Should the Government buy-out flood-prone properties to resolve the flooding problems?

megadeth on 06/07/2022 - 16:58
Last edited 06/07/2022 - 17:46

Property buy-backs could be a way to fix past development mistakes as per SMH

With 100s of thousands of properties located on floodplains, the cost of buying them all out could easily run in billions (if not trillions). SMH in above article is asking the Government to consider mandatory buying back a small fraction of vulnerable houses each year and keep doing it for a few decades.

Considering that catchment maps have existed for decades and land contour data being freely available at Geoscience Australia. The councils could have prevented these disaster-bound developments. End-users possibly had a vested interest in buying cheap land on a per-acre basis and thus ended up committing to these properties in major towns in Outer Sydney suburbs (and other regional towns like Lismore), possibly hoping for a subdivision to be allowed in years subsequent to their purchase. Why else would a young couple (shown on TV last night) buy an acreage in Richmond when smaller suburban homes have been constructed in thousands per year in the vicinity in relatively safer areas.

If you're living in a flood plain you know you'll be affected by flooding sooner or later - it's not a matter of if but when! So I personally can't see why people fail to move to safer areas. Remembering in AU you are supposed to pay for an ambulance in case of a medical emergency (if you are not covered by an appropriate cover) however, flood rescue are paid for by tax payer.

My property is not in a flood affected area but my home insurance premium is rising 3-folds from next year due to underwriting insurance costs skyrocketing because of increased number of disaster related claims.

Long story short - do OzBargainers think that the Government should buy-out flood-prone properties using tax payer's dollars to resolve the flooding problems once and for all?

Poll Options expired

  • 67
    Yes
  • 833
    No
Financial

Comments

  • EightImmortals on 06/07/2022 - 17:10
    +35

    If the government/council approved building houses on a known flood plain for $$$$$ then they should be liable for the consequences. Instead of buying the blocks back perhaps the owners a similar block in a safer place?

    • megadeth on 06/07/2022 - 17:16
      +13

      The whole notion of 1-in-a-100-year event has changed due to recent weather events, councils possibly allowed developments based on the data available at the time of development. Also the onus for doing the due diligence rests with the buyer. Just as why didn’t we all invest our net worths into crypto. :)

      • Scrooge McDuck on 07/07/2022 - 16:49
        +11

        Caveat emptor.

      • mousie on 07/07/2022 - 20:34
        +3

        But.. If you watch the NSW senate hearing on this there is a total lack of accountability o planning NSW and councils.

        Plus many people in planning NSW have resigned.

        They just didn't pay attention to the facts, much to the expense of those who have bought into these areas.

        • Caped Baldy on 07/07/2022 - 22:47
          +8

          90% of the decisions would likely be politically motivated and often ignoring the professional advice.

          • seraphim2017 on 08/07/2022 - 10:48
            +2

            @Caped Baldy: This. Decisions are made using the advice of public servants, but if they are deemed politically unpalatable, or businesses complain enough about notmaking sufficient profits (who fill politicians coffers with coins) then they get the green light anyway.

            Politicians ignore the advice the public pay for pay for, and the public servants get the blame more often than not, as the politician will have changed portfolio/resigned and been given a cushy public appointment type role instead.

            • Caped Baldy on 08/07/2022 - 11:28
              +2

              @seraphim2017: Staff cop heaps of abuse. I've worked in local gov and I've seen some actions that are against procurement guidelines and code of conduct.

              Hard when the top dog and mayor are best buddies.

              There's also a lot of wasted time and money due to stupid shit like graffiti and vandalism. Things will get worse now that the cost of materials and work has gone up.

              • mousie on 08/07/2022 - 18:59
                +1

                @Caped Baldy: Absolutely my wife has also worked for local gov and seen this nonsense first hand.

      • aliceisstupid on 08/07/2022 - 08:50
        +24

        I think a lot of people misunderstand 1-in-100 year events to literally mean that it can only happen once every 100 years. It actually represent a 1% chance of exceedance every single year.

        People say “oh it flooded in 1972 so it’s already had its 1-in-100 year flood this century so I’m safe” but that’s just not how it works.

