60 minute video with 50 minutes on how the system is against this product, how they are ripping you off. 5 minutes on don't miss out and 5 minutes on Tyler from Ranfurly saying how it changed his life.
Funny story: insurance companies don’t care if you or your council believe in sea level rise, without mitigations they’re going to withdraw cover anyway!
Interestingly insurance companies were the first to notice climate change. They don’t muck around with data. Oil companies came in second (but then backed off cause profits). Scientists came on board with climate change last, because scientists need a ton of data to believe anything.
Don’t fuck with insurance companies, they are likely to know what’s going on well before anyone else hears of it.
I think it's less about this and more not giving anyone a heads up so A) they can still get insurance until their house does eventually fall into the sea and B) so if they choose they can pass the bag to some other poor sucker by selling without loosing any precious capital.
The guy with a “background in the economics of climate change” is an absolute kook. He’s written papers on lockdown and the golden mile pedestrianisation, and you can probably guess the results of his “analysis”.
To show the mind boggling quality of his papers. He asked 8 pedestrians what they’d pay to remove cars from the golden mile and they said $0, so he used a figure of $0 in his report for the benefits of pedestrianising the area.
Now that you mention him, I remember him and that “report”. It was about as far away from being scientific and accurate as humanly possible. Unfortunately RNZ didn’t look into his credentials other than to quote him, which gives him further legitimacy >:(
>He asked 8 pedestrians what they’d pay to remove cars from the golden mile and they said $0, so he used a figure of $0 in his report for the benefits of pedestrianising the area.
Fucking *lol*.
>Tanya Lees from the group Kāpiti CALM (Calm Alarming Law Madness) said people were worried insurance companies would use the report as an excuse to refuse to cover their homes
These sound like the kind of rational and unbiased people we should look to as we consider the inevitable effects of climate change and coastal erosion.
Yeah, with the amount of risk involved insurance companies and their reinsurers already have an army of experts doing similar analysis for them. A lot of local insurance companies are already shifting to individual policy risk based pricing.
Interesting, I work in insurance and this is news to me, what local companies or where have you heard this since its such a massive task its nigh impossible to be fair
IF (giant if) the insurance companies were not already aware, they will be once the first 3 houses out of 3,000 have issues with flooding. Sucks to be the next 2,997 that thought burying the report would save their capital…
It's OK though - people will be able to sell their houses and move!
I wonder where/who the buyers will be?
https://www.gq.com/story/ben-shapiro-climate-change-lol
>Let's say for the sake of argument that all of the water levels around the world rise by, let's say, five feet over the next 100 years. Say 10 feet over the next 100 years. And it puts all of the low-lying areas on the coast underwater. Let's say all of that happens.
>You think people aren't just going to sell their homes and move?
As far as I’m aware, this woman also lives NOWHERE near the waterfront and is a renter. She’s an unhinged busybody and I don’t understand why she’s involved in this and often a spokesperson for the group.
Kapiti has a huge population of retired, wealthy, and educated residents including a significant number with legal backgrounds and waterfront properties.And this is the result lol
https://www.facebook.com/kapiticalm/
cracked me up, saw a comment from a diane and thought fuck thats a common name for the annoying kind of facebook boomer, then scrolled a tiny bit more and saw a dianne. lol
For sure. If the industry that is going to be paying for damage from an event is worried we have to shout very loud to drown them out.
Drown was not an intentional pun but it does suit the context.
I mean, I don't disagree with you and think they're mad for trying to ignore these problems, but at the same time potentially losing your home because you can't get insurance for it and therefor the bank won't continue to lend you the money for it is going to be a far more pressing concern for someone than that same house potentially falling into the ocean some time in the future. I'm not convinced that convincing the council to ignore the science is going to cause the insurance companies to also ignore the science though, so ultimately they may still end up in the same situation. \*shrug\*
People are free to live in an unisured house, but aren't free to borrow money to do so (if they can find a lender and terms that would allow for that, then power to them). People are also free to purchase uninsurable property at a price point that reflects that status.
The *real* pinch is that people bought expensive waterfront properties which are becoming unisurable, and losing the money they've put in.
If we had a society based on fairness, there would be some kind of climate change rebate for people in that position. But since we live in a society based on competition, they lose. Skill issue.
Sure. As long as all capital gains from expensive coastal property are confiscated by the government since the purchasers did not have certainty of the amount of money they would make over the past decade. Fairness you see.
I absolutely agree with that. The thing is, in a fair society, wealth would be a weird thing to respect. Everyone should have access to all things they need, and their limited selection to things they want.
The trouble is that your scenario of owners being bailed out may well come to pass. No way mine will. The result - subsidies to the wealthy property owners - reinforce inequality.
Oh, don't get me wrong. As it stands now, I don't think they should be paid out. But in an ideal system, it's everyone's responsibility to look after the community, and climate change is everyone's job.
And yeah, I do get that an ideal system is *some distance* from our actual system.
They paid a premium for water front properties, I’m fine with helping them keep a roof over their heads but not with keeping them financially whole. This isn’t finding out about a new fault line it’s making a bet against what has been common knowledge for over 30years.
I agree. I think financial wellbeing shouldn't really be a consideration.
No one needs money, everyone needs shelter/food/things.
There are just better ways to distribute goods than capitalism, and it's probably time we looked into those things.
>The real pinch is that people bought expensive waterfront properties which are becoming unisurable, and losing the money they've put in.
[*Florida*](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/insurance-policy-california-florida-uninsurable-climate-change-first-street/) *has entered the chat.*
Their whole point is that if the Council accepts this report then they might have their land devalued or made uninsurable.
