Community Crofting, a new form of lease with security of tenure, opportunity lost

It is my understanding, that in USA, a perfectly livable house on several acres (which I might call a “hobby farm, or a livestyle block, but which some people may call a homestead etc “room for a pony” as Hyacinth Bucket would say on the tv show comedy) I understand that within a short drive to a USA large town or reasonable city would cost about $50,000. In NZ you’d be looking at about $1 million.

Probably even more than that in Aussie and UK. Of course if people live in the USA they risk being shot dead by poolice, no questions asked, if found committing offences like “being black in a public place”. If you’re just being disresepctful to a poolice officer, you may get to survive being tasered multiple times and pepper-sprayed from a giant flyspray size can (none of those little wee lipstick sized pepper-sprays for US “law enforcement”.

It sickens me to my stomach that the NZ govt bulldozed 12,000 houses (in Chch’s ‘red zone”) just as fast as it could get the bulldozers around there, instead of saving say 4,000 of the completely un-damaged, and least damaged houses, and making them available at a ‘peppercorn rent’ for cheap housing under a special  new “community crofting” leasehold arrangement (that could have been devised). A new form of lifetime lease with security of tenure, but without the ability to make a profit from the house. These houses could have been released onto the market, some perhaps incorporating the surrounding empty sections where houses had been demolished, so as to give half-acre and acre lot sizes.

Currently in New Zealand, residential tenants can by evicted with  just 42 days notice. Especially during times of housing availability and affordability crisis, and with many thousands of people on government housing waiting lists, this does not give tenants long enough to secure alternative accommodation.

A golden opportunity was shit out the arxehole and flushed down the toilet, just to prop up and increase Christchurch’s house values. The flow-on effects from Christchurch having a large pool of affordable  rental housing and stable long term communities (that long term, security of tenure that “community crofting” leases  would give), would also have helped reign in Auckland’s rampaging house price inflation (and Christchurch’s not-quite-as-rampaging house price inflation).

Here’s yet another article on the housing un-affodability crisis in Auckland (and to a lesser extent, all of NZ) from the Auckland Herald Newspaper’s NZHerald website.


Christchurch… not enough houses, but a glut of office-space (albeit without any parking)

An article on the Christchurch Press newspaper/Stuff website, by Marta Steeman on 24 January 2015 said this…

“…Anyone who’s driven along Durham Street North, which flows into Cambridge Terrace, recently can’t help but be struck by the boom in commercial construction along the strip on the western edge of the Avon River.

The buildings jostling for space and attention sit just outside the CBD, a much smaller area than it used to be after being redefined by the Government’s blueprint for the rebuild of the city. And that’s important because the area is free of the Government prescriptions imposed on the blueprint development, developers say…” (Quote ends)

(A link to the full article appears at the bottom of this article, but here is just one of the comments that was posted below it)

ChrisW1970 7 days ago (as of 31/01/15)

I for one am glad that the private sector have been able to get some traction on rebuild projects. If you look at government and CCDU precincts, progress is minimal, compared to across the river west of Durham St. By exerting such a high level of control, CCDU and government/local authority have only served to add unnecessary delays and costs to anchor projects – frankly I think the best thing to do now would be to disband the bureaucratic stinking colostomy bag that is the government run CCDU, and open up ALL the anchor projects to private tender – that way you might actually see some anchor projects completed this decade, and for less money than will be if CCDU and government are allowed to continue to operate in the bumbling and useless manner they have been… of course the CCDU website claims things are going swimmingly on their projects…nonsense! The lack of visible construction works tells a different and more truthful story… (Quote ends)

When I first heard about the much vaunted CCDU Blueprint, in mid 2012, I immediately had major misgivings.

As I saw it, it was a government land-grab, for upto 60% of the CBD area, and as the land was to be seized under special CERA laws, property owners had even less rights than if it was taken under longstanding PUBLIC WORKS act rules.

I thought “Yeah mate, Wellington’s just gonna steal the land, then sell parcels of it off, probably back to its mates, at whatever price it chooses.”

And it seems as if I was 100% correct, going by the following article by Georgina Stylianou from the Stuff website on 31/01/15.

