Christchurch reacts to Government decision

27 Jun 2011 02:48p.m.

Kyle wrote:

My house is in the red zone. I bought it nearly 4 years ago because it was exactly what i was looking for, yes it was cheap compared to other areas of town but it was what i could afford. I have actual replacement cover for my house. Before the announcement i had the outlook that i would come out of this with a my house being repaired or re-built on my section if the land needed to be repaired or not and i was fine to wait a long time if i needed to. Now i feel like i am being forced into a decision that i can't win whichever option i choose. If the Government buys my house and land i go back to looking for a new house with less money now for a deposit than i had when i started . If i go with the option of selling just the land and the house through the insurance company i cant afford a new section anywhere in Christchurch even the new "affordable" sub developments are to expensive and the bank wont lend me more money because then i would have a mortgage for a house and land but only a bare section to show for it. If the land the government is buying is going to be repaired and turned back into a residential area i would like the option of waiting and having my house put back onto my section of land. I'm sure that once repaired, the value of the land will be more than what it is now. It almost seems like the Government has found an easy way to make a quick profit.

27 Jun 2011 10:24a.m.

Sheryl wrote:

Chch RV gripes. Stop your maoning! The government didn't cause the earthquakes. They are trying to help people out here. If you didn't have an insurance policy giving you full replacement, that is not the governments fault. And for those who chose not to insure, Tough. I have gone without holidays, food , heating and other luxuries of many kinds since buying my house because insurance is vital. If you chose otherwise it is no-ones fault but your own. Get your priorities right and move on. Maybe next time you will think twice before accepting cheap insurance or none at all

26 Jun 2011 09:08p.m.

Kathy wrote:

their is no mention about the conrete pipes runing through christcurch to get rid of the creeks because where i use to live in ch ch it was at back of a state house in glenfield crescent.how do we know they pipes havnt crack.when they put pipes in they fill up with sand.

24 Jun 2011 07:41p.m.

ken wrote:

Mike, what you say about the RV's is true with one important error. The reason for using the RV as a benchmark is because it is easy to use and because it gives some legal weight to what might otherwise be a random confused decision open to litigation and endkless further drawout worry. It is a valuation after all, even if not a market valuation. The govt is already creating a hole for itself by telling people that the RV offer is not set in stone and that it could be changed with suitable evidence. This is opening a can of worms. The media is also in a muddle by saying that 2007, when the RV's were set, was at the peak of the market and values have since eased so people may be better off selling 'at the higher level of 2007'. They are comparing apples with pears. Generally GV/RV's are lower that market value so the 2007 GV would still be lower than today's (3 Sept 2010) market value. The govt should offer GV and that is it. Some will gain, more will lose (financially), but its a lot better than having no offer at all.

24 Jun 2011 02:59p.m.

Mike wrote:

Low RV Values for Christchurch Homes.
Many are complaining that the RV's being used to calculate their payout are too low. These homeowners like everyone else in ChCh had an opportunity to have their RV's reviewed at the time they were issued if they thought they were too low. However as it's the RV that is used to determine the amount of rates they pay I presume they were happy for the RV's to be low. They can't have it both ways. Low for calculating rates and high for government payout.