Should the Government buy-out flood-prone properties to resolve the flooding problems?

megadeth on 06/07/2022 - 16:58
Last edited 06/07/2022 - 17:46

Property buy-backs could be a way to fix past development mistakes as per SMH

With 100s of thousands of properties located on floodplains, the cost of buying them all out could easily run in billions (if not trillions). SMH in above article is asking the Government to consider mandatory buying back a small fraction of vulnerable houses each year and keep doing it for a few decades.

Considering that catchment maps have existed for decades and land contour data being freely available at Geoscience Australia. The councils could have prevented these disaster-bound developments. End-users possibly had a vested interest in buying cheap land on a per-acre basis and thus ended up committing to these properties in major towns in Outer Sydney suburbs (and other regional towns like Lismore), possibly hoping for a subdivision to be allowed in years subsequent to their purchase. Why else would a young couple (shown on TV last night) buy an acreage in Richmond when smaller suburban homes have been constructed in thousands per year in the vicinity in relatively safer areas.

If you're living in a flood plain you know you'll be affected by flooding sooner or later - it's not a matter of if but when! So I personally can't see why people fail to move to safer areas. Remembering in AU you are supposed to pay for an ambulance in case of a medical emergency (if you are not covered by an appropriate cover) however, flood rescue are paid for by tax payer.

My property is not in a flood affected area but my home insurance premium is rising 3-folds from next year due to underwriting insurance costs skyrocketing because of increased number of disaster related claims.

Long story short - do OzBargainers think that the Government should buy-out flood-prone properties using tax payer's dollars to resolve the flooding problems once and for all?

Poll Options expired

  • 67
    Yes
  • 833
    No
Financial

Comments

    • caitsith01 on 08/07/2022 - 10:37
      +1

      This is a pretty naive take in the current property market. Most people have very, very limited choices about what they can buy. If there is cheap land/cheap houses, that will be someone's least-worst option. We should regulate this to prevent the market operating in this way.

      Re stocks, if someone fails to disclose critical information to you when getting you to invest then you probably CAN get 'bailed out'.

      • slowmo on 08/07/2022 - 10:41
        +3

        i disagree with the analogy. flood zones are documented. i mean you literally can see the signs on the roads if you bother to drive around the area you wanted to buy.

        there are topographic maps to tell you about the height/elevation of the area.

        i mean, the only apt stock analogy is you can either do your own due diligence or follow the crowd and take a gamble and buy what's popular in ASX.

        the regulation part horse has already bolted, how long has negative gearing been discussed/brought up and then slowly, silently backed away from?

        edit:
        this also goes for the areas which are not cheap but currently being washed away by the sea.

        • caitsith01 on 08/07/2022 - 10:57
          +1

          That applies to flood zones which have not changed significantly, but of course a lot of what we are seeing involves major changes.

          • slowmo on 08/07/2022 - 14:19

            @caitsith01: elevation don't drastically change, proximity to known flood zones are documented, and these things are easily available and free ( the last time when i did research) on the internet. from weather trends, to crime statistics, local news and reports as well as insurance premiums, all from the comfort of your own home.

            i agree that the building/development market needs to be more regulated, but a lot of these are $ driven. It's really (imo) a motivator for councils to approve more land so that they can reap back more.

            might be a better chance of building docks in flood prone zones and have houseboats. idk. i had my $0.02 here.

      • lowlifesphere on 10/07/2022 - 15:26

        You can’t regulate out stupidity and risk.

        • caitsith01 on 10/07/2022 - 21:01

          Of course you can, if people weren't stupid and didn't take risks you wouldn't need to regulate them. That's literally the point of regulation.

          • lowlifesphere on 10/07/2022 - 23:44

            @caitsith01: I mean it’s not practical to eradicate it completely

            • caitsith01 on 11/07/2022 - 16:40

              @lowlifesphere: I look at it like, is it better to cop the cost of fixing this now, or wait and cop the cost of fixing it later when the inevitable floods happen?

  • brendanm on 06/07/2022 - 17:46
    +56
    • People buy cheap land, that they know is cheap because it's on a flood plain
    • Can't get insurance for what they deem a "reasonable" cost, so they just don't get any
    • River floods, houses flood
    • "Aarrgghh my house is flooded and I have no insurance, how could this have possibly happened"
    • Government hands out taxpayer money to assist
    • Government buys back flood land, that people knew was flood land when they bought it, using taxpayer money again
    • Land owners cry that they haven't been paid enough and can't buy somewhere else for the money they've been given.