“… The Press understands Fletcher Building, which will wind up its work with the Earthquake Commission this year, is the front-runner among the shortlisted firms being considered by the Government to develop the east frame…

…Last year, CCDU planning general manager Don Miskell said residential land was cheaper than commercial land so the Crown may not recoup the money it had spent buying land in the east frame… (quote ends)

Commenting on the other article, about the Government’s mate, Fletchers, being the front-runner for getting handed over a bunch of, previously other people’s properties, for less than, even the bargain basement price that CCDU gave as “compensation” for stealing people’s freehold land off them.

The prices the government pays for land are secret, however some landowners have said that “negotiations” started with them being offered 10% of the land’s original RV (Ratings Valuation) and eventually the government would creep upto a figure of about 90% of RV. (If you don’t accept the 90% offer, then under the CERA/CCDU blueprint law, the government simply takes your land and gives you nothing).

The problem comes when the old owner seeks to buy new land, similarly zoned, close in to the city, and finds they have only a half to a third of the price of replacement land (it’s not rocket science… remove 60% of the supply of any product and the price will go through the roof, doubling or tripling, what would you expect !).

Some owners or organisations have been right royally screwed over by the government land seizures. The Deaf Society should have been laughing all the way to the bank, as insurance paid for a full rebuild, no expense spared, of the CBD headquarters, but with the government seizing their land, they are only entitled to a far lesser “indemnity value” payout. So these people have effectively been dis-enfranchised from, and lost the benefit of, having a “full replacement, regardless of cost” insurance property.

And don’t even get me started on the debacle over the historic MAJESTIC HOUSE building. This multi-storey building on Manchester Street was repairable for about $15 million (a full re-build would have cost an estimated $60 million), however the owners “Majestic Church” had to take whatever CCDU was prepared to offer in “compensation” for the land, and a lesser indemnity value insurance payout on the building. Since shortly after the February 2011 earthquake, they have been meeting in a refurbished car-sales showroom on Moorhouse Avenue, but the site has almost no parking and they are forced by council rules to pay for parking some distance away. Insurance has been covering some costs, but the church, wanting to settle into a permanent and more appropriate environment, purchased land elsewhere in the Western CBD (part of the 40% remaining that the government didn’t steal) and was intending to re-build its church there, however Christchurch City Council have denied it the necessary planning permission on the basis that “it’s a residential area” (and obviously churches cannot be in residential areas, can they ?).

Here below is the link to the article about the East Frame and Fletchers likely involvement.

Here is a link to the full article on the STUFF website about the expected glut of high-priced office space …

Housing crisis… ‘tiny houses’ miss the point entirely

Many cities in Australia and New Zealand are currently experiencing a housing crisis. There is both a lack of supply and what is available is very expensive (when wages and taxes are considered).

From my experience, in the last 25 years, the price of “starter” houses, the very cheapest you could find to buy, in the Christchurch metro area has increased about 15-fold. Gross wages have about trebled (but are now taxed more highly anyway).

This has made things very much harder for people to get “onto the property ladder” (ooh I just HATE that term), especially for one income households, including single people, as well as lower income earners

The main problem, throughout both Australian and New Zealand’s major cities (and even some major country towns) has been the shortage of land.

New Zealand for example has about same land area as the United Kingdom but with only one 15th of the population of the United Kingdom, yet we are suffering a “land shortage”. Yes, Australia and NZ do have a lot more land tied up in National Parks and other wild places, which is why tourists from all around the world flock to see our countries’ natural beauty. There are also vast tracts of land set aside under various “native title” and Aboriginal land reserves.

But among at least some other commentators, I am left with the conclusion that it is the deliberate strangulation and limitation of the supply of new land for housing developments, which is a major cause of the crisis we find ourselves in today. In 1986 land for a housing section (block or plot) on Perth’s outer edge, could be purchased for less than $10,000. Buy 2007 that price had increased to $170,000. Now ‘supply and demand’ effects and often controls the price of, well almost everything. From new toothbrushes to cocaine. Yes the population has increased a bit. But certainly NOT 17-fold.