        • knk on 08/07/2022 - 09:34
          +4

          I think those people probably skipped their statistics class.

        • grr1701 on 08/07/2022 - 09:39
          +1

          Barnaby Joyce spun the data on the Lismore floods as being a 1-in-3500 year event (which it wasn’t) to excuse the government for their inaction in the area. Stupid people who have zero understanding of mathematics should not comment as he did..

          • JimB on 08/07/2022 - 12:46
            +5

            @grr1701: Barnaby Joyce probably also thought the chances of his GF getting pregnant was a 1-in-3500 year event or about the same as the Virgin Mary getting pregnant.

            • mousie on 08/07/2022 - 18:59

              @JimB: Anything is possible with how much he drinks.

          • entropysbane on 09/07/2022 - 10:15

            @grr1701: All those macadamia plantations that have gone into the upper catchment of the Wilson have silted the river bed up. Navigation upstream of Lismore has become very difficult last five years. That and a stationary upper low over the top of a surface trough parking itself on top of the catchment for 24 hours and voila!

        • ankor on 09/07/2022 - 10:45
          +1

          If someone says to me it's a 1-in-100 year event, then my thinking is that they've tracked these types of events over at least 100 years, I'm left with knowing it's happened about once over the past 100 years.

          But if someone says to me it's a 1-in-100 chance in flooding, then my thinking is that for every 100 storms, there's a 1-in-100 chance of that type of flooding happening.

          The difference between the two statements above, to me, is that the former statement gives the impression that it's a lower than1:100 chance event and the latter is just what's stated, a 1:100 chance event.

          Where am I getting it wrong?

          • Gladioli on 09/07/2022 - 18:27
            +2

            @ankor: There are a variety of ways to account for chance of flooding. Current practice for large events is to use 'Annual Exceedance Probability' (AEP) which is the percentage chance that a flood of a given size (or larger) will occur in a given year. What used to be called the 1 in 100 year theoretical flood is now the 1% AEP flood, which means there is a 1% chance a flood of that size or larger will occur this year (and 1% next year and 1% the year after etc.). However, we are aware that there are climate drivers for for flooding, such as La Nina. So, when these events (La Nina) are occurring, it makes sense to expect that the chance of the 1% AEP flood occurring is actually greater than 1% in that year. In the same way, if there is a drought, it is probably less than 1% chance that year.
            So, if we consider that the chance is increased during wet years, then we can be much more aware and ready when a weather system starts moving through that this could cause a big flood. This approach should help to get rid of the idea that 'it only occurs once every 100 years, so it can't happen this year'.
            Another thing to note, with increased temperature due to climate change, the atmosphere has a higher capacity to carry moisture. As a result, we can expect larger rainfall totals, which in turn can increase the likelihood of large flood events. This could mean that the 1% AEP flood becomes a 5% AEP (meaning on average it could occur every 20 years), so suddenly a much higher risk.

          • Gladioli on 09/07/2022 - 18:31
            +1

            @ankor: Also, yes, the statistics of chance of flooding occurring come from historical data, which for many eastern Australia areas is in the order of around 120-150 years of data. Ideally we'd have several hundred years of data to have more reliable statistics, but you've got to start somewhere

          • megadeth on 10/07/2022 - 08:56
            -2

            @ankor: In the overall history (if you want to go far), according to scholars there have been multiple tsunamis that have complete swept over entire Australia. These are zero survival events and an apocalyptic situation which can never be covered by any consideration.

            • Zephyrus on 10/07/2022 - 19:22

              @megadeth:

              according to scholars

              What "scholars"? What is their evidence?

              A tsunami across the entire country would be the most ludicrously massive thing. The average elevation of Australia over 300m, and the largest wave ever recorded (and this was in a very unusual location to make this happen) was 150m, and that was in the water.

              I think your "scholars" might be smoking a little too much of the good stuff.

              • megadeth on 10/12/2022 - 14:32

                @Zephyrus: This research was actively being discussed after the 2004 Boxing Day Tsunami, and i remember reading references in the press only. A quick google brought up this paper which discusses the kind of events I was referring too. In my OP I never talked about 'recorded' events/data but uninsurable apocalyptical events.