    Seems pretty fair.

    • Scrooge McDuck on 07/07/2022 - 17:01
      +6
      • Inflation skyrockets due to all the government spending and everyone's savings become worth less.
  • rambutann on 06/07/2022 - 17:50
    +11

    In VIC, when you buy a house you are provided with documentation that basically shows where flood zones are. My land/house is partially labelled as a flood zone.
    I still bought the place because of the price.

    I highly doubt these people had no idea of the risks when buying the property in the first place.

    If they live in an area that was never listed as a flood zone then I could understand an argument for compensation, but I highly doubt this is the case.

    • derrida derider on 10/07/2022 - 12:59

      The actual argument being made is that governments should buy back floodable land that ACTUALLY WAS surveyed and listed as being above the 1-in-100 year line - ie from people who did their due diligence but turned out be unlucky. Those who bought cheaply knowing it flooded are excluded.

      There are several ways this can happen of which climate change is but one (though likely in the longer term to be an increasingly important one). Large scale earthworks with changes to to drainage is one common reason. But what no-one will say is the most common reason of all IMO - past corruption in councils that were a wholly owned subsidiary of a local property developer (bearing in mind that this was typically many decades ago).

      • lowlifesphere on 10/07/2022 - 15:34

        So the government is meant to be able to predict weather patterns 100 years in advance and if they get it wrong, the tax payer foots the bill? There are no guarantees. Owning an asset always has risk. Areas labelled over 1 in 100 years flood zone categories were based of historical data, not corruption.

        If you want zero risk and don’t won’t to be accountable, rent for the rest of your life.

        Plus the vast majority of this argument is focused on areas like Lismore, which is well known to be flood prone.

  • Hugh G Rection on 06/07/2022 - 17:54

    nope, go move to south australia then.

    • Benoffie on 06/07/2022 - 18:55
      +1

      Floods here too and it's sanctioned by the government. Just look at the Buckland Park, Angle Vale and Virginia developments.

      Sheer madness buying in any of those areas. They will end up under water.

      • Hugh G Rection on 06/07/2022 - 21:35

        oh wow, SA is the state with the least amount of rain in Australia. darn you wiki, you failed me again.

      • caitsith01 on 08/07/2022 - 10:38

        Does it really flood at Virginia? Looks like a desert most of the time.

        • Oz em on 08/07/2022 - 22:17

          Yes it really does.
          It rains so rarely the ground is hard so any water doesn’t absorb and just floods.

  • bmxr on 06/07/2022 - 17:57

    Our property is in a high-risk flood zone, but we did our due diligence prior to pruchasing the house and understood and accepted the risks. To be fair, it's only the driveway and the carport that are in the flood zone.

    However… Northern Beaches Council is buying back properties that they allowed to be developed along the primary dune on Collaroy and Narrabeen Beaches through the 50s, 60s and 70s. They acknowledge they made the mistake in approving them in an at-risk zone and are now stumping up the significant amounts of cash to purchase the properties back.

    https://www.smh.com.au/national/council-offer-of-3m-for-at-r….

    • megadeth on 06/07/2022 - 18:01
      +4

      Northern beaches council rate payers won't be happy, as this will have long term ramifications on other developmental/repair work in the area, unless the funding is being shored up by State or Federal Governments.

    • [Deactivated] on 06/07/2022 - 18:22
      +1

      Our property is in a high-risk flood zone, but we did our due diligence prior to pruchasing the house and understood and accepted the risks.

      No you did not, you bought it because it was cheap hoping it'll never happen.

      • bmxr on 07/07/2022 - 00:50
        +8

        The "high risk flood event" has occurred 11 times in the last 24 months since we have owned the property. Including a 1 in 250 year event and two 1 in 100 year events.

        The 'high risk' mapping from Council is vague enough to not be directly linked to ARI or PMF mapping, either of which shows our dwelling is above the appropriate levels.

        However, our driveway and carport has been flooded, so the modelling is accurate from our very small sample size of 2 years.

        Despite your evidence based assumptions and similarly informed suggestions from friends and family, I work in the industry, we did our due diligence, and still proceeded to buy the property.

        And relevant to this thread, we have comprehensive insurance and would not expect any government buy out regardless of the weather impacts.