Restrictions seem to happen at every level, but local councils have perhaps the biggest part to play. Trying to maintain a pleasant GREEN BELT of hobby-farms and lifestyle-blocks on the edge of cities (“with room for a pony” as Hyacinth Bouquet, the Bucket woman, would say) is a laudable idea. Except that we live in a society where as well as immigration, we have a growing population.

Society needs to sit down and have a serious talk. If People are allowed to have more than 2 children in their lifetime, then those children need places to live and work when they grow up.Perhaps if we are to allow unfettered reproduction, we need to allow unfettered development of new “greenfields” lands and new housing ?

There have been some articles lately on television and I was moved to make these comments in relation to a newspaper item.

People seem to think that making tiny houses is the answer. Often to comply with local zoning laws, these tiny houses are fitted with wheels, although they are not intended as road-going caravans. They are NOT licenced to travel on the roads and cannot be towed along or moved unless they have a special transport permit, and often extra wheels fitted.

Now don’t get me wrong, us Western Worlders need to start living more lightly on the planet, and having smaller homes is a part of that equation.

But spending the same amount of a house deposit and months of labour, constructing what amounts to a wooden caravan, is not the answer.

Where are you going to park the blimming thing ?

What few caravan and holiday parks exist are already full of people living in caravans because there aren’t enough houses for people to live in. And more and more, because of the government’s strangulation of new land supply, the caravan and holiday parks that exist are being sold off for other developments and the tenants there thrown out onto the street.

Another factor affecting the price of new housing is entirely unnecessary red tape from local councils.

Now I support building codes. One reason for the minimal casualties that occurred in residential houses during Christchurch’s devastating earthquakes of 2011, is because our houses, especially those of 2 or more stories, must be earthquake resistant.

Soon after arriving back here, I visited a building company and described a housing style I had seen in Australia, but not New Zealand. The guy showed me some catalogues and yes they had similar things available here. A one or two-storey house could indeed be constructed in less than 6 weeks instead of the usual 8 months, and the cost per square metre of floor area was less than 2/3 the normal price (in Australia it’s less than half). “Oh, but you’d never get a building consent to build one in Christchurch” he said “someone at the council doesn’t like the look of them.”

Well “I” don’t like the look of rose bushes in people’s front gardens, should I be allowed to ban them city-wide ?

Keep in mind these houses would comply with all required building, health and safety, fire safety and earthquake resistance codes. Someone at the local council just “doesn’t like the look” of certain housing styles, so EVERYONE has to pay 33% or 50% more for their new houses and has less choice of style !

For many decades now, throughout most major Australian and New Zealand cities, there has been very little new housing built “at the cheaper end of the spectrum”. Some new land subdivisions even have covenants on the title which actively forbid cheaper homes from being constructed.

In due course, and with only expensive houses and land coming on to the market, even years later, what few older and cheaper houses that do exist, get snapped up (often by “developers”, in the case of Auckland, land supply is so tight that even fully refurbished homes which have just had $100,000 in renovations, are often being bought just to be bulldozed, so the land can be used for a new, and even more expensive house build. So there are even LESS older cheaper homes, what used to be the “starter” home for a “first home” buyer.

Here’s a link to the article and following on are my two main comments relating to it. (This was originally published elsewhere and has been edited and extended for publication here).

(1) Sorry it is still dearer than a large caravan and double the price of a 54m2 “4 car garage” that could also be converted and used for housing. The $50,000 price is indeed DEARER than a house deposit for some cheaper Chch houses and you still need a section to park the tiny house or caravan on ! If you have $ 50 k, buy the cheapest house you can and you have room to park 10 caravans or tiny wheeled houses…. and charge all the residents therein $150 a week each in ground-rent. Unfortunately this guy has got a lot wrong. I wonder if it is because he is coming from a background of wealth and privilege and I think he has largely “missed the point”. Note…in principle I am a huge supporter of folks living in tiny houses, caravans and other alternative structures. This guy still needs a section with an un-condemned house on it, to be allowed to park it there and to stay in the wooden-caravan he’s made legally.

