Posts by Jeanette King
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Great to have an update post, been missing you on Public Address ... Best wishes for a great 2012!
-
I'd like to keep MMP (with some minor tweaks re thresholds, etc) so my strategy is to vote for keeping MMP and with the second part I'm thinking of voting for FPP on the basis that if we do end up with another referendum with MMP vs the top polling choice I figure it'd be easier to get people to vote against FPP because it's so demonstrably unfair. Any thoughts?
-
Nice to see support for your idea, David, at the highest levels - I want one of those badges!
-
Interesting article in the Sunday Star Times today about the need for different types of house foundations required to work in liquefaction prone areas.
Engineers are working on designing better foundations for houses to protect people's homes from the devastating effects of liquefaction.
Hope they are cognisant of your ideas David!
-
@carmen
I know it is not replacement but will you be entitled to the Government pay out of the 2007 GV?
The trouble is, in David and Jen's case, and many others too it seems, that the 2007 GV is way short of what they paid for the house. So if they accept this option they will have a serious loss of equity. So Option A will leave them out of pocket. This is what made me annoyed about the talking head who was on Nine to Noon after David today, saying that people shouldn't be trying to make money from the situation. All the residents want is to be able to preserve their equity and make the best of moving on to a new future.
-
@Ross Mason:
but in the "order of things" and with consideration to the rest of the country who are effectively paying for this event - along with Chch people of course - what SHOULD the support be for those who are forced to leave.
My list would include:
- retain the equity they had in their home and property
- be able to buy an equivalent home (and not have elderly forced to get mortgages)
- be able to get reasonable insurance cover for new/existing propertiesanything else folks?
-
Hi Tasneem,
I don't read that article the same way you have. It's about how and why Key went about organising the arrangement to offer to houseowners, that is, it seems to be talking past tense about possible insurance difficulties houseowners would have had if the govt hadn't come up with a package. I don't think Key's referring to this anomaly which David has raised post announcement. What do others think?
-
This is the nub of things. You have full replacement insurance, you need to replace your house after a series of disasters, and the insurance companies cite legal semantics. I wish there was a law that makes insurance companies comply with what a reasonable person would think the policy covers. And, judging from the thread here, all reasonable people think you should be covered in this situation. Just reassuring you David, that we all think that the insurance company stance is unreasonable. I mean, this is an extraordinary disaster!
-
Good article, except for one detail:
Mr Haywood, 42, lives in his almost 100-year-old house with his wife and two preschool children.
should read Dr Haywood ...
-
You are referred to in dispatches David (though not by name):
Some Christchurch homeowners were yesterday shocked to discover that the red-zoning of their properties would not entitle them to claim the replacement cost of their house from their insurer.
One disappointed Tower policyholder reported in a blog that Tower had said it would cover only the cost of repairing the damage to his house, even though he had full replacement cover and his house was in a red zone.
Tower group managing director Rob Flannagan confirmed yesterday that for red-zoned houses that were deemed repairable the firm would pay only for the cost of repairs, not the replacement cost of the house.
And, generally speaking, if the house was undamaged, even though the area was a red zone, there was no claim under the insurance policy, Flannagan said – although it would depend on the individual policy.
“That’ll be the same with all insurers, I suspect,” Flannagan said.
“That’s why there are the two options Government has given."