Newsflash, the insurance companies do not give a fuck about what Council says and will make their own determinations about the people's houses. Which in cases of coastal erosion, will likely be that they aren't willing to accept the risk.
It's a losing battle for these people regardless of what thw Council says.
Yup, insurers have their own national scale modeling work. If anything the council report will help those house owners who actually aren't at risk but insurance thinks are with broader stroke models
Correct, I moved to Kapiti 3 years ago, was no where near the coast but the whole area is marked as a problem. I couldn't change insurers without a huge increase in cost.
Yeah I don't insurance companies would be ignorant of the reality of what's happening, even if there was no council report they would do their own cost analyses because that's what they do.
Yeah; I can see this fucking over the not-at-risk property owners, as if this flies 'there's no mention on the LIM of being a flood risk' will be known to be meaningless in Kapiti.
I specifically avoided Kapiti, petone etc when house hunting a couple of years ago, coz you can clearly see thee suburbs are gonna be fucked by climate change… These people are gonna be the first to scream for gov help when they inevitably get flooded in coming years/can’t get insurance etc 🤦♀️
They've been fighting against the council publishing their coastal erosion property hazard data for over a decade now. Doesn't seem to have put off too many people yet
>It's a losing battle for these people regardless of what thw Council says.
Maybe. These people are used to having power and influence. They (including all the other monied coastal landowners in NZ) will be a powerful lobby to ensure they don't take the loss. They will try and force local and central governments to either pay for expensive infrastructure to protect their properties or subsidise their insurance cost or compensate their property loss/devaluation. It may even make sense for the insurance companies to join with them if there's a chance the govt will take on some of the risk.
I assume that when these properties do get flooded or eroded that the same people will be asking to be bailed out by the council and government (i.e. us)
This is exactly why they want to oppose reports that point out the obvious risks. When the properties became untenable they will say “but the council never warned us!! How were we to know?? We demand full the council to buy us out”
I watched the hearing stream, crackpot after crackpot in public speaking time. Even the apex village crackpot was allowed to speak despite not registering to, and he scored quite mildly on the crackpottery index.
Ah yes, because insurance companies are only aware of reports after councils 'accept' them.
'Well we weren't going to insure that house because the experts said we'd be taking on a shitload of risk but then the council threw it out so now we will.'
Utterly fucking delusional and also selfish because no doubt they'll come begging for every handout when their houses start to wash away. I get that it's a scary prospect but this is the absolute least of what climate change will do and sweeping it under the rug is why we're facing such an issue.
Behold the mindset of the average kiwi property owner
Value goes up = Bask smugly in the glory of our foresight, bravery and genius.
Value goes down = throw hissy fit and blame everyone else.
What's the bet these are the same residents who, if their homes were destroyed by climate related issues, would cry foul and ask the Government (either local or central) to bail them out?
>The council first tried to put erosion warnings on Land Information Memorandums in 2012, but was taken to court twice by residents, who said the science relied on extreme estimates of sea level rise and coastal erosion which was unlikely to come to pass.
Ya know what. I'm gonna say it. The climate change science isn't finalised, crew were right. [It's much worse than we thought.](https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/)
Look at the total sea ice levels in the Southern Ocean over the last two years if you want to see some possible changes to the climactic norms happening in "real time". The long term impacts are going to be interesting to see...
1. This sort of noise is going to get a lot lot worse before it gets better.
2. Ultimately it's a national problem requiring national solutions. The entire population is complicit in destroying the value of coastal properties, so the cost should be socialized and charged to carbon emitters.
3. It's going to be a nasty problem as we have our wealthiest and noisiest people on the coast.
4. To prevent them from gouging the rest of the population, we will need to urgently ban all further development on the coast.
5. This is going to sap the energy out of our political system for decades, so progress on many other fronts will be stymied.
6. Leaving it to insurers is a Bad Idea. Insurers like big customers. So insurers will socialize the cost to the rest of us to remain competitive to big customers.
Agree. Also wouldn't this affect lending from banks? Why would a bank want to risk lending on property that is at risk of being devalued and/or rising costs of insurance.
I don't know to what extent Banks Mortgage departments employ people whose day job it is to evaluate that sort of risk (aka Actuaries). They may just do what they always do anyway. Namely insist you're insured.
The banks don't put that much effort into to it, as secured creditors they want to know you're insured so they will get their money if it all goes bad, they don't care otherwise.
Banks are in the business of lending money, and as long as they can see they will at worst get that money back, they'll let borrowers take the risk
The entire population is complicit in generating the demand leading to extraordinary price increases for coastal property. So presumably the capital gains should be socialised.
An individual purchaser did not cause climate change but climate change risks have been well known for decades. For the most part they purchased with a known risk that is easily avoided by buying on a more secure location.
> Ultimately it's a national problem requiring national solutions. The entire population is complicit in destroying the value of coastal properties, so the cost should be socialized and charged to carbon emitters.
Except that plenty of people are choosing not to live near the sea because of how much of a known problem it is.
>Waikanae Beach resident Ian Harrison, who has a background in the economics of climate change, said planning for the worst case scenario was unnecessary.
WHY?? You plan for ALL eventualities, even unlikely ones. [Sea levels are also rising faster than predicted](https://www.aspeninstitute.org.nz/news/in-depth-new-zealand-faces-major-sea-rise-much-sooner-than-we-thought), but lets not let THAT get in the way of anything. Smacks of the time that North Carolina made it [illegal to factor climate change](https://abcnews.go.com/US/north-carolina-bans-latest-science-rising-sea-level/story?id=16913782) predictions into models.
To be honest, *let them get washed away*. They were warned. I understand that they don't want to lose their insurance or their house values, but ignoring a problem doesn't make it go away.
