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

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

Comments

  • +7

    There's the people who bought in Rocklea, Brisbane (a very well known flood plain) in the years after the 2011 floods. They believed the RE agents sales pitch that it's a one in 30 year event and somehow expected weather events to follow a set timeline and to be able to sell to some other sucker before it happened again now they want a buyback scheme, for them I have no sympathy.

    "Back then, it was said the 2011 flood was an every 30 years kind of flood, I thought I would be living in another place in 30 years," she said.

    • +2

      "I thought someone else would get screwed, but then I ended up getting screwed!" Absolutely perfect.

  • +2

    How about building enough infrastructure to minimise floods AND provide storage for that precious water (or deviation to areas with no water) instead?

    • +1

      What infrastructure e.g., raising the dam walls? That'll only increase the vulnerability of the catchment areas, should there be an occurrence of an event bigger than the one which can be safely contained and then you'll have more people to compensate than ever. The solution IMHO is to leave the water alone and not build in its way. We have a whole continent to fill for only 25M people.

      • -1

        The solution IMHO is to leave the water alone and not build in its way.

        Water, in dry Australia in particular, is precious.
        To dump all that life giving water in the ocean is just criminal.

        ANY infrastructure to contain and use such precious water is needed.
        Water dams is just only one version.
        Reservoirs is another and there must be thousand other options that professional hydrologists would asses and recommend.

        Doing nothing does NOT sound right.

        • Yes, Australia cannot support the population density of Europe because it is such an arid land overall. People only want to live in a tiny portion of Australia, the coastal crescent running from Melbourne up to Cairns. Potable water is a precious resource. In comparison, Canada has abundant water for a country with a similar population and land area to Australia.

    • -1

      oh wow. problem solved! looks like the phds and people running critical infra and water management haven't thought about this.

      please run for PM and I'll vote whichever party you are in.

      • -1

        oh wow. problem solved!

        Yes, I know. DO NOTHING, problem solved.

        Rain and water, totally new to humanity.

  • +1

    Buys on flood plain

    Pikachu face when it floods…..

    We wanted to buy in a flood prone area because there were many other boxes that the property ticked. And that's what people do - they choose to ignore what they don't want to hear.

    In the end we didnt buy - the insurance alone was a killer….pretty soon alot of these properties won't be able to be insured.

    • +2

      Still bitter about Scumo being booted out? Suffer.

      • -2

        Lol the whole country will suffer with the clueless "labor/greens“ in power.

  • +3

    I'm don't want to pay for other people's poor decisions. Whether it be individuals or local/state governments that allow construction on known flood plains.

  • +6

    Rebrand the area to Venice in the North-West. It will create a new tourist destination in NSW creating jobs and tradies can use their jet skis more often.

    • Haha I like it

      Though it would be more jet skis, but fewer leaf blowers and dirt bikes - Sophie’s choice

  • +1

    There is a lot of noise up here on Qld about this sort of stuff lately too. One of the regional councils did move people to higher land after the last time. Some refused the offer. Now they are complaining they were flooded again. Apparently when The original settlers decided to build there, they were told by the local Aboriginal people that it floods but they didn't believe them and built there.

    Brisbane City Council also did some flood mitigation schemes after 2011. Places were rebuilt but with materials that were water resilient. Power switches moved above flood level etc. In some Cases, houses were raised.

    In my opinion the Insurance companies are part of the problem. Surely it is more cost effective for them to help relocate or flood mitigate a property rather than paying out multiple times.

    The councils are the ones doing the development approvals and places are being approved on areas that are flood prone or even swampland. It's called GREED. Especially unhelpful when a Mayor and his deputy are both developers as is the case in One of the SE Qld regional councils.

    • +2

      Local aboriginal elders are still telling them where not to build. They just don’t listen.

    • Ah yes, the property developers on the council issue.

