Christchurch was rocked by a series of powerful earthquakes this afternoon forcing evacuations, triggering more liquefaction in areas, causing buildings to collapse and sending at least half a dozen people to hospital.
There were reports of people being trapped in a downtown building following the magnitude 5.5 quake which hit at 1pm, 10 kilometres east of Christchurch at Taylor's Mistake Beach, at a depth of 11 kilometres.
The quake was felt along the East Coast from Dunedin to Blenheim. It was also felt in Wellington.
The second quake measured 6.0 in magnitude and occurred around 2.20 p.m around 10 km southeast of the city at a depth of 9 km.
Power was cut to around 10,000 homes with residents -- and their households -- once again thrown into chaos. Commercial businesses, including banks operating throughout the city, closed early.
Prime Minister John Key told journalists at his post-cabinet press conference in Wellington he had talked with Christchurch Mayor Bob Parker, who raised the possibility of declaring a local state of emergency. Key also said his understanding was the Earthquake Commission had been able to get reinsurance in place for the latest quakes, and certainly hadn't had any advice that it couldn't.
Key said it was almost certain today's quakes would be treated as a new event in terms of insurance purposes. A spokesman for Finance Minister Bill English had no immediate comment, directing enquiries to the Earthquake Commission.
Heathcote Valley resident Helen Irvine, among those to lose power, said the ground continued to shake following the second quake, said to be as powerful as the Sept.4 earthquake.
Interest.co.nz columnist Janine Starks, a resident of the Eastern suburbs of Red Cliffs, said traffic along the main road out of the sea side community of Sumner was building up as many residents were packing up and leaving the area.
The earthquakes, which caused the Kiwi dollar fall by around a cent to 81.1 USc, also forced the evaculation of Christchurch International Airport.
The city has been plagued by a series of on-going aftershocks since Sept. 4 when the area was first struck, followed by the deadly Feb.22 quake where 182 people were killed.
The Beehive's bunker used to deal with national emegencies was also activated after the second quake measuring 6.0, with the national civil defence controller arriving to monitor the situation.
Earthquake Minister Gerry Brownlee was en route to Christchurch at 3 p.m.
Earthquake Commission communications advisor Gordon Irving said it was unclear whether the latest earthquake would be treated as a third event for the purposes of reinsurance, adding that it would become clear in a few days when the extent of the damage was known.
"This is quite serious, it looks like it’ll be treated like another event, but we’ll have some clarity in the next few days.''
While Monday's earthquake brought to 12 the number of earthquakes in their own right since Sept.4, there have been thousands more aftershocks in between.
Although Government signalled that a doubling or trebling of EQC levies could be necessary to restock emergency reserves, Irving said there has been no formal notice of an increase.
Irving said the EQC was sufficiently reinsured to the handle a possible third event but declined to say how much that reinsurance was.
'We've provisioned heavily'
At his post-cabinet press conference in Wellington on Monday afternoon, Prime Minister John Key said “almost certainly” today’s events would be treated as another new incident in terms of insurance.
“But that’s a matter for EQC – they have various rules that determine whether that’s the case or not. Certainly the one the other day that was a 5.5 I think was a new event,” Key said.
“Ultimately we need to work our way through any further claims that come in and take that one step at a time,” he said.
In terms of the government’s budget, Key said it he did not think government would be needing to borrow more than expected prior to the quake, although it was difficult to know what new damage had been caused in Christchurch.
“We’ve provisioned very heavily. It’s hard to know exactly what new damage has been caused – it’s obviously very early on – and whether that’s damage to buildings that will already [have] been destroyed, and homes that will already need to be either substantially repaired or knocked down," Key said.
“So it’s very early days, but it’s clear it’s been a major earthquake,” he said.
(Updated with comments from EQC, PM John Key, Finance Minister spokesman.)
106 Comments
Well no one should be encouraged by the authorities to live or work in the known unstable areas. This idea of looking into ideas about how to "repair" the subsoil has always been a dumb time waster.
All the badly affected areas subject to liquifaction should have been evacuated. EQC should have blanket paid out the max on both land and buildings and then the property owners would have moved/rebuilt on firmer ground by now. AND the government wouldn't have spent millions on assessment and repairs of infrastructure - much of which will now need to be repeated (if they're stupid enough that is).
The red zone probably needed similar official treatment.
I find some of these comments somewhat absurd. As someone who has resided in Christchurch for over thirty years, and has lived beside the Avon River for the last 6+ years, can I offer the following opinions based on my experiences, conversations and observations.
1. The loss of life on Feb 22 is tragic for all those connected to the deceased. I unreservedly offer my condolences to them. The vast majority of these deaths occurred in TWO buildings that collapsed, hundreds of other buildings did not. A Commission of Inquiry is trying to determine why these collapses occurred, with the expectation that the WHY may lead us to alter our building practices to prevent or at least minimise such tragedies in future.
2. Half of this city is built on land with high liquefaction potential. With the benefit of hindsight perhaps this was unwise, but it is simply not practicable to relocate 150-odd thousand people, and whatever (forced) relocations ultimately do take place because of liquefaction issues, they will occur for economic reasons, not reasons of safety. Liquefaction on its own killed nobody!
3. After Sept 4 I had people who live in the hill suburbs smugly say to me "Serve you right for buying a house on a swamp". Funny how the worm turns eh? I prefer to be surrounded by liquefaction than worrying about boulders coming down etc.
