“With sea levels rising, who will pay for coastal properties?” asks the hopeless Stuff website.
I can answer that for them. Lower Hutt solicitor David Butler and now retired QC Hugh Rennie, both having nothing to do, will be delighted to pay. Ask them.
11 Comments
I’ve long told my very worried teens, if all this guff was as bad as they say, why isn’t it illegal to sell seaside property?
Stuff doesn’t allow answers to such questions.
Stuff predicted most waterfront streets in Wellington will be underwater soon in a fantasy graphic prompted by the Climate Alarmists that are the Wellington City Council.
Later in another article it showed a graphic of the waterfront populated by new unlimited height apartment blocks as promoted by the Climate Alarmists that are the Wellington City Council.
Stuff unfortunately misstated the question. A better query may have been “who will recompense my loss?”
Given that many sensible local authorities are now seriously limiting seaside development and are unlikely to consider compensation the answer may be found in a a grant application to God
Meanwhile Beachfront property in Cheltenham Beach in Auckland is now over $10,000,000.
Maybe those owners know that the rate of Sea Level Rise for Auckland is only 1.2 mm per annum?They have been measuring it since the 1880’s.
Source: NOAA Tides and Currents Global Stations
Wellingtons is around 2.6mm pa.
Yet these Councils promulgate Alarmist nonsense such as ‘Sea levels will rise a metre by 2100’! and waste millions on it. When the observed Data clearly shows it won’t.
Unless of course that metre rise is just hiding and waiting to jump out and say ‘Surprise!’
Say, are they the Science Deniers?
I bought a beachfront property on Cheltenham in 1986. The front door was less than 1 meter above MHWM. 35 years later and still dry feet there.
There was an incident in California some years ago where a Climate Action Group painted a blue line through various streets of some seaside town to show where the water level would be in the near future.
The lines were promptly erased when the locals hit the roof about the likely impact on property values.
You could ask Obama, he paid US$11.75 M on a property at sea level
He’s not concerned
https://www.homesandgardens.com/news/president-obama-new-house-marthas-vineyard
Our local governments believe so much in rising sea levels, they are permitting and actively encouraging dog-box high density housing development in some of the lowest lying locations closest to the sea, like the old Fort Dorset site in Seatoun. They are also putting all their transport infrastructure eggs into the SH2 / railway line basket right next to the sea, and refusing to consider major connections further inland, whether east-west ones or north-south ones. Transmission Gulley is too little, too late, and with the most ridiculous choke points created and no plans to address them, regarding traffic heading for the northern Hutt Valley. Even a Petone-Grenada Rd will leave a choke point between there and SH1 at Takapau. It is completely nuts that there is no major connection even able to be considered by our “leaders”, that rocks straight across from TG somewhere around Takapau to SH2 somewhere around Belmont.
There is supposedly a program studying NZ land rises and falls to find out if and where sea level rise is really a problem. So far it seems to have produced nothing after five years.
I’m tempted to conclude it hasn’t managed to find data indicating coastal sea level rise is “worse than we thought”. That doesn’t seem to have stopped councils producing threatening maps and forecasts.
I live on a plateau about 25 metres above the high tide mark, and not at the foot of a hill and I’m not selling.
Those on the coast wont be able to get insurance shortly, so enjoy while you can.
Our bigger problem however is the clearing of jungle/vegetation, which is increasing erosion and reducing lands ability to absorb moisture; and its all being caused by the greedy few; which will be heading for the hills shortly.