meesham:itxtme: Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I thought you cant insure land?? This would make this type of investment quite risky, given that you are buying in Christchurch!
That's correct, which is why the empty section owners along the river were unhappy with the forced buyback at 50% of GV.
It wasn't/isn't quite a forced buyback. You don't have to sell, but the sites are not able to be built on, there will be no council services, so they become essentially valueless.
Gerry Brownlee has made some extremely disingenuous comments about this - that by paying full pre quake RV would create "moral hazard" - which of course it couldn't do for the reason you point out - you can't insure bare land.
The "bigger picture" is probably one of setting precedent. EQC is going to be revised. I doubt that land cover afforded by EQC will come out unscathed. Apart from EQ, the projections being used by councils for sea level rise / climate change, and the impact of that on coastal property in NZ is a frightening economic prospect. I suspect that the amount of cover offered for land damage by EQ, erosion, flooding etc is going to be cut right back.
Trusted
