Who would fund a voluntary purchase scheme?
by PMHC Project Coordinator 12:41pm, 14 August 2009
You will need to login
or sign up to do that
If it were to become the preferred option for Council to purchase any homes at risk of coastal impact, as part of a voluntary purchase scheme, who should be responsible for funding these purchases? Potential funding sources could include Federal Government, NSW Government, local ratepayers or residents affected by coastal impacts through a local rate or special charge.
This discussion topic is closed. You can still review the discussion but it will no longer accept comments or votes.
shunt Comment 1
7:27pm, 17 August 2009
26
4 
To voluntarily purchase homes should not even be a consideration. Some residents have lived in Illaroo Road for in excess of 40 years and they DONT want to move. The Study has highlighted many protective measures available that will protect this coastline for at least the next 50 years, so lets use our vast engineering skills that we have available to protect this piece of coastline. Do not allow it to simply wash into the ocean
Lew Comment 1.1
3:54pm, 25 August 2009
21
1
Absolutely agree - both options involving people losing their home MUST be taken off the list. Reactive Management (with no compensation) is the type of behaviour one sees from Robert Mugabes’ Zimbabwe or Fidel's Cuba.
Compensation under a planned retreat would amount to next to nothing as well, due to the property values being artificially deflated by a DA ban and the threat of resumption. Apart from that, these people don't want to move.
kouttrim Comment 1.1.1
6:23pm, 26 August 2009
20
0
I believe that the position Council has taken to place restrictions (149 certificate) on those properties in Illaroo Rd and Chepana St has made an impact that has been somewhat underreported. When council placed the restrictions on these homes some time ago,residents questioned the urgency to implement such regulations. One must now ask whether council were looking ahead to their preferred retreative options and in doing so were setting themselves up for the fire sale of the century!!!!
Gaz Comment 2
11:13pm, 17 August 2009
24
4
Shouldn't even be considered for obvious reasons. Simply put, to do nothing would get more and more expensive as time passes. A voluntary purchase, while alleviating the pain slightly for some will only push the problem onto the next row of houses which I'm told would not be bought back. This would be absolute betrayal for the residents of Cathie. To build a Groyne and Revetment would bring in more and more money over the years via Tourism/ Business/Increased land value and Rates. There's only 1 sensible option and its not Voluntary buy back.
Darren F Comment 3
11:33pm, 17 August 2009
20
4
I Agree with both the above, unless they eventually buy out everyone it doesn't seem fair. It shouldn't be in the option list. A retreat with no compensation definitely shouldn't be in as an option either. Council should get on with fixing the problem!
Damain Comment 4
8:05pm, 18 August 2009
21
4
As above..No voluntary purchase. fix the problem
Peter Comment 5
11:19am, 23 August 2009
22
3
Have to agree!! Let's try to fix the problem first. Council will more than recoup the cost from rates, paid over the next 50 years by these residents.
smally Comment 5.1
6:16pm, 23 August 2009
19
2
Totally agree. This is not an option and should never have been put on the list.
kouttrim Comment 5.1.1
5:50pm, 26 August 2009
20
2
To have placed two retreative measures on the options list defies all sense of logic especially when we have available to us numerous protective measures. Surely common sense will prevail! The impact of displacing people from their properties will be enormous! I'm not certain that council fully appreciate this important point. Coucil would do well to remember the immortal words of 'The Castle's' Darryl Kerrigan: "It's not just a house- it's a home!"
Kizza Comment 5.1.1.1
6:03pm, 26 August 2009
19
1
Council has not thought this option through. is the buy-back on today's prices or is council going to wait until the Illaroo Road prices are dirt cheap (or sand cheap) before buying them at the last minute before they fall in?
some of the residents would get out as quickly as possible and perhaps others would hang on for grim death, until it is dangerous. Council cannot make a public park out of an eara that is dangerous or has one or two privately owned blocks of land in the middle. With time, voluntary would become compulsory. What do others think?
Beached whale Comment 5.1.1.1.1
6:22pm, 26 August 2009
20
1
Most residents will have to stay to the death as it is their only asset, where do the council intend them to go? Maybe there are some spare broom closets in the glasshouse for them. Some residents were counting on being able to sell their homes to fund their entrance into nursing homes, how this will happen now is anyones guess. The retreative options are not an option, to even suggest this is outrageous. I thought we lived in Australia, we help people out in bushfires, floods, drought, we help overseas counries & how about "charity begins at home" & helping out here by fixing the problem
the beach is for everyone Comment 6
5:46pm, 27 August 2009
2
23
Retreat should be the option considered.
Long term the cost of trying to continually battle the ocean and the natural cycle is not quantifiable. If a plan is put in to "manage" the natural elements when is to much money to much? How will the continual cost to maintain the land that is effected be paid for and what cap is placed on maintaining that solution? what happens if we surpass that cap??
What if a plan is put into place that doesn't work at all? All options are millions of dollars that are estimates only.