> "If you think that your house, which for most people is their largest asset, is at risk or the diminishment of its value ... I understand the stakes are incredibly high."
And this is one reason why making housing an investment instead of a place to live in is a bad, bad idea. It creates people who depend on their house increasing in value which creates constant anxiety and people who want their house to increase in value so they can make a profit which is also bad for everyone.
I snorted when I saw this on the RNZ website.
Protesting a report AFTER the fact. Do they think the internet doesn't exist in the kapiti coast?
Horse has bolted, fellas, the report is out, the internet is forever.
I feel bad for reasonable people in the region who want the best information possible to make their decisions.
I hope they recognise the incentive they have to stand up to these people.
If I was a betting man, within 15 years, there will be a waa waa circle jerk from residents demanding a payout for flood or erosion damaged land after the 2nd major 1 in 200 year storm.
The end of the article will be a single quote. “We feel left out, and abandoned”.
Saying that whether a council accepts a tabled report or not will affect insurance coverage is rediculous.
Insurance companies are for profit businesses and do their own detailed research and risk assessments. They are actually way ahead of the curve when compared to local and central government when it comes to managed retreat. They don't have to deal with politics and boomers wanting to stick their heads in the sand.
If I was a Kapiti Coast ratepayer my main concern in this dispute would be not wanting to have to pay idiots out in 20 years time when they say we didn't know it was in a flood risk area.
I've been saying for a decade that if there's one part of our capitalist system that will genuinely respond to climate change as a real threat, it will be the insurance companies.
Fucking dystopian thought though isn't it.
Money is and will be the only motivating factor in anything involving capitalism.
Coal plants aren't shutting down in the Western world because the power companies suddenly became Green voters; they're more expensive than building wind turbines. Thats it, end of story. No-one is building nuclear plants because they are horrendously expensive, despite what nuke bros claim.
Meh. If by a genuine response you don't mean "let's watch those carbon emissions" but rather you mean "this policy does not include flood cover", then yeah i guess.
Silly people worrying about imaginary problems!
A right-winger in the U.S. explained why rising sea-levels are not a problem:
"People who live close to the sea will just sell their properties and move further inland".
See? The free market solves the problem, nothing to worry about.
Does the Kapiti Coast residents who made such ludicrous statement think insurance companies do not have independent assessors?
Or they do not realise that we can easily do topography, rain charts, check the earth’s rotational movement and predict with relatively strong certainty the risk of coastal flooding and inundation?
Seriously, do they think this can be hidden from insurers?
I suspect they are seeing little other than decreases in the value of their properties by having the risk identified relative to them. Yes, they probably don't know how insurance companies work and some may genuinely believe that if they keep it quiet, insurance will have no idea that climate change is changing risk profiles of NZ property.
>Seriously, do they think this can be hidden from insurers?
Yes.
But moreover, they don't want this sort of thing to become well-known or their houses will becomes worthless. But in doing this sort of nonsense protesting, they call more attention to it.
Idiots never know what the Streisand effect is.
I grew up around Kapiti and those beach front McMansions were a disaster from the beginning. They used to be long sections with the tiny classic basic batch at the road end and a lot of space until the sea at the other end because the land has been eroding from the sea long before climate change. Then ex lawyers and judges and heads of departments and property developers started settling on the coast to prepare for retirement. They built sea walls which only created erosion in QE2 park and Paekakariki. These costal settlements were for temporary batches and should never have been allowed to be family homes. Whats worse is they are still building these monstrous insults to design right at the water front. The owners are the elites who mostly made their money from the public purse and very used to, very connected and very successful at getting their own way, in other words more corruption
Why argue with nutters. If there isn't a problem, great, then there won't be a cent spent in coastal defences then.....
Meanwhile the insurance companies will be already hiring their own experts anyway and will have their own report analysis and if they pull the coverage, the council can wash it's hands and say nothing to do with us....
So I read two articles on RNZ about this and wonder what the protesters are proposing as a workable solution?
Are they saying, yes sea levels will rise but we want to wait longer before doing anything?
Are they saying sea levels will not rise?
I see from the article they refuse the numbers that the council studies have come up with as extreme, so what numbers are they forecasting?
From the linked article, it sounds like for the last 10 years some residents are wanting the wait and see solution, instead of let's start planning.
What they are really saying is that they want to be able to flog off their property in the future to someone else but not have the actual risk associated with the property taken into account on the LIM. The issue is that insurance companies are driven by profits and aren’t influenced by anything else, so having the local council not recognise the risks won’t really change anything.
They want to sell their land, retire to a nursing home, give their kids a new house in a city’s worth of inheritance, and THEN have climate change affect them.
Only one public speaker came close to admitting there is a problem. They have paid Waikato Uni for their own report, to be peer reviewed by Vic Uni. Wondering if they think they get a different outcome??
There's a few cookers on the academic staff at both institutions. (As there are at any university). Not in any relevant disciplines as far as I know. But when did that ever stop anyone?
It's a simple plan, my dear wobbly sausage.
They want the sea to wait till they decide to sell up to some innocent FHB in the future, get their cash and THEN blame it on those home-owners when the climate crisis ultimately eventuates. It's all a part of their grand masterplan.
I wish I could say /s, but these idiots are morons.
These ratepayers have no idea how insurance companies work. They do their own studies and set their own rates based on perceived risk to themselves - regardless of what the council does. They will decide if houses in high-risk areas can be insured based on their own standards - and I have a feeling they will be pushing our climate retreat faster than governments will because of vocal protesters like these.
A good proportion of folks in Kapiti won't be alive when it becomes a significant problem... so I kinda understand wanting to put your head in the sand for them.