(2) Here’s a place that before the earthquakes of 2011 would have sold for about $375,000. It suffered some damage in the earthquakes but is still a completely livable home. The owners have accepted a cash payout from their insurers but chosen NOT to repair the damage. As such the house is being sold “as is, where is, uninsured and uninsurable” for little more than land value only. Repairs can easily run to $100,000 if new earthquake resistant foundations need to be installed underneath an existing house. (URL below, sorry but it no longer works) A beautiful 3 bedroom house in Papanui. It has a “land value” of $151,000 and the entirely livable house will probably sell at auction tomorrow for about $170,000k. That would require about $50,000 deposit. The section land size is under 600m2 so only enough room to park 7 caravans or tiny houses. Still that’s $1050 a week rental income and the mortgage repayments would be $182 a week. So that’s $800 a week in profit or pay off your house freehold in two and a half years ! Thanks Catherine you’ve saved the day yet again. Why are you the lone voice crying in the wilderness and no-one listening to you ! (ok so I cheated slightly, I didn’t consider income tax obligations, but that’s what family trusts are there to avoid eh !)

Note the auction was held on 12 June 2014, I do not know what price it reached at auction. Often in NZ, even at mortgagee auctions, houses get “passed in” and the mortgage holder simply refuses to accept the highest bid, as they are seeking a higher price still.

Here is a link to the advertisement but the way NZ’s Trademe auction website works, is that the advertisement will no longer display.

Land grab continues, people tricked into selling $350,000 home to Govt for $81,500

I reckon these people are IDIOTS. Can you believe they sold their house, on a full sized section of land, to the GOVT for just $81,000 ! Surely they could have sold it for WAY more than that on the private market ! Even Earthquake damaged “insurance write-off” houses and land sell for double, and more, of that amount.

They had inadvertantly allowed their insurance policy to lapse. After the less damaging, September 2010 Earthquake, insurance companies put a freeze on new policies in Christchurch. Then came the devastating February 2011 EQ. As “uninsured” the Government’s ‘voluntery’ offer to buy their “Red Zone” house was half the land value. Before the EQs the place was probably worth a total of $350,000 (house and land together).

They have accepted the government offer and sold the land to the government (note “Red Zone” is a purely abitrary government invention. With a stroke of the government’s pen, the land could be un-red zoned tomorrow, and the government can then sell it for 4 times the price they bought it for !

They say they had to move out because the place was draughty and leaking. I say that $10,000 of repairs can fix up an awful lot of draughts and leaks ! Anyway they chose to buy a complete, another house, (curiously also an EQ write-off, but they chose one in Bexley, in an area subject to flooding, even before the earthquakes, and doubly subject to flooding now).

Sorry but I have little sympathy for these people, for considerably less than the cost of buying another entire EQ write-off house and land, they could simply have done essential repairs to their existing house (and continued to live in an area with less danger of flooding, every time we get a decent dump of rain).

Note the auction below is NOT for the land, which they have already sold to the governemnt, it’s just for a brick and tile house (so very little value in salvagable materials there, but you could get the door and windows and internal fittings from the bathroom and kitchen etc). Going by the only picture that accompanies the article, it looks like quite a new house. (UPDATED, see bottom of this article)

It’s worth noting that many of the “Red Zone” houses that were sold to the government, were entirely undamaged or had only minor cosmetic damage.

Something around 12,000 houses across several Christchurch suburbs (mostly in the North-East), have been sold to the GOVT and demolished, leaving the land as open parkland, with scattered trees and shrubs. Less than 140 homes have been retained by their owners. Arguably, those few houses left, in private ownership, in the “residential Red Zone”, could well be worth (to some people) a lot MORE than they were previously. With all the city services of sealed road, water, electricity and telecommunications (which agencies are not allowed to just withdraw) and yet 97% of houses having been removed, means that people with only a residential sized lot to garden and care for around their house, have access to what has become a huge surrounding parkland. The Govt are required to maintain this land at their expense.

I believe that people accepting Red Zone offers by the Govt of half of land value, have been cheated out of their land. They have been absolute suckers. Golly even in the old days, people would get some beads and blankets and Bibles for their land ! I am very sure that history will look back on this sort of thing as just utter land-grab-thefts by the government. (Note there have since been various court case wins by “Red Zone holdouts” to get a better price for their properties).

Here is a link to the Christchurch Press newspaper’s website.

