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.

I never really liked Sean Plunkett's combative style, it's the last thing I need in the morning.

Funny -- that's how I feel about Mary Wilson. Frankly that's the last thing I want to hear on my way home after a long day at work. I'm an avid RNZ listener when I can (weekday or weekend), but Checkpoint is the least likely time I'll tune in.