Insurers could walk away from some of Auckland’s most expensive residential areas, causing a “massive drop” in property values.
Massey University academic Michael Naylor, who has authored a book on the future of insurance, said a worst-case scenario from Auckland’s record-breaking storm was that parts of the city could become too expensive to insure.
He said cliff-top or cliff-bottom properties and homes along the foreshore are high risk, and insurers could roll over policies in those areas and hike premiums – but there would be no domestic competition to give consumers choice.
Homeowners in high-risk areas could try shopping for insurance from offshore providers but there was no guarantee those policies would be rolled over year-to-year so would bring a risk of becoming uninsured, Naylor said.
That could mean people have to pay three- or four- or five-times their premiums, he said.
He said climate change had changed the calculations for insurers, and they would take the maximum cautious approach to risk. Insurers used technology to map out which homes had flooded, or could flood, and could identify risk street-by-street and house-by-house.
“If you ever flood the bottom of your property, you’ll be marked as high risk. If you’re in an area where storm drains can’t cope, you’ll be marked as high risk. And customers aren’t really able to verify [whether they will be high risk] so they’ll be quite confused as to why some have premiums dropping and others don’t.”
Insurer IAG, which along with Suncorp dominates New Zealand’s insurance industry, said it was common practice for insurers to put temporary extra requirements in place for new insurance cover after major events.
It said it didn’t “currently have flood exclusions in place for residential properties in Auckland” and was still providing cover.
“New insurance applications are assessed on a case-by-case basis, as is usual practice.”
John Lyon, chief executive of underwriter Ando Insurance, said Ando won’t insure houses in areas subjected to repeated flooding, but it might insure them “for other perils”.
He said it’s hard to say an insurer won’t insure any homes in an area, and it considers insuring on a case-by-case basis. Lyon said, for example, there were some “perfectly good risks” in flood-hit Westport that have never flooded, and probably never will.
“But at the same time, you've got to be cautious. If a particular property is flooded three times in the last three years, then that's not insurable.”
He said the reality is there are some parts of New Zealand that will become very hard and expensive to insure.
“And repeated flooding basically becomes effectively an uninsurable proposition unless mitigation exercises are carried out.”
The same applied to cliff-top properties with erosion.
“I think if I owned a cliff-top property I'd be nervous about it, but that's just me being in the insurance industry. If there is a situation where there is gradual erosion happening on a cliff, and we've seen some photographs in the media over the last few days of properties that are just just hanging on there, they become uninsurable. Because effectively, it's inevitable damage and insurance is there for unexpected damage, not for inevitable damage.”
He said there had been some good examples of flood mitigation where insurers and councils worked together to reduce localised flooding, “but in some areas that's really, really challenging”.
Once homes became uninsurable, the question was who would foot the bill, Naylor said.
“If houses have to be removed from risky areas, who is going to pay for that? Who is going to compensate the existing house owner? And if you bought a clifftop property knowing it was a clifftop property, why should the government give you compensation?”
He said rich and powerful people live on cliff-tops and along the foreshore, and there would be immense pressure for the government to step in.
Assessment delays
On Thursday the Insurance Council of New Zealand warned it could be years before all claims are settled for flood damaged homes, cars and contents in Auckland.
The Council said this was an unprecedented event in terms of New Zealand's history for a flood event.
The Council’s consumer affairs manager Sarah Knox told Radio New Zealand people forced out of their homes due to flood damage should make a long-term housing plan.
Wayne Tippet, executive general manager for claims for IAG's AMI, State and NZI, said it was too early to put a timeframe on how long it might take to complete claims.
He said it had received 14,000 claims by 9am on Wednesday morning.
“We have teams on the ground assessing the damage – those with the highest needs are being prioritised first.”
On Friday IAG told investors the Auckland event would cost it more than $380 million.
Naylor said the experience in Christchurch and Westport after natural disasters showed it could take months or years for damaged homes to be properly assessed for repairs.
Tippet said the insurer was “making good progress” settling claims, and it was settling more than 200 car claims a day.
“The assessment process will include virtual assessments (where damage is light, and we can use photos) and face to face assessments when the damage is greater.”
Auckland Council has cancelled thousands of scheduled building inspections so its inspectors can get around the region to assess storm-damaged homes.
116 Comments
Always remember that insurance companies are egregious commercial organisations.
They are focused on making supernormal profits - even following massive disasters like the Christchurch earthquakes and now the Auckland floods. And they are uncannily successful at it.
You're right to feel raked-over by your insurance company.
