Debate Argument in Support of Option 3: Accept the Offer and Apply Amended Eligibility Buy-Out Principles

Introduction

Option 3 proposes accepting the Central Government's buy-out support offer while amending the eligibility buy-out principles to better reflect the current market values and specific circumstances of the affected properties. This option aims to balance financial responsibility with the need to support residents whose properties have been severely impacted by slips.

Key Points in Support of Option 3

Fair Market Valuation:
Residents have expressed concerns that using pre-event property values would unfairly benefit those whose properties have depreciated due to the slips. Option 3 allows for the use of a more realistic current market value, ensuring fairness and preventing disproportionate payouts that do not reflect the current reality of the property market in the affected areas.
Flexibility in Buy-Out Principles:
Option 3 offers the flexibility to amend buy-out principles based on community feedback and real-time assessments. This adaptability ensures that the principles can be aligned with the actual needs and conditions of the community, rather than sticking rigidly to potentially outdated criteria.
Consideration of Future Land Use:
Several comments highlighted the importance of considering the future use of the purchased land. Option 3's flexibility could allow for the land to be repurposed for community benefits such as recreational areas or community gardens, adding value to the community while addressing safety concerns.
Equitable Treatment of Property Owners:
The option promotes fairness by potentially adjusting the compensation based on whether properties are insured or not, and whether the slips originated from public or private land. This approach acknowledges the varying degrees of responsibility and risk assumed by property owners.
Financial Prudence:
By potentially setting a maximum purchase price at the median house price or adjusting the percentage of market value offered, Option 3 seeks to manage the financial impact on the council and taxpayers. This consideration is crucial in ensuring that the council can sustainably manage its finances while still providing necessary support to affected residents.
Addressing Insurance and Liability Gaps:
The option recognizes the gaps in the current insurance system that leave some residents vulnerable after such events. By amending the buy-out principles, the council can provide a safety net for those inadequately covered by insurance, while also advocating for more robust governmental frameworks to handle such situations in the future.

Conclusion

Option 3 represents a balanced approach that considers both the immediate needs of affected property owners and the long-term financial sustainability of the council. By amending the eligibility buy-out principles, the council can ensure that support is given fairly and equitably, reflecting the actual conditions and values of the properties involved. This option not only aids those in immediate need but also sets a precedent for handling similar situations in the future with fairness and fiscal responsibility.

Comments

Option_Selected	Comment
Option 3	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.
Option 3	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 3	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.
Option 3	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 3	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.
Option 3	BUY OUT OF PRIVATE PROPERTIES AFFECTED BY SLIPS.
Option 3	only buyout if it was caused by Council land slips
Option 3	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.
Option 3	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
Option 3	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.
Option 3	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.
Option 3	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.
Option 3	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.
Option 3	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.
Option 3	We are
Option 3	Not in favour of purchasing properties affected by private slips. Insurance companies should step up.
Option 3	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.
Option 3	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.
Option 3	It would be best to offer support to those who have no other option other than to live at the affected property.
Option 3	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.
Option 3	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.
Option 3	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.
Option 3	Only buy out of properties that council legally must
Option 3	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.
Option 3	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.
Option 3	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
Option 3	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.