4. Why should we leave Chch? My wife and I both have jobs here we enjoy, we live in a nice house which is still comfortable though not unaltered. The fact it will cost a small fortune to restore is not our problem, its our insurance company's problem.
5. I believe each family should do what they adjudge is best for them, go, stay, shift across town. I also believe this city is as safe now as it was Sept 3, in fact demonstrably safer. The objective reality hasn't changed as much as our level of awareness of the risks. Having moved here from Wellington in the late 70s, I thought I'd left earthquakes behind!
I do welcome the exchange of ideas and opinions (well most of them). Can anyone enlighten me, why did EQC come here last Wednesday to do a full assessment when a decision is yet to be announced as to whether anyone will be allowed to remain in this locality (most houses empty along here)? I suggested they put it off until that decision is known, but they would sooner put the cart before the horse.It's a strange world we live in.
The problem with everyone doing what they adjudge is best for them is that the services (roads, sewerage, water etc) have to be repaired/replaced by the wider community via taxation and rates. This was the same problem in the severely flooded neighbourhoods in New Orleans. Instead of abandoning these, the levy was rebuilt (only to the same design it had been), so in another Cat 5 storm, it will likely fail again.
I don't know if science can predict the liklihood of these newly discovered faults under Chch moving again at some time in the future but I do think science has a very good understanding of the subsoils in the area. Hence, an approach to the rebuild which avoids the areas subject to liquefaction in future is common sense. The problem in the way being private property rights which make common sense decisions very difficult (but not impossible). Its surprising how win-win decisions can emerge if we just let go the old socioeconomic paradigms.
You said: 4. Why should we leave Chch? My wife and I both have jobs here we enjoy, we live in a nice house which is still comfortable though not unaltered. The fact it will cost a small fortune to restore is not our problem, its our insurance company's problem.
I'm in agreement, up until the part about it being the insurance company's problem. From my observations over the last few years, insurance companies have massive influence over the way our society behaves. Perhaps more than government. If insurance companies decide they are no longer going to insure particular areas of Christchurch, that would have a profound effect on the future use of that land. It will start with increased premiums, and at some point the premiums will be high enough that insurance might as well not be available. Well before this point the land in question will have been abandonded. So while it may not presently appear to be your problem, it certainly will be once your insurance premiums start going up.
Just my 10c...
Thanks Martin a valuable observation. I've been thinking about this in recent weeks, fortunately in our case its highly likely our land will be compulsorily acquired so we will eventually relocate. I would like to rebuild on better (and economically insurable) ground but whether the Government's package includes that option we should find out in the next few weeks. Given the events of the last 9 months I would not like to be in the position of being unable to insure, or afford to insure, our home.Having said that though, our house still stands and barring a HUGE quake, we could probably live in it til we croak. Insurance means we have other options available to us, as well as course as offering relative freedom from some insecurities.
People suggesting we cut and run are doomsayers in my book and ignore the huge financial losses that many residents would incur. I doubt the bank would forego our mortgage (which thankfully is small). Almost no-one is selling in these areas, because they know there are no buyers besides the odd vulture. Instead most of us are wading into battles with EQC, insurers and (in time) the Government.
Continuing aftershocks are part of a natural re-settleing process due to shifts in stresses following a major shake. Following the Napier 1931 earthquake aftershocks continued for about a year so it is not uncommon for this to occur. The aftershocks following the Napier earthquake didn't affect the rebuild nor mass migration out of the region apart from some intial flight of refugees.
Unfortunately, knowing that "it's natural" doesn't help at all. Earthquakes are natural, so are volcano eruptions and tsunamis; it doesn't make them good for us.
I'm not sure of the effects of the aftershocks in Napier in 1931 but if you've seen the photos/witnessed in person the damage of today's earthquakes (=liquefaction & more buildings collapsed), I'd say they definitely affect the rebuild (or should anyway)! I also don't think any of the Napier aftershocks caused 182 deaths so the comparison is a bit pointless.
Sorry Captain Mainwaring . . . . . "Lets panic then" . . . "lets panic" . . . . "lets panic"
Lets move to Auckland - hell last vocanic eruption there 1750 I think . . . . don't build there;
Taupo is going to go some time in the future so forget any building there . . . .
Wellington was uplifted by two metres in the 1840 and is due to go again so lets all get out . .
South Island - thats got the Alpine running up the length it all ready to go . . . .
Lets all pack-up and head to Aussie - forget the bushfires, droughts, floods, tropical cyclones, cane toad invasion . . . .
Past experiences show that there are two types of people - those that moan that the Council haven't delivered the port-a-loos and the Mayor hasn't personally visited; and then there are those that get on and dig the dunny in the backyard.
For the record, my extended family are from Christchurch and they are coping fine despite structual damage to one home and one business disrupted. I've been to Chch twice since the 22 February shake and despite the closure of the CBD and perceptions created by TV, many business especially in the industrial areas are still alive and going well. There is still the evening rush hour, smog, and those bars and restaurants open fill with roaring trade.
My thoughts go to those in Christchurch but I have every confidence they will get on with life.
I was surprised that the Uni didn't convert all papers to extramural - I know it would have been a massive task for the faculty, but it really was stupid in my mind to send the students back to attend whilst aftershocks were a certainty. To assume those aftershocks might not result in fatalities is indeed folly by the authorities.
Given the nature of the subsoil in the city and surrounds - smaller on the RS measurement doesn't necessarily correlate to small above ground effects.
Those areas where liquifaction occured should have been evacuated - whether the economics of it suited us or not.
The Key government has been appalling in terms of managing the