        • BartholemewH on 08/07/2022 - 23:59
          +3

          Very back corner of our yard is in a hundred year flood zone and we did similar amounts of research. Also had specific soil testing done due to historical use of land on the opposing side of a nearby creek. We are insured to the hilt and would also never expect a bailout.

          Not sure why this is difficult to comprehend for some.

      • derrida derider on 10/07/2022 - 13:07

        "you bought it because it was cheap hoping it'll never happen"

        They have but there's nothing wrong with that so long as they don't come crying to the taxpayer (or A Current Affair) if those hopes are not fulfilled. They took a calculated risk to get the home they want, which is only a problem if they didn't calculate.

  • ChocStrawberries on 06/07/2022 - 18:03
    +3

    This topic has come up a lot in my family recently. My sister bought a house on a known flood plain, because that's all they could afford, and wanted to "live the dream" of owning their own home. They were young and naive, and were talked into it by the REA - helped along by the fact that there hadn't been a major flood on that street in about 30 years. Insurance was astronomical, and since there was no way they could afford it, they didn't get any. Fast forward to last year's flood - they lost everything. Fast forward to the floods earlier this year - they lost everything. Fast forward to the current floods - you get the idea. With 5 kids, they've really struggled to rebuild each time, and despite my initial question being "Why don't they move, FFS??" I've since realised how difficult that would be. Who would buy their property now, knowing that its suffered major flooding 3 times in just over 12 months? The house is trashed, so they'd just be selling the land, which is virtually useless to anyone. I don't know what the solution is. It's very easy to sit back and say "Well, they shouldn't have bought there, they knew what they were buying" (I've had those thoughts myself!) but the reality is, they DID buy there, and are now stuck with a giant mess. Personally I'd love to see them get out of there and into a house where the kids don't have to constantly worry about losing their toys every time it rains. It's heartbreaking.

    • brendanm on 06/07/2022 - 22:25
      +38

      As terrible as it is, they chose to do that at the end of the day. It's impossible to protect people from themselves all the time.

        • brendanm on 06/07/2022 - 22:42
          +26

          My point is simply, "should the government, and taxpayers, constantly be expected to clean up after peoples bad decisions"? Where do we draw the line on holding people's hands constantly?

          • Scrooge McDuck on 07/07/2022 - 17:09
            +24

            @brendanm:

            that's all they could afford

            5 kids

            These aren't responsible people.

            • ChocStrawberries on 07/07/2022 - 20:28
              -2

              @Scrooge McDuck: I 100% agree.

              I'm not sure why my comments have so many negs! As my first comment mentioned, I've had the same thoughts as everyone else, and am incredibly frustrated that they're in this situation, and have dragged the kids along with them. But I'm also close to this on a personal level, and realistically, a buyback is honestly the only way this family (and many, many like them) are going to be able to survive.

              Waiting for more negs.

              • brendanm on 08/07/2022 - 06:50
                +6

                @ChocStrawberries: I assume the negs are because you want the taxpayer to pay for people's poor personal choices. I haven't negged you by the way.

                • ChocStrawberries on 08/07/2022 - 09:46
                  -4

                  @brendanm: As a taxpayer myself, I'm never happy when my hard-earned money goes towards things that I can't benefit from (the light rail here in Canberra, for example!) but I also recognise that my taxes are going to go towards helping these people regardless, just in a less obvious way.

                  Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and can neg me if they like - it's not like I'm the one who's making the buyback decision!! Haha! I'm just a woman who's very tired of seeing her old community being ravaged each time it rains, and hoping there's a solution (buybacks or not) so my sister's kids can have a better, more secure life.

                  • brendanm on 08/07/2022 - 09:49
                    +6

                    @ChocStrawberries: I don't have a problem with my taxes going to things I'll likely never use, that help others. I do have a problem with it going to people/companies that have made dumb decisions.

                  • slowmo on 08/07/2022 - 10:57
                    +5

                    @ChocStrawberries: the problem is you are overestimating what your OWN tax dollars can do for the community.
                    lets do a simple exercise. its very inaccurate but i hope you get the idea

                    have a think about how much tax you are currently paying. (eg. 30k/year)
                    how much does a rebuild/replacement of that house cost. (eg. 600k.)
                    how many of "You" is needed to fund that replacement? (eg 10 person)

                    so while you are willing to forgo your tax monies to support just 1 person. You needed 9 other of 'you' with that funds to do so.

                    now think about how many were affected by the floods. 100s of houses? 1000s of houses?

                    ok, now think about the lack of funding in public education, other welfare schemes, and support services (including child care ) that those money could've gone to. Heck, you can take 50% off that amount because of corrupt ministers.

                    are you willing to double or triple your taxation amount so that all the above gets funded faster?

                    because idk, something about adults accepting risks and then not wanting to live with the consequences?

                    unless we are billionaires most of us are just a big event away from being broke most times.

                    rebuilding in a flood zone after it has occurred to you is very close to the definition of insanity to me.

