Buy-out of private properties affected by slips Debate Table

Group	Option 1	Option 2	Option 3	Option 4
Community Wellbeing	Cost of Living (6 comments) --- The residents supporting Option 1 emphasize personal responsibility for property owners, arguing that individuals should manage their own insurance and be aware of the risks associated with their property choices, particularly in areas prone to natural disasters like landslides. They express concerns about the financial burden on the wider community, suggesting that council funds should be used for broader public benefits such as climate change adaptation and mitigation, rather than subsidizing private property risks. Additionally, there is a sentiment that involving the council in property buy-outs could reduce transparency and increase administrative complexities, ultimately leading to continued financial obligations for ratepayers.	Cost of Living (15 comments) --- Residents supporting Option 2 emphasize the critical importance of the council's decision for their financial security and mental wellbeing, highlighting the dire circumstances of those unable to use their homes due to safety risks. They argue that accepting the buy-out offer is a moral obligation, reflecting a collective responsibility to support community members in distress, and stress that the financial assistance would alleviate significant personal and financial hardships caused by the slips. Additionally, there is a strong sentiment that the community would support the financial implications of the buy-out, recognizing the fairness in aiding insured homeowners who have consistently fulfilled their civic duties by paying rates and insurance.	Cost of Living (6 comments) --- Residents supporting Option 3 emphasize the need for fairness in the buy-out process by suggesting the use of current market values rather than pre-event values, which they believe would provide a more equitable financial outcome for all affected homeowners. They also advocate for setting a maximum purchase price at the Nelson median house price or just enough to cover existing property debts, ensuring that homeowners are not left financially burdened after losing their properties. Additionally, there is a strong sentiment that the council should not heavily subsidize the risks of uninsured properties, reflecting a broader desire for personal responsibility in property ownership and insurance.	Cost of Living (8 comments) --- Residents supporting Option 4 emphasize the need for direct assistance to property owners affected by landslides from public lands, arguing that those affected by private land should rely on their own insurance and the Earthquake Commission. They express concerns about the financial burden on local ratepayers, particularly those on fixed incomes, suggesting that the responsibility for managing these costs should fall to the central government rather than the local council. Additionally, there is a sentiment that the council has previously underperformed, which has exacerbated property damage, thereby necessitating fair compensation for affected homeowners.
Community Wellbeing			Education (1 comments) --- The argument supporting Option 3 emphasizes the importance of using council funds judiciously by offering lower buy-out percentages for uninsured properties and those affected by slips from private land. This approach is seen as a preventive measure to avoid setting a precedent where the council is expected to take full responsibility for similar future events, which could be financially unsustainable. The savings from this approach could be redirected towards enhancing education on hazard awareness and mitigation for private property owners, thereby fostering a more proactive and informed community in terms of land-use management.
Community Wellbeing	Equality & Inclusion (1 comments) --- The argument supporting Option 1 emphasizes that the council should prioritize providing support specifically to less wealthy individuals who are disproportionately affected by the slips, ensuring that assistance is distributed equitably. This approach suggests relying on insurance to cover losses for those who are insured, thereby focusing council resources on those who may not have adequate insurance or financial means to recover independently. This strategy aims to prevent the broader community from subsidizing the risk and liabilities of private property owners, aligning with a more targeted and equitable distribution of council support.	Equality & Inclusion (12 comments) --- The residents strongly believe that adopting Option 2 would ensure equitable treatment by aligning with the actions taken by other regions, thus maintaining consistency in disaster response across different areas. They argue that it is a compassionate and rational approach to support those severely affected by the slips, providing them with stability and certainty after enduring nearly two years of challenges. Furthermore, the community emphasizes the moral obligation of the Council to act with integrity and support its ratepayers in times of need, reflecting shared community values and a commitment to collective action in addressing the hardships faced by affected homeowners.	Equality & Inclusion (6 comments) --- The comments supporting Option 3 emphasize the need for equitable support across various property owners, regardless of their insurance status or property use, advocating for consistent treatment of all affected properties. There is a strong sentiment that support should prioritize those in dire need, such as individuals with no alternative housing options, rather than broadly compensating wealthier landowners. Additionally, some respondents argue for individual consideration of unique circumstances, such as disability and lack of alternative income sources, to ensure that the support provided is both fair and inclusive.	Equality & Inclusion (2 comments) --- The residents supporting Option 4 express concerns about the fairness of the buy-out support offer, particularly highlighting the need for further investigation into how it affects those with insurance and those living in slip-prone areas. They argue that Nelson has been overlooked compared to other regions, suggesting a disparity in treatment by Central Government and advocating for stronger local representation to ensure equitable support. Overall, there is a call for more tailored and realistic negotiations with Central Government to address specific local needs and ensure fair compensation for all affected property owners.