If there was fair compensation and voluntary acceptance of the compensation the result is a community positive financially quantifiable, environmentally neutral result.
beach lover Comment 6.1
10:20pm, 27 August 2009
19
1
without wanting to sound disrespectful you don't seem to have thought this through clearly. If you start buying peoples homes would you continue to do so over the years or will the coast stop receding after the first row of houses? do you really think this to be the most economically viable for the community. Please try and think long term.
You seem to have changed from the beach being you number 1 concern to money? as i previously stated surely we should jump at this chance of 50% funding if money is now your primary concern.
I want the beach saved and can't see how derelict houses or bulldozed houses and roads would resemble anything but a warzone.
Any retreat be it buy back or not would not help the beach which has suffered immensly from inaction. I agree with most of the other people in this forum and think the only valid and sensible solution for all is to do our very best at fixing this problem with a protective measure.
beach lover
Beached whale Comment 6.2
5:01pm, 28 August 2009
17
1
On this I agree with beach lover, do you think that the erosion will say "STOP' once it gets to the first row of houses, I don't think so!!How is this suggestion of yours going to be environmentally neutral? Also what about the emotional health & well being of the owners who are already suffering, especially the elderly, or is this of no concern to you?
one family Comment 6.3
1:55am, 11 September 2009
10
1
And here we all were thinking mr "beach is for everyone" was so concerned with the environment and surfing and natural processes when (like Council) it's all a smoke screen. It's all about MONEY isn't it ?
If by retreat he means "planned retreat" ie buying residents out (ie not reactive mangt startegy option 13) well let's look at that cost to Council and see if we can save him some money.
Before the Hazard Report was released with the totally inappropriate recommendation that DA prohibitions be immediately enforced on Illaroo Rd the UCV's (ie Unimproved Capital Value) was over $500,000 per each of the 20 properties.
That's $10,000,000 in total (of course today it's nil and you thought the stock market had "corrected". Illaroo is a "crash").
So, to this you could add maybe 8 old cottages at insured value of about $200,000. That's another $1,600,000 and then we add maybe the other 10 insured for say $400,000 and that's a further $4,000,000.
So, is it o/k by mr/Ms "the beach is for everyone" that the rest of the Shire cough up about $15,600,000 to buy out Illaroo Rd residents. Then we have to eventually buy out Chepana and Kywong St properties and of course then there's the shopping centre and all the low lying areas behind it. I guess that's not such a great saving fter all?
Or did he/she mean by retreat, the "run away" option 13 at no cost to Council but the very extinction of Cathie. Sort of like Pompei or Atlantis, I guess.
I believe this will be my last contribution in debating this person. I suggest to all Illaroo residents and sympathisers you resist also, Mr/Ms "beach is for everyone" is winding you up, he's not credible - there are too many inconsistencies in his dissertations to be taken seriously
Give this person no oxygen, he/she is wasting your energy. I love his "save the beach" personna. It's kind of like Dracula taking on the nom de plum of "patient friendly".
Go get more submissions and petitions. Council is watching you wasting time here and enjoying such passionate folk exhausting themselves so there's no energy left to fight them where it counts. You have less than 4 weeks left - make the punches count because they're airswings here.
kouttrim Comment 6.3.1
6:18pm, 23 September 2009
4
1
Bravo to "one family"! In these final weeks we all need to unite,focus on the task at hand and use our collective voices.Ensure you have written submissions.Access the website www.savelakecathie.com.Speak to your friends and family,spread the word,ignite passion in others.Write a letter to the editor and make this an issue supported by the wider community.Implore the council to do what is most appropriate by the Lake Cathie community and protect this precious piece of coastline with a revetment,groyne and beach nourishment. The community at large will be grateful for generations to come!Resist those who have devisive agendas with respect to this issue and reinstate our communal sense of morale. We cannot rest on our laurels with October 7 drawing nearer.
enviro Comment 7
10:07pm, 2 September 2009
13
0
Voluantary purchase is better than letting these guys be hundreds of thousands out of pocket and homeless. So if it has to happen I think the council should cough up as they have had a massive hand in the problem. But like everyone else says......council would be crazy not to shore up this stretch of coast.
beach friend Comment 7.1
3:08pm, 20 September 2009
6
0
Hey enviro, you're right, council should pay ... BUT ... I have never known a council to allow a resident to NOT sell their home back to council. Council buy-backs are still theft and this option should not ever be considered. What would be the point of leaving one house standing? As has already been said, councils also severly undervalue the property, so the chances of these folk being able to afford a comparable property in a comparable area are slim. Again - Say no to "Voluntary" purchase.
Urthgirl Comment 8
9:57pm, 30 September 2009
1
0
Council (yes local rate payers.......everyone one contributes to the council coffers one way or another) should Pay. Does this option receive funding from the NSW Government as a protective measure would?
Local Surcharge???? Thats like saying Sick people should pay a much higher medicare levy. What is happening in this council/administration? There are some unbelievable suggestions being put in place here.