UPDATED 26 June 2014… The house (well the right to strip it for salvage) ultimately sold at auction for $10,500. Plus extra money was donated to the elderly couple. Here’s a link to the NZHerald’s article.

Avon Loop, prime waterfront homes deliberately destroyed in government land grab

Early this evening I went to the area known as the Avon Loop.


This area is walking distance from central Christchurch and featured a mix of old and new single story houses (stand-alone) and a small number of (mostly newer) units/apartments/townhouses of one and 2 storeys.

The accompanying video includes an informative voiceover.


When is Rape legal ? When it is performed by government agents… apparently

Perhaps a qualified lawyer can give me advice on the following scenario.

Rapist in dark alleyway, holds knife to a woman’s throat, and the conversation goes something like:
Rapist… “I want to have sex with you, do you consent?”
Woman… “Err, umm, that knife does look very sharp and I can feel the point of it digging into my skin, umm, yes. Yes I do consent to having sex with you”
A sexual act then occurs before the two parties go their separate ways. Later, due to excellent detective work by hardworking police officers, the assailant is brought before the courts and charged with rape. Although consent WAS given, it was NOT freely given. It was only given under duress. Consequently the rapist finds himself in the Big House for a Stretch, doing Porridge at Her Majesty’s pleasure. (translation for non-English people… The rapist would be sent to jail).

That’s all fair and reasonable. Consent given at the point of a knife or gun, isn’t really consent at all, is it ?

OK so how does that differ from the landowners of the eastern and southern areas of Christchurch’s CBD (downtown) area? In mid-2012, the government announced that it was simply going to take possession of about 60% of the CBD land area.

Some of this was bare land as earthquake damaged buildings had been demolished, but nothing re-built yet. Some land had new, or nearly new buildings on it (built just before the shakes or replacements for damaged buildings, built to the highest earthquake resistant and energy efficiency standards), and some historic buildings, now fully restored and strengthened to meet modern building standards.

The government at the time claimed there was a huge oversupply of land and that it was almost worthless. The land would NOT be taken under the usual “Public Works” act, which allows governments to take freehold land from the owners for essential infrastructure like roads and hospitals. The Public Works act also gives certain rights to the owners, such as the right of first refusal to buy the land back off the government for the same price they sold it for, if ever the government decides it doesn’t need the land for that intended purpose.

Under the special earthquake ‘recovery’ laws, people have less legal right to fight against the seizure of their land, and also land the government seizes, which it claims is needed for more green parks or new buildings like a convention centre or sports arena, can later be on-sold to anyone at any price if they suddenly decide that it was all a big mistake and they didn’t need the land after all.

The government has publically said that the offers they make to landowners for compensation are ‘take it or leave it’ type offers. Yes the landowners can ‘negotiate”. But ultimately the government pays whatever it wants to in compensation for taking the land. The owner either agrees to accept that amount as full and final settlement on the land, and the government takes possession of it, or the government simply takes possession of the land anyway, and the landowner gets nothing.

Landowners who have already accepted settlements have said that negotiations start with the government agents offering about 10% of the previous land valuation. Some owners say they managed to get up to 90% of previous land valuation as a final settlement. However often the highest figure the government will go to is much less, in some cases less than what is still owing on a mortgage loan.

And with 60% of the CBD land area being effectively removed from the free market overnight, the value of other land in the CBD has sky-rocketed. This has been extremely good news for the lucky few who own land in the western and northern CBD area (mostly that’s a handful of rich property investors and some ‘old money’ wealthy Christchurch families).

Eastern (and southern) CBD landowners therefore find themselves completely priced out of returning to anywhere near the CBD/inner city, and, oftentimes unable to afford anything comparable that is suitable anywhere within the Christchurch city area at all.

This is exactly the situation that the Deaf Society find themselves in, regarding the demolition of their earthquake damaged headquarters and club-rooms building that was at 232a Armagh Street. Any chance of insurance simply re-building on the same site, has been scuppered by the government’s wholesale land seizure program in the eastern and southern CBD.