                      • slowmo on 08/07/2022 - 14:06
                        +4

                        @ChocStrawberries: not sure why you feel that i'm mansplaining when i dont know who you work for or what your gender is or how old you are.

                        I don't think that's what you feel you are going for really.

                        honestly, i didn't care when i wrote that reply, because I was replying to someone who seems to be struggling to understand how taxes work.

                        on top of that, okay, you work at ATO, you claim to know where the funds go to, really? is that the flex you think it is?

                        because from your responses, it reads to me you have NFI how the funds are used, and fail to comprehend why there are other tax payers who are unwilling to support bad financial choices made by people who have the freedom and right to do what they want with their lives.

                        otherwise, you wouldn't be here lamenting about why governments are not supporting bad financial choices made by people who have the freedom and right to do what they want with their lives.

                        then went on and conflate children living in bad situations, with children born into bad living conditions. oh hang on a minute, it doesn't quite bother you that much about those children then before the floods huh.

                        it's quite telling really.

                        here's the reality though, i donate on top of taxes because I believe in welfare, and I could be one needing welfare one day.
                        it's also about personal responsibilities, this, frustratingly. appears to be a wild concept to many. don't make it harder for others to help you.

                        the crypto example by the other user was really a big hint btw.

                        fwiw i didn't identify as male either so maybe just leave that mansplain shit at the door outside thx.

                        • ChocStrawberries on 08/07/2022 - 14:49
                          -5

                          @slowmo: You're right, you have no idea of who I am, how old I am, or my gender (although my comment did say I was a woman). You also didn't read my reply very well. I never said I work FOR the ATO, I said I work WITH the ATO. And yes, I do actually have an idea of how taxes work, and where they go. I've been paying a lot of them, for many years, so am concious of where they're being used.

                          I have repeatedly said that everyone has their views on this, and my personal view is that I'd like to see these people helped. If you and every other person on the planet doesn't want their taxes to go to buybacks, that's great! Awesome! And that's your preference. You can make that preference known when it comes to voting on the people who can make that decision - which is not me, by the way, although some here are acting as though I have some kind of say in it!!

                          I don't know where you got this from: "oh hang on a minute, it doesn't quite bother you that much about those children then before the floods huh". HUH indeed! I worked with disadvantaged kids before I moved to Canberra, and also have first-hand experience with kids born into disadvantaged homes, including domestic violence. Believe it or not, some of the kids born into bad living conditions are the same kids who are now living in bad situations because of the floods. They're not mutually exclusive!!!

                          You also claim that I've been lamenting that the governments are not supporting these people. Show me where I did that? I have repeatedly said that I agree a buyback isn't the best option for taxpayers - but it's the only one I can think of that will help. And, like everyone else here who has taken offense at my views, you haven't offered an alternative other than "They sh@t in their bed, now they can lie in it."

                          Anyway, I'm glad you're allowed to have your views on all of this. Obviously I can only have mine if it matches everyone else's!

                        • ChocStrawberries on 08/07/2022 - 20:28
                          -3

                          @slowmo: "fwiw i didn't identify as male either so maybe just leave that mansplain shit at the door outside thx."

                          You didn't need to - I've been on this site for years and pay attention to most people's comments and posts. You've revealed your gender many times. Nice try though.

                      • brendanm on 08/07/2022 - 17:29
                        +5

                        @ChocStrawberries:

                        What I DON'T agree with are the comments that seem to suggest we just leave these people to it, when they genuinely have no options but to try and rebuild, because they can't sell their properties

                        You realise this could apply to a whole lot of things? Why not bail out people who put all of their money into a "hot stock tip" that went to zero?

                        Should we fix the car of a "struggling battler", because they bought a known lemon, and now have no other way to get around?

                        There are always stupid people doing stupid things. If we bailed them all out, everyone else would also be poor, through no fault of their own. You are biased in this case as it is your family.

