Alan Bollard, then.And his ute.
I think Darfield Charlie has done enough damage for one decade.
I passed through Darfield the other day. Everyone appeared to have two hands. Once you know, you find yourself checking.
From my understanding there is already a legal framework to get around problems like this - it's called the Public Works Act. It is obvious that new areas around Christchurch will need to develop in order to accommodate the population that is displaced by the earthquake - not just those in the red zone now but those in areas likely to become red zone in the future.
The problem seems to be the rapid appreciation of land upon which these people are supposed to shift to. This is obvious if you don't add houses - you simply can't accommodate thousands more people in the market without any additional supply, without prices skyrocketing.
My idea would be for CERA to designate areas around Christchurch - in strategic areas - for "earthquake relocation". There's an obvious public benefit there, so the designation process is appropriate. Change the law as someone said above so that CERA only needs to pay February 21 land values for the land - then they develop it and sell on to people in the red zones for something that approximates what their old house & land were worth.
As the land will have gone from rural to urban values, CERA should make a killing - but that "profit" would go into developing new infrastructure for these areas. New schools, new roads, new pipes and so forth.
Not only would this process ensure that people from within the red zone have an obvious option, the increased housing supply should control the property market so that people shifting elsewhere theoretically won't be priced out of the market.
New schools, new roads, new pipes and so forth.
new river, new old heritage houses, and it could work ;)
I have to ask the question, unpopular as it may be: Why the assumption that your only option is to buy a bare section and build a new house?
Why not take insurance/government payout and buy something of similar value to what you had? There are existing houses in the city that are green-zoned, and on the market. I suspect this will continue to be the case for some time as families whose houses weren't disastrously affected by the quake have nevertheless decided they've had enough, and are selling up and leaving town.
I'm assuming that your now red-zoned house wasn't new in 2007, or maybe even in 1997. As of 2007, it was worth a certain value (perhaps more then than you would've received if you sold it in August 2010), and you will receive a payout for roughly that amount. Yes, I said roughly; I'm under no illusion that the system is perfect. But I don't understand why the government should pay for you to have a better house than you had before.
My background: I live in Christchurch, and I'm as sick of the situation as the next person. But I'm fortunate to live in a white zone that will probably become green in due course.
Maybe I'm missing something here, so I'm happy to be enlightened.
so I'm happy to be enlightened.
Well for starters from what is written here and at David Haywoods, is, full replacement taken with insurance companies does not mean full replacement, so you can have your red zoned house repaired on land that you can't live on.That is a total fuck up for those who believed their larger levies were for that protection. Bullshit no. 2 is , that because one has to move, real estate is jumping faster than Jimminy Cricket, so being told you have to leave then realising you cant get another house like the one you are being forced out of because all the available houses are priced out of your ability unless one wants a caravan. Now don't get me wrong, I have a minimal respect for caravans, and I dont live in Chch,(just born there), but, being told to get out should not mean Get out, downsize and hope it wont happen again.
S, I suggest your read this post of David's. $200 000 short is not "a better house than you had before". Nobody is asking that. Nobody.
Isn't the main issue of the post the fact that there are very few affordable houses left in Christchurch for these people to move to - with the money that they get from the government?
I don't think people are asking to get a better place than they had before, they just want something done about the fact that there's nothing available at the same level as before. So the solution is to make available land (or ideally, houses - perhaps well designed rows of terraced houses to keep costs down).
you will receive a payout for roughly that amount. Yes, I said roughly; I’m under no illusion that the system is perfect.
Just in your mind, as you typed that, a few things fell through an acceptable crack.
Now you have to ask yourself "Were they human?"
Well, were they?
Maybe I’m missing something here,
so I’m happy to be enlightened.
Or knowledge. I must admit that until David sat us all down and patiently explained the thing to us I hadn't understood what the problem was with the government's offer.
Oh, and Mike, thank you for this.
Oh God no…
On the plus side, you could pass a bylaw forbidding hugging the mayor...
I hadn’t understood what the problem was with the government’s offer.
Ah! A Model Citizen. Sorry dont take it personally. I just wanted to add to my channelling of Dirty Harry to highlight cracks, nee fissures that appear in the fabric of society.
If it was your house would you just shrug and say ‘Oh I could fit 2 or maybe 3000 people down there’. NO. You would be onto the builder ringing Fair Go raising merry hell.
But when it comes to US (the domesticated ape/ the bipedal hominid) all manner of slipshod calculating is allowed. A heartless playing of the margins and there’s someone else’s life screwed until they die. Why? How on earth are these people allowed to get away with it? The people of CHCH did nothing wrong. Yet others are just allowed to profit from their misery and misfortune. And its deemed acceptable – and there goes some more people slipping through the cracks in this arse-aholic circus.
Yet the event, an earthquake, is such an opportunity to really look closely at one city in this country, and put to work all that has been learned since it was built all those decades ago. To try to look to the future in a really practical and pragmatic way.
But NO, They’re drowned in BS written out in the small print.
Read about our situation...