After the flooding damage caused to New Orleans (when Hurricane Katrina missed the city, but the effects caused levee banks to rupture), I heard that the local government there was going to use their powers (in the USA called “eminent domain”) to simply seize the land out from under the rightful owners, especially in the poorer area known as the Lower Ninth Ward. OK so that’s in America, where the government is well in the pockets of big business and the banks, and you expect that sorta thing.

But it never occurred to me when the earthquakes affected Christchurch, that our biggest enemy would be the government in Wellington. Creating whole new bureaucracies, and passing laws, to enable wide-scale land seizures here. Here in a, usually, civilised country like New Zealand.

So if a bunch of mean looking dudes turn up at your house and announce that they are taking your big new $4,000 flat screen tv, whether you like it or not, “but they will negotiate”. They start off offering you $20, but after spirited negotiations on your part, you manage to get the price offered up to $50. So then they grabs your telly off the wall and walk out. Would that be legal, because you consented to the ‘sale’, or illegal because your were initially presented with a fait accompli that they were taking the telly, and you simply agreed to what compensation they offered in the end ?

Court hearing “Quake Outcasts” vs CERA, also comments on proposed covered sports stadium

(UPDATED 26/8/13, Quake Outcast info at bottom)

I could simply say that “Wednesday was taken up with legal argument… ” However this whole hearing has been one big legal argument.

I am of course referring to the judicial review hearing about the Wellington based government’s offer to buy “Red Zoned” land in Christchurch, for just half of it’s previous value.

That value was calculated by using the 2007 valuations-for-ratings-purposes. Note that properties sometimes sell for somewhat less than their “RV” and sometimes more. Often houses on freehold land sell for more than their RV, some examples have sold for double their RV. It is important to note though that these government Red Zone offers were for the land component only, and not for any house, or other structure or improvements on the land.

(However, especially in the case of brick construction, it is neither practical nor economically viable, to move an existing house or other structure. Wooden houses with corrugated iron rooves and similarly built garages are by comparison cheap and easy to move, ie it only costs a few, tens of thousands of dollars, to move and re-site them).

Some suburbs, due to underlying soil conditions, suffered more during the earthquakes of late 2010 and 2011. Liquifaction damage often caused a sandy watery mud to rise to the surface in many areas, sometimes overflowing not just gardens and streets, but also entering low lying homes. In some areas land has slumped and is now more low-lying than it was, and therefore subject to greater risk of flooding during spells of sustained wet weather or high-tides.

The Christchurch suburbs in the eastern and north-eastern parts of the city, sit on soil types which are more susceptible to liquifaction. Underground infrastructure such as local council owned water and sewerage pipes, and houses’ foundations can also be damaged.

The government claimed that some areas simply weren’t worth fixing up, and indicated it would like to see entire suburbs abandoned. One assumes that the land will then be turned over to be a large park. (Great, another hang-out for winoes and for dumping abandoned burnt-out stolen cars).

So the government designated certain areas “Red Zones” and most people in those areas took offers from their insurance company for a total payout on the grounds that their house was a “write-off”. Note that in many cases, houses had minimal or zero damage.

(However I have my personal suspicions that, before long, the government will claim that land remediation and/or by the use of appropriate technologies, such as lightweight small and modular house constructions and a more flexible infrastructure design, re-settlement would be feasable and economically viable and then they will re-zone Red Zone, and on-sell the land, and for VERY much greater than the price they paid.)

The whole reason for the judicial review is because many people only got offered HALF the RV for their Red Zoned land.

Land that was uninsured at the times of the various earthquakes, only got an offer for half of RV. Now it is true that some people choose to “self insure”. They chose to have no insurance, and if a reason for a claim comes along, like a house-fire or an earthquake, then they will bear the risk and costs themselves.

However many property owners were UNABLE to get insurance coverage for their land. Examples can include people who bought empty sections (in some countries referred to as a block or plot) intending to build a new house later. Commercial premises, such as a shop or petrol service station, and charities like churches are also uninsured for land.

In New Zealand, residential houses which are covered by insurance, have automatic coverage for land damage under the government’s Earthquake Commission scheme; the insurance company submits to the government a small proportion of the insurance premium to cover that scheme.

