"Government should compensate flood victims and purchase houses"

Perelandra

Perelandra wrote: »

The Sun has provided more support than the official channels (in terms of number of "Sunbags" at least).

The army and council are providing very few sandbags in my area, and those which are available are being provided (and rightfully so) to the more vulnerable customers. If you're not an OAP, you are being refused any practical help. Resources are limited, and so need to be prioritised.

As of yesterday, the situation has changed a bit, so for fairness I'll quote myself above.

There's now a lot more official help set up. There's a local flood centre providing food and water supplies and the sandbags are now far more readily available- and not just for the very vulnerable. Probably just in time for many, although too late for a couple of streets here.

prowla

N1AK wrote: »

When some house gets burgled then although then by the same logic the government did make it happened. They made policy decisions on education, policing, rehabilitation and prisons. Can I stop paying for home insurance and should the government bail me out if I ever get burgled instead?

Same question for car insurance where they are responsible for quality of drivers on road, enforcement of safe driving?

Also, could someone struggling to find a job in an area with low employment get the equivalent of salary insurance paid by government because their policies influence the level of employment in different areas etc?

The government is not responsible for stopping people being flooded, though it should be managing the risk. Unless the government has made decisions that increase the risk of your property flooding then they shouldn't be liable for it happening.

Besides, I'm not sure where all the concern about prices comes from. This is supposed to be a once in a century event and there's plenty of people who don't believe in climate change who should be perfectly happy to buy somewhere that will only flood once every 3-5 generations

You've extrapolated a bit too far there...

People make a decision to commit burglary, and the government advises on security and has a court process to deal with miscreants. However, people are self-determining and the government is not responsible for controlling that.

Similarly with your driving example; the government is responsible for the infrastructure which they provide for individuals to use; if there is a failure of the infrastructure then it is the government's fault, but it is not (generally) responsible for the actions of individuals using it.

Similarly to the roads, the government is responsible for the infrastructure and the decisions relating to it, including maintenance and strategy for riverways; it is responsible for the water itself.

(Looking at your car example and applying it to the river, the government wouldn't be responsible if someone in a speedboat zoomed around a bend, lost control, flew out of the water, skidded across someone's lawn and harpooned their house, though!)

In essence what government does is to manage the things which are to big or too widespread for the rest of us to handle.

In the case of the rivers it is plain to see that that has not been done well; there has been complacency at play (inaction after the 2007 reports), and decisions made which have adversely affected some people and caused their particular woes (eg. choosing not to dredge has surely caused some particular areas to flood).

Now, it may also be that strategy has dictated that it would be "preferable" (on a macro scale) to allow some areas to flood as opposed to others, and that is a valid strategic decision. But the fall out of that is that some people have lost out. I would assume that if people can directly correlate their flooding against the strategic decisions, then they may have a case. You would expect the strategy to have taken the associated contingencies into account.

That all said, my opinion is that the government should help make good damaged properties (after insurance claims), but it should not indemnify properties against loss of value and should not buy them out unless it is part of the strategy to designate them as flood run-off areas.

I previously said that the government could make it a legal requirement for developers to provide a flood assessment statement for each and every new property built. It seems to me that that should be doable.

C_Mababejive

This is rubbish. HM Government SHOULD NOT get involved in house purchases or inurance or compensation in the flood areas.

This would be an abuse of process and abuse of the hard pressed public purse.

It is for individuals to assess risk and take advice when purchasing homes. It is also for them to decide what insurances they need and acquire,pay for it.

If it is not available or their home is uninsureable well that is just too bad and they may consider moving.


Let us not forget that these flood areas are some of the most affluent parts of the country. Do not tell me that those who live there cannot afford adequate safeguards and insurances.

Perelandra

C_Mababejive wrote: »

Let us not forget that these flood areas are some of the most affluent parts of the country. Do not tell me that those who live there cannot afford adequate safeguards and insurances.

In my area it is the poorer neighbourhoods that are flooded, with a high density of low income households, so the above is too blanket a statement for me.

C_Mababejive

Perelandra wrote: »

In my area it is the poorer neighbourhoods that are flooded, with a high density of low income households, so the above is too blanket a statement for me.

Could you point me toward those areas please?

Perelandra

C_Mababejive wrote: »

Could you point me toward those areas please?

Sure,

PM sent, for anonymity reasons.

prowla

C_Mababejive wrote: »

Let us not forget that these flood areas are some of the most affluent parts of the country. Do not tell me that those who live there cannot afford adequate safeguards and insurances.

I don't think we can say that everybody who lives in the "affluent" areas are rolling in money.

CLAPTON

C_Mababejive wrote: »

This is rubbish. HM Government SHOULD NOT get involved in house purchases or inurance or compensation in the flood areas.

This would be an abuse of process and abuse of the hard pressed public purse.

It is for individuals to assess risk and take advice when purchasing homes. It is also for them to decide what insurances they need and acquire,pay for it.

If it is not available or their home is uninsureable well that is just too bad and they may consider moving.


Let us not forget that these flood areas are some of the most affluent parts of the country. Do not tell me that those who live there cannot afford adequate safeguards and insurances.

some of these floods have been a direct result of government policies
they have reduces dredging; allowed changes to land usage; allowed housing in areas they used to absorb flood water


it's not realistic to expect ordinary people to look 20-30 years ahead and anticipate future government's policies.


I'm not sure one can get an insurance policy that covers you for the reduction in value of your house to zero due to government abandoning flood defences


of course where flooding predictable then the matter is different

N1AK

prowla wrote: »

You've extrapolated a bit too far there...

Why? Beyond the fact that you have deemed flooding to be one side of an arbitrary line in the sand. If I buy a house in an area at risk of flooding then that is an action I have chosen to take, the same as if I buy a house in an area with high crime etc.

If the government has been neglecting flood defences in an area then that's one thing; if the risks of flooding have been increasing due to climate change or have remained the same then it's something else entirely.

CKhalvashi

grizzly1911 wrote: »

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?

No it's not correct.

It can (and will) be chucked out of planning in this circumstance. Then they come back with a car park below the apartments and we may think about approving it.

CK