      I don't know why people knock property developers so much. They are always so public spirited and willing to donate so much of their time to getting onto local councils, out of pure goodness of heart and concern for their local community …

  • +3

    If the areas became flood zones after they purchased it due to climate change or dam installations then I can agree with it. But of people are knowingly buying properties in flood zones, then I don't see why that's the public's problem

    It already annoys me that the government give out millions in handouts to people who knowingly live in flood zones that don't insure them. Then are upset when the property floods and they are left with nothing.
    I'm sure there's some heartfelt reason for why people live there but these are the risks they take for the cheap properties. Why do the public have to suffer for it?

    • +1

      due to climate change or dam installations

      Dam installation yes, climate change no.

      If you agree with compensation for climate change what about the beach side properties on eroded land due to rising sea levels?

      • Beach side is quite obvious that it will be affected by climate change so I couldn't care less about them. But I would have thought inland would be difficult to determine unless there's a long and expensive study into the area.

  • Even today developers are still getting approvals to build on flood plains. Government shouldn't be buying flood prone properties. Councils shouldn't be approving development applications on flood plains. But then council loses money. They're not going to turn down money when they aren't held responsible when houses go under.

    • The steps

      1. Move in to property in flood area
      2. Demand the Government spends billions on raising a dam wall

      Humour aside there’s so many levels of blame here from developers to councils to state governments to buyers. Everyone wanting their ‘drink’ and the poor sucker just wanting somewhere affordable to live.

  • Only if they are going to ban any more building or selling on flood plains.

  • +5

    The thing I don't understand is people rebuilding. We see the same in a lot of flood areas, and also bush fire areas.

    Lose everything - expect everyone else to pay for you to rebuild - rinse and repeat.

    How stupid must you be to rebuild in a flood zone? Sure, maybe the first time, because … well … it's a 1 in a 100 year flood. But the second time 12 months later?

    The vision of the people of Lismore with street sides packed with water-logged possessions was heart-breaking. When asked about moving, far too many of them were stubborn, and expected everyone else to fix the problem for them.

    How many times are we supposed dig into our pockets (via government handouts or charity pleas) so people can stay where they are, rather than move to safer areas.

    Maybe that's a bit heartless,

    • Nah, not heartless. People get too emotional and keep doing stuff that will hurt them again and again.

      There's a place in the US nicknamed tornado alley and people keep building there…

  • No - people need to take personal responsibility. Similarly, people will be asking the RBA to wear their higher interest cost due to comments made by the bank when economic conditions were more benign.

    Also, at what price?

  • No, it's up to the individual, the government needs to stop providing this kind of support only when extremely necessary.

    You will see nothing but people taking advantage just like with the recent floods, you would be amazed if you knew how many fraudulent applications came through for flood support this year. People get a leaky roof and they think they are entitled to 20k payout, these people are stupid enough to google images and attach them to their claims because they don't know what a reverse image search is.

    People are ridiculously entitled, one case I've seen a family had to have their parent stay with them because the flood was affected, they had a safe home for them to stay in but they basically demanded their own living arrangement for the flood affected family because one person staying on their lounge is too much of an inconvenience for them to deal with.

  • Buyer beware?

  • +2

    They probably should, not even insurance companies can afford this.
    Same as New Zealand's Earthquake Commission (EQC).
    More severe weather events more often is unfortunately our new reality, the people buying these houses were going off what they knew at the time they bought.

    • +3

      Good point re EQC, but slightly different:

      • Most of NZ is exposed to EQs, but only selected Aus areas exposed to floods.

      • EQC funded by levy on all homes via insurance; wouldn't be fair to do that for flood exposure.

      • NZ EQ's are rarer than Aus floods and (hence the EQC makes sense from a reinsurance perspective) and generally the same property isn't hit twice, certainly not in a short space of time. Rebuilding flooded properties every couple of years is a waste of public resources and doesn't provide any sensible incentives. If an individual wants to do it for themselves, that's up to them.


      not even insurance companies can afford this

      I think what you mean is that homeowners in these flood exposure areas can't afford this - insurers charge the expected cost by area; they're not charities.