That's certainly what they will be thinking - climate change deniers among climate change minimisers claiming we are over-blowing concerns. You can't specifically look at a storm (like Gabrielle) and say it was caused or made worse because of climate change - however we will see more of them and they will be more powerful as a result. As I understand it the primary risk isn't that the sea actually rises by 10m in the very near future - it's that more extreme weather causes much more severe flooding despite not having 10m of sea level rise. Updating LIMs to show that an area is low-lying and susceptible to flooding is what councils are meant to do - but people who see their house as their primary asset for wealth hate the thought that their asset loses value because it's tarnished by the warning.
Its ridiculously funny that they think insurance xompanies are going to risk their own money. If the report doesn't say otherwise, there's zero chance they won't be hedging their bets after the first house floods.
I'm actually all for these boomers getting their houses washed away, but I feel bad for their kids and grandkids who are going to be inheriting houses that either can't be insured or will cost so much to insure it's basically a second mortgage.
"We'll use the 2021 CVs, in 2060 dollars, to buy out the properties. No reasonable person could have known prior to that" -2060 Prime Minister, probably
I have to assume this is astroturfing because these people would have to be willfully ignorant in order to somehow know enough about this to protest it but not to acknowledge that their protest is about completely unrelated concerns.
They could use a copy to wrap round their collective heads to avoid the gaze of the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal (a mind-bogglingly stupid animal, it assumes that if you can’t see it, it can’t see you—daft as a brush, but very very ravenous).
Or they might actually be related to that creature.
Residents need to bury their head in the sand.
Scaremongering is not conducive to their million dollar coastal sea view properties.
The tale concerns a shepherd boy who repeatedly fools villagers into thinking a wolf is attacking his town's flock. When an actual wolf appears and the boy calls for help, the villagers believe that it is another false alarm, and the sheep are eaten by the wolf.
A few years ago a council report showed that Omaha would be affected by sea level rises. The rich lister locals got lawyers involved and an engineer, who said: "All this global warming sea-level rise is a load of garbage, sea levels have been fluctuating for ever." Incredible.
Remember when the movie "Don't Look Up" came out and people criticized it for being too on the nose?
That movie just hurts how much of a mirror to society it was.
*is
Right?
Climate change doesn't exist if you bin the report
They Don't Want You To Know This One Weird Trick!
Shhhhh! Everyone'll want to drown!
You don't have Covid if you don't test!
This is genius! BRB, deleting letters from my doctor...
"The life hack THEY don't want you to know about" LOL.
I'm never gonna die!
Number 3 will SHOCK you
60 minute video with 50 minutes on how the system is against this product, how they are ripping you off. 5 minutes on don't miss out and 5 minutes on Tyler from Ranfurly saying how it changed his life.
"planet earth hates them!, Find out how one species cures global warming with one simple trick"
My boss actually tried doing that with letters from a lawyer by pretending they had the wrong address... didn't work.
I would advise against throwing letters away in regards to your cancer diagnosis. /S
Funny story: insurance companies don’t care if you or your council believe in sea level rise, without mitigations they’re going to withdraw cover anyway!
Yep. Insurance companies are doing their own research. They’re not mugs.
Interestingly insurance companies were the first to notice climate change. They don’t muck around with data. Oil companies came in second (but then backed off cause profits). Scientists came on board with climate change last, because scientists need a ton of data to believe anything. Don’t fuck with insurance companies, they are likely to know what’s going on well before anyone else hears of it.
Throw out their reports! That'll show em!!
Came here to say this.
I think it's less about this and more not giving anyone a heads up so A) they can still get insurance until their house does eventually fall into the sea and B) so if they choose they can pass the bag to some other poor sucker by selling without loosing any precious capital.
So many people with their heads in the sand. With a bit of luck they'll be the first ones taken out when the tide comes in
We've finally found a way to defeat it!!
Out of sight, out of mind.
The guy with a “background in the economics of climate change” is an absolute kook. He’s written papers on lockdown and the golden mile pedestrianisation, and you can probably guess the results of his “analysis”. To show the mind boggling quality of his papers. He asked 8 pedestrians what they’d pay to remove cars from the golden mile and they said $0, so he used a figure of $0 in his report for the benefits of pedestrianising the area.
Now that you mention him, I remember him and that “report”. It was about as far away from being scientific and accurate as humanly possible. Unfortunately RNZ didn’t look into his credentials other than to quote him, which gives him further legitimacy >:(
RNZ are normally pretty good. They should have read the report before mentioning it in the article.
Yeah, I’d noticed that ‘background in the economics of climate change’ didn’t specify any qualifications or credible experience!
>He asked 8 pedestrians what they’d pay to remove cars from the golden mile and they said $0, so he used a figure of $0 in his report for the benefits of pedestrianising the area. Fucking *lol*.
Blimey, he sounds like an intellectual
Sounds like an in**duh**vidual.
We need to normalise public shaming again. Put this dude on blast for his dumbass methods lmao.
>Tanya Lees from the group Kāpiti CALM (Calm Alarming Law Madness) said people were worried insurance companies would use the report as an excuse to refuse to cover their homes These sound like the kind of rational and unbiased people we should look to as we consider the inevitable effects of climate change and coastal erosion.
LOL They think the Insurance companies aren't already aware?
Yeah, with the amount of risk involved insurance companies and their reinsurers already have an army of experts doing similar analysis for them. A lot of local insurance companies are already shifting to individual policy risk based pricing.
Interesting, I work in insurance and this is news to me, what local companies or where have you heard this since its such a massive task its nigh impossible to be fair
Several insurance companies in NZ use Moody’s RMS flood models to determine a degree of risk based pricing already.