      • grr1701 on 08/07/2022 - 09:26
        +4

        I read, yesterday, that the NSW State government is still approving the sale of housing blocks in known flood areas. Very disappointing but I guess it brings money into the coffers. I suspect the logic has been that by the time the houses are flooded, the politicians responsible for allowing the developments will have retired.

        • mini2 on 08/07/2022 - 14:12
          +4

          People are still flocking to those areas and they wondered why it's cheap (relatively speaking).

          • entropysbane on 09/07/2022 - 10:28
            +1

            @mini2: They wonder? Or buy at the lower price gambling that it won’t happen to them? It is a common thing and most people buying into those areas do it with their eyes open. Until the day the risk is realised.

            • Gareth on 09/07/2022 - 18:01

              @entropysbane: … and then they {some} want the government to make it right

          • pharkurnell on 10/07/2022 - 17:28

            @mini2: water views… cheapest in AU

          • pharkurnell on 10/07/2022 - 17:33

            @mini2: These areas shouldnt be zoned for housing… problem solved.

            except for backhanders and people paying off other people to get zones changed.

      • wozz on 08/07/2022 - 09:45
        +3

        I think lots of people misunderstand the 1 in 100 thing as well. It means 1 in 100 chance per year that a certain height flood will occur ie 1% chance per year, not 1 in 100 years

        Recent floods in hawkesbury have all been around 1 in 20, not 1 in 100 as the media loves to report

      • poohduck on 08/07/2022 - 16:06
        +3

        the data for what is happening now has been known for decades. I knew it 15 years ago which is why I made a move. We have worked very hard for what we now have - the more visible effects of climate change. Many of us still look for excuses not to change anything; shit we even voted for a government that was hell bent on speeding that up; two terms we voted for him. We'll still whinge at the consequences though. We've ignored the rising water in the pacific islands for decades too, they've been pleading for us to change. Welcome to their world, the one that we ourselves have created. It won't be long till we're in the fire season again. Our answer for that is to burn more and clear everything - we don't do anything right. I do feel for the folk who have tried to minimize their impact on this

      • wallet72 on 09/07/2022 - 14:40

        Part of the issue is the perception of '1 in 100'. It does not mean - as alot of people seem to think - that a flood now means there won't be another one for 100 years. It means there is a 1% chance of a flood every time. Yes, it's unusual to have these floods so close together: but that's the odds you take when you buy in a flood area.

        • AlienC on 09/07/2022 - 16:04

          Off topic question sorry if it is irrelevant but is it cheaper to build in a flood area or are there any benefits to building in a flood area vs a non flood area or is there no difference financially or otherwise other than just preference.

          • wallet72 on 09/07/2022 - 20:08

            @AlienC: it used to be cheaper but now I don't think it matters. The real impact comes when the new homeowner goes to get their house insured - then it's either an eye watering premium or just impossible to get insured.

            But that does raise a good point. If the property was bought at a discount because it was flood affected, or if the fact it was in a flood area was fully known, why should the government do anything? You take the risk, you own the consequences.

    • MS Paint on 06/07/2022 - 17:16
      +68

      On the flip side if people knew they were buying land cheap because it was subject to inundation then they have to wear the consequences.

      • Presence on 06/07/2022 - 17:20
        +33

        And people definitely did!! Every planning map has flood zones on it, not to mention checking with insurance companies before purchasing 👍

        • EightImmortals on 06/07/2022 - 17:56
          +11

          Those are all fair points, but given governments penchant for 'protecting us from ourselves' in pretty much every other area of life I'm not sure why the inconsistency when it comes to a major issue like building a safe place to live in? I suspect it's a stamp duty and rates decided thing.

        • jhaley3180 on 07/07/2022 - 10:04
          +3

          Not every council has or had done flood mapping when people purchased. Furthermore, as with other things there is good quality food mapping and poor quality… Then to further complicate things, development had impacts on flooding and areas that maybe weren't subject to inundation can become subject to inundation when poor developments are approved… My point; it is more complex than saying people definitely did know whether the land they were buying was subject to inundation.

        • caitsith01 on 08/07/2022 - 10:34
          +2

          Genuine question, do you reckon the average punter checks a flood zone map before buying land?

