	913.1
Not in favour of purchasing properties affected by private slips. Insurance companies should step up.	925.2
Set the maximum buyout at the medium house price of $765k to reduce the initial cost to council and send a message that the council isnt being overly generous.	926.2
Does not concern me.	934.2
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.	939.2
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.	943.2
I support Option 2 identified in the LTP consultation document - Accept the Government’s offer of financial assistance and apply the Council’s draft eligibility principles, while urging the Government to amend criteria for EQC payouts.	946.1
NO suggested Option is supported.  The buy out support must be for the properties impacted by slips from public land only.   Council although feeling morally bound does not have responsibility for   damage caused to private land.	959.2
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.	965.2
It is time NCC came up with buy-out support for private land onto private land.  It is absolutely appalling that this Council did hold secret that they had already paid out to homes where Council land that had impacted private homes.  I have seen the impact of what NCC has caused to my family by delaying and delaying meetings with no firm confirmation of any payout.  My family has had to sell their business and put off 10-12 staff, while finding and paying out rent for coming up close to two years.	972.2
To whom it may concern at the Nelson City Council (NCC)	975.2
This is fair.	977.2
BUYOUT OF PRIVATE PROPERTIES	982.2
We know that Nelson is competing with other cities and towns for business investment and talent. A dynamic urban area is an important aspect of attracting people and business growth. We support investment in a new civic centre for the City as a significant catalyst for city revitalization, economic stimulus, and to prepare Nelson for the next 100 years. It is clear that Civic House is no longer fit for purpose and the cost of a refit appears to be excessive. The library is constrained on its current site and is not delivering what is possible for a contemporary library proposition. We believe that NCC should take the opportunity to sell that property and use those funds in conjunction with money allocated for the library and invest in a Civic Hub that befits the capital city of the region. We would urge that this is done sooner rather than later as we all know from experience, nothing will ever cost less than it does today.	985.2
What will the impact of buy outs be on rates?We also note that climate resilience is not a topic of consultation, it would be helpful to understand the buy out in the context of the councils wider climate resilience strategy as future buy out's are rapidly becoming unsustainable.	987.2
It would be best to offer support to those homes where residents have no other option to live other than the affected property. Compensating wealthy land owners with taxes taken from hard-working citizens sounds too much like feudal Europe for my liking.	1003.2
People who work- serve- live--pay to own- and support our community deserve that respect  in return--simply as other Regions have already committed to agree to--	1004.1
It would be best to offer support to those who have no other option other than to live at the affected property.	1009.2
Disappointed in the council's failure to show both leadership and empathy by not dealing with this issue earlier. It was a cop-out to defer it to this stage.	1010.2
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.	1016.2
Do not support conditions on Council including responsibility to:administer the overall programme of all purchases, and manage insurance claims that are assigned to Council.The insurance premium EQC EEQ levy should cover the claimant from central government.City council involvement would only lessen transparency ie, which company would be assigned the task?  Where would the staff operate?  How would the staff selection process be handled?City council rates would still be required on the land.	1017.2
Caviat emptor.	1024.2
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. There can surely be no other sensible option, given the precedent set by councils in the North Island for their similarly affected ratepayers. Not to agree to a buy out at market values would make Nelson council an outlier.Councillors have had long enough time on this. You have already decided to accept the Government proposal. It’s time to get on with it, nearly two years after the event.	1029.2
In supporting the Council’s proposed approach, I want to also express concern about the likelihood of similar events in the future, with implications for the affordability for ratepayers. The Council needs to actively discourage people from building or improving homes in high-risk areas. That said, I feel the community should support people who had insurance but now find their insurance (and EQC) won’t pay because the house is not damaged, even when the house is not inhabitable due to slip risk.	1047.2
I don't support NCC socialising the cost of private liabilities.	1050.2
I support Option 2 identified in the LTP consultation document - Accept the Government’s offer of financial assistance and apply the Council’s draft eligibility principles, while urging the Government to amend criteria for EQC payouts.	1057.2
