• Full Story

Quake property offer unfair, parties say

Print

Quake property offer unfair, parties say

3News NZ

An offer to buy uninsured properties is not fair, say opposition parties (file)

An offer to buy uninsured properties is not fair, say opposition parties (file)

The government's offer to buy uninsured earthquake-damaged property in Christchurch for half the land value isn't fair, opposition parties say.

Earthquake Recovery Minister Gerry Brownlee announced the offer on Thursday, and it applies to uninsured houses and vacant land.

The owners of 50 uninsured properties that were occupied when the February 2011 quake hit were not eligible for the government's previous offers, but will now be offered 50 per cent of the rateable value of their land.

"If owners decide to take this offer, the land and any buildings on it will become property of the Crown from the settlement date," Mr Brownlee said.

"What the owner chooses to do with any buildings on the land up until that day is entirely up to them."

The same offer will be made for 65 uninsured parcels of vacant land within the residential red zone.

NZ First says the offer is unfair.

"This will put these people in an impossible position and many will be unable to move on and find alternative homes," earthquake recovery spokesman Denis O'Rourke said.

"There is no satisfactory rationale for this - the government is using bully-boy tactics."

Labour's earthquake recovery spokeswoman, Lianne Dalziel, says Mr Brownlee "sneaked out the announcement" just before the big news about the schools rebuild in Christchurch.

"Offering just half the rateable value for land is not on," she said.

"The full rateable value for other land owners in the red zone was nowhere near the market or replacement value. Half that amount adds insult to injury."

NZN

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

15/09/2012 9:45:08 a.m.

Emma wrote:

Dave - get your facts in line - land cannot be insured. Why should one person get 1/2 value for bare land and a neighbouring home get 100% value for their land just because it has a building on it - at the end of the day everyone with a payout only insured their home.

14/09/2012 9:51:04 a.m.

dave wrote:

I think they are lucky to get an offer at all. they did not have insurance, so i assume that they were happy to risk all. the tax payer is not a bottomless pit.