Argument in Support of Option 2: Accept the Buy-Out Support Offer and Apply the Draft Eligibility Buy-Out Principles (Council’s Proposal)

Introduction

The overwhelming support for Option 2 from the community is evident from the numerous submissions received. This option not only aligns with the central government's support package but also reflects a compassionate approach towards the residents affected by the severe weather event in August 2022. The following points encapsulate the key arguments in favor of adopting Option 2.

1. Humanitarian and Ethical Considerations

Many residents have expressed that Option 2 represents a humane response to a dire situation. Affected homeowners have endured significant emotional and financial stress due to the damage to their properties. The council has a moral obligation to assist these residents, ensuring they can move forward with their lives without the burden of an uninhabitable or financially crippling property. As one resident poignantly noted, this option is "the humane thing to do to help the folks out who have lost their homes."

2. Financial Prudence and Utilization of Government Support

Option 2 allows the council to leverage a substantial financial package from the central government, which includes $6 million specifically earmarked for property buy-outs. Rejecting this option would not only forfeit this funding but also place the entire financial burden of recovery and future risk mitigation on local resources and ratepayers. Utilizing these funds responsibly ensures that the council can address the current crisis without compromising its financial stability.

3. Community and Social Cohesion

The community's strong support for Option 2 underscores a collective ethos of solidarity and mutual aid. Implementing this option reinforces the council's commitment to its citizens, particularly in times of unexpected and severe hardship. This approach fosters trust and confidence in local governance and builds a stronger, more resilient community fabric.

4. Precedent and Consistency with Other Regions

Several submissions highlighted the importance of consistency with other councils' responses to similar crises, particularly in the North Island. Adopting Option 2 aligns Nelson City Council's actions with established precedents, ensuring fairness and equity in governmental responses across regions. This consistency is crucial for maintaining public trust in governmental processes and ensuring that all citizens feel they are treated equitably.

5. Long-Term Community Benefits and Risk Management

By purchasing and managing the affected properties, the council can better control and mitigate future risks associated with these lands. This proactive approach not only prevents potential future liabilities but also provides opportunities for community-enhancing projects, such as the creation of parks and green spaces, which can improve overall community resilience and environmental stability.

Conclusion

Option 2 is not merely a financial strategy; it is a reflection of the council's commitment to its citizens' welfare and the long-term health of the community. It represents a balanced approach, combining financial prudence with compassionate response, and aligns with broader regional and national strategies for disaster recovery and resilience. The strong community support for this option further validates its viability and necessity, making it the clear choice for action.

Comments

Option_Selected	Comment
Option 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."
Option 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.
Option 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.
Option 2	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!
Option 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.
Option 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.
Option 2	Based on other similar cases in the North Island.
Option 2	It is the humane thing to do to help the folks out who have lost their homes
Option 2	Need to make sure it is clear and transparent. There is a risk that a precedent is being set for future events
Option 2	This is disgraceful how NCC have treated those affected. They need buy out support from NCC immediately.
Option 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.
Option 2	As noted, it will not set a precedent for the future but is a human response within our community in very difficult circumstances.
Option 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.
Option 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.
Option 2	We must support our fellow ratepayers in their time of need. Option 2 is consistent with other similarly affected households in other regions.
Option 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.
Option 2	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.
Option 2	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.
Option 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.
Option 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 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.
Option 2	Let’s finally give these people who can never return to their homes some certainty at last for the future.
Option 2	give these people who can never return to their homes some certainty at last for the future
Option 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.
Option 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.
Option 2	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
Option 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.
Option 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.
Option 2	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
Option 2	Totally agree with the Councils Proposal.
Option 2	Don't know enough to be able to answer this fairly.
Option 2	It's just a shame that after 2 years there are still people not in their homes.No transparency.
Option 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.
Option 2	Let's give those unfortunate affected people the means to move on with their lives. It's been going on long enough.
Option 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.
Option 2	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.
Option 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.
Option 2	I generally support the Council's recommended proposal, but do worry about the precedent that this sets for future events.
Option 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.
Option 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 .
Option 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.
Option 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!
Option 2	i was bought out of my property at xxx xxxxxxxxxxxx by nelson city council this year  and was fairly pleased with the process
Option 2	Lets get these affected home-owners sorted :-)
Option 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.
Option 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.
Option 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 !
Option 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.
Option 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.
Option 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.
Option 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.
Option 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.
Option 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.
Option 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.
Option 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.
Option 2	This has gone on for a long time now.These poor people need support and not stress.Time to step up Nelson.
Option 2	Very important to support all citizens.
Option 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.
Option 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.
Option 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.
Option 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.
Option 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.
Option 2	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.
Option 2	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!!
Option 2	other regions are paying out for these desperate people just pay and let them move on.
Option 2	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.
Option 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.
Option 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.
Option 2	This is the only fair response for those affected in an incredibly unfortunate situation.
Option 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
Option 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.
Option 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.
Option 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
Option 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.
Option 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.
Option 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.
Option 2	Let’s finally give these people who can never return to their homes some certainty at last for the future
Option 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.
Option 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.
Option 2	Why only the North Island leaving Nelson behind. This is unacceptable and should not be left unactioned any longer.
Option 2	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.
Option 2	Sounds pretty well thought out
Option 2	These folk have waited long enough for a decision to be made and need certainty on their future.
Option 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.
Option 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.
Option 2	This is fair.
Option 2	BUYOUT OF PRIVATE PROPERTIES
Option 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.
Option 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--
Option 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.
Option 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.
Option 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.
Option 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.
Option 2	Refer to 10 page submission for further information - key points re buy out below:
Option 2	don't know much about this, sounds fair
Option 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.
Option 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..
Option 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
Option 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.
Option 2	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.
Option 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.
Option 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.
Option 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.
Option 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.
Option 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.
Option 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.
Option 2	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
Option 2	Comment:
Option 2	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.
Option 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.
Option 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.