  • +3

    council approval is one thing, but buyers should use think twice too before purchase, I dont know like, oh this land is cheap, oh it is in the same direction as the airport runway, nah its gonna be alright, then complain it is too noisy and protest to stop the airport from 24/7 operation

  • Why cover the cost when people chose to purchase land/ housing in a known flood prone area ffs?

    Those that did buy in either didn't do due diligence or were prepared to run the risk.

  • +4

    Should the Government public/taxpayer buy-out flood-prone properties to resolve the flooding problems? I guess you all know the answer…

  • Developer should.

  • +1

    Caveat emptor when it comes to houses. And if the Gov't were to buy it i presume the sellers will want $1m a piece eventhough the property has a true value of SFA.

    • Only if its a triangle block near an airport.

  • +4

    Me as a millennial: people have houses?

    • +1

      People have mountains of debt*

      Think student loan but hard difficulty lol

    • -3

      Millennials are up to 41 years old at this point.

  • +1

    It’s complicated.

    My initial thought is no. People bought in knowing the risks. Why should we bail them out all the time.

    But I’m not naïve to think it’s that simple. There’s nuance in everything.

    It’s complicated.

  • +4

    I'm open to bailouts for people who bought the place a while ago like 10-20+ years. Not so sure about more recent buyers but who knows where the line did be drawn.

    I was reading in abc someone bought 12 months ago. That would have been right after the 2021 floods. The price probably reflected the risk and you took it anyway, why should you expect to be bailed out?

    It's tempting to compare it to mascot and opal towers. In those situations, the complete lack of transparency and dog eat dog world of property development meant those owners were left holding the bag. In many ways, they deserve more protection because its much harder to know a builder is dodgy vs a property is on a floodplain? That is to say if the government is not bailing out mascot owners, then why do so for flood affected housing?

    • Lol the 12 months guy probably eats food weeks after the use by date.

  • +1

    We looked at a house for sale near a creek that flooded in 1974. Since then Wivenhoe was built (1984) and the RE agent berated us and told us we were stupid to not buy the house cause ‘Wivenhoe was built to ensure Brisbane never floods again’.

    Turns out the numpty RE was very wrong and thankfully we hadn’t bought the house, but it makes me wonder how many people were lulled into a false sense of security regarding pre-1984 flood levels in Brisbane due to Wivenhoe being built and there being 35yrs between big flood events?

    In the flood event in 2011 there were houses that flooded for the first time. Therefore they didn’t have existing flood data for buyers to make an informed choice. I feel sorry for these people, particularly if there’s no buy back option.

    • +1

      If only we had some sort of 3D geographical map survey that we could look at that shows how the land would be affected in such heavy rain and flood events.. Maybe some sort of geographical planning or mapping?

      I think the government should invest some research and resources into this.

  • +1

    Just more wingey bogans wanting cash handouts huh?

  • +1

    Living on a flood plain or near a river leads to floods. Likewise, living next to bushland gets fires.
    Lismore and the like floods ever year, and has done since founding 1890.

    Councils are funded by residents and neighbors.
    You get what you vote for.

    The land is cheap because it floods. It is hard and expensive to get insurance because it floods. There are levees because it floods every year.

    • +1

      But are there chevies?

      • Nah more like bevvies.
        Council and the lot are all drinking on the job.

        • Them good old boys.

  • Correct me if I am wrong, the government bought out all the houses in the mary river because they were going to build a dam through it, though different scenario.. but that didn't follow through and so people bought houses off the government for much cheaper.

  • They buy it back by increasing tax, so everyone gets shafted.

  • Lots of pretty harsh/short sighted takes here IMHO.

    In my opinion, it totally depends on what the purchaser could or should reasonably have known at the time they purchased. Even then, we have to look at the housing affordabiltiy crisis and realise that it is forcing a lot of people into sub-optimal choices.

    So there are probably big differences between:

    1. People who willingly buy in flood/bushfire zones to save a few bucks even though they have other options and are fully aware of the risk.

