Gerry / Cera 50% offer "not legal" Page 1 / 2

mm12345, Aug 27, 5:19am

gunton1, Aug 27, 5:24am
Wonderful. I don't think any of the red zone offers should have been legal, but it is excellent news. Congratulations to those affected.

oskybosky, Aug 27, 5:35am

tillsbury, Aug 27, 6:36am
Good on them. There was a lot of general confusion around with comparisons of the red zone offers (which were very generous) and the compulsory acquisition (which wasn't). And it was all muddied by people being smug about whether they had insurance or not. But if you have a perfectly good section and/or perfectly good house and the government wants to pay you half its value that's nonsense. They need to reach reasonable valuations on each property in turn -- the government shouldn't be paying insurance payouts (i.e. paying for damage) but they should be paying the true current value if they want to take the land over.

david_270, Aug 27, 7:05am
The prick is going to appeal.
Let it go Gerry.

gazza.kay, Aug 27, 7:45am
the fat bugger and his mates don't give a stuff about the underdogs in Christchurch.

kees4, Aug 27, 7:58am
Brownlee and Sutton should resign over this .They were in the wrong when deciding to pay only 50% They both should be facing criminal charges.
would not surprise me if Sutton is the first one to go. Bulla Rodger have a nice day.

eltorokaka, Aug 27, 7:58am
thing is they use taxpayers money to appeal,whereas the already struggling redzoners have to fund it themselves. so wrong

cassina1, Aug 27, 8:02am
If you saw what he said on Campbell Live it was the Valuer General that told him to pay 50%

jtee1, Aug 27, 8:37am
That's right he told Brownlee that the land was worth only 10% of it's previous value, and Gerry said bearing that in mind, 50% was generous considering it was tax payers money.

gunton1, Aug 27, 8:55am
While I would certainly not disagree with your comment about compulsory acquisition not being generous, Tillsbury, I do wonder why you think the red zone offers were very generous. At a meeting for red zoners yet to settle a month or so ago, someone asked whether anyone had lost less than $50,000 - none of us had. I am not talking about money required to upgrade, I am talking about us having to dig substantially into our savings in order just to stand still. We are in a smaller, older property with a lower GV than the one we had to leave, in a lower income area. We do like our new neighbourhood very much, that is not the point, the point is that the offer was not very generous. In the end, after 2 years of battling with our insurance company, it was adequate, and we are fortunate in that. I have friends who were a rebuild (our home and land were barely damaged and we were a repair) who will never own a house again. My sister and her husband, whom I thought of as "winners" in the red zone lottery, now having a home with an RV $120,000 higher than the one they left, I now find funded this with savings for a world trip and my brother-in-law's redundancy money Most who have upgraded have paid for the upgrade themselves.

More generally, to turn to the Judgment itself, I've been given a copy and have now read it briefly, it's good. I was sorry that the "Outcasts" substituted their first declaration that the red zone and the clearance strategy be declared unlawful and did not pursue this, but I understand the reasons why. But thankfully the Judge commented on this anyway. I think it's very fair and balanced, from a layman's viewpoint, so hopefully it will not give Gerry and Roger many grounds for appeal.

mm12345, Aug 27, 9:04am
It's such b@stardised logic, and so obviously wrong on several levels.

oskybosky, Aug 27, 9:22am
Visit and read the facts.

We received a letter in response to an Official Information Act request from the Valuer General Neill Sullivan advising he had not made an official 10% valuation for empty land.