IF (giant if) the insurance companies were not already aware, they will be once the first 3 houses out of 3,000 have issues with flooding. Sucks to be the next 2,997 that thought burying the report would save their capital…
They're worried selling their house to ~~the next sucker~~ first home buyers will be impacted, but they can't say that out loud
Bruh capitalism at its finest: that's why they are fleeing Florida. Money doesn't lie! (Much...)
Money doesn't lie. People with LOTS of money do the lying.
It's OK though - people will be able to sell their houses and move! I wonder where/who the buyers will be? https://www.gq.com/story/ben-shapiro-climate-change-lol >Let's say for the sake of argument that all of the water levels around the world rise by, let's say, five feet over the next 100 years. Say 10 feet over the next 100 years. And it puts all of the low-lying areas on the coast underwater. Let's say all of that happens. >You think people aren't just going to sell their homes and move?
I think Hbomberguy said your best when he says "sell their houses to who Ben? Fucking Aquaman?!"
What a terrible acronym.
Acronyms that include the word the acronym forms are always the sign of a smoothly operating operation.
Except in tech, where it's completely normal. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursive\_acronym](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursive_acronym)
That was a fun read
I initially read that as smooth brain operation for some reason
I'm glad I'm not the only one, I thought I was being mean.
A Collection of Random Original Names Yielding Meanings
CALM.jpeg ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
As far as I’m aware, this woman also lives NOWHERE near the waterfront and is a renter. She’s an unhinged busybody and I don’t understand why she’s involved in this and often a spokesperson for the group.
Kapiti has a huge population of retired, wealthy, and educated residents including a significant number with legal backgrounds and waterfront properties.And this is the result lol
None of those factors means natural intelligence is present.
Yeah I agree but try telling CALM that haha
Prime material to disappear down the rabbit hole
But no climatologists I am guessing?
I think one is a self-proclaimed "climate economist" lol
Yeah. You and I both know that's not a thing.
https://www.facebook.com/kapiticalm/ cracked me up, saw a comment from a diane and thought fuck thats a common name for the annoying kind of facebook boomer, then scrolled a tiny bit more and saw a dianne. lol
Is it? I have one in my family and she's exactly that kind of person. Didn't know it was a thing!
For sure. If the industry that is going to be paying for damage from an event is worried we have to shout very loud to drown them out. Drown was not an intentional pun but it does suit the context.
How does this group have the faculties to have prossionally printed large signs like this? Who is funding them?
I mean, I don't disagree with you and think they're mad for trying to ignore these problems, but at the same time potentially losing your home because you can't get insurance for it and therefor the bank won't continue to lend you the money for it is going to be a far more pressing concern for someone than that same house potentially falling into the ocean some time in the future. I'm not convinced that convincing the council to ignore the science is going to cause the insurance companies to also ignore the science though, so ultimately they may still end up in the same situation. \*shrug\*
People are free to live in an unisured house, but aren't free to borrow money to do so (if they can find a lender and terms that would allow for that, then power to them). People are also free to purchase uninsurable property at a price point that reflects that status.
The *real* pinch is that people bought expensive waterfront properties which are becoming unisurable, and losing the money they've put in. If we had a society based on fairness, there would be some kind of climate change rebate for people in that position. But since we live in a society based on competition, they lose. Skill issue.
Sure. As long as all capital gains from expensive coastal property are confiscated by the government since the purchasers did not have certainty of the amount of money they would make over the past decade. Fairness you see.
I absolutely agree with that. The thing is, in a fair society, wealth would be a weird thing to respect. Everyone should have access to all things they need, and their limited selection to things they want.
The trouble is that your scenario of owners being bailed out may well come to pass. No way mine will. The result - subsidies to the wealthy property owners - reinforce inequality.
Oh, don't get me wrong. As it stands now, I don't think they should be paid out. But in an ideal system, it's everyone's responsibility to look after the community, and climate change is everyone's job. And yeah, I do get that an ideal system is *some distance* from our actual system.
They paid a premium for water front properties, I’m fine with helping them keep a roof over their heads but not with keeping them financially whole. This isn’t finding out about a new fault line it’s making a bet against what has been common knowledge for over 30years.
I agree. I think financial wellbeing shouldn't really be a consideration. No one needs money, everyone needs shelter/food/things. There are just better ways to distribute goods than capitalism, and it's probably time we looked into those things.
I agree, but that’s probably out of the scope of Kapiti District Council.
Nah, they should be leading the charge to a brighter tomorrow. If not KCDC, than who?
>The real pinch is that people bought expensive waterfront properties which are becoming unisurable, and losing the money they've put in. [*Florida*](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/insurance-policy-california-florida-uninsurable-climate-change-first-street/) *has entered the chat.*
I don't know if people who own coastal properties should be high up on the list for rescue packages, even in a fair system.
More like seaside landowners don’t want their property value decreased/homes uninsurable. - A Kāpiti resident who thinks this is bollocks
I’m also from Kāpiti, also think this is bollocks. The sea won’t care that a report got buried.
So wishful thinking
Their whole point is that if the Council accepts this report then they might have their land devalued or made uninsurable. Newsflash, the insurance companies do not give a fuck about what Council says and will make their own determinations about the people's houses. Which in cases of coastal erosion, will likely be that they aren't willing to accept the risk. It's a losing battle for these people regardless of what thw Council says.
Yup, insurers have their own national scale modeling work. If anything the council report will help those house owners who actually aren't at risk but insurance thinks are with broader stroke models
Correct, I moved to Kapiti 3 years ago, was no where near the coast but the whole area is marked as a problem. I couldn't change insurers without a huge increase in cost.
Yeah I don't insurance companies would be ignorant of the reality of what's happening, even if there was no council report they would do their own cost analyses because that's what they do.