TTP
Unfortunately that is the problem, huge fraudulent industries and green product marketing have popped up and boosted investors income but the end result is actually more pollution and more ecological damage from "climate change initiatives" "net zero" "green" marketing. It is the best thing since sliced bread since we encourage more consumption of the most wasteful industries in fashion, tech, home goods, and then say by putting money into a pine forest with no return as a donation will mitigate all the production pollution, energy waste and end of life pollution. We tell people if they give money away for free to "mitigate" their travel footprint in airfares to large wasteful concerts and holidays they don't need to care about the waste generated by nothing more than luxury experiences. They believe that and investors are laughing all the way to the bank. Meanwhile we have exceptionally increased the price of food and transport for poor and vulnerable communities and deny them access to many areas of the city all so they are denied living needs and are kept in a state of survival; not able to question the spurious spending on "sustainability" consultants that don't have meaningful KPIs and don't get invested in voting/council submissions or protesting the infill housing damaging local infrastructure, and they especially do not have the opportunity to better themselves and get out of the low paying jobs... After all politicians and CEOs need some people to be our nurses, cleaners, hospitality staff, and underpaid essential roles.
Europe and North America rely on extensive engineering to reduce needing expensive disaster insurance.
New Zealand relies on insurance to remedy natural disasters.
Time we changed our mindsets - and engineer up when we build and renovate. Its called building properly.
Porirua City Council has a Flood Retreat Response Policy - a managed retreat policy for properties identified as subject to frequent flood events.
I can be found in the 1 September 2022 meeting minutes;
https://poriruacity.govt.nz/your-council/mayor-councillors/meetings-minutes-and-agendas/?y=2022&m=9
The agenda item is called 'Finalising the Managed Retreat Policy'.
It does not apply to coastal properties - only inland/freshwater flood events..
Rubbish, chch was a crap model for many who had to fight hard to get thier insurance company to honor the contract.. and....
The thousands of shoddy repairs that are still being sorted, thanks to insurance companies taking cheap options...
And let's not forget the people who didn't want to be forced from thier homes, for years, and took the govt to court and won!!!
Chch was a cot case!...
Might've been better if he'd used the word 'example' instead of 'model'.
It's almost like companies that gamble on risk are reticent about paying out when that risk happens. Taking out insurance is gambling on the company's own gamble paying off. Which failed for much of Christchurch, not helped by the EQC debacle.
There's an old parable about building on sand...
Well the National govt via EQC got that ball rolling. The process of having Fletchers attend repairs on behalf of EQC was utterly stupid because once those repairs were exposed as having failed the relative insurer was off the hook. Brownlee & Co in endeavouring to save $ millions by squeezing and railroading homeowners simply scored a gigantic home goal. EQC should have simply paid out the cap and handed the rest over to the owners & their insurers to negotiate it from that point. That was how it was set up to work in the first place.
Who will pay...
We will .. the suckers... That's us!
.. how.. . Via....
1. The council for
A. Poor infrastructure management.
B Approving the development, and construction/s
2. The " suck ass" government to..
A. Buy votes
B. Support councils that wasted money on dumb ass events/ monuments, managers, cycle ways,....
3. You an me, again via increased insurance levies.
Or ....
Maybe the dumb owners should take the hit for doing no due diligence on their dumb ass purchases?
Basically the owner pays the insurance, no insurance the owner takes all the risk and pays the lot it's that simple. Many places should probably be bowled and how about plant some trees there instead. Clearly no enough green spaces in Auckland and very poor planning. They are still building houses down here in Tauranga in places that should never be built on.
i was staying at a batch at Waihi recently, beachfront with a big drop out the front gate down to the beach, large sandbags providing steps down. How much longer till that large front lawn is gone i thought.
Place next door was building a flash new batch on their front lawn.
what we know:
Climate change will make these events more likely.
Auckland is building UP putting more pressure on pipes and other drainage infrastructure.
Answer:
Stop the growth in Auckland and put in incentives to have business and people move south where ALL infrastructure from roads to pipes are cheaper to build and maintain.
This is much cheaper than the government bailing cities out every time there is a major disaster.
The cost to fix Auckland's transport problems and now flooding problems is too much and hopefully a government sometime will realize there is no value in making that city more populous.
Stop! Using climate change as an excuse for poor infrastructure management...
You are buying into the bullshite that the weather compromises a few poorly designed/ managed areas while the rest (90%+) of the city is ok.