Refer to 10 page submission for further information - key points re buy out below:	1059.1
Should only be for those properties affected by Council or public land or caused by a drainage system failure. Insurance should hopefully cover most cases though slow payouts is a real issue for those affected.i would like to see those bought out offered for sale on an as is where is basis wth no future liability to council or Government as would likely get some money back as was the case with propertis in Christchurch following the earthquakes.	1072.2
don't know much about this, sounds fair	1085.2
Buyer beware!  Council need to stop allowing developments on slip zone areas, ie: Maitai /Bayview development.  Why should rate payers be responsible for this!  In addition is making forestry companies responsible for damage caused by slips.	1093.2
As the owner of 537 Rocks Road. Your current proposal excludes me from the buy out option as the property was my second and a rental house. I believe I have exceptional circumstances that need to be looked at individually. As a quadriplegic with no earning capacity I purchased this property as a way to support myself and my 5 year old son. This has now been taken from me. Then the option of any support/buy out package is also taken by the current eligibility criteria. I do not get any financial support from the district health board or Winz and have now lost money means of income.	1131.2
NA	1157.2
Choose not to answer.	1206.2
All the background work has been done to achieve this. I don't see how it's affordable to keep doing this going forward, but we would all want an end outcome such as this given a disaster or potential for disaster.	1212.2
Council must rely on householders having insurance. Where householders do not insure their property risk should not fall to Council.I do not support Council investing $24m in the private Kaka/Mahitahi subdivision. Expert testimony at the RMA hearing stated that the subdivsion will increase flood risk for downstream properties. This risk has not been quantified as no whole of catchment flood risk assessment has been done.Nelson rainfall in the age of climate change looks set to increase. By supporting this massive subdivision Council is exposing itself and Nelson ratepayers to millions of dollars in future compensation claims should a major flood occur that is exacerbated by the loss of a natural flood plain and the huge increase in run-off due to the increase in hard surfaces from the subdivisions housing and roads etc..	1216.2
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	1225.2
Payout eligibility should prioritise properties where slips occurred from Council land. A much lower payout should be paid to properties affected by slips from private land (even less than the proposed 75% - more like a maximum of 50%). Agree that a lower payment should be offered to uninsured properties.	1226.2
this has dragged on for far too long and has been incredibly unfair and  stressful for the owners and family's involved of these properties. The buy out needs to happen as soon as possible without delay.	1239.1
option two needs to happen at soon as possible, this has caused huge stress and been extremely unfair for the home owners involved. Council has already purchased 10 of the 14 homes, these 10 of which were council land slips onto private (these 10 were not separate to the 14, they are part of the 14) The buy out needs to happen for the remainder of the 14, as the properties included in the remainder, some in far worse condition/ red stickered than the ones already paid out and although the others may be private on private at one point in time council did consent these properties. Option two must happen and as soon as possible. Also by paying out the remainder, council is eligible to receive the government package, because there is only a few more properties to pay out this is the most cost effective option too.	1240.1
Only buy out of properties that council legally must	1255.2
Whilst I feel for those affected, poor placing of housing is often due to poor foresight by many and commercial gain, or simply lack of knowledge  decades ago of the risk to some of these locations. Councils mapping and overlays will help better building decisions ie avoid flood planes (in UK insurance company will not insure on a flood plane, so build at your own risk). If one has not insured their property then it should not be for the locale rate payer to necessarily pick up the tab. If council negligent for allowing the houses to be built on known or substandard land then yes locale council, otherwise  seek Central Government support. Complex matter of responsibility from known land risk when built.	1257.2
Leave it to the insurance to pay people for their loss and offer support for the less wealthy people that are affected by this issue.	1273.2
People need to do their own research on the properties they buy and if they choose to buy at the bottom or top of a hill, they need to be aware of the choices they are making. It is not for council to bail people out of their poor decisions.	1278.2
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.	1290.2
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.	1324.2
You have no choice but to buy out property effected by public ownership the issue will be ratepayers being effected by private land with the private land having no means to pay to reduce the risk to neighbours.I do have an issue with the funding being separate to rates. The increase is the real increase in rates which is money to be found stop hiding it even if it makes you feel better its not honest.	1329.2