          I think most relatively unsophisticated puchasers would assume that no-one would be allowed to sell them land that floods regularly.

          • cadwalader on 08/07/2022 - 10:43

            @caitsith01: I thought they would to be honest. Everyone learns about floods in primary schools.

            Floods = bad. Google: "Does this place flood?"

            • caitsith01 on 08/07/2022 - 10:55
              +4

              @cadwalader: For what it's worth, I think that's being wayyyy too optimistic about the average purchaser. That's not to say that people shouldn't try harder, but statistically I think a lot of people won't do this kind of research. One point of better regulation would be to protect people from themselves.

              • cadwalader on 08/07/2022 - 13:52
                +1

                @caitsith01: What is this based on? The fact that flood-risk properties are priced/valued/sold lower than properties without or with lower flood-risk points to the majority of people factoring that information into the price, which means that they know about it. All it takes for a property to be valued like it did not have any flood risk is two buyers who were not aware of it competiting with each other. In some cases just one buyer, competiting with the agent.

                Whether its being valued appropriately or not is another question. You could argue that people are not aware of the severity and cost of that risk but people are definitely aware of its presence in said property.

              • jrowls on 09/07/2022 - 16:56
                +1

                @caitsith01: 100000%

                there should be a requirement to divulge such information prior to contracts (and any other relevant stuff - i.e. here's the flood mapping, here's the bushfire prone land, if the land has been subject to idk, any land and environment court decisions - that sort of thing) rather than the onus being on the individual. whether that responsibility is on the loaning bank, REA, Council, or some other third party idk, but it shouldn't be on the one person involved who isn't an expert in part of the equation.

                the average person has no idea how it works, they're just trying to get a place. anecdotally there's loads of stories of people having massive catastrophic flooding and reporting that the REA said 'nah nah, they fixed the river years ago, it will never flood' etc. now maybe you or i don't take that at face value and do some reading, but on a stressful day maybe we don't? and the average person, who knows what they believe. let alone whether they are able to find the right information about it if they do have a google.

          • Presence on 08/07/2022 - 11:11
            +1

            @caitsith01: Umm. If I had to guess I would say 70%+ would.

            In Victoria the section 32 has all sorts of stuff about that and bushfires to watch out for. Pretty sure the map they include has flood zones marked.

            Not sure about other states.

          • brendanm on 08/07/2022 - 11:43
            +2

            @caitsith01: They could simply get a quote for insurance. If its $10k, there is probably an issue.

            • caitsith01 on 08/07/2022 - 12:41

              @brendanm: They could, but would they? That's kinda my point. You can't assume everyone is a prudent purchaser, and so government should plan accordingly.

              • brendanm on 08/07/2022 - 13:25
                +4

                @caitsith01:

                You can't assume everyone is a prudent purchaser, and so government should plan accordingly.

                Perhaps we should stop coddling people, and teach them to think critically at some point in their lives? Too much hand holding.

          • YTW on 08/07/2022 - 23:32

            @caitsith01: I don't see why not. The flood maps are easily accessible and it's not exactly rocket science to interpret them.

            When we were buying our home we came down to a choice between two houses, one much newer and nicer than the other and with a nicer outlook…but right at the edge of a marked flood zone. So we chose the older house with more work needing done to it and not as nice an outlook. I don't see why the person who chose to prioritise having a nicer house should be given government assistance, and especially when the discount for it being in a flood zone was already built into the price.

        • AlienC on 09/07/2022 - 16:06

          Is there a link or map we can look at that shows all the flood zones and floodplains easily somewhere like a government website or something?

          I am curious now to look at a few places.

          • Presence on 09/07/2022 - 18:23
            +1

            @AlienC: What state?

            I am sure there is. I work tangentially to the industry. Let me get back to you Monday. Remind me if I don't.

      • Chandler on 07/07/2022 - 12:00
        +6

        Part of the problem there is people knowing. Yes, due dilligence and all, but lets be realistic. Look at the posts we get on here. Look at the intelligence and good decision making skills of the average Australian, and realise that that is the average: half the country is on or below that line…

        • BartholemewH on 08/07/2022 - 23:46
          +4

          No, half the country is on or below the median intelligence, not the average.