                        • ChocStrawberries on 08/07/2022 - 20:34

                          @brendanm: Oh, without question. And when you see your family, and their entire community, being washed away, it kinda does that to you. I don't really need to justify my views though, do I? I've already been negged off the charts today!! 😂

                          • brendanm on 08/07/2022 - 20:42
                            +6

                            @ChocStrawberries: Who cares about negs, it's internet points from randoms.

                            I would have told my family not to buy on a flood plain.

                            • ChocStrawberries on 08/07/2022 - 20:56
                              +1

                              @brendanm: We did, several times. Hence my frustration with the situation they're in right now.

                              Yet, despite this, I'd like to see them (and the others in their community who have lost everything) living somewhere other than their cars. Maybe I'm just strange…

                              • brendanm on 09/07/2022 - 17:48
                                -2

                                @ChocStrawberries: Everyone would like to see them move somewhere else, but no one wants to have to pay for someone else's (really) bad decisions. As I said above, where does it stop?

                                • ChocStrawberries on 09/07/2022 - 19:07

                                  @brendanm: As I've said, ad nauseam, I don't think anyone's taxes should have to go towards bailing people out. I've simply said it's the only solution that I can think of that would help these people (not just my sister) who can't just sell up and move as easily as people are suggesting. I'm not even sure why I'm still replying to these comments - I've clearly touched a nerve by commenting in the first place! 😂 Back in my box, yeah?

                          • ankor on 09/07/2022 - 11:20
                            +3

                            @ChocStrawberries: That's because if many of us were in the same situation as your sister, with 5 kids, we'd have avoided that situation altogether.

                            • Why let an REA persuade you to buy a house, over the advice of your friends and family who don't stand to make a buck off you?
                            • why proceed with the purchase despite seeing the cost of insurance?
                            • why put yourself into a situation where you absolutely must have 5 children, to the extent that your purchasing power on the real estate market leaves you between a rock and a hard place?

                            The other thing is that this whole climate change issue has been happening for decades. It's been warned about for decades, there's always a story about it somewhere. We've literally seen it get a lot worse these past few years soany purchase which requires a loan that spans a period fo 25-30 years, should also have you thinking about the potential future viability of that purchase.

                            Your sister is presumably over 18, has a head on her shoulders, is able to vote, drive, drink, earn money and procreate. She is a mature adult who had the benefit of intelligent advice from you and her insurer. She has all the personal agency, education and resources available to her as a woman in this era to enable her own informed choices as to her life and her purchases. She ignored it all. So this is all on her. It sucks for her, sucks for her kids, the kids are blameless too. A terribe situation indeed.

                            But it doesn't mean that the rest of us are agreeable to spending our govt funds to relocate people from floodplains, particularly in the circumstances as you have set out above.

                            Lastly, if you are concerned about your sister, nieces and nephews safety, then either take them in or help them out yourself, or call child safety to put them into temporary foster care.

                      • mrjayviper on 09/07/2022 - 12:49
                        +2

                        @ChocStrawberries: Hard to objectively reason out when you're personally invested

        • BuyOrNot on 07/07/2022 - 09:44
          +15

          If I say the same points but instead of a house, I brought crypto at the peak, should the govt bail me out?

            • jorf on 07/07/2022 - 13:56
              +18

              @ChocStrawberries: There are plenty of children who live in shit conditions because of decisions their parents made. It sucks, but where you do draw the line? If their house had burned down from an electrical fault, they would be in the same position but no one would be talking about buybacks.

              Insurance exists for a reason. If insurance is unaffordable, that's also for a reason.

                • jorf on 07/07/2022 - 15:37
                  +14

                  @ChocStrawberries: How many of those other people had insurance? Is it cool to just not get insurance when you deem it "unaffordable" because the government can just fix it at everyone else's expense?

                  Also, what is "unaffordable" anyway? We bought a house we could afford, and could afford all the other costs associated with home ownership, which includes rates, insurance, unexpected repairs and everything else. Should we have just YOLO'd into it assuming that if the worst happened, we'd just get a bailout?

                • SF3 on 07/07/2022 - 20:28
                  +4

                  @ChocStrawberries: When govt is expected to bail people out, it’s called a Moral hazard.

                  • ChocStrawberries on 07/07/2022 - 20:32

                    @SF3: For what it's worth, my sister is a super proud person, and has refused outside help except a few donated second-hand furniture items. I don't even know if they'd be happy with a buyback if it was offered. In their case, they're definitely not expecting to be bailed out.

