Summary of Arguments from Comments for 'None of the Above'

The comments from citizens who selected 'None of the Above' regarding the buy-out of private properties affected by slips reveal a range of concerns and perspectives that do not align neatly with any of the proposed options. Here are the key arguments presented:

  1. Responsibility and Liability:

  2. Many commenters believe that the responsibility for properties affected by slips should not fall on the council or the broader community, especially if the slips originated from private land. They argue that property owners and their insurance should handle such situations, and council involvement could set a costly precedent.

  3. Financial Concerns:

  4. There is significant worry about the financial implications for the council and ratepayers. Commenters are concerned about the potential for high ongoing costs, including immediate remediation and future land management costs. The fear is that these costs could lead to higher rates or financial strain on the council's budget.

  5. Equity and Fairness:

  6. Some responses highlight issues of fairness, particularly regarding the treatment of insured versus uninsured properties and the potential for some property owners to receive more favorable buy-outs than their neighbors. There is a call for a more equitable approach that does not disproportionately benefit certain individuals at the expense of the general community.

  7. Precedent for Future Events:

  8. Commenters are concerned that agreeing to the buy-outs could establish a precedent, making the council liable for similar interventions in future slip or natural disaster events, which could be financially unsustainable given predictions of more frequent severe weather due to climate change.

  9. Alternative Solutions:

  10. Several responses suggest exploring alternative solutions such as supporting property owners with remediation efforts rather than outright buy-outs. This could include technical solutions like rockfall netting or other stabilization measures, which might be more cost-effective and avoid the issue of taking on ownership of risky land.

  11. Lack of Information and Clarity:

  12. A recurring theme is the lack of sufficient information or understanding of the proposed options, suggesting that the council may need to improve communication and engagement to ensure that all community members can make informed decisions.

Debate Argument in Support of 'None of the Above'

Given the concerns raised by the community, there is a strong case to be made for the council to consider a 'None of the Above' approach, focusing instead on alternative strategies that do not involve purchasing private properties affected by slips. This approach would address the key issues of financial sustainability, responsibility, and fairness.

Argument:

The council should prioritize long-term financial stability and equitable treatment of all residents over short-term solutions that could lead to increased liabilities and set unsustainable precedents. By focusing on supporting property owners through technical and engineering solutions for slip mitigation, the council can help ensure safety without assuming ownership of high-risk lands. This approach not only protects the council's financial health but also encourages property owners to take appropriate insurance measures and responsibility for their properties.

Moreover, the council should enhance its communication efforts to ensure that all residents fully understand the implications of any proposed changes and can engage in meaningful consultation. This will help build trust and ensure that any decisions made have broad community support, reflecting a truly democratic process.

In conclusion, while the buy-out options presented may offer short-term relief for some property owners, the long-term consequences and potential for setting costly precedents make them unviable. The council should instead explore alternative mitigation strategies that do not involve property buy-outs, thereby safeguarding the community's financial future and fostering a fairer and more responsible approach to natural disaster management.

Comments

ID Comment
67.1 I support buy-out where the failure cause is Council property including land slip.
72.2 I do not have a view on this issue.
87.2 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.
108.2 No strong view
240.2 dont believe council should buy out any properties.
254.2 I don’t know anything about the offer
275.2 unsure
297.2 I'm not sure what your options mean. I think private land owners and their insurance should be responsible for their own properties.
359.2 I haven't studied the issue...no idea
413.2 i do not have enough infotmation to have an opinion
418.2 the public shouldn't be paying to bail out private landowners.
450.2 they boight there its there problem, why should we fork out to fix it
519.2 Not informed enough
610.2 Dont know enough about this issue
676.2 no oppinion
682.2 I don't feel I know the facts to make an informed decision.
778.2 I don't have an opinion on this other than building on at risk land needs to stop.
808.2 i have not looked at this extensively therefore i do not have an opinion
828.2 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)
832.1 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.
934.2 Does not concern me.
959.2 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.
975.2 To whom it may concern at the Nelson City Council (NCC)
985.2 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.
1093.2 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.
1157.2 NA
1206.2 Choose not to answer.
1257.2 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.
1430.1 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.
1439.2 Properties are insured (EQC).  Implied decision by spending our rates/cash without proper consultation.
1468.2 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.