He states in this letter "The Government Agency responsible for the "red zone" policies and associated research is CERA and the Office of the Valuer-General has had no official involvement within the development and implementation of these policies; neither have we provided valuation workings regarding any ???red zone??? policies. I understand that CERA approached the respective council's valuation service providers (Quotable Value Limited and Good Earth Matters) directly for valuation calculations, statistics, samples and methods as they hold all the relevant property records and market evidence. Whilst some telephone discussions were held between the Office of the Valuer-General and CERA about the general provisions of the rating valuation process including who undertakes operational rating valuation work and how they determine values;I do not recall giving such an indication about residual land value as foot noted on the cabinet paper. If I did make such a comment it would have been in a very generalist manner. This I think is demonstrated by the wording of the foot note comment "We assume there is 10% of the land value remaining??? indicating that no formal analysis had been completed. Details of any discussion and the basis for the foot note comment may well be held within CERA."

jtee1, Aug 27, 9:49am
Don't get angry at me, i'm just saying what they said on Campbell Live. I'm on the land owners side, we've only got to put ourselves in their position - 50% sucks big time.

pommie74, Aug 27, 9:52am
It's disgusting!

joan71, Aug 27, 10:23am
Shame on Gerry Brownlee for appealing this decision, these are hard working New Zealand families. He should just admit they didn't get it right and treat them fairly NOW not waste tax payers money forcing them back into court causing even more pain and suffering. These people have been through enough just pay them 100% and let them start rebuilding their lives.

bigtoot, Aug 27, 10:28am
How could it ever be right to pay 100% to one group and 50% to another. 2.5 years on and, like us, many land owners still have not received an offer. This afternoon we momentarily celebrated the judges ruling of "fairplay" then slipped straight back into limbo land. damned you EQC & CERA. Damned you!

lambrat, Aug 27, 10:29am
good news for the 'outcasts' . apart from the appeal.
it seems brownlee is utterly shameless . too much power, not enough heart. and if he wins an appeal it'll be a tragedy

william1980, Aug 27, 10:45am
I read several news reports which all quoted Brownlee as saying appealing was "an option". CL was the only one to say it was definite, so I wouldn't panic just yet.
I think he should just drop it.
His main issue had been the moral hazard, which the court said was pretty much a non-event.

ken158, Aug 27, 5:37pm
The woodwork teacher appeals. not his money so why should he worry .
will look forward to the day he loses the appeal ! . ! certainly not doing any good for the EQ recovery . just wasting our money.
(More waste)

dollyrocket, Aug 27, 6:52pm
jtee1, you wouldn't be alone in thinking that it was fact that the Valuer General declared the land was worth 10% of its pre quake value. Gerry Brownlee when on TV and stated it as fact. But no analysis was conducted by the Valuer General's office and aside from what might have been a very generalised comment made over the phone, the Valuer General cannot recall even making this comment. To use this as the basis of giving a 50% offer (and stating that was generous in the circumstances) is not only unjust, it is incompetent decision making and peoples livelihoods should not hinge on such rubbish research. Go the Quake Outcasts, I hope you get over the next hurdle!

sonja2, Aug 27, 9:34pm
If Gerry does in fact decide to appeal, I hope the presiding judge tacks on an extra $50,000 per property to account for the stress and timeliness - or lack of- the outcasts have been facing.
Way to go outcasts. You should not have been in this position, you should not have had to fight, but I am delighted that you had such a good judgment.

maandpa2b, Aug 27, 9:50pm
I could have sworn some guy who apparantly runs the country (Oh Yeah, John Key) said "NO ONE WILL BE OUT OF POCKET" after not only the Sep but also the Feb shakes. TUI AD! I'm not even affected by all this but I see what it's doing to others. shame shame shame NZ Government. are you trying to save some money just incase your house (oh yeah, you get to live in one for free) gets shaken? How can it be fair to offer only 50% of the property, people are still paying mortgages on the whole amount. Our poor communities are so stressed and fed up (and not because of the earthquakes. but because of the Beauracratic bull sh!t) Do we want our city to be full of people on medication to be our future? NO! SORT IT OUT!

oskybosky, Aug 27, 10:05pm

John, come 2014, us ex-National voters will say "Thanks for nothing, its not been fun, time for you to pay the price for treating hard working tax-paying New Zealanders with contempt"

cassina1, Aug 27, 10:15pm
If the Govt still wants to not payout they could just allow the land to be unredzoned so people can be free to build on it with power/water etc connected.

Share this thread

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