    2. People who reluctantly buy in these areas because our housing market is completely (profanity) and they effectively have no other choices.

    3. People who bought in these areas without any reason to be concerned, only to later come to understand the problems they now face - either because the climate is changing, or because when they bought the vendor/council/government failed to warn them of the risks.

    Number 1 can go jump but 2 and 3 should be helped to some extent in a sensible society. It is not good for anyone if we have continual crises where people lose their homes over and over again. We all bear the direct and indirect costs of that, and it's better to rip the bandaid off and get people out of these areas if we can do so in an affordable way.

    I also think some of the following have to be considered:

    • We tend to take a 'caveat emptor' approach to property sales, and current Form 1/disclosure obligations don't focus on issues like fire and flood risk. A simple, free change that we could make is to require vendors to disclose current projected risks of fire, flood, drought in an easy to understand way.

    • People don't seem to appreciate how much and how quickly the climate has already changed. There's lots of bitching about councils and state governments here, but the reality is that we as a society have been pretending climate change isn't happening until about a decade ago. That's finally changed, but you can't blame your local council for not having a huge focus on it 15 years ago when everyone was happily getting ready to vote for Tony Abbott so he could trash the ETS.

    • Saying "everyone should have done their homework" might make you feel good, but it ignores that we are all still going to pay one way or another. If all these people end up homeless or relying on welfare, we all pay. If they all end up renting, then everyone's rent goes up. If they continually claim on insurance all of us will pay more for insurance. If infrastructure is destroyed then we will all have to pay to replace it over and over again. So on one level we should forget about blame and look at the long term - what is the most cost effective way for us as a society to mitigate the consequences of climate related disasters?

    • there is a difference around choosing to buy because they didn't do their homework and choosing to rent in a fire/flood zone because they did their homework.

      yes, we are going to pay for it either way. that's the reality. while i'm happy to help people in need, however, I personally dislike the entitlement of how it sounds about picking up the slack because people decide to be irresponsible.

      remember in school you have to carry a 4 person project and 3 of them decides to party everyday and not do work? you still have to do it because you have to pass as a group. it doesn't mean that you have to like/support it.

      yeah, that, but with houses.

    • -1

      Please provide proof that these floods were as a direct result of man made climate change?

  • +1

    TLDR: "Why didn't the government protect me from my bad decisions? It's your fault bail me out."

    Then when planning laws restrict development in flood prone and bush fire prone land people complain about the restrictions. The government can't win. Planning decisions have to take a hard line approach to say no to building homes on high risk land.

    Billions spent on subs, including 8 hundred million or so to mend fences with France over the poor handling by the previous government. Every election million of dollars get promised to be spent on planning to build express trains and roads which don't eventuate. Ultimately whether there will be buy backs is a political decision not a logical one. If those living in affected areas were in swing electorates then expect lots of love and spending. Electorates that are considered safe often get neglected and the politicians hardly turn up to rub shoulders and kiss babies.

    • "Why didn't the government protect me from my bad decisions? It's your fault bail me out."

      Couldn't have said it better myself and the answer for those wondering is Monet.

    • A bit OT, but I amazed at the lack of absolute fury in the electorate there is/was at the $%^9 waste of truly massive amounts of OUR money going on the whole subs fiasco.

      For the sort of money we are talking about with those subs (assuming they even arrive before they're totally obsolete) we could be putting everyone in a flood zone, deserving or not, into a luxury house complete with solar panels, batteries and a Tesla to boot.

  • +1

    It's like buying a beachfront property and expecting the shoreline to stay pristine forever… No you buy the property you should expect coastal erosion, bushfires, floods that's what insurance is for. If insurance companies aren't paying out then they should be held liable not government and taxpayers.

    • Insurers price risks accordingly and people don't want to pay the premiums.

      High risk = high premium.

  • +1

    Last I've heard Scholdfields, Riverstone and Box Hill are still selling like hot cakes. Maybe the amount of fk's given is pretty low for some buyers but will come and blame everyone else for their lack of foresight.