                    • SF3 on 07/07/2022 - 20:36
                      +3

                      @ChocStrawberries:

                      talked into it by the REA

                      I’ll blame the REA too. If financial advisors needs to take responsibility for bad advice, REA 110% should be too.

          • mboy on 07/07/2022 - 13:21

            @BuyOrNot: Isn't that a bad example?

            If you made a capital loss on crypto, the government would let you carry forward any unused losses to offset against future capital gains.

            Yeah okay, it's not a "bail out", but it's certainly a safety net.

            • brendanm on 07/07/2022 - 17:14
              +3

              @mboy: How on earth does an offset to future captial gains help you, if you lost all your money?

              • mboy on 08/07/2022 - 13:29

                @brendanm: No one said "lost all your money".

                I was replying to:

                "If I say the same points but instead of a house, I brought crypto at the peak, should the govt bail me out?"

                Crypto isn't worth 0, if you invested in the peak you haven't "lost all your money". I'm saying if you bought crypto at the peak and make a big capital loss, the government will soften the blow.

                I feel like that's more than they're doing compared to the situation the OP is describing.

                • brendanm on 08/07/2022 - 17:32
                  -1

                  @mboy:

                  Crypto isn't worth 0

                  People that put their life saving into luna may want a word with you. When they have no money left to invest, they aren't getting any capital gains next year, so an offset on their capital gains does diddly squat for them.

            • cadwalader on 08/07/2022 - 10:51

              @mboy: Huh? The offset losses just means if that if you buy back the same asset (because you have crystalized the loss) and it recovers, taking you back to square 1, you don't have to pay a capital gains on your recovered loss. Thats not a safety net.

      • stewy on 07/07/2022 - 17:21
        +7

        Couldn't agree more with this.

        A house is one of the biggest investments people will make. If people don't bother to read flood studies and question the validity of them, then that's 100% on them when they get flooded out.

        If insurance is ridiculously high, then that should also have been a pretty good indicator of the flood risk.

        Personally I was looking at properties in Idalia in Townsville in Jan 2019, however, I did my due diligence and looked at the flood studies. I had my doubts about the 1 in 100 year flood levels in those studies, so instead decided to purchase land at a premium elsewhere. Fast forward a week after signing contracts for land and the Feb 2019 floods hit Townsville. They claim the floods were a 1 in 450 year event, but I'd dispute that. The houses I had been looking at were under water whilst my land was high and dry. So why should I stump up taxes for other people's stupidity and/or ignorance?

        I've also seen flood studies for another estate and part of the hydraulic modelling was on the basis that council would maintain culverts and drains at frequent intervals to ensure they flowed correctly. Pure fantasy what they were basing their assumptions on, the council has a track record of not maintaining other drains even when they cause flash flooding.

        • boretentsu on 07/07/2022 - 23:47
          +9

          That's precisely it. You don't need to spend hours looking at flood studies. The insurance premium tells you everything you need to know because they have the most to lose and have done the modelling.

        • slowmo on 08/07/2022 - 11:09

          personally, i think the 1 in X years are BS weasel words to assure people.

          past performance is not an accurate indication of future performance.

          but there are a hell lot of motivation and profit for people to sell lemons to those who don't do homework.

    • imurgod on 09/07/2022 - 13:43

      Whilst I feel for your sister, she is not a responsible adult. I have a sister-in-law exactly like her but with 4 kids. She also loves to jump at things with little consideration, doesn't listen to advice and then blames everyone else for her poor life choices (not saying your sister is blaming anyone).

      5 kids, talked into a poor purchase by nearly the lowest form of salesperson, didn't take insurance to minimise her risk, didn't listen to advice…. She made choices and took very big risks which she didn't properly consider and now she's learning the consequences of gambling like that.

      I feel for the kids but she didn't consider them when she made this decision. Maybe rely on family to help the kids until she can get back on her feet and hopefully make better decisions.

      You said yourself that you tried to convince her. She didn't listen to you, didn't pay attention to all the of rest of the red flags….. why should the taxpayer help?

  • [Deactivated] on 06/07/2022 - 18:18
    +5

    Yes, at a nominal value of flood prone swamp land.

    Should they also buy out all beachfront properties that will be flooded because of "muh climate change"?

      • UFO on 09/07/2022 - 22:32

        up the dosage bud.

    • Gekov on 09/07/2022 - 15:11
      -5

      "muh climate change"?"

