Debate Argument in Support of Option 1: Don’t Accept the Buy-Out Support Offer
Introduction: Option 1 proposes that the Council does not proceed with a program of voluntary buy-outs for residential properties impacted by slips. This option is grounded in the principle of fiscal responsibility and limiting the expansion of Council liabilities into areas where it has no legal obligation. The following points, derived from community feedback, support this stance.
1. Protection of Public Funds and Avoidance of Future Liabilities: Many residents express concerns that accepting the buy-out support offer could set a precedent for future liabilities and demands for compensation. This could potentially open the Council to an unsustainable financial burden, especially as climate-related events are expected to increase. The Council's primary responsibility should be to manage public funds prudently without assuming unnecessary financial risks that could impact its ability to fund other critical infrastructure and services.
2. Responsibility of Property Owners: A significant number of submissions highlight that property damage should primarily be the responsibility of the property owner and their insurance provider. The principle of 'caveat emptor' (buyer beware) was mentioned, emphasizing that property owners should be aware of the risks associated with their property choices, particularly in areas prone to natural disasters like slips and floods. This perspective strongly advocates for personal responsibility and due diligence in property ownership.
3. Insurance and Personal Responsibility: Feedback from the community underscores the role of insurance in covering losses due to natural disasters. There is a strong sentiment that the Council should not replace insurance companies or subsidize the lack of insurance coverage by property owners. Engaging in buy-outs could diminish the importance of obtaining appropriate insurance coverage, potentially leading to a moral hazard where property owners might expect Council intervention in future events, regardless of their insurance decisions.
4. Financial Impact on the Community: Residents are concerned about the financial implications of the buy-out on the wider community. The use of ratepayer funds to purchase private properties could lead to higher rates or reduced financial capacity for other essential services and infrastructure upgrades. The sentiment is that Council funds should be directed towards community-wide benefits, particularly in preparing for and mitigating the broader impacts of climate change.
5. Setting Precedents: There is a prevalent concern about setting a precedent that could extend Council's liabilities indefinitely. Engaging in buy-outs for this event might lead to expectations for similar actions in future incidents, which could strain Council resources and shift its focus from broader community responsibilities.
Conclusion: The feedback from the community clearly supports Option 1, emphasizing fiscal responsibility, the importance of personal responsibility in property ownership, and the strategic management of public resources. By not accepting the buy-out support offer, the Council would avoid setting a financially risky precedent, uphold the principle of personal responsibility for property risks, and ensure that public funds are used for broader community benefits and essential services. This approach aligns with the community's preference for a more disciplined and sustainable fiscal strategy that does not socialize private property risks.
Comments
| Option_Selected | Comment |
|---|---|
| Option 1 | Other options will open council up to do much future liability / demands for compensation |
| Option 1 | Damage to property is the responsibility of the owner and their insurers |
| Option 1 | People should be responsible for own insurance.Weather events will increase not magically be "fixed". |
| Option 1 | 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. |
| Option 1 | Is this not what home insurance is for? |
| Option 1 | start buying out affected properties now starts a precedence for any future ‘events’ |
| Option 1 | 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. |
| Option 1 | 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. |
| Option 1 | 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. |
| Option 1 | People know the issues when they buy |
| Option 1 | 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. |
| Option 1 | 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. |
| Option 1 | 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. |
| Option 1 | 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. |
| Option 1 | Caviat emptor. |
| Option 1 | I don't support NCC socialising the cost of private liabilities. |
| Option 1 | 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. |
| Option 1 | 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. |
| Option 1 | Council is not an insurance company and will set a precedent .Yes if its the fault of NCC |