The government claimed that land designated “Red Zone” had, overnight become virtually worthless anyway. The price a house in the Red Zone could be sold for was very much less and they would be almost impossible to insure and therefore almost impossible to get mortgage finance on.

(The government conveniently side-steps the fundamental issue, that as it was the government that simply decreed certain areas “Red Zone” anyway. There is nothing stopping them from simply re-designating all Red Zone land as Green Zone land tomorrow, and suddenly the houses and land there will be instantly returned to their former value. Remember that especially around the fringes of Red Zone areas, there are many houses which are totally undamaged, or which have only minor cosmetic damage. While next door could be a Green Zone house which has been deemed a total write-off by the insurance and will be rebuilt. Foundations for a typical single-storey family house, onywhere in Christchurch, before the earthquakes, would have usually cost about $10,000. Houses needing to be rebuilt on land now recognised as less stable (during earthquakes) would cost about $80,000. The insurance company is required to pay the extra cost for more expensive foundations if they are required. Keep in mind that in some places the land designated Red Zone is some of the most highly regarded and desirable city land. Houses with a riverbank frontage just across the road and much of the Southshore spit. Prime coastal and beachside real estate in anyone’s books.)

The hearing was brought by two groups. One called themselves “Quake Outcasts” and is 68 people who own 45 properties in various Rwd Zone areas. A separate group of claimants, “Fowler” owned 11 commercial or industrial properties in the Red Zone.

Quake outcasts were represented by three counsel at the hearing and Fowler by two. There were three counsel acting to represent the crown.

Named in the proceeding was the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Gerry Brownlee and the chief executive of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) Roger Sutton.

Neither man actually appeared in the courtroom in person.

The arguments made by counsel for the various parties were all highly technical legal mumbo-jumbo that means nothing to those of us without advanced legal training.

However reference was made as to whether the offers to buy the land designated Red Zone were legal in all respects.

Reference was also made to an Australian case where the government wanted to stop development of private land that was close to a national park at Jervois Bay. They made, what could be considered “low-ball” offers to the private landowners. Those offers had a strict time limit and were limited to the first 800 people who applied. A sliding scale meant that the slower people were to accept the “voluntary” offer, the lower the price they would get. The government didn’t necessarily threaten to take the land completely, but suggested it could change zoning laws to prevent people from ever being able to use their land for any real and useful purpose.

Legal counsel pointed out similarities and differences with the New Zealand government’s Red Zone buyout offers.

It is worth noting that in the original media reports, the government had ALWAYS said that Red Zone buyout offers, were COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY and people could choose to stay in their homes if they wanted to. (Keep in mind many of these homes are undamaged or have minimal cosmetic damage only).

Later the comments were expanded to say that the government may later take the people’s Red Zoned land and houses by Compulsory Acquisition anyway. Further, and I think sinisterly, the government said that if it got to compulsory acquisition, then the compensation offered would be almost nothing as the land was almost worthless because it was Red Zoned. (Again, completely avoiding the elephant in the room, that it is only Red Zoned because they it is. They can simply re-classify the land as Green Zone, and whoopee suddenly it is Green Zoned again.)

(In Australia when land is taken by the government whether you agree to it or not, this is called “resumed” and in USA “eminent domain”. Curiously, in the state of Western Australia, politicians have many years back, passed a law, saying that THEIR houses will never be subject to being “resumed” by the government. It’s alright for some, isn’t it?).

Note in considering the impact on the lives of people who only got the 50% of RV Red Zone land offers, consider one of Christchurch’s leading businessmen and landowners. “Old money” perhaps one might say.

So this landowner, who owns or controls large amounts of land in that part of the Western part of Christchurch’s CBD which the govt in Wellington ISN’T planning to steal (by “compulsory acquisition”) from it’s owners. ie along the Oxford street “strip” where insurance is, one assumes, largely funding the $ 140 Million rebuild for cocktail bars and swanky cafes… he’ll be making a fat profit out of that I reckon. Yet he speaks out against landowners in the Eastern CBD who have complained that govt offers of compensation for their land (taken for “The Frame” or “major projects” like the covered sports arena that most people don’t want, and nobody wants to pay for), are only being offered less than a third the independant valuations, which is often less than their outstanding mortgages. I’ve heard him quoted in recent media (Christchurch Press I think) as saying they shouldn’t be spoil-sports and should be happy to move elsewhere and start again. But I’d ask, how can they when compensation for their land to be taken doesn’t even pay out exisiting loans, plus buying replacement land will cost them more than 3 times what they get. Remember too that purportedly, the main idea behind the govt’s idea to take 60% of the CBD land, most of the eastern part, is because the govt claims there is a land surplus and it is “too cheap”. Sorry ? how many millions of dollars per quarter-acre do you consider that land is too cheap ?