      HMMM … obviously taken in by relentless climate propaganda

      What climatetchage?
      Much worse flooding happened in 1867.

      SHHH … don’t spoil the “unprecedented-climate-change®” story … the Bureau of Meteorology or the ABC won’t tell you either

      FLASHBACK 200+ YEARS … The long-forgotten floods of Windsor and Sydney
      The bad news for Sydney-siders is that floods have been happening to them for all of history and probably a lot of prehistory too, though the ABC and BOM don’t mention it.
      This week the flooding in Windsor appears to have peaked at almost 14 metres.
      But in 1867 the water peaked at 63 feet or an amazing 19 metres.

      People need to know the Bureau of Met isn’t telling them the whole truth, and climate grifters are exploiting their pain so they can nab a few more grants, or sell some solar panels.

      The Guardian laments that For Hawkesbury residents flooding is now a part of life and blames climate change.
      But nothing has changed in the last 200 years. For the first thirty years of European settlement, floods hit the Hawkesbury river one after the other, people died, and houses were washed away. Back then, people were in danger of starving when the crops failed. Flooding would have been a very big deal

      A little book called The Early Days of Windsor, by James Steele was published long ago in 1916. It tells us that early flooding for the first European settlers in Australia was frequent, and was so bad on the Hawksbury in 1798 the Governor even limited the sale of rum (it must have been serious). The first Government House in Windsor was said to be “swept away” in 1799. This was followed by another flood in 1801 and a much worse one in 1806 when seven people died. The plucky residents only had to wait three years to be besieged again in 1809. By then people were getting so fed up of being flooded they moved Windsor and other settlements to higher ground in 1810, which was a jolly good thing because it flooded again in 1811.

      In 1817 things were so bad, it was reported that the Hawkesbury and Nepean rivers had inundated the buildings on the banks “three times within nine months”.

      https://joannenova.com.au/2022/07/the-long-forgotten-floods-…

  • sharkyoz on 06/07/2022 - 18:18
    +2

    the councils are thick and refuse to see things matter of factly.
    my parents old place which backed onto a creek, was listed a few years ago as flood prone and subject to 100yr floods
    the tree at front of property in the corner was the only spot on the property that they thought wouldnt be covered by a 100yr flood,
    BUT..the property across the road was listed as flood prone too, and every foot of their frontage was higher than ours and also sloped upwards to form a hill
    thick as plank councils should bear the brunt, or more specifically the councillors who voted for it

  • morse on 06/07/2022 - 18:19
    +3

    I’m potentially in favour of land swaps to government land. But I’m not sure all flood affected people would go for this, which would make it somewhat pointless if not everyone goes for it.

    • kiitos on 07/07/2022 - 08:44

      I wonder how the move of adaminaby so the old site of the town could be flooded for the snowy hydro scheme was handled? Though I guess that's quite different.

  • burningrage on 06/07/2022 - 18:19
    +9

    As per all above argument plus this.

    I love how people when they go straight to the Govt's begging bowl for what is really the consequences of their choices and expect the rest of the (ever-shrinking taxpaying) population to pick up the tab.

    • SF3 on 06/07/2022 - 18:37
      +3

      Exactly.

      Bail out when they cry.

      Keep the benefits to themselves when they are winning.

  • brendanm on 06/07/2022 - 18:46
    +15

    I made this little picture that I think sums up the situation.

    • ozbjunkie on 07/07/2022 - 13:28
      +2

      Spoke volumes

    • BartholemewH on 09/07/2022 - 00:13

      This better be MS Paint.

      Edit: It's not. Get him!

  • Benoffie on 06/07/2022 - 18:50
    +1

    When houses are destroyed the planning should be suitably changed to accommodate.

    Adelaide Hills post Ash Wednesday but no planning changes happened. Now you have houses built essentially on goat tracks, middle of pseudo forests with no CFS support.

    When a fire inevitably occurs, should people be allowed to rebuild? No.

    If people want to build in a flood prone area, those houses should be on stilts at least.

    • caitsith01 on 08/07/2022 - 10:42
      +1

      Yeah, the Adelaide Hills situation is a bit scary. Projected that much of it will be uninsurable within a couple of decades:

      https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-23/the-suburbs-facing-ri…

      • derrida derider on 10/07/2022 - 13:45

        A couple of decades? If it burnt out on Ash Wednesday it will be uninsurable now. Insurance companies are not fools, and they always do their homework even if their customers don't.

