I still want to know why the building corporations

male_timaru, Jan 30, 1:52am
have not been taken to task on the suburbs that got built after rejection of plans by council based upon land surveys

They were rejected and had reports done to say land was safe and could be used for building on - then took council to court and got decision upturned and were allowed to build those subdivisions that have now ruined THOUSANDS of people's investments, lives and futures

Why have these asses NOT been held accountable for their actions and decisions they made - the COUNCIL were right in saying NO, and should have been listened to .

Who knows more on these developers and if they're still sitting pretty on their millions they made from this deal!


cessna3, Jan 30, 1:58am
It's bit like the leaky building problem, soon as someone takes them to court they transfer all their personal assets to the wife, then put the company into liquidation so no one gets any money.

male_timaru, Jan 30, 2:01am
I know the priority for investigation has been on CTV and Pyne Gould etc as people (who i knew too) were tragically killed in these buildings, but there has to be a time when those developers who thought they knew better should be taken to account and be named and shamed and brought to the attention of the public

YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE AND YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELVES - PROFIT OVER SAFETY SUCKS AND RUINS THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE'S LIVES

I am asking these questions because I have close friends in these suburbs who are penniless and homeless now because of these developers and their FORCING the council into allowing them to build out of greed !

bob955, Jan 30, 2:19am
Ahem, arent we supposed to "move on",be "positive", "focus on the future" and a score of other cliches that are usually dragged out at these times! Asking questions like that could be making a lot of the "profit before values" folk very uncomfortable.

drsr, Jan 30, 3:20am
Source! Specific developers, dates and times!

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/bexley-residents-may-sue-christchurch-council-130642
"a perusal of the records shows the city council never objected to any developments over concerns about liquefaction.

"The private developers who bought the council land sought rezoning in 1992. The only objectors were environmentalists concerned about the loss of wetlands. The Environment Court acceded to their requests to reduce the area for housing."

trade4us2, Jan 30, 3:56am
Yes I believe this needs to be sorted out. I'm in Auckland, and the council here requires engineering surveys for earthworks in the land around me that is sandstone and quite safe.

The Christchurch council should have been aware of the earthquake risk after 1980 when the earthquakes in ChCh became more frequent. Go to Geonet and look for yourself.

Here are a couple of references to look at

http://www.rebuildchristchurch.co.nz/blog/2011/12/stuff-co-nz-quake-risk-report-sparks-call-for-compo http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/bexley-residents-may-sue-christchurch-council-130642

108895, Jan 30, 5:53am
at the end of the day ts up to the individual to do basic investigation into the land beneath the house they're about to purchase.All the info is readily available from councils & geotechs.Buyer beware.If you puchase on land that is fill or was once a swamp, wtf do you expect will happen eventually

hdmovies, Jan 30, 5:57am
I somewhat agree, I clearly recall my lawyer pointing out the risk of liquefaction when purchasing my home.

At the same time there was some shoddy workman ship going on. A fair few houses have no steel reinforcement in their foundations, which could be in breech of building code.

trade4us2, Jan 30, 7:51am
Most people know nothing much about geology and engineering, and should be able to rely on the Councils. But the Councils tend to be hopeless, and have now run out of money.

Yes it is possible to build on substandard ground. My father built a house on just sand, and it's still fine 60 years later. He made a huge reinforced concrete slab.
In ChCh, it should be possible to drain the ground, but not if it's not much higher than a nearby river. In which case the Council should never have allowed buildings there.

nondescript, Jan 30, 9:26am
Our section was not liquifaction prone , however we have been affected by liquifaction from the reserve behind us and from the cul de sacover the road from us . So it isnt quite as simple as you like to make out !Or is your suggestion that you employ your lawyer to examine all the land in a 5km radius around where you are looking at buying . !

We were built on compacted landwith reinforcing in our foundations . !

Now we are a demo :<

sikeres, Jan 30, 5:08pm
Blimey, I'm becoming such a Cantab amateur seismologist, read last part of statement as, "put company into liquifaction so no one gets any money."

steelman3, Jan 30, 6:28pm
bullcrap not in a subdivision all that needs to be done by the developers and council.

Share this thread

Buy me a coffee :)Buy me a coffee :)