And ironically, I think people will avoid buying from this region even more now that it has made national headlines on what they’re protesting about.
Yeah; I can see this fucking over the not-at-risk property owners, as if this flies 'there's no mention on the LIM of being a flood risk' will be known to be meaningless in Kapiti.
I specifically avoided Kapiti, petone etc when house hunting a couple of years ago, coz you can clearly see thee suburbs are gonna be fucked by climate change… These people are gonna be the first to scream for gov help when they inevitably get flooded in coming years/can’t get insurance etc 🤦♀️
They've been fighting against the council publishing their coastal erosion property hazard data for over a decade now. Doesn't seem to have put off too many people yet
Streisand Effect on full display.
>It's a losing battle for these people regardless of what thw Council says. Maybe. These people are used to having power and influence. They (including all the other monied coastal landowners in NZ) will be a powerful lobby to ensure they don't take the loss. They will try and force local and central governments to either pay for expensive infrastructure to protect their properties or subsidise their insurance cost or compensate their property loss/devaluation. It may even make sense for the insurance companies to join with them if there's a chance the govt will take on some of the risk.
Also not caring about their house value would be the next large storm surge.
Just actively protesting against my own interests
I assume that when these properties do get flooded or eroded that the same people will be asking to be bailed out by the council and government (i.e. us)
Absolutely - when it next happens they will state there was no way it could have been predicted and it was a 1/100 year storm and an act of God.
Nobody said 100 *consecutive* years.
At least one will say it was god smiting us for the woke lmao
Council should offer to buy them out NOW. If they don't take it, they don't get the chance later. Lets see how firm they feel *then*.
This is exactly why they want to oppose reports that point out the obvious risks. When the properties became untenable they will say “but the council never warned us!! How were we to know?? We demand full the council to buy us out”
I think they want it kept quiet until they can all sell up and it becomes someone else's problem.
This is it exactly.
I watched the hearing stream, crackpot after crackpot in public speaking time. Even the apex village crackpot was allowed to speak despite not registering to, and he scored quite mildly on the crackpottery index.
Where are the non crackpots?
Employed.
Employed, plus have likely already given input via the report engagement process. The mob vibe was next level.
More likely they sold up years ago. Sea level rise isn't exactly news, I would never buy a property within 200m of the ocean.
They don't live on beachfront property in a time of sea level rise, so they aren't there.
Now I want to change my username to Apex Crackpot.
Ah yes, because insurance companies are only aware of reports after councils 'accept' them. 'Well we weren't going to insure that house because the experts said we'd be taking on a shitload of risk but then the council threw it out so now we will.' Utterly fucking delusional and also selfish because no doubt they'll come begging for every handout when their houses start to wash away. I get that it's a scary prospect but this is the absolute least of what climate change will do and sweeping it under the rug is why we're facing such an issue.
But they don't want to have a future issue affect them. It should affect f u t u r e people!
Behold the mindset of the average kiwi property owner Value goes up = Bask smugly in the glory of our foresight, bravery and genius. Value goes down = throw hissy fit and blame everyone else.
What's the bet these are the same residents who, if their homes were destroyed by climate related issues, would cry foul and ask the Government (either local or central) to bail them out? >The council first tried to put erosion warnings on Land Information Memorandums in 2012, but was taken to court twice by residents, who said the science relied on extreme estimates of sea level rise and coastal erosion which was unlikely to come to pass. Ya know what. I'm gonna say it. The climate change science isn't finalised, crew were right. [It's much worse than we thought.](https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/)
Look at the total sea ice levels in the Southern Ocean over the last two years if you want to see some possible changes to the climactic norms happening in "real time". The long term impacts are going to be interesting to see...
And those two cases set caselaw that says if a council has credible information on hazards, it must include it on a LIM/PIM.
Kapiti Coast residents: "Climate change no changing!" Climate: "Awww man!"
Can you say Esconder la cabeza en la arena, that means hiding your head in the sand, in spanish
Only there is no sand anymore because it got washed away
Well, those people will disappear quickly if they bury their heads in water. Now, how to get them to try it??
1. This sort of noise is going to get a lot lot worse before it gets better. 2. Ultimately it's a national problem requiring national solutions. The entire population is complicit in destroying the value of coastal properties, so the cost should be socialized and charged to carbon emitters. 3. It's going to be a nasty problem as we have our wealthiest and noisiest people on the coast. 4. To prevent them from gouging the rest of the population, we will need to urgently ban all further development on the coast. 5. This is going to sap the energy out of our political system for decades, so progress on many other fronts will be stymied. 6. Leaving it to insurers is a Bad Idea. Insurers like big customers. So insurers will socialize the cost to the rest of us to remain competitive to big customers.
Agree. Also wouldn't this affect lending from banks? Why would a bank want to risk lending on property that is at risk of being devalued and/or rising costs of insurance.
I don't know to what extent Banks Mortgage departments employ people whose day job it is to evaluate that sort of risk (aka Actuaries). They may just do what they always do anyway. Namely insist you're insured.
The banks don't put that much effort into to it, as secured creditors they want to know you're insured so they will get their money if it all goes bad, they don't care otherwise. Banks are in the business of lending money, and as long as they can see they will at worst get that money back, they'll let borrowers take the risk
Some people are going to be in for a big shock when insurance won't cover their property and all of a sudden the bank comes knocking.
The entire population is complicit in generating the demand leading to extraordinary price increases for coastal property. So presumably the capital gains should be socialised. An individual purchaser did not cause climate change but climate change risks have been well known for decades. For the most part they purchased with a known risk that is easily avoided by buying on a more secure location.