Community Wellbeing		Health (10 comments) --- The comments strongly emphasize the mental and emotional toll on residents affected by the slips, highlighting the urgent need for resolution to alleviate stress and uncertainty. Many residents express a sense of prolonged distress and financial instability due to the displacement and ongoing limbo, which has impacted their daily lives and future planning, including retirement preparations. The community's feedback underscores the importance of a fair and timely buy-out process to restore normalcy and ensure the wellbeing of those severely impacted by the 2022 severe weather event.
Community Wellbeing		Lifestyle & Enjoyment (10 comments) --- Residents strongly support Option 2 as they believe it will provide closure and allow affected property owners to move on with their lives after enduring significant stress and displacement due to the slips. Many see the buy-out as a moral obligation of the Council, especially since the properties were initially approved for building by the Council itself. Additionally, transforming the purchased land into community spaces like parks is viewed as a way to enhance local recreational opportunities and environmental quality, further contributing to community wellbeing.	Lifestyle & Enjoyment (1 comments) --- The comment emphasizes the importance of considering the future use of the land acquired through the buy-out, suggesting potential uses such as recreational reserves or community gardens, which would contribute to community wellbeing and lifestyle enhancement. It highlights the need for fairness in supporting property owners compared to other vulnerable groups, advocating for a balanced approach in community support. Additionally, the comment questions the valuation of properties deemed unsuitable for living, suggesting that the market value might be overstated given the risks and insurance challenges associated with the land.
Community Wellbeing		Safety and Security (59 comments) --- The overwhelming sentiment from the community supports Option 2 due to the urgent need to provide certainty and relief to homeowners affected by the slips, emphasizing the moral responsibility to assist those in precarious living conditions and financial distress. Many comments highlight the prolonged distress and instability these residents have faced, advocating for swift action to resolve their situations and prevent further psychological and financial impact. Additionally, there is a strong call for the council to learn from this situation and implement measures to prevent similar future occurrences, ensuring safer and more sustainable community development practices.	Safety and Security (8 comments) --- Residents supporting Option 3 emphasize the necessity of purchasing properties affected by slips to ensure resident safety and mitigate future risks. They advocate for prioritizing buyouts where slips originated from council-owned land, reflecting a perceived higher responsibility on the council's part. Additionally, there is a strong sentiment for preventing future developments on high-risk lands and ensuring that any buyout schemes are clearly communicated as one-off measures to avoid setting precedents.	Safety and Security (5 comments) --- Residents supporting Option 4 emphasize the need for proactive and strategic planning to prevent future issues related to property development in areas prone to natural disasters. They express concerns about the current government policies that may contribute to such vulnerabilities, suggesting that there should be stricter regulations on where and how properties are built. Additionally, there is a strong sentiment that the council should prioritize buy-outs for properties affected by public land or council-managed issues, such as drainage failures, to ensure community safety and reduce future liabilities.
Community Wellbeing		Togetherness (18 comments) --- The community strongly supports Option 2, emphasizing the moral and ethical responsibility to assist fellow residents who have endured significant hardships due to the slips, advocating for swift action to provide certainty and support. Many comments highlight the importance of community solidarity and the need for the council to demonstrate compassion and empathy, reflecting a collective commitment to support those in dire situations. The residents argue that accepting the government's buy-out offer under Option 2 is not only a humane response but also aligns with actions taken by other councils, ensuring that affected individuals receive fair treatment and can move forward with their lives.	Togetherness (1 comments) --- The comment highlights a recognition of the complex and challenging nature of the situation, emphasizing the necessity for compromise to achieve a balanced resolution. It reflects an understanding that while the outcomes may not be entirely favorable for all parties involved, collective agreement and shared sacrifice are crucial for community cohesion and wellbeing. This perspective underscores the importance of togetherness in navigating the adverse circumstances posed by the slips, fostering a sense of unity and mutual support among the affected residents and the broader community.