You are as bad a James Shaws scaremongering!... To justify his parties lifestyle
I'm with you Hemi, how on earth did our forbears manage? I checked climate records to see how unsusual this weather is and it transpires the vast majority of Australia's climate records are between 1910 and 1990. We are uniquely exposed to South ocean storms and tropical lows to the North. We have some of the most volatile weather on the planet.
What I struggle with is the 'climate change" existential dread but our leaders are doing nothing practical about it. Why aren't we over-hauling our storm water drains, ensuring they are cleaned regularly and making sure new development storm water is stress tested to deal with 500mm in 24 hours?
Because overhauling the stormwater system can't be seen by voters - at the national or local level.
What Council is going to do stormwater upgrades when a brand new, shiny pedestrian mall can be created instead? That's what 3 Water is for.... Drinking Water, Sewage and.... Storm water.
What Council is going to do stormwater upgrades when a brand new, shiny pedestrian mall can be created instead?
Auckland, right now. Auckland interceptor being built now is designed to reduce flood water overflows.
It's actually a wastewater tunnel/trunk main. I.e. poos and wees. It's there to increase capacity in the sewer network and tie in with Mangere WWTP. Increasing the capacity will reduce the amount of poos and wees that are spilled when sewer manholes flood.
While you will get some flood water into the network, it's not designed primarily as a flood catchment/movement system.
Ok how about Oakley Creek upgrades: "The improvement project was initially conceived as an engineering response to stormwater and flooding mitigation"
https://knowledgeauckland.org.nz/media/1857/tr2020-007-te-auaunga-awa-o…
Shrug sure. By the sounds of it they replaced concrete culverts in a small local reserve with natural plantings, slowing down the flow of water.
- In Kaiapoi they installed some 900 Diameter pipes and a couple of pump stations solely for the purpose of moving the water away quickly. I was involved with this project. https://www.waimakariri.govt.nz/your-council/news-and-information/2022/…
- A few years ago Christchurch City Council invested in a massive flood retention system (flockton basin), that stores and slowly feed the excess into the Heathcote river https://newsline.ccc.govt.nz/news/story/christchurchs-investment-in-flo…
The're a flyover before/planned video at the start of this article which i thinks show the scale of the stormwater improvements quite well.
https://www.bikeauckland.org.nz/a-river-runs-through-it-the-te-auaunga-…
Exactly. The first priority if climate change is recognised as threatening, should be defence because whatever well intentioned measures NZ embarks on nationally will not mitigate that risk given our utterly minuscule contribution pro rata on an international scale. It’s a bit like painting the walls of the Alamo in the hope the Mexicans can’t see it.
I agree, eyeballing that Niwa monthly rainfall chart, there is no discernable pattern of greater rainfall in recent decades in Auckland compared to last century. Not saying that it won't be the case again in my remaining lifetime but it seems it was a real outlier. It's more to do with infrastructure and planning.
The argument from scientists is that temperatures are rising, which currently is only causing mild increase in storm activity and intensity.
With increasing temperature, you have exponential growth of storm activity and intensity.
We aren't there yet. But we are on track.
Easy to read the paper and being mislead into tracking rainfall when it's the temperature you should be tracking.
Check the rainfall record 50 years from now, the previous ten will be horrific.
Not sure why "other people" is a question. I'm saying you could have an insurance policy that excluded flooding like they exclude acts of war. This is simply a business transaction between the insurance company and the policy holder.
Other people could have the same policy even though their houses were not as resilient and simply choose to repair the place themselves if it flooded.
Hmmm.. Ever since there were questions over ozone layer , and (back then, nearly 50yrs ago) climate warming, every one of our homes, and children’s homes, and several friends homes, have been built/ brought on solid ground. Not on flood plans, not on sand , not on or below a cliff...but on good solid high ground.
Yet we have ppl with extensive knowledge, resources, education, experience who have continued to buy build in these high risk places over near on couple generations now...all because "it is the place to live...." We have had warnings from environmentalists, climate ppl, continuous reports of slips, flood for a generation plus now.. yet they remain stupid and expect preferential treatment...We have had this basic flood/risk info on council GIS maps for decades.
Then there are the low income families, who rent or buy in low income areas, usually at the bottom of the hill in flood areas, and have little choice to what can afford or where.
Insurance companies councils, government have been talking, warning about risk area for a good 30yrs now. Surely there is now a strong case that insurance companies just pull the plug on high risk high value areas.
There is no way, that ppl in high value high risk areas where not well aware of the ever-increasing risks to their property...over a generation ago.