    • jetblack on 07/07/2022 - 08:30
      +14

      Problem is 'the govt' being liable = the public is liable.

      So the better perspective, imo, is asking how to reduce / prevent future liabilities.

      • EightImmortals on 07/07/2022 - 08:44
        +2

        I suspect the lust for revenue will always override such common sense approaches.

      • entropysbane on 09/07/2022 - 10:20

        The culture is very much to shift risk from ourselves to the taxpayer.

    • derrida derider on 10/07/2022 - 12:31
      +1

      Problem is the buyers depended on the 1-in100 year maps being correct, because they assumed an honest or competent council. The development approval was typically many decades ago.

      In that era the property developer was often on the local council (real estate people are easily the most public spirited people in the nation - look how often they freely donate their time to serve on local councils /s). Or the survey firm was hired by the developer.

  • SnoozeAndLose on 06/07/2022 - 17:21
    +11

    Sure but why?

    it is the buyer's consideration to buy any land and build a house when all box is clicked(local council development portocal). When someone buys near the beach front with sea view, there is a risk of erosion, they should have bought something called 'insurance' to protect themself.

    • legs on 07/07/2022 - 13:15
      +1

      Insurance typically doesn't cover coastal erosion

      • SnoozeAndLose on 07/07/2022 - 14:01
        +3

        Good to know then it is bad luck, suggest don't buy those property then

        • PopCounty on 07/07/2022 - 20:57
          +7

          Or buy but don’t cry when it gets eroded.

          • AlienC on 09/07/2022 - 16:07
            +3

            @PopCounty: Personal responsibility is a hard thing to find these days.

            Source: trust me bro

    • supersabroso on 08/07/2022 - 00:33
      +2

      Agreed, the owner needs to do their own research and understand where they are buying and what they are buying.

      You can't buy in the middle of a flood plain and expect to get a full refund from the government when it finally floods. That's what insurance is for, they should already be covered for all damages unless the insurer refused to give them cover from the start in which case this would have been a major red flag prior to purchasing.

      The first thing I do before I look at where I want to buy is assess the risk of it going on fire/being flooded based on nearby trees/water bodies. If you buy at the bottom of the hill next to a river/lake/ocean, you only have yourself to blame when it floods. Floods are not a new phenomenon.

      • poohduck on 08/07/2022 - 16:53
        +1

        "Floods are not a new phenomenon." Their "new" regularity and severity is - doh! Just like our "new" bushfire seasons.

        • entropysbane on 09/07/2022 - 10:26

          Truth is our climate has been very benign last couple of hundred years.there are some very interesting paleoclimate studies based on coral cores, sediments, tree rings and even Antarctic ice cores that have come up with a model of Australia’s climates going back a few thousand years. Several fifty year droughts that make the federation (recorded worst) or millennium (number2) droughts pushovers, and wet years much, much wetter than anything we have experienced.

          And no point in paying any attention to the breathless reporting from media. Facts are third to sensation and self-aggrandisement.

          • Gekov on 09/07/2022 - 15:00

            @entropysbane: SHHH … don’t spoil the “unprecedented-climate-change®” story … the Bureau of Meteorology or the ABC won’t tell you either

            FLASHBACK 200+ YEARS … The long-forgotten floods of Windsor and Sydney
            The bad news for Sydney-siders is that floods have been happening to them for all of history and probably a lot of prehistory too, though the ABC and BOM don’t mention it.
            This week the flooding in Windsor appears to have peaked at almost 14 metres.
            But in 1867 the water peaked at 63 feet or an amazing 19 metres.

            People need to know the Bureau of Met isn’t telling them the whole truth, and climate grifters are exploiting their pain so they can nab a few more grants, or sell some solar panels.

