"Government should compensate flood victims and purchase houses"

JWF

smartn wrote: »

I can understand where you are coming from and agree that it's not the governments job to pay compensation for loss in house values however I think the government/taxpayers have a moral obligation to help these people out with increased funding for flood defences and dredging etc and to provide plenty of support while the crisis continues.

I don't believe that the government should do something as daft as buy peoples houses, though they could have provided assistance to flooded areas before it reached Surrey, thus handing ammunition to anyone who cares to have a pop.

I think these events will change the cost benefit analysis of flood defences in most areas. Clearly the damage and economic from these floods is going to be huge, and in many cases seems to be much higher than what was used in the risk assessments, This may allow a justification for defences to be improved in some areas, but not all. Remember that flood defences are only designed to protect against a 1 in 200 year event, and not provide an absolute protection against flooding in all areas.

System

smartn wrote: »

agree that it's not the governments job to pay compensation for loss in house values .

Why not? They pay compensation for houses demolished to build motorways, or blighted by nearby development.
If the government decides to downgrade the level of flood protection offered to one region in order to protect another, saying it is in the national interest, then why should the same principle not apply?

Bantex_2

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

Why not? They pay compensation for houses demolished to build motorways, or blighted by nearby development.
If the government decides to downgrade the level of flood protection offered to one region in order to protect another, saying it is in the national interest, then why should the same principle not apply?

Because the government did not make the floods happen, as opposed to a motorway build which is a deliberate act.

moneyistooshorttomention

I can understand why these people want this and sympathise as well.

BUT...I don't agree with it. Some stuff really is down to "Act of God" and not Government. Other stuff is down to just sheer luck.

If I had lived in the Somerset Levels, for instance, I would certainly have sold my house the second I retired and didn't have to stick around for any job I had there. So it would be up to me to sue myself for not having seen there was a risk to my home and upped sticks accordingly. I know...I know...and it would have only shifted the problem down the line and someone else would have it now....so I'll admit to being "human" and that I would have taken avoiding action anyway..because (like 99% of us) I'm not a saint.

But many people simply weren't/aren't in a position to do that...because they do still have jobs there or are sticking around because their family are sticking around and that's the problem. I do understand and sympathise with those who took that risk and now have been/are on the receiving end of all the floods.

Not only are there not any easy answers. There simply aren't any answers full stop. The only certainty is the Government (ie us taxpayers) literally cannot afford to compensate people for something that is only partly (if at all) Governments responsibility. So we cant do it.

N1AK

lostinrates wrote: »

So e of them haven't bought a house on a flood plain. Some of them have inherited homes or family businesses like farms. Some are buying but trying to stay near family.

I do not believe they should be compensated at old market values but I can still have sympathy.

So? If your family home is on a flood plain that doesn't mean everyone else tax should pay you for the inconvenience. I 'inherited' an old fridge when I first rented and it broke down, can I have some government funding because I didn't have the good fortune to inherit a new one?

If the government does something that noticeably influences the value of a property then I think it is fair that they compensate. Government has better things to do with its money than give it to people who want to move without paying the price for buying an overpriced property or buying a property knowing there was a risk of losing value due to flooding.

N1AK

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

Why not? They pay compensation for houses demolished to build motorways, or blighted by nearby development.
If the government decides to downgrade the level of flood protection offered to one region in order to protect another, saying it is in the national interest, then why should the same principle not apply?

Is anyone saying that the level of flood protection in the affected reasons is lower now than previously? If not then what's the point in introducing such an obvious straw-man to the debate? If they are then I'd quite like to see the evidence because my understanding is that flood defences are considerably better now than they were just 10 years ago.

Moto2

No, the government shouldn't pay compensation for value losses.
If there is a valid claim against EA, perhaps the affected people should [as a group] sue them and let a judge decide?

Voters need to stop voting for the latest monkey that the party they always voted for puts up at the election and maybe start questioning candidate on their position re flood defences etc.

prowla

Bantex wrote: »

Yes, and stand by what I say. Cannot see it is the governments (taxpayers) problem if people make poor house buying decisions. Sometimes assets lose value for various reasons, why should houses be treated any differently?

But how many of the areas highlighted on the interactive map at http://www.shoothill.com/FloodMap/ are recognized at what you would call a flood plain?

And the map on page 5 of the report at http://legacy.london.gov.uk/mayor/strategies/sds/docs/regional-flood-risk09.pdf shows that significant areas of London have been identified as being at risk of flooding.

I don't think that you can really dismiss all of that as silly people who should have known better.

BillJones

mayonnaise wrote: »

To assume that the inhabitants of the above made a well informed gamble to bag a cheap property is ludicrous.

Well yes, but no-one is doing that.

You seem to be twisting my reasonably standard statement of the problem of moral hazard into a blanket condemnation of specific people.

The point is, to put it another way, that the government needs to be extremely cautious about even stepping onto the path of "making good" people who may well have taken a calculated risk.

There may be some people who the state should help beyond emergency aid through the flooding, and there may be some who it should not.

Bantex_2

prowla wrote: »

But how many of the areas highlighted on the interactive map at http://www.shoothill.com/FloodMap/ are recognized at what you would call a flood plain?

And the map on page 5 of the report at http://legacy.london.gov.uk/mayor/strategies/sds/docs/regional-flood-risk09.pdf shows that significant areas of London have been identified as being at risk of flooding.

I don't think that you can really dismiss all of that as silly people who should have known better.

I am not saying they should have known better, just that they should live by their own decisions and not expect others to pay for their mistakes.