And if insurance companies start to use sensible ppls to off set the cost of high risk polices then there will be a lot very bad publicity to go with it.
Some recent correspondence I've had which shows how crazy things are
I'm writing to express my concern about the new subdivision on X Rd. In the draft flood maps released in November 2022, at least 2 of these properties were shown to be at risk over being under 1m of water in a 1 in 100 year flood. Even under the current maps all properties are underwater. I have seen some earthworks around there lately, but these will do little to change the fact that a stream runs through the subdivision. I took a walk through the subdivision just after former cyclone Haye passed over. The waters were high.
My specific concern is that these houses may be the subject of a managed retreat in future if the subdivision is allowed to continue. There is also legal risk of homeowners ignorant enough to choose to build there without doing their research, saying the council shouldn't have granted a building consent. At the very least, all houses built in the subdivision should be raised 1m off the ground to reduce the risk of flood damage and cost to ratepayers (not to mention heartache for the foolish prospective owners).
Regards, Whatwillhappen
The reply:
The flood study is being undertaken by the Regional Council, it has no statutory weigh under any of the regulatory legislation, ie the subdivision could not be declined due to it, one it has legal effect. However as part of the subdivision we required that at the building consent stage owners must discuss the proposal with RC to establish minimum floor heights above any potential flooding. All dwellings will have a section 73 notice on the title under the building act as this can address hazards including ponding an inundation, we are not allowed to classify it as a flood hazard yet.
I had a client once who put in a Project Information Memorandum (PIM) to a council regarding a beachfront property house extension/re-development. That got approved. They then went ahead with architectural plans and submitted a Building Consent. After the typical back and forth on the building specs, eventually the consent was granted.
It was only at this stage that the council informed the client that a section 73 notice would be placed on his title. The existing dwelling did not have one and the property was not in a no-build hazard zone.
Not wanting to proceed with the build, given the implications of a s73 hazard notice on the title would impact future insurance on the property. In withdrawing his consent application, he wanted to be reimbursed for the PIM and BC fees (the client didn't even ask for a refund on his architectural and engineering costs) - but the council refused any refund.
It was eventually adjudicated that the s73 notice intention should have been informed at the PIM stage of the project, but the adjudicator had no ability to lawfully require any refund.
Go figure!
I thought it was the Council who gave permission for the developer to develop in flood prone areas. All the Council had to say was no to the development or build your house at a 1m elevation whatever or specify in the LIM that it would flood in a one in fifty year or greater flood.
Sounds like in this case the developer only made application to sub-divide, not build. It's a dumb aspect of the RMA law that each activity is considered on a case-by-case basis and cumulative effects, or the effects of future activities cannot be considered. Had it been a private plan change proposal - i.e., to change the land from rural to residential zoning for example, that would be the time when a council could consider whether of not the land-use should be changed.
I am reading that some of these claims could take years to settle. What happens if a first home owner is red stickered. Huge mortgage more than the property is worth. Does the insurance cover interim accommodation while they sort out the claim? We had a friend who lost his home when a young burglar burnt it to the ground. Insurance is paying for accommodation but it just comes off their settlement figure.
Wasn't there all sorts of weird rorting with insurance paying pretty much whatever to secure rental properties? I seem to recall my parents moving into a place while their house got fixed that was being rented for about $1000 per week (insurance footing the bill)
Presumably the same thing will happen in Auckland.
The impact on me at the time was that it made finding student accommodation for university very challenging, as suddenly even student dumps were being rented out to desperate families for big money.
I wouldn't call it stupidity, it's just a risk...that didn't pay off in the timeframe of the current owner.
Those that bought clifftop properties at any point in the past and sold last November made a killing. Was that stupidity? Nope, just the reward outweighed the risk in that timeframe.
Those that got stung this January always knew when they bought/built that the cliff would fall away at *some* point in the future. They just didn't bank on it happening in this timeframe.
Same for insurance companies - when they get new information that timeframes are shifting, then they'll adjust the premiums accordingly. That's risk management 101.
Fair call. I guess it's a bit like driving 180kmh on the road. It's not stupidity, it's a "risk" that pays off when the person makes it to their destination early. At *some* point, someone will pull out in front of you. But it's not stupidity, just risk and reward.
well if stupidity includes building within 500k of the giant Taupo volcano thats showing signs of erupting again, theres not many places left on these islands that are not stupidity...northlands out, Ak is out, East coast is sinking, thats out, Chch is obviously out, West Coast is so floody thats out, Wgtn is obviously out sitting on a fault, theres still Stewart and Chatham islands but the bus service is terrible...and Fijordlands mozzies will probably spread dengue by the time we all move there...