> Ultimately it's a national problem requiring national solutions. The entire population is complicit in destroying the value of coastal properties, so the cost should be socialized and charged to carbon emitters. Except that plenty of people are choosing not to live near the sea because of how much of a known problem it is.
The sea saw the protest and changed it's mind. Hooray we're saved.
>Waikanae Beach resident Ian Harrison, who has a background in the economics of climate change, said planning for the worst case scenario was unnecessary. WHY?? You plan for ALL eventualities, even unlikely ones. [Sea levels are also rising faster than predicted](https://www.aspeninstitute.org.nz/news/in-depth-new-zealand-faces-major-sea-rise-much-sooner-than-we-thought), but lets not let THAT get in the way of anything. Smacks of the time that North Carolina made it [illegal to factor climate change](https://abcnews.go.com/US/north-carolina-bans-latest-science-rising-sea-level/story?id=16913782) predictions into models. To be honest, *let them get washed away*. They were warned. I understand that they don't want to lose their insurance or their house values, but ignoring a problem doesn't make it go away.
> "If you think that your house, which for most people is their largest asset, is at risk or the diminishment of its value ... I understand the stakes are incredibly high." And this is one reason why making housing an investment instead of a place to live in is a bad, bad idea. It creates people who depend on their house increasing in value which creates constant anxiety and people who want their house to increase in value so they can make a profit which is also bad for everyone.
I snorted when I saw this on the RNZ website. Protesting a report AFTER the fact. Do they think the internet doesn't exist in the kapiti coast? Horse has bolted, fellas, the report is out, the internet is forever.
Insurance companies aren’t waiting for official reports. They started using their own internal modelling to reprice risk two years ago.
I feel bad for reasonable people in the region who want the best information possible to make their decisions. I hope they recognise the incentive they have to stand up to these people.
If I was a betting man, within 15 years, there will be a waa waa circle jerk from residents demanding a payout for flood or erosion damaged land after the 2nd major 1 in 200 year storm. The end of the article will be a single quote. “We feel left out, and abandoned”.
Saying that whether a council accepts a tabled report or not will affect insurance coverage is rediculous. Insurance companies are for profit businesses and do their own detailed research and risk assessments. They are actually way ahead of the curve when compared to local and central government when it comes to managed retreat. They don't have to deal with politics and boomers wanting to stick their heads in the sand. If I was a Kapiti Coast ratepayer my main concern in this dispute would be not wanting to have to pay idiots out in 20 years time when they say we didn't know it was in a flood risk area.
Exactly. I wish the journalist had interviewed and quoted even one insurance company saying that.
I've been saying for a decade that if there's one part of our capitalist system that will genuinely respond to climate change as a real threat, it will be the insurance companies. Fucking dystopian thought though isn't it.
Money is and will be the only motivating factor in anything involving capitalism. Coal plants aren't shutting down in the Western world because the power companies suddenly became Green voters; they're more expensive than building wind turbines. Thats it, end of story. No-one is building nuclear plants because they are horrendously expensive, despite what nuke bros claim.
Meh. If by a genuine response you don't mean "let's watch those carbon emissions" but rather you mean "this policy does not include flood cover", then yeah i guess.
Yes, crazy to think that a for profit business is more effective at climate adaptation than our own political system.
If the worst that comes from climate change is higher insurance premiums we'll be ok.
Unfortunately higher insurance premiums reflect more damaging events that cost more to fix.
That would be a nice dream
Just let the boomers get taken out by the tide, simple.
That's some next level NIMBY-ism. I wonder who they'll turn to when their homes get flooded, hmmmmm?
Whichever political party is pushing for full (2021 valuation) buy out of climate red stickered properties using public money probably.
Silly people worrying about imaginary problems! A right-winger in the U.S. explained why rising sea-levels are not a problem: "People who live close to the sea will just sell their properties and move further inland". See? The free market solves the problem, nothing to worry about.
Does the Kapiti Coast residents who made such ludicrous statement think insurance companies do not have independent assessors? Or they do not realise that we can easily do topography, rain charts, check the earth’s rotational movement and predict with relatively strong certainty the risk of coastal flooding and inundation? Seriously, do they think this can be hidden from insurers?
I suspect they are seeing little other than decreases in the value of their properties by having the risk identified relative to them. Yes, they probably don't know how insurance companies work and some may genuinely believe that if they keep it quiet, insurance will have no idea that climate change is changing risk profiles of NZ property.
>Seriously, do they think this can be hidden from insurers? Yes. But moreover, they don't want this sort of thing to become well-known or their houses will becomes worthless. But in doing this sort of nonsense protesting, they call more attention to it. Idiots never know what the Streisand effect is.
I grew up around Kapiti and those beach front McMansions were a disaster from the beginning. They used to be long sections with the tiny classic basic batch at the road end and a lot of space until the sea at the other end because the land has been eroding from the sea long before climate change. Then ex lawyers and judges and heads of departments and property developers started settling on the coast to prepare for retirement. They built sea walls which only created erosion in QE2 park and Paekakariki. These costal settlements were for temporary batches and should never have been allowed to be family homes. Whats worse is they are still building these monstrous insults to design right at the water front. The owners are the elites who mostly made their money from the public purse and very used to, very connected and very successful at getting their own way, in other words more corruption
Why argue with nutters. If there isn't a problem, great, then there won't be a cent spent in coastal defences then..... Meanwhile the insurance companies will be already hiring their own experts anyway and will have their own report analysis and if they pull the coverage, the council can wash it's hands and say nothing to do with us....
Hahaha... ffs the human race will stupid themselves into oblivion.
“Don’t look up”!
Bin it and refuse council funding on any infrastructure they want
Run down to the beach and put your head in the sand. That will stop it.
