Comments on: Post quake flooding in Christchurch

By: Hugo

Sat, 10 May 2014 05:49:17 +0000

The Council will release plans on Monday. The good thing about the Flockton area is that elevation allows solutions. There is a lower point for draining the water.
Council will engineer this is one way or the other. It will probably require some area to be designated for water drainage or storage.
Fortunately the facts cannot be hidden anymore and authorities will have to sort out the problem.
It is worse where elevation or lack thereof does not allow any long term solutions.
In a way I am pleased that we have had all this rain as it has exposed how the risk transfer designed by the insurance industry is a failure.
The MBIE guides are used to allow the insurance industry (by their request/recommendation) to avoid raising houses.
This is in my opinion unfair and un-ethical treatment of vulnerable people. Most people are not able to defend themselves agains these practices.
THe consequences became obvious in the floods.
A recovery should reflect “Duty of Care” It should not reflect “uncontrolled profiteering” and “blatant risk transfer”.
The land is damaged, it was insured. That is the reason for the recovery authorities deny residents access to land damage information.
All the published information are outdated, the calculation methods used exclude the worst damaged land.

In my opinion based on the areas I know, Flockton area will be solved. The areas that do not have any long term solutions should be evacuated by residents.
As everyone else has evacuated how can it be rectifiable to leave the residents there?
An area that can be defined by the following should be evacuated.

National and local government are not reestablishing any services, no money is being spent.
None of the 200m donations for the earthquake victims has been spent on capital investment the area.
Earthquake damaged council assists and not replaced or rebuilt.
Private businesses that have suffered earthquake damage are not rebuilding.
Drainage solutions are short term only.

In these situations there are no options other than facing the facts.
These areas such as South Brighton reflect where authorities are trying to delay the disaster till the insurance companies have settled their claims and evacuated the area.
What sort of society treats people like this, they all run away with as much money as they can get their hands on and leave the vulnerable?
IMHO

]]>

By: Silt and the City | thechristchurchfiasco

Sat, 10 May 2014 02:02:24 +0000

[…] https://empoweredchristchurch.co.nz/post-quake-flooding-in-christchurch/ […]

]]>

By: Craig Richmond

Tue, 29 Apr 2014 05:29:27 +0000

So – what are the options for resolution – beyond the current proposed improvements to the Dudley Creek system and related culverts? 2 years (plus whatever time it takes until the work starts) is too long for many people. I live in Richmond and am not directly affected by the flooding – our property had water on it in the March event, but at the very bottom of the foundations (so ~ 200-200mm safety margin available). However I’ve very concerned for others in our community – multiple floods since 2011. Derek Gabrielle in Stapletons Rd is one example (quoted in the Press here: http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/christchurch-earthquake-2011/9136815/Sunken-suburban-Christchurch-dreams), another is Lindsay Rush in Slater Street (http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/north-west/9988696/Widower-suffers-ninth-flood-since-quakes)….it is unbelievable what these people are having to deal with….how do you keep going on when this keeps happening.

It would appear that an immediate fix via CERA legislation (assume this is the correct approach) for red zoning is what is required.

In terms of picking up the tab for any mitigation (whether it is red zoning and/or creek improvements) – this really shouldn’t be a burden on the CCC (maybe partial) – especially when the perceived increased flood risk is allowed for in the EQC land claim policy…..Shouldn’t EQC then be a substantial contributor to any funds required for flood risk mitigation/resolution?

Who do we have to lobby and protest to get traction on this? I think we’re at that point where the screws really have to be put on those in the positions of governance to provide immediate answers….

Thoughts?

]]>