Economic Benefits	Costs (17 comments) --- The primary argument supporting Option 1 is centered on the concern that accepting other options would expose the council to future liabilities and financial burdens, particularly from properties affected by slips originating from private land, for which the council has no legal obligation. Residents argue that property damage should be managed by the property owner and their insurance, not by council funds, to prevent setting a precedent that could lead to increased financial responsibilities for the council in managing future natural disasters. Additionally, there is a strong sentiment that council funds should be reserved for essential infrastructure and mitigating broader community risks rather than individual property buy-outs, which could encourage underinsurance and reduce the incentive for private risk management.	Costs (14 comments) --- The majority of residents recognize the financial prudence of accepting the government's support package under Option 2, noting that it provides substantial aid that would otherwise be lost, thus mitigating the financial burden on the council and ratepayers. Concerns are raised about setting a precedent for future buy-outs; however, many see this as a necessary and humane response to a unique and severe situation, emphasizing the importance of community support in times of disaster. Additionally, there is a strong sentiment that the council should proceed with the buy-outs promptly to relieve the affected homeowners of ongoing uncertainty and stress, thereby leveraging the government's funding to achieve a cost-effective resolution.	Costs (10 comments) --- Residents supporting Option 3 express concerns about the financial sustainability of buy-outs, especially in future events, emphasizing the need for a more robust system to manage ongoing land instability costs. They advocate for setting maximum buy-out limits, such as capping payouts at the median house price, to control initial costs and convey fiscal responsibility. Additionally, there is a strong sentiment that the council should not heavily subsidize properties affected by slips from private land, suggesting lower compensation rates for these properties to mitigate financial exposure and discourage risky land use practices.	Costs (7 comments) --- Residents supporting Option 4 express concerns about the financial implications of buying properties affected by slips, particularly those on private land, emphasizing the potential long-term costs to ratepayers. They argue that property owners should rely on their own insurance and that the council should not set a precedent of financial support for such cases, which could be unsustainable in future disasters. Additionally, there is a call for transparency in how these costs are presented in council rates, advocating for honest financial communication to avoid hidden increases.
Economic Benefits		Population Growth (1 comments) --- The commenter strongly supports Option 2, emphasizing that aligning with the buy-out practices of other regions is crucial for maintaining Nelson's reputation and ensuring its attractiveness for future investments. They argue that failing to offer market value buy-outs could negatively impact perceptions of the council, potentially deterring new residents and investors. The urgency in implementing the buy-out, as part of the broader government-supported package, is highlighted as essential for the economic vitality and growth of Nelson, nearly two years post the severe weather event.
Environmental Benefits	Sustainability (4 comments) --- The residents supporting Option 1 argue that the council should prioritize its financial resources on broader community infrastructure and climate change mitigation rather than extending financial aid to private property owners affected by slips from private land. They express concerns that subsidizing private losses sets a precedent that could lead to reduced incentives for private insurance and proper risk assessment by homeowners, potentially increasing future liabilities for the council. Additionally, they emphasize the importance of focusing on sustainable practices like managed retreat and preparing for inevitable climate-related challenges, rather than using public funds for individual property buyouts.	Sustainability (4 comments) --- The comments supporting Option 2 emphasize the need for a sustainable approach to managing properties in hazard-prone areas, suggesting that continuous investment in unstable regions may not be a viable long-term solution. Residents are concerned about how the buy-out strategy aligns with the broader climate resilience plans of the council, highlighting the importance of integrating these efforts to address future sustainability challenges effectively. There is also a call for a national strategy to manage development in flood-prone zones, stressing the need for proactive measures to prevent new developments in these high-risk areas to ensure long-term environmental sustainability.	Sustainability (2 comments) --- The residents supporting Option 3 express concerns about the sustainability of buy-out practices for future events, highlighting the need for a more robust and proactive approach to land-use management and hazard mitigation. They emphasize the importance of setting aside funds for ongoing land management costs, which are expected to be substantial, to ensure environmental sustainability. Additionally, there is a suggestion to lower the percentage of market value offered for buy-outs, especially for uninsured properties and those impacted by slips from private land, to conserve resources for broader, proactive environmental strategies.