We've swung too far the other way, from complacency to hysteria. It needs to be acknowledged that this was still a freak event and not necessarily "the new norm". Scientific models show perhaps a 10% increase in rainfall volume for large events from climate change - this event would have been massive even with slightly lower rainfall. Insurers will remain rational as they want to write premium. Let's assume a 1:100 year rainfall event becomes 1:25 year. There is still a price at which writing this risk works.
Agree. If you exclude this latest event (as one event does not make a trend), there actually seem to be less big rain days in Auckland recently compared to pre 1990. https://www.newsroom.co.nz/sustainable-future/aucklands-historic-floodi…
BTW I am not a climate change denier.
This particular rainfall would seem more event based, rather than long-term climate change due to man-made emissions. There was an unprecedented amount of moisture thrust into the atmosphere during the Jan 2022 volcanic eruption in Tonga, which contributed highly to these "atmospheric rivers" we've been hearing so much about lately.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/tongas-volcanic-eruption-blas…
Has a plan been made for the houses at risk on the West Coast? Same problem, different location. Quite a lot of difference money wise. What's good for the Coasters is good for the rest of the country, including multi-million dollar properties on cliffs in Auckland. Seriously, is the a plan for the West Coast after what's happened in recent years?
No it's there fault for buying in a dip in Westport with a 20ft flood bank towering over your house. Same in AKL, we all tut tut but at the end of the day unless your cliff top house is attached to ROCK, you may one day find it at the bottom of the cliff. Buyer beware......
Do as thorough due diligence as possible when buying a house on all aspects, now and in the future. Including possible climate change scenarios. That said, meant to be around 5% a Volcano popping up in Auckland in our lifetime 😬 but prediction on that vs. Flood zone not so accurate
This map of the flood plains in Auckland is informative:
https://data-aucklandcouncil.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/aucklandcounc…
Maybe its time that we as a country should move away from having all our eggs in the auckland basket.
Spread business HQ's, Economic Activity, Population, infrastructure more around the country.
This is nothing, wait to the volcanoes start doing their thing again. Then because of the above, we will be royally screwed as a country.
Kinda Jokowi styles 🤔
https://www.aseanbriefing.com/news/indonesia-passes-bill-to-build-new-c…
I lost my house in the Chch EQ of 2011, so I have some experience. The first $100'000 + gst is covered by EQC and was paid out quickly. Then, it's important to make the difference between the building covered by insurance and the land. If the land is "red zoned" meaning you can't build on it anymore, the Crown will pay you out at RV value. The house is being paid for by the insurance company. In most cases the people losing their house, end up at least as well off as before the loss, mostly because the insurance payout is for a "new" house, whereas they were living in a "used" house. The pain, is dealing at extreme lengths with the insurance company and the Council for payment for both the building and the land, which can take months or years.
But the common idea that someone owning a house in a floodplain or a clifftop will be worse off financially, is wrong, yes they're in for a huge amount of hassle, but they will be financially fine or most likely better off.
I may be that "idiot" Carlos!
The best deals I have found in the past, are those the vast majority of people thought were too dangerous to buy. They can be very cheap, it's then a matter of doing a proper due diligence, to assess if it's likely to be a lemon or a diamond.
I can't see that future "red zoning" will be guaranteed to be accompanied by an RV payout. The EQ was quite different than a flood. I think the reason the decision was made to vacate the whole neighbourhood was primarily because the widespread/complete underground infrastructure for reticulated services was irreparable. This differs greatly from a flood or a cliff/section failure. The services are still at the street, even if the house is dangling over the edge (i.e., the section is lost in the event). Same goes for flooding - the underground infrastructure is intact.
If access to your property is impacted by a roadway not being re-built (as may be the case in Coromandel; although not if access is restricted in only one direction), it is likely a different story should the property be red-zoned.
There is precedent in Auckland for a cliff face disappearing and the house having been demolished/removed. Not enough section left to be built on and I do not believe the owner was reimbursed in any way. Same goes for beachfront issues.
I just think it important for people not to think that going forward red zoning will guarantee an RV payout. There is nothing in law that says it does, and I'm guessing when the new legislation (the Climate Adaptation Act) is written this position will be clarified in law.
Kate, Crown compensation for red stickered houses has nothing to do with with the infrastructure, owners of land deemed too dangerous to have a dwelling on it, for whatever reason, will be compensated by the Crown.
