It's a Question of Money

Reflecting on the flurry of activity following Gabrielle makes one question who was driving the decision making and who was trying to avoid money. Eg responsibility. Any responsibility.

Decisions had to be made and there were some good people involved . It was also a time for some objective analysis  and cool minds to assist in working through an emotional and traumatic period.

One mistake that was made in my opinion was the categorisation of flooded areas because this immediately caused a reaction from affected ratepayers. It was a hasty decision .Heartless and far reaching in it's pointed targeting of some and relief  for others.

The affect was to pitch ratepayer against ratepayer and cause jostling for positions in line for the best payout.

Fairness was lost in the quest to solve problems that needed better  understanding and satisfactory solutions.

At the moment I believe that move to categorise was a knee jerk reaction to copy the Christchurch earthquake situation.

I have never had time to investigate how that worked for Christchurch but it was wrong to use it as a blueprint following Gabrielle.

Large sums of money were  paid out in  and it was all confidential. We will never know the details but it is probable that some lost out and some did very well.

Was the whole deal made to benefit the banks, the insurance industry , the councils and the Government?

Something to ponder.

I feel the flood response in Carolina had a better foundation where all affected owners had a sum paid to them to help the process. I believe the payment was in the vicinity of $45 K.

A payment such as this  could have been covered by the Regional Council. This was an emergency and the responsibility for what happened could be possibly laid at the door of the HBRC given the evidence that emerged and the clarification of how events happened.

That is for another day but I suggest the RC could have made  general payment given they have such a large investment fund.

The fund has been built up in some large part due to the sale of leasehold land inherited following the 1931 earthquake.

It would be fitting to use those funds from one disaster to help in another.

Of course it is denial all the way because they do not want to admit liability and face consequences.

They have around $500 million that could have been tapped to help impacted ratepayers and Government could have facilitated that happening if required to do so.

There should be some lessons learnt from this disaster.