Debate Argument in Support of Option 4: Seek to Renegotiate the Buy-Out Offer with Central Government

Introduction: Option 4 proposes that the Council should renegotiate the terms of the buy-out support offer with the Central Government to focus on properties impacted by slips from Council land only. This approach aims to avoid the Council entering into significant new activities of purchasing properties impacted by slips from private land, where it has no legal obligation.

Arguments in Favor of Option 4:

Financial Responsibility and Ratepayer Impact:
Many residents express concerns about the financial burden that future slip-related incidents could impose on ratepayers, especially when properties are built on inherently risky land such as flood-prone or slip-prone areas. Renegotiating the terms to focus on Council land would limit the financial exposure of the community to these high-risk areas.
The current proposal could set a precedent where the Council might be expected to intervene in similar situations in the future, potentially leading to unsustainable financial commitments.
Council's Legal Obligation and Property Owner Responsibility:
The Council has a clear obligation only to properties affected by slips originating from Council-owned land. Focusing on these properties aligns with the Council's legal responsibilities and avoids setting a precedent of intervening in incidents on private land, where property owners should have appropriate insurance coverage.
Several comments highlighted the importance of property owners having insurance and not relying on Council to bail them out in case of slips from private land. This underscores the principle of individual responsibility and the importance of due diligence before purchasing property.
Strategic Use of Resources and Long-Term Planning:
Redirecting efforts to renegotiate the buy-out terms allows the Council to prioritize its resources more effectively, focusing on areas where it has direct responsibility and can make the most impact.
This approach encourages better long-term planning and risk assessment for future developments, potentially leading to stricter regulations and guidelines for building in high-risk areas.
Equity and Fairness in Government Support:
Renegotiating the terms could lead to a more equitable distribution of government support, ensuring that funds are used where the Council has a direct obligation, rather than subsidizing private risks.
This could also align with approaches taken in other regions, creating a more standardized response to natural disasters across different jurisdictions.
Community Sentiment and Expectations:
The sentiment analysis of submissions shows a considerable neutral stance towards the buy-out options, suggesting that while there is not strong opposition, there is also concern about the implications of accepting the current offer. Renegotiating could address these concerns and align the Council's actions with community expectations.

Conclusion: Option 4, which involves renegotiating the buy-out offer with Central Government to focus solely on properties impacted by Council land, presents a balanced approach that respects legal obligations, manages financial risks responsibly, and aligns with the principles of equity and long-term sustainability. This option not only protects the financial interests of Nelson's ratepayers but also sets a clear and sustainable precedent for handling similar situations in the future.

Comments

Option_Selected	Comment
Option 4	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.
Option 4	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.
Option 4	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
Option 4	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......
Option 4	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.
Option 4	more investigation is needed... not fair for those who have insurance or exist in a slip prone area
Option 4	central government could help future builds take responsibility for building in questionable areas.
Option 4	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.
Option 4	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.
Option 4	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.
Option 4	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.
Option 4	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