  • +1

    Definitely

    Need to raise the Flood Resumption Levy through increased taxes, set aside $50 billion for nationwide purchases of flooded or prone properties

  • In the Hawkesbury Valley there have been floods recorded for over 100 years. It is a known quantity. Some two story homes on the riverbank are ‘boat sheds’. In this instance it’s a hard no. I am open to seeing examples of new land releases that should never have been built on- I feel that is a different story and it would a governance failure.

  • +1

    No. Those who bought knew the risks however the risk had not been realised until now.

    • I guess the OP idea means that it could save all the rest of us indirectly in the future, because we (via tax/government) won't be constantly bailing them out forever and ever. And pushing up insurance costs. Or just built up walls around all the rivers, creeks, etc

    • Can I relocate to another solar system now please I think this one is human affected.

  • Buy the properties, but at the cost of registration.
    Let's see how many people sell at that price!

  • There was a partial solution some years ago on the NW Plains of NSW. Levee banks were built and have mostly been effective as the land is very flat.
    Also houses outside the levee were given a council subsidy to raise them around 3 metres to be above flood level.However only suitable houses could be raised- principally had to be on piers, and of weatherboard construction.
    Other home owners financed raising of their homes or built them elevated from new.

  • +1

    Yes using the 12 billion mining handout

  • +3

    I purchased land in a 100 year flood area. You have to sign a document stating you are aware. But they do play it off as nothing. I didn’t end up building on it. The flooding doesn’t seem a reality when there are fancy new houses and it looks nice and is better than anything else in your budget.

    It’s hard to see so many loose their homes multiple times and have no option to sell and move on as no one will buy their property.

    • Wishful thinking we are all suckers to it no one is immune.

      But yeah it is sad to see these people lose so much on such a big scale.

      Hopefully government and council does better from now on to protect this from happening but I doubt it.

      What's that saying a sucker is born every second or something and money is the root of all evil.

  • It's all about subscribing to risks. Everyone is prone to flooding, it's just about risk. 1 in 5/10/50/100/1000/10000 year flood? And what is the new 100 year flood (my estimate is that it's the old 1 in 500 year flood).

  • +1

    Why should govt bailout stupid people? I wouldn't like my taxes to bailout dumb people.

  • +1

    Why should it be the tax payer's responsibility to bail out those who bought into flood prone area.. Do your due diligence before committing to one of, if not the biggest purchase of your life.

  • "Let them eat cake" huh? Where do you think the money is going to come from for this magic buyback solution? This solution is so far out of touch with reality that you might as well propose we stop the floods by hiring people to drink the water.

    • Can the taxpayers buyback my failed university degrees.. I can concur they were stupid ideas I learnt my lesson council.. Now where's my time and money!

      This is basically what it sounds like.

      I'm sorry we all make mistakes and you have to suck it up.

      Here is a piece of wisdom for anyone deciding on that cheap risky purchase. Don't do it unless you are ready to face the risks and consequences.. Mate just don't do it. You lose nothing by doing nothing in fact you just stay the same and don't incur any losses.

    • Where do you think the money is going to come from

      You know if you get a $600k buy out and your taxes don't seem to go up. Magic money is the best money.

  • +1

    Just like fire prone areas, if people are choosing to buy in these areas for dirt cheap then they should accept the risks. We definitely should not have a fire levy or anything similar, we are not a socialist country. Those who don't buy in these areas should NOT suffer the consequences of those who do.

    If you don't want such risk it's simple, cough up and buy in a decent area.

    • +1

      I think it's time we make these areas illegal or not able to buy or develop in any more.

      Much in the same way we close off roads to the public that are hazardous or deemed unroadworthy for whatever reason.

      I think we should do the same for hazard affected zones in terms of building but will they do that.. Lol no. But they should.

    • people are choosing to buy in these areas for dirt cheap

      Ain't dirt cheap in regional areas but how do people get it that wrong is another matter.

