I wasn't aware that the government had offered to buy anyone's chattels. SO why are they interested at all?

Then again kitchen and bathroom fittings are not "chattels">

Like with everything else Gerry is confused and shooting from the hip.

Imagine someone without insurance, within the red zone, in a house with minimal damage to either the house or the land, one whom stands to have a significant amount of parklike surroundings in the not too distant future. What is the go here? surely they own their land and home so can not simply be evicted? will council provide services? if not will they be allowed to install their own septic and water systems? Their GV will undoubtedly drastically decline if the area in which they are located is deemed not suitable for residential and as such their rating liability will drop accordingly. This one will be very interesting to see play out.

Dumb and Dumberer #36 Spot on, some people seem to want it all ways.

JohnC #37 I agree, Brownlee needs to explain why demolition contractors should expect to get some salvage.

Ngaizone #38 Once the government owns the property, they are going to be responsible for its security. You may find the policing becomes a little tighter than whats been going on the CBD

How are they going to police this??? If you walk away from your home accepting the governments offer and the next day a thief takes away your copper cylinder, rimu floorboards and wiring how do you prove it? does the government take over the insurance payments for the property once you sign it over? Huh?

It is startling to read that an obscure woodwork teacher called Brownlee says that "demolition contractors will expect to get some salvage".

If a house is being demolished by the insurer, the house and its remaining contents belong to the insurer. Surely the teacher isn't calling for the demolition contractors to loot items from the houses during the course of demolition?

When people sell their house do they strip the property first before handing it over to new owners?

No....so what is all the bleating about?

Last line truncated in previous comment:

Maybe even turning a . . . profit.

I should stress that I am not against the red zone offer as made by government, just the compulsory nature of the deal.

But there is also this impelling logic, as described previously, which seems to suggest that the compulsory element is basic to the imposition of a massive rort upon the good citizens of the east.

It will be interesting to watch how the lost land and buildings of Sumner and Redcliffs are to be treated. More of a natural respite for supporters of this present government I suspect, and therefore perhaps quite logical that any profits being turned from the east can be most generously dispensed onto these terraces. Afterall, the government will find no economic value in land that has crumbled away and thus offers no hope of recovery for any RV that it may have seen fit to recompense.

Yet in the east we have the greatest of ironies. These are the river suburbs which are being taken, with such wonderful frontage onto the iconic Avon River. This, a total of possibly some 15-20km of prime river bank location. What price then, when this land is returned to the market.

Little reason to presume therefore that sections now with RV of 100-200K won’t be rerating at many, many multiples of that value.

Do the numbers yourself and you will soon see how this government initiative may well be seen as the greatest show on earth.

With the Minister of Finance laughing all the way to the bank.

You know what, you're all right. The government should just pull right out and not give anyone anything. Just let everyone fend for themselves. I mean, that's way better, obviously.

I should say something further about the cost recovery by government from the "good" buildings in the red zone.

Basically, it will come down to the type of construction. Now a sizable proportion of the housing stock to be acquired will be construction from the 1950s/60s/70s. And by definition these will be buildings on pile foundation, rimu framing, good timber bracing.

Damage will therefore be various, due to a mixture of ground settlement, ground spreading and strong ground shaking. However these are the buildings that will generally qualify as "good" buildings; that is buildings for which the insurer has identified as economically repairable.

Now the basic thing is that these buildings are totally relocatable - strip away any brick or block veneer, jack up the property and cart it away. Then move it to a new site, repile, straighten any out-of-plumb as necessary, replace the veneer, make any roof repairs, reconnect the services, repair the lining, redecorate as necessary, and the house is good to go.

Thus there will be sizable economic value in a significant proportion of the "good" buildings of the red zone. No demolition required, just transport of the building, removal of any residual strip foundations and the site is clear.

So if we are to do the sums on these "good" buildings, we have the government paying out RV on the improved value but then recouping 1/ any insurance payment on value of the assessed repair, and 2/ the value of the transported building, against 3/ any cost in clearing away the odd bit of foundation and stripped veneer.

No reason to assume therefore that for some of these "good" buildings that the government won't be recouping the full RV payment.

Maybe even turning a