Posts by David Haywood
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Speaker: Sharks Dine Out on…, in reply to Ross Mason,
Or, as someone just suggested to me in person, freeze the land values at their February 21st asking price and treat any subsequent price rises as profiteering.
Not necessarily endorsing this idea (I haven't had time to think through the consequences) but it would appear to have some virtues.
-
Nice piece, Mike! I think you've captured the dilemma that many of us Red Zoners now find ourselves in...
-
Southerly: That CERA Rumour, in reply to Tasneem Gould,
So that CERA rumour turned out to be tru-ish, then didn’t it…
I am (naturally) going to disagree with that:
1. There was no 100-metre abandonment strip.
2. And, in fact, some portions of the river bank (e.g. along River Road) are not in the Red Zone.
3. The land can be cost-effectively remediated and will be remediable.
4. There will be no giant park (as things are currently planned).
The bit I didn’t foresee – and, obviously, I totally admit my lack of vision here – is that the government would move people off the land in the short term, and then have the land remediated by the private sector via onselling the land to property developers in the long term.
Which I gotta admit is a smart solution by the government…
-
Southerly: That CERA Rumour, in reply to Jeanette King,
Interesting article in the Sunday Star Times today about the need for different types of house foundations required to work in liquefaction prone areas.
Thanks for pointing that out, Jeanette!
-
Quick report:
I currently have the Tower assessor in my house. Apparently they have been instructed not to wear Tower logos in public due to abuse/threats. This is awful to hear, and I hope that -- however high tensions are running -- people remember that the workers on the front line aren't responsible for company policy.
In other news: the assessor has informed me that they are estimating foundation repairs as for undamaged ground. This is entirely contrary to the building code, and I guess the lawyers are going to have to be involved now. Sigh.
-
Just a note to say that I am reading all these comments and taking down the many good ideas.
I’m currently fulltime wading through obscure treatises on foundation design, and will post a blog on this at the end of the week (as it relates to the damage to ‘repairable’ houses in the red zone).
Self-generated electricity may well be a goer for those who chose to remain in the red zone. Solar will work fine in CHCH, but alas wind is not practical or economic in East CHCH (I did a bunch of work on this is my previous life as an engineer).
-
Southerly: Tower Insurance Have Some Bad…, in reply to Gee,
My thoughts to David + family and everyone else on this thread who is going through this.
Thank you, Gee.
And I should emphasize that my sympathy and good wishes are also with everyone else who finds themselves in this position. Some of the stories on this thread (and those I've received directly by email) are heart-breaking; and I can see that there are many people in a much worse position that myself.
-
Southerly: Tower Insurance Have Some Bad…, in reply to Thomas Johnson,
Regardless of all this I wish you and your family the best in achieving a solution that puts you in a better position.
Thank you, Thomas -- much appreciated!
-
By the way, a number of people have suggested that taxpayers are bailing out people like me. That isn't quite true.
1. The government will be able to claim my house insurance from Tower Insurance. According to the EQC, my repair bill will run to more than $200,000, which is massively more than the rateable value of my house. So, if the government can argue with Tower that this is the real cost of repairs then they stand to make a profit on paying out on our house.
2. In due course, the government will onsell our land to property developers. Given that it's a prime riverfront section, given that the land isn't significantly damaged, and given that all the state and council houses will be gone -- then the government could well make a profit on this also.
So, at least in our case, it's quite conceivable that the taxpayer will ultimately benefit from buying our property.
-
Southerly: Tower Insurance Have Some Bad…, in reply to Thomas Johnson,
Thanks to everyone for all the kind thoughts and suggestions. I’m currently investigating the possibility of moving the house (which would be the best outcome for us – much better than total replacement), but it looks to be very difficult from a financial perspective.
To reply to a couple of Thomas Johnson’s points:
- Does any insurance company offer a no-strings replacement cover, and at what cost?
That’s what we believed we had! Given the age of our house, I checked out the conditions extremely carefully. The clause about the insurance not applying if the government put a road through our house seemed very reasonable to me (I wouldn’t expect the insurance company to pay out under those circumstances). But I never dreamed they’d be able to apply that clause to the situation where we have lost our house due to an earthquake.
It may be that public/legal pressure force a change on Tower (and the others which seem likely to follow the same logic) which will benefit those currently making claims. However it may make future house insurance in ChCh impossible or extremely expensive. (heard someone say yesterday that they are ready to build a new house there, but the builder cannot get construction cover, and they cannot get house cover for when it is completed)
Well, following this logic then it would be best if insurance companies never paid out on any claims at all – then insurance would be very cheap and available to anyone.
I think your ‘thoughts’ shows a astonishing lack of empathy, Thomas. Imagine yourself in our situation: you’ve specifically taken out ’Total Replacement” insurance; you’ve paid your insurance bills for years without complaint; but when you lose your house as a result of an earthquake then the insurance company doesn’t honour the “Total Replacement” policy.
How would you feel in our situation? Would you be happy to lose $200,000 in order that other people could have cheaper insurance? Wouldn’t you feel that losing your beloved home and property so that others in the area could “move on” was sacrifice enough?
Of course, if you would be happy to lose $200,000 (in order that other people could have cheaper insurance) then I can suggest a simple alternative. I’ll send you my bank details and you can deposit $200,000 in my account – then we’d both be happy, right?