  • +2

    They are always bailing people out after every flood anyways when all the whingers come out and demand money for their uninsured properties. GTFO

    • Maybe they should do this for uni degrees.

      If you don't proposer or make use out of your university degree I believe you should be able to get your student loan waived or at least bought back by the government.

  • +2

    If there is any kind of government support for those without insurance it should be in the form of a sale. The acquired land should then be converted to crown land to stop any further development.

    • This

  • prepare for flooding is a must some grown-up live-in flood zone. you learn to own content that is flood proof. no they should not by back people house people need get used to live in flood plan. in 1990s 10 flood in one year

  • As a general rule the government should not fund re-purchase of flood affected homes, unless they approved some changes to the environment (damming, deforestation, other structural impacts) which creates a new flood risk which didn't exist at the time of the home / land was purchased.

  • Flood mapping is easy to find.

    People buy in flood zones because it's cheap and they want to own a property.

    Same people who do no research and don't buy adequate insurance and then blame the government, insurance industry, builders, tax payers for their poor decisions.

  • If people buy property in a known floodplain, they should know that they will be affected by floods at some point.
    I'm not from the area so don't know what people's general understanding is around there, but when I started looking to buy in northern suburbs of Melbourne the first thing I did was check through some of the past bushfires that have happened over the last decade or so. It's a risk you need to be aware of.
    The big problem is, it the govt doesn't buy the land, knowing that no-one is likely to want it going forward (or at least at a much lower price), do we leave the current owners up sh*t creek?

  • What a dumb question. When you buy the property you got to research first. An investment is like gambling.

  • There's a reason why I steered clear of rivers, floodplains and other sea-level areas while house hunting. Everything at that level is going underwater eventually.

  • So is there a website we can look at that shows flood zones and floodplains?

    Be it government or private or whatever I don't care but I am curious and interested now to have a look and see where it is zoned as flood prone now.

    I am specifically interested in nsw and Sydney area most but any information or resource for other states and cities is also much appreciated.

    I wonder if they do have some sort of public planning info on floods like we have had covid hotspot maps come up since it started.

    • Go digging around the local council's website. It's typically buried there somewhere.

    • I don’t know what exists for Sydney, but Brisbane has free flood information available on the BCC website. You can get Flood Awareness maps for Brisbane and FloodWise reports for individual properties.

      Definitely worth checking these reports if buying a house anywhere in Brisbane as it doesn’t need to be right beside a creek or river to flood.

  • "Remembering in AU you're supposed to pay for ambulance" or have appropriate cover. That is only if you don't live in Qld or Tasmania.

  • Question is will we learn from this or will we continue to do stupid things like this.

    If I was a gambling man I would bet on more stupid things now where can I place this bet.

  • yes. there is blood on the hands of the NSW state government.

    the hawkesbury floodplain should never have been settled outside of the initial old settlements. it's had dozens of truly catastrophic floods and yet that's where the state government is directing investment. there's a reason we had traditionally left the west for farming and whatnot. houses on the floodplain was never a good idea.

    state govt intervenes in local matters when they can make a buck, they should be intervening when they see a risk. councils have had power after power stripped away over the last few decades, not to mention the corruption. it's much more difficult to have a corrupt state government branch or division full of public servants (notwithstanding ministerial 'executive' decisions) making corrupt decisions than it is to have a few councillors get a corrupt motion up. i wouldn't be surprised if more than a quarter of nsw councillors (at least within greater-greater sydney (i.e. inc newcastle, cenny coast and gong)) have some form of relatively direct connection to the property industry.

    as a planning professional, the system is quite easily rorted. there comes a time when something needs to be done at a high level and i think we are well beyond that point. NSW (and australia frankly) needs a settlement strategy and it needs to be centred around social and economic resilience in the face of the major challenges of this and the next century. we can't continue to sprawl and eat up farmland, and base our entire economy on property speculation and building infrastructure to connect the dots.

Login or Join to leave a comment