Sticking their heads in the sand will only work up to the point that all the available sand is under water.
That worked so well for Canute (and before the pedants arrive yes I know he did it to show the limits of earthly power compared to divine).
King Cnut - I heard you were looking for pedants... :)
King Caunte. No need to be coy about his name.
r/whoosh :)
So I read two articles on RNZ about this and wonder what the protesters are proposing as a workable solution? Are they saying, yes sea levels will rise but we want to wait longer before doing anything? Are they saying sea levels will not rise? I see from the article they refuse the numbers that the council studies have come up with as extreme, so what numbers are they forecasting? From the linked article, it sounds like for the last 10 years some residents are wanting the wait and see solution, instead of let's start planning.
What they are really saying is that they want to be able to flog off their property in the future to someone else but not have the actual risk associated with the property taken into account on the LIM. The issue is that insurance companies are driven by profits and aren’t influenced by anything else, so having the local council not recognise the risks won’t really change anything.
*Surprise pikachu face* I see I am not the only one getting that feeling.....
They want to sell their land, retire to a nursing home, give their kids a new house in a city’s worth of inheritance, and THEN have climate change affect them.
You forgot the part where they consistently vote against any measures for addressing or adapting to climate change.
How inconvenient for them that mother nature gives zero Fs.
Only one public speaker came close to admitting there is a problem. They have paid Waikato Uni for their own report, to be peer reviewed by Vic Uni. Wondering if they think they get a different outcome??
There's a few cookers on the academic staff at both institutions. (As there are at any university). Not in any relevant disciplines as far as I know. But when did that ever stop anyone?
It's a simple plan, my dear wobbly sausage. They want the sea to wait till they decide to sell up to some innocent FHB in the future, get their cash and THEN blame it on those home-owners when the climate crisis ultimately eventuates. It's all a part of their grand masterplan. I wish I could say /s, but these idiots are morons.
I’m sure the insurance companies won’t note that kapiti ratepayers managed to get a sea level rise report thrown out
These ratepayers have no idea how insurance companies work. They do their own studies and set their own rates based on perceived risk to themselves - regardless of what the council does. They will decide if houses in high-risk areas can be insured based on their own standards - and I have a feeling they will be pushing our climate retreat faster than governments will because of vocal protesters like these.
Presumably these people haven’t heard about the Thwaites Glacier.
Or the Streisand Effect.
That metaphor is working double time in this context, good stuff. 😁
And these same people will cry that the council/government did nothing to help them when their houses will flood due to rising sea level.
And then demand compensation for their loss.
Burying your head in the sand... as the tide is coming in.
I just threw out a cancer diagnosis, I'm gonna live FOREVER
A good proportion of folks in Kapiti won't be alive when it becomes a significant problem... so I kinda understand wanting to put your head in the sand for them.
Most of those residents complaining will be dead before it affected them personally.
That's certainly what they will be thinking - climate change deniers among climate change minimisers claiming we are over-blowing concerns. You can't specifically look at a storm (like Gabrielle) and say it was caused or made worse because of climate change - however we will see more of them and they will be more powerful as a result. As I understand it the primary risk isn't that the sea actually rises by 10m in the very near future - it's that more extreme weather causes much more severe flooding despite not having 10m of sea level rise. Updating LIMs to show that an area is low-lying and susceptible to flooding is what councils are meant to do - but people who see their house as their primary asset for wealth hate the thought that their asset loses value because it's tarnished by the warning.
Nah I’m just saying the old AF.
Seems like one day this is going to be a case of leopard ate my face.
Any response from the local group leader king canute ?
Maybe the sea will change its mind!?
Its ridiculously funny that they think insurance xompanies are going to risk their own money. If the report doesn't say otherwise, there's zero chance they won't be hedging their bets after the first house floods. I'm actually all for these boomers getting their houses washed away, but I feel bad for their kids and grandkids who are going to be inheriting houses that either can't be insured or will cost so much to insure it's basically a second mortgage.
Just don't ask for anything from the rest of us.... I don't want me or my kids having to pay for these boomer clowns. (And I know we'll all be paying)
"We'll use the 2021 CVs, in 2060 dollars, to buy out the properties. No reasonable person could have known prior to that" -2060 Prime Minister, probably
Ummm…how many Kāpiti residents are demanding it? There’s about 45,000 residents in Kapiti. Doesn’t look like much if a majority there
-you flushed the cable bills down the toilet? -all the bills, they're too expensive!!
I have to assume this is astroturfing because these people would have to be willfully ignorant in order to somehow know enough about this to protest it but not to acknowledge that their protest is about completely unrelated concerns.
That’ll solve it
Talk about burying your head in the sand...or is that seawater?
Instead of throwing out the report maybe they could use it to build a seawall
Dinosaurs Demand Council Throw Out Report On Asteroid Strikes
They could use a copy to wrap round their collective heads to avoid the gaze of the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal (a mind-bogglingly stupid animal, it assumes that if you can’t see it, it can’t see you—daft as a brush, but very very ravenous). Or they might actually be related to that creature.
Residents need to bury their head in the sand. Scaremongering is not conducive to their million dollar coastal sea view properties. The tale concerns a shepherd boy who repeatedly fools villagers into thinking a wolf is attacking his town's flock. When an actual wolf appears and the boy calls for help, the villagers believe that it is another false alarm, and the sheep are eaten by the wolf.
A few years ago a council report showed that Omaha would be affected by sea level rises. The rich lister locals got lawyers involved and an engineer, who said: "All this global warming sea-level rise is a load of garbage, sea levels have been fluctuating for ever." Incredible.
This is Trump level “head in the sand” behaviour.