            The Guardian laments that For Hawkesbury residents flooding is now a part of life and blames climate change.
            But nothing has changed in the last 200 years. For the first thirty years of European settlement, floods hit the Hawkesbury river one after the other, people died, and houses were washed away. Back then, people were in danger of starving when the crops failed. Flooding would have been a very big deal

            A little book called The Early Days of Windsor, by James Steele was published long ago in 1916. It tells us that early flooding for the first European settlers in Australia was frequent, and was so bad on the Hawksbury in 1798 the Governor even limited the sale of rum (it must have been serious). The first Government House in Windsor was said to be “swept away” in 1799. This was followed by another flood in 1801 and a much worse one in 1806 when seven people died. The plucky residents only had to wait three years to be besieged again in 1809. By then people were getting so fed up of being flooded they moved Windsor and other settlements to higher ground in 1810, which was a jolly good thing because it flooded again in 1811.

            In 1817 things were so bad, it was reported that the Hawkesbury and Nepean rivers had inundated the buildings on the banks “three times within nine months”.

            https://joannenova.com.au/2022/07/the-long-forgotten-floods-…

  • Drakesy on 06/07/2022 - 17:21
    +32

    This is in the same area as people who build houses on cliffs expecting councils to pay for their property as the storms increasingly erode beaches/cliff faces.

    Coastlines are constantly changing and at the end of the day there's a set amount of risks you, as an owner need to take on, this being one of them.

    But yeah, it all comes out in the due diligence. Don't go finger pointing saying i didn't know.

    Generally houses on floodways are cheaper for a reason, every risk has a price.

    • Ashless on 07/07/2022 - 10:25
      +3

      Agree.
      And now we have the same type of people in flood prone areas demanding the govt raise the dam wall to limit future flooding, which will cost taxpayers hundreds of millions + the associated environmental damage. Either way the taxpayer pays.

    • User102430 on 08/07/2022 - 09:45
      +2

      "Don't go finger pointing saying i didn't know." - this.

      When it comes to gains, individuals are always happy to pocket it, but when they're at loss, they start pointing finger at everyone else - council, government, you name it etc.

      This makes us more and more socialist society.

    • poohduck on 08/07/2022 - 16:55

      do you mean because of rising sea levels? Well, yes that was obvious - we still choose to do nothing.

      • Drakesy on 08/07/2022 - 17:03

        But if you choose to build in a high risk area there is a point at which you have to take ownership of your actions.

        Insurers have stopped insuring people building in these areas because at the end of the day the risk falls with them.

        Yes sea levels are rising, but if you build on a dune or cliff face which is obviously prone to inundation or erosion you cant go finger pointing at people.

        • poohduck on 08/07/2022 - 18:04

          of course I can - we're the cause whichever way you look at it

      • Gekov on 09/07/2022 - 15:04

        "we still choose to do nothing"

        Hey king Canute,
        what do you propose doing about sea levels which have been rising STEADILY [i.e. with no hint of acceleration] a FRACTION OF A MILLIMETRE per year for hundreds of years now?

    • gakko on 10/07/2022 - 19:51

      Yeah. No way should the government buy those houses. People will just move back into them because hey its cheap and if all goes to shit the government will buy it. There are better ways to help people like turning the whole area into a fun water park.

  • Presence on 06/07/2022 - 17:22
    +33

    People bought that land cheap BECAUSE it was in a flood zone.

    The government buying it out will just increase prices in dodgy areas because people think it will be risk free.

    Maybe buy it out at the value of farmland, certainly not residential - but let a farmer do it and skip the government!

    • megadeth on 06/07/2022 - 17:33

      Why would someone be motivated to sell their house at farmland prices when they know the tax payer will eventually bail them out offering free rescues and numerous grants. So it’s a least risk and high growth potential investment preposition…

      • Nugs on 06/07/2022 - 18:17
        +2

        Depends how many times they are willing to go through the flooding
        .

    • entropysbane on 09/07/2022 - 10:32

      That won’t work because people will be able to get higher prices on the market. Government can only resume land at a fair price. Magna Carta and all that kind of thing.
      Usually works out at market plus 10%.

      • mrjayviper on 09/07/2022 - 12:36

        Wouldn't be market price be lower considering of all the floods?

      • derrida derider on 10/07/2022 - 12:43

        It's not Magna Carta it's Section 51 of the Constitution, which overrode English common law (which does originally stem from Magna Carta).

