"Government should compensate flood victims and purchase houses"

Graham_Devon

It's in the news down here this morning that a group of councillors etc has got together and are going to lobby the government (whatever they mean by lobbying!) to buy houses off the flood victims at (last months) market value.

The householders describe this as "compensation". I think a better term would be help, as compensation puts a different slant on what they are trying to achieve.

But it's an interesting scenario. The householders interviewed were very vocal about the possible inability for anyone to get a mortgage on the home when they sell & in general, the loss of value the floods will have bought to their homes.

The floods were not their fault. But then neither are they the taxpayers fault.

Some seem to just want out and want government help to buy elsewhere. One seemed to suggest she wanted the government to buy her house, not the taxpayer, which was amusing, if not a little worrying! Another seemed to be suggesting she wan't compensation paid up to cover difference between the value of the house today and what it was before the floods.

So what do you think? Should the government be buying peoples houses or stumping up to cover the loss of value due to floods? In both of these scenarios we would have to assume last months market rate (or at least the market rate before flooding as thats what the residents wanted).

purch

I think the Government should own everything, and we should all walk around wearing grey jumpsuits (bought from Primark of course :eek:)

mayonnaise

Graham_Devon wrote: »

One seemed to suggest she wanted the government to buy her house, not the taxpayer, which was amusing,

She was probably a tad upset because her living room was under 6 feet of water, but good to hear you found it amusing.

Personally, I don't care in what form the compensation comes, whether it's cash payments or house purchase by the govt. and I'll be gladly paying my taxes towards helping hard working families in times of need.

maddermanblue1_2

If you build on natural flood plains or along the river Thames, you are just asking for trouble. History has shown that the Thames banks floods every now and then, even more so as the river is being squeezed due development, causing a bottle neck.
Also the removal of vegetation i.e trees in favour of buildings does not help, building over natural soak aways does not help, water needs to go somewhere.
The planners need a kick up the bum as they seem clueless building on flood prone areas.

'Build everything on stilts I say!'

BillJones

mayonnaise wrote: »

She was probably a tad upset because her living room was under 6 feet of water, but good to hear you found it amusing.

Personally, I don't care in what form the compensation comes, whether it's cash payments or house purchase by the govt. and I'll be gladly paying my taxes towards helping hard working families in times of need.

I'm all for helping people, and feel huge sympathy for those affected, but, on the other hand, the government should not be in the busines sof "making good" everyone who suffers a loss through acts of nature or accidents, especially when the housholders may well have been making a well-informed gamble when buying the cheaper house in the valley than the more expensive house on the hill top.

grizzly1911

Leave it to the free market that is best apparently.

Governments are there to govern.

Seriously - an acquaintance told me that planning authorities can't stop developers building in high flood risk areas just ask them to build within the building regulations. Is this actually correct? Would they also include some form of flood prevention stipulation?

Carl31

As with any asset, there are risks of ownership, if you dont want to carry the risk, dont buy it, there are other options

The government cant continue to wipe everyones !!!!!! all the time

prowla

Nope, the government (taxpayer) should not buy their houses.

It should give reasonable help towards fixing them (after insurance is taken into account) and should put real effort into addressing the issues (dredging, defence mechanisms & procedures, providing means for water to drain off, etc.).

The government could also put in place a compulsory vulnerability assessment rating for new builds.

vivatifosi

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Seriously - an acquaintance told me that planning authorities can't stop developers building in high flood risk areas just ask them to build within the building regulations. Is this actually correct? Would they also include some form of flood prevention stipulation?

It's worse than that, something we were discussing on the NPT for a short while. Planning actually does turn down some applications for higher set houses or rural houses on higher land because they are not in keeping with the local norms. I think one of the flooded guys on the news said as much: he applied to build his house higher, but was turned down. Yes, you can build measures into new houses such as flood doors, but isn't it better to raise them up in the first place, as other more sensible countries would?

Rinoa

The govt. already assists those on flood plains by insisting insurers can't just stop insuring them. Presumably this means those of us not on flood plains pay a higher premium to subsidise this arrangement.

OK, it's inconvenient to have your house flooded, but at least the damage is insurable.

mayonnaise

BillJones wrote: »

I'm all for helping people, and feel huge sympathy for those affected, but, on the other hand, the government should not be in the busines sof "making good" everyone who suffers a loss through acts of nature or accidents, especially when the housholders may well have been making a well-informed gamble when buying the cheaper house in the valley than the more expensive house on the hill top.

I disagree.
We're not talking some cowboys here who knowingly built or bought in a regularly flooded plain.
These are well established towns, Old Windsor, Datchet, Wraysbury, Egham, Staines, Shepperton...etc..
To assume that the inhabitants of the above made a well informed gamble to bag a cheap property is ludicrous.
And the house in the valley, especially a riverside location would attract a premium, not the other way round.