I have voted for this SOLELY because it's an all or nothing deal -- and I firmly believe that government should be offering this package WITHOUT the requirement to purchase private properties impacted from slips on their own land.	1338.2
Please, Let’s finally give these people who can never return to their homes some certainty at last for the future so they can move forward with their lives.	1339.1
Please, Let’s finally give these people who can never return to their homes some certainty at last for the future so they can move forward with their lives.	1340.1
This should dealt with at central government level. This is a NZ Inc issue given the potential issue it poses for Nelson and other alike small communities ongoingly. Rate payers who are increasingly on fixed incomes cannot afford this approach.	1345.2
Option 2 is the catergorically 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. The Council are happy to accept ratepayers money as income to support our community - however in this critical time of need for some of our ratepayers (& long term community members) the council is not willingly supporting these ratepaying members of our community at a real time of need. The council are the only entity in a position to provide the required support & should do so as a matter of integrity.	1352.1
In future need to stop paying out to people who knowilngly purchase property in areas of high risk, especially if they don't bother insuring themselves	1367.2
Council  is not an insurance company and will set a precedent .Yes if its the fault of NCC	1373.2
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.	1379.2
I believe that setting 14 as the limit will exclude properties affected in the Tahunanui Stansell Ave area.   These properties need to be included for future proofing likely damage to infra structure.	1389.2
Comment:	1390.2
I would like to submit to the proposal for the Government /Nelson City Council to buy out red carded properties damaged in the August 2022 severe weather event. I agree that those properties which were severely damaged during this event, or where the properties were deemed unable to be rebuilt or safe to be lived in in the future, should be eligible for this buy out scheme. These properties could remain eyesores in their communities for many years if they are left in a no-man's land where it is impossible for them to be remediated or rebuilt because building consent would not be granted.  This is unfair on all parties, including neighbouring properties, and creates a very bad impression for the city. I do think that the criteria should be much wider than proposed and should include all properties so damaged so that they can be removed and the land returned to reserve or community use rather than left to deteriorate and become a target for taggers and vandalism in the midst of an otherwise stable community. I would particularly mention properties in the Tahunanui area, and especially the Tahunanui Slump. This area is well known as being unstable and it would appear that building consents for damaged properties in this area are unlikely to be granted, so buy out would be the best solution for those property owners and their neighbours. I therefore submit that the buy out scheme should go ahead but with a much looser criteria than proposed,  for the betterment of the communities and neighbourhoods that they are part of.	1430.1
Buy-out of affected properties affected by slipsTBCA supports Option 2 – accept the buy-out support offer and apply the draft eligibility buy-out principles. TBCA appreciates the evidence-based approach to decision-making that NCC has taken with this matter and would like to see that applied to several affected properties in the Rocks Road, Grenville Tce, Stansell Ave and Princes Drive cliff areas.	1433.2
Properties are insured (EQC).  Implied decision by spending our rates/cash without proper consultation.	1439.2
NB Tiny homes - these are a reality now - particularly in a housing crisis and smaller/1 person households.There needs to be a pathway to acknowledge that tiny homes are here to stay - so Council needs a legitimate pathway for them.	1461.2
If the councils land slips onto a private house then of course they should pay.If the council says you cannot live in your home because they consider it is too dangerous then they should also pay whether land is private or public.	1468.2
This should definitely be a one-off related to 2022, but the message should be imparted to avoid inadequately prepared/protected new housing projects in areas with high risk of slips	1479.2
We respect that this is a situation where nobody is likely to come out in a favourable position, and accepting some compromise will be essential.	1482.2
again - alot of damage has been done from the poor performance of the council the landowners and property owners need to be compensated i feel like central government needs to be realistic- they have been fair in the north island however we seem to not have a voice in nelson we have been forgotten about	1489.2
Support Option 2 - Accept the Government’s offer of financial assistance and apply the Council’s draft eligibility principles, while urging the Government to amend criteria for EQC payouts.	1494.1