Fun fact, when I was compensated for my land by the Crown, I had to sign a S & P agreement, I was obviously the vendor, the purchaser was "Her majesty the Queen"
I can't emphasize how dangerous this assumption is. If you can point me to the legislation that guarantees this manner of compensation, then fair enough.
But I can give you plenty of examples where that simply was not the case. Look at the houses at the beachfront in Haumoana - no compensation offer whatsoever.
The same is true for cliff face collapse - there is one in Auckland that happened years ago. I'll see if I can find the address. Section gone/house gone (other than remnants of the concrete foundation). No compensation.
I think the land of the properties you're referring to, have suffered natural erosion over time, their fate was not due to a natural disaster like an EQ or a one-in-a-hundred year deluge.
But yes, I would be very interested if you could post some links, to land who has not been compensated following a natural disaster.
It took a Labour Government in 2018 to pay out an average of $116k to 103 uninsured red zone homeowners.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2018/08/government-to-pay-12…
Thanks for the link NZDan, in it states: I quote:
The Minister said the Crown is willing to purchase red zone properties for any owners who are interested in selling, regardless of insurance status, at 100 percent of the 2007/08 rateable value.
This precisely confirms the point I was making above!
Useful information. Gee it is almost as if these areas were flood & erosion prone and increased intensification has increased the likelihood of severe flooding due to infrastructure failures and we need to do infrastructure maintenance and upgrades necessary to prevent disaster conditions... When did we know this... IN the 70s and decades prior. Why did we drop the ball well there is a insightful John Oliver skit about infrastructure being ignored by council and government budgets because it is not exciting enough for the public or it does not give design consultants enough projects to justify their high costs to the public https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXkFzw_atbU
IMPACT OF URBANIZATION ON THE HYDROLOGY OF WAIRAU CREEK, NORTH SHORE, AUCKLAND
P. W. Williams, Journal of Hydrology (New Zealand) Vol. 15, No. 2 (1976), pp. 81-99 (19 pages) Published By: New Zealand Hydrological Society
https://www.jstor.org/stable/43944404
Free access
https://www.hydrologynz.org.nz/journal/journal-15
Sadly the Auckland floods here are nothing to do with climate change (although it has an effect worldwide and will affect NZ more in future) but the true cause in this case is poorly designed infrastructure and blocked drainage channels with residents being ignored by council when raising red flags years and even decades earlier with prior flooding and mass intensification without infrastructure upgrades. I remember vividly regular flooding with all the areas affected by most recent events with much of it being severe and as the report states increasing in severity and speed of rising waters with more intensification and less core maintenance.
You could say it is a problem of government, AT and Auckland Council making. But in reality the lobbyists of recent years towards intensification and the sustainability consultants who milked the system only for beautification features but no real significant infrastructure management improvements are all responsible for the damage to people's lives, homes and businesses and the flow on damage to the marine and reserve ecology. Pity this event is already being milked to further reduce funding towards infrastructure and boost it going towards feel good ineffective virtue signalling and more consultants intent on beautification designs and plans to reduce road infrastructure funding. No one wants to go down as funding the project that pushes the shit down pipes without failure and cleans drainage channels of rubbish and especially without a photo op, brochures of smiling families playing in a park and without a ribbon cutting ceremony to leave a legacy (especially when they generate so much bullshit with every vision statement and design document).
There is a reason why it has been known for decades you should not swim around Auckland beaches, especially on the shore, out west and out south. You cannot trust elected and government bodies with a public purse to actually do useful maintenance or infrastructure design for core services. Act as if there is no effective public or private infrastructure and you would be going a long way to future proof yourself & home for climate change. Sadly this takes a lot of money. You definitely want to have a power generator and UPS batteries, pump and water storage tanks at least, decent property plans for natural events and air quality management tools. A suvivorlist or prepper mentality would be more resilient and buildings would have a better chance at avoiding damage or avoiding becoming uninhabitable (just sans the american style armory)
It is common sense that houses on cliffs are higher risk, and this has been known for years. You only need to look at Wellington for this. I turned down buying a house for this very reason. It is the same thing with houses near the sea, rising sea levels and climate changes have been known for decades. I remember my father saying to me that these these problems wouldn't occur in my lifetime. Well he was wrong.
Scaremongering over global warming has as much merit as the scaremongering debate over the depletion of resources that's got on for years. How many people remember the 'we're running out of water, oil, food, helium, chocolate, sand etc. etc.
Alarmists said the world would run out of oil by the year 2,000.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.