  • SF3 on 06/07/2022 - 17:23
    +7

    The people knowing this and approving should be the ones bailing out, they are probably no longer in govt and now working for/as developers.

    • megadeth on 06/07/2022 - 17:26
      +1

      Some would’ve even retired or died.

    • caitsith01 on 08/07/2022 - 10:35

      You realise that public funds pay for these processes so you are basically agreeing that government should bail them out.

  • BandB on 06/07/2022 - 17:30
    +15

    My mother's uncle had 150 acres at Model Farms now called Winston Hills near Parramatta. He purchased it in 1920 and ran a diary farm. Around 1970 it was released from what the government called the 'green belt' meaning it became residential land. Across a creek adjacent different owner was also released. Mums uncle and other land holders in the area went to Blacktown Council saying they should not allow houses to built there. The council ignored them. The eight houses in the street have suffered major flood damage ever since. Two have had water to the ceiling Everyone that lived there on acres including us had seen the land flood

    Who do you blame? The council for approving the development? Should there have redress for the original purchasers?

    The city of Lismore is built on a flood plain.

    • elgrande on 06/07/2022 - 18:13
      -6

      Whats it like having rich cousins?

    • sidesw1pe on 06/07/2022 - 19:44
      +6

      "ran a diary farm"

      Trying hard to imagine a diary farm.

      • BandB on 06/07/2022 - 20:19
        -3

        Fopr the uneducated. See where it says List of dairy farms in NSW, Australia. You can also view facilities on the Farm Transparency Map

        https://www.farmtransparency.org/facilities/food/dairy?state…

        • sidesw1pe on 06/07/2022 - 22:01
          +8

          Hey, who are you calling uneducated, mr diary farm :P

          • Scrooge McDuck on 07/07/2022 - 16:57
            +5

            @sidesw1pe: The diary farmers sow their fields with confetti which sprouts as notepads before growing into diaries before harvesting.

            • entropysbane on 09/07/2022 - 10:34

              @Scrooge McDuck: The carbon emissions from diary production are lower than dairy production. No burping.

        • brendanm on 06/07/2022 - 22:14
          +11

          Whoosh

      • Ugly on 06/07/2022 - 20:56
        +8

        You can’t picture a lot of little books running around? 📕📗📘📙🚜

        • sidesw1pe on 06/07/2022 - 22:00
          +1

          haha well I did and it was quite a trip :)

      • Mr Haj on 07/07/2022 - 14:14
        +2

        Dear diary,

        Today was a good day in the field. The diaries have been writing a lot of words. The recent showers and new fertiliser has increased our word count signficantly.

        Yours truly,
        BandB's mother's uncle.

    • jwh on 07/07/2022 - 20:23

      Which street is this? The bridge on Oakes Road often floods, as I'm sure you know.

      • BandB on 10/07/2022 - 21:47

        That's the one. Many times I've seen the water back to Old Windsor Rd. My parents bought acres there in 1957. They ran from Lanhams Rd where we lived down to Barnetts Rd

        The first house next to the bridge has had water to the ceiling numerous times. Houses also flooded in Edison Pde and Peter Pde

    • AlienC on 09/07/2022 - 16:14

      I believe it is the government's responsibility to look after the people the best way they can so yes if they approved this nonsense then I blame the council but obviously the people took a risk as we all do when we make certain choices so it's equal parts of blame and responsibility I believe.

      Government allows gambling it's not banned or illegal same with any risky behaviour such as alcohol.

      Can we get redress from the council for losing money and otherwise to gambling and alcohol or is it our own decision to partake in such nonsense and literally piss away money that could be spent better elsewhere.

      Responsibility belongs also to the end user in deciding to use it just like I took some responsibility and am ready for whatever consequences may happen by posting this comment online for all to see as we all do.

  • vinnychase on 06/07/2022 - 17:37
    +28

    A house is an investment. A bit closer to heart than other investments but still an investment nonetheless. You're not forced to buy any specific house and are free to DYOR. The government's job is not to buyout losing investors. If it is then I have plenty of stocks I'd like to be reimbursed for. I could say that ASIC/ASX shouldn't even have let them be listed on the stock market if they knew its gonna flood twice a year.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join