Operational Considerations	Legal and Regulatory Compliance (3 comments) --- The residents supporting Option 1 argue that the council should limit its buy-out offer to properties affected by slips originating from council-owned land, where there is a clear legal obligation to compensate the owners. They express concerns that extending buy-out support to properties affected by slips from private land would create an unnecessary financial burden on the council, setting a precedent that could lead to reduced financial capacity for essential infrastructure upgrades and climate change mitigation. Additionally, they emphasize that private property owners have access to insurance and EQC payouts, and the council should not socialize private losses, which could encourage underinsurance and mismanagement of property risks related to foreseeable climate impacts.	Legal and Regulatory Compliance (13 comments) --- Residents supporting Option 2 emphasize the council's moral and ethical responsibility to assist affected homeowners, highlighting past council actions such as property rate levies and building consents that did not previously acknowledge the now-recognized risks. They argue that rejecting the buy-out offer would contradict the intentions of the central government's support package and leave property owners in untenable situations, potentially setting a negative precedent that could impact community trust and future council actions. Additionally, proponents stress that accepting the buy-out aligns with practices of other councils in similar situations across New Zealand, ensuring consistency in governmental responses to natural disasters and reinforcing the council's duty to support its constituents in crisis situations.	Legal and Regulatory Compliance (4 comments) --- Residents supporting Option 3 express concerns about setting a precedent for future council responsibilities in managing properties affected by landslides, particularly those on private land where the council has historically granted building consents. They highlight gaps in the home insurance system and EQC rules that fail to cover properties at high landslide risk that haven't yet been directly affected, suggesting a need for stronger advocacy for policy changes. Additionally, there is apprehension about the council's financial capability to manage similar situations in the future, emphasizing the need for careful consideration of ongoing land management costs and the implications of setting legal precedents.	Legal and Regulatory Compliance (2 comments) --- The comments supporting Option 4 emphasize the need for the Council to adhere to existing legal frameworks, such as those used by the Earthquake Commission (EQC), rather than setting unsustainable precedents for disaster response. Citizens argue that the Council should only be responsible for landslides originating from Council-owned land, and not for those from private lands, as private homeowners have their own insurance and EQC support. Additionally, there is a call for the Council to establish a clear, future-proof framework to manage similar events, highlighting the importance of this being a one-off support mechanism and not an expectation for future incidents.
Operational Considerations	Stakeholder Engagement (1 comments) --- The resident expressing support for Option 1 raises concerns about the potential lack of transparency in the City Council's management of insurance claims and the administration of property purchases. They question the specifics of operational execution, including which company would handle tasks, where operations would be based, and how staff would be selected. Additionally, they highlight concerns about the ongoing financial implications for city council rates, even after land has been purchased under the proposed conditions.	Stakeholder Engagement (10 comments) --- Residents supporting Option 2 express a strong desire for expedited action and enhanced transparency from the council, highlighting the prolonged uncertainty and stress caused by delays in the buy-out process. Many emphasize the need for clear, fair, and transparent communication regarding the buy-out principles to ensure that affected property owners are adequately informed and treated equitably. There is a consensus that accepting the government's buy-out offer is a humane response to the crisis, necessary to provide certainty and relief to the impacted homeowners, and aligns with actions taken by other councils in similar situations.	Stakeholder Engagement (3 comments) --- Residents expressing support for Option 3 are urging the council to act swiftly, highlighting frustration with perceived delays nearly two years after the event. They argue that the council has already effectively decided to accept the government's proposal and should proceed without further delay to provide certainty and relief to affected homeowners. Additionally, there is a sentiment that the council should have taken responsibility earlier, particularly in cases where building was permitted on unstable land, and that the decision-making process should have been handled internally by the councilors rather than through public consultation.	Stakeholder Engagement (1 comments) --- The argument supporting Option 4 emphasizes the need for consistency in disaster response approaches across different regions, suggesting that the central government should be engaged to align the treatment of Nelson with that of the east coast storms. This approach is viewed as sustainable and prevents setting a precedent of the council taking on significant financial burdens in major disasters without similar national strategies. The commenter also supports adhering to established EQC protocols, which could streamline operations and stakeholder engagement.
Operational Considerations		Technical Feasibility (1 comments) --- The resident's feedback indicates a positive perception of Option 2, highlighting that the proposal for the buy-out support offer appears to be thoroughly planned and pragmatically structured. They believe that the operational strategy and technical aspects of implementing the buy-outs have been effectively addressed by the council. This suggests confidence in the council's ability to manage the complexities associated with the property acquisitions and the subsequent responsibilities.