  • Islund on 06/07/2022 - 19:24
    -1

    I live beside a river - well 6 metres away from and 3 meters above.

    My property is classified as flood zone.

    My neighbour is not in a flood zone.

    His neighbour 2 houses away from me is in a flood zone.

    Go figure - money has passed hands somewhere.

    • Presence on 07/07/2022 - 11:08
      +5

      Without seeing the exact address no one can comment.

      Is there much change in elevation?

  • Toph Beifong on 06/07/2022 - 22:23
    +20

    Why is everything the governments fault and/or responsibility? Why does personal responsibility not exist anymore?

    • brendanm on 06/07/2022 - 22:27
      +8

      We are in the age of zero personal responsibility, everything is everyone else's fault.

    • LFO on 07/07/2022 - 10:18

      Why is everything the governments fault and/or responsibility?

      Well government is pouring our money into Ukraine and it is certainly NOT our fault.

      Why not "pouring" all that of our money here, after all charity begins at home.

      • smartazz104 on 07/07/2022 - 17:19

        Well they spent 2 years giving out money and now we're paying the price for that too…

        • boretentsu on 07/07/2022 - 23:58
          +1

          More like 12 years

      • caitsith01 on 08/07/2022 - 10:42
        +7

        God this is a stupid take. You don't think we benefit from the concept that liberal democratic nations should stand together against aggression by authoritarian countries?

      • slowmo on 08/07/2022 - 11:13
        +1

        this is not how it works.

    • boretentsu on 07/07/2022 - 23:58
      -1

      We don't need lockdowns, people can be trusted to do the right thing.

  • 82norm on 07/07/2022 - 08:15
    +3

    If we’re going to talk about flood zones, may as well included those who live in bushfire prone areas, who suffer the same fate and expect government bailout, assistance.

    That said, if Sneazy can drop 100 million to Ukraine, I’d rather that money help those in the above situation instead.

    • 82norm on 11/07/2022 - 12:13

      Actually add another 50 million they sent to Sri Lanka. What’s worse the governments dissolved so interesting where the money now lands.

  • tabitha731 on 07/07/2022 - 08:50
    +2

    When are the people living in these recently flooded areas going to accept responsibility for their own decisions to live in low -lying areas. Its no -one else’s fault you chose to live there, and continue to be flooded when we have sever rains… i know the bleeding hearts are going to say, well we cant afford to live closer to the higher areas.. well then you cant afford to live in NSW! Move to the outback or interstate! Take full accountability of your financial situation or lack thereof, instead of expecting the govt to always help u out financially. Chances are you havent even paid enough taxes to warrant the amount of money you want from the govt, unlike those us who are living in the more settled areas of sydney.

    • Boogerman on 07/07/2022 - 08:54
      -3

      We've got ourselves a One Nation voter!

      • derrida derider on 10/07/2022 - 13:48

        Na, One Nation voters are too much of losers to have ever paid much tax.

  • The Hawk on 07/07/2022 - 09:31

    It's been done before:
    https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/grantha…

  • saltypete on 07/07/2022 - 09:52
    +6

    So all of those folk who have done their due diligence when buying a place get to pay for those who didn’t? flood plain and coastal inundation and bushfire risk maps that have been available for years at council offices and have been online for the last decade or more.
    Hint: Even if you are so lax that you don’t even bother checking, If you can’t get insurance you are accepting a higher personal risk.

    There are clear legal options where councils/state governments have approved floodplain or low lying coastal developments and I’m sure part of the compensation package will include buy backs, but that’s what we have legal processes for.

    I think that housing support for renters that have had their place flood/burn are a very different case and authorities need to get off their collectives and give these folk a decent place to live now.
    Maybe heads of responsible authorities should be housed in tents until flood affected folk are housed - things might move along more quickly…..

    • derrida derider on 10/07/2022 - 13:56
      +1

      To be fair the proposal is only to buy out people who DID do the right thing, building only above the marked 1 in 100 year flood line. No-one wants to pay out for those who bought land which was always and obviously going to flood regularly.

      The point is that in these cases the 1 in 100 year flood line was very, very wrong. There can be quite a lot of different reasons for that, including but not limited to climate change. The most common though in my view is corrupt "pro development" local and state governments in the 60s, 70s and 80s.

      • saltypete on 11/07/2022 - 10:24

        Yes, actually that is not unreasonable.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join