"Government should compensate flood victims and purchase houses"

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

When we had that storm in the Philipines, the Disasters Emergency Commitee sprung into it life, guised by the media and extracted monies off the public.

Seems to be strangley quiet on the home front!

prowla

Bantex wrote: »

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

However, I can see the other side too; the government certainly did make some of the floods happen; yes, the water fell out of the sky, but the government(s) made policy decisions on river maintenance & routing, on defence and response measures, on drainage, and so-on, and these did make differences as to who got flooded.

Graham_Devon

Glad this has started some good debate

Theres another discussion going on too. Fisherman can't fish. People can't get to hotels and B&B's due to transport problems etc etc etc. Business can't get custom because people can't get to the business itself.

One business is now stating their insurance cover for this hasn't covered even a tenth of their loss.

So, who is responsible? (I ask because that was the general theme of the discussion surrounding the Dawlish line...i.e. someone, somewhere, had to cover these losses).

While I'm not in agreement with this thought, it appears many are starting to see the government as the insurer of last resort. Which I guess is understandable, even if I don't agree, when you face the problems these people face.

Bantex_2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Glad this has started some good debate

Theres another discussion going on too. Fisherman can't fish. People can't get to hotels and B&B's due to transport problems etc etc etc. Business can't get custom because people can't get to the business itself.

One business is now stating their insurance cover for this hasn't covered even a tenth of their loss.

So, who is responsible? (I ask because that was the general theme of the discussion surrounding the Dawlish line...i.e. someone, somewhere, had to cover these losses).

All the above are insurable business risks. Anyone who did not cover took a gamble.

Perelandra

I'm one of those affected by this- my house itself is still dry, but the garden is under a serious amount of water (about 3 feet). The house is built up from the ground to minimise the impact, but I imagine that its loss in value will be substantially more if the house itself is flooded.

However, I imagine that the rental value of the property will ultimately be unnaffected by this, and so I'm viewing the property now as something that I'd be "forced" to rent out in the future rather than selling.

All of Staines/Egham is on a floodplain, so if you need/want to live there you need to be able to accept some risk. But I thought it would be a safer area as it's over a mile from the river. Properties closer to the river are actually far less affected.

If the government did do a "buy" compensation scheme, I'd jump at the chance- I'd be a fool not to- but I'd feel like I was stealing something.

mayonnaise

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?

I pay through the nose in taxes to fund benefits for those who made pour educational or family planning decisions.
I'd love it if some money would go to those in real need for a change.

vivatifosi

Good luck perelandra, I hope that the water stops short of your house. Out of interest, as an affected party, what advice are you getting, if any, on protecting your property?

mayonnaise

Perelandra wrote: »

I'm one of those affected by this- my house itself is still dry, but the garden is under a serious amount of water (about 3 feet). The house is built up from the ground to minimise the impact, but I imagine that its loss in value will be substantially more if the house itself is flooded.

However, I imagine that the rental value of the property will ultimately be unnaffected by this, and so I'm viewing the property now as something that I'd be "forced" to rent out in the future rather than selling.

All of Staines/Egham is on a floodplain, so if you need/want to live there you need to be able to accept some risk. But I thought it would be a safer area as it's over a mile from the river. Properties closer to the river are actually far less affected.

If the government did do a "buy" compensation scheme, I'd jump at the chance- I'd be a fool not to- but I'd feel like I was stealing something.

All the best Perelandra.
Please don't feel as if you are stealing if it ever comes to compensation. You'll deserve every penny of it.

[Deleted User]

If the government (i.e. tax payer), buys them, does that mean they could rent them out, or timeshare them, when the weather is nice?

Could turn a tidy profit. I fancy renting a nice cottage near Henley in the summer

BillJones

When I move out of our Capital one day, up to the borders, I've always assumed that I'll want a house on firm ground, on a hill, sheltered from storms, within walking distance of water, "just in case". This vastly reduces my choices, and will quite likely increase my costs (as will insisting it's stone built, with a walled garden). I genuinely believe that if the earth cracks open and swallows it that I'll stoically accept my monetary losses if it's not insured.

I'd quite like the fire brigade to upll me and my family out of the hole, and actually expect that they would, but think that my views on the flooding are similar to on my future house. The state should rescue, protect, and preserve life, and not ignore good environmental management, but they should not tend to go as far as compensating people for their houses dropping in value.