The three days of hearings concluded just after 3pm on Wednesday 24 July 2013. A decision by Justice Panckhurst is not expected for some weeks.

If the decision ultimately favours the Quake Outcasts and Fowler, then the government will be in the gun for a few million dollars of compensation, over and above what they were planning to pay anyway.

Considering the total rebuild costs of an estimated 20 to 40 billion dollars, or the previous, and ongoing “leaky building crisis” of $ 20 billion, or even the proposed roofed sports stadium which will have a nett cost of between $ 200 million and $500 million, added on to Christchurch residents’ rates bills; it does seem to me like the government is fighting a court-case over what amounts to chicken-feed. By my count, if the government had voluntarily offered the 56 claimants, their full land RV (I considered $125,000 extra for each, as an average), the total cost would only be some $7 million.

Just a side-note about the sports stadium. Christchurch already has an open roofed stadium. Known as AMI (that is a paid sponsorship name, for decades it was previously called Lancaster Park because it sits by the end of Lancaster Street). The AMI stadium and grounds suffered badly in the earthquakes, but the insurance company have said they can repair it completely for $ 45 million, which will be entirely covered by insurance. The nett cost to the city’s ratepayers would effectively be NIL. In the meantime a “temporary” stadium, intended to last many years, has been built adjacent to the Addington (horse) Raceway. However the power-brokers within the Christchurch City Council (CCC) seem to be going hell-for-leather for a new fully enclosed sports stadium, despite the huge extra cost which this will dump on ratepayers for decades to come. Keep in mind that in the last five years, residential rates (in some countries called ‘property taxes” or “school district fees”) have gone up by double or triple the rate of inflation (CPI, Consumer Price Index) every single year. For the last couple of years, council rates have increased by something closer to five times the rate of CPI inflation EACH YEAR. Keep in mind that most Christchurch workers during this time have had little if any wage increase, and very few people have had wage increases that equal the CPI. The Christchurch City Council do not currently own any land to build the proposed new covered stadium on, but the CCC are set to “inherit” from the national government in Wellington, some of the land it intends taking by compulsory acquisition (“if you don’t accept our voluntary offer”) in it’s “East Frame”.

The current proposal is to take and demolish the fully restored and earthquake strengthened “NG Gallery” building. This building is the sole surviving example of its type in Christchurch, and the gallery building also houses many other small businesses, and the thriving and apparently successful Cassells bar.

Dunedin is a city of some 125,000 people, (about one third that of Christchurch). Situated some 400 kms (250 miles) south of Christchurch it is a noticably colder and wetter climate. Recently a new covered sports stadium was built (called the Forsyth Barr stadium). The Dunedin public were told how great it would be, and it was widely reported that the cost to ratepayers would be reasonable because it would be part funded by private interests and donations.

Not surprisingly most of the private financing and donations failed to eventuate, the project ended up costing squillions, and Dunedin’s ratepayers are facing decades of crippling extra rates to cover the cost. A covered stadium does have more opportunities for various uses other than football, such as a music venue for rock concerts. But just how often and how likely are big names like Madonna, likely to visit Dunedin ? I fear Christchurch ratepayers will get lumped with a similar, and very expensive, white elephant.

UPDATED… QUAKE OUTCASTS DECISION ANNOUNCED 26 August 2013. Below is a brief excerpt today’s Fairfax/Stuff website.

The Government has been handed an embarrassing defeat in the High Court over its contentious offers to buy red-zoned land from homeowners.

A group of disgruntled red-zone residents, calling themselves the Quake Outcasts and Fowler Developments Limited, have won their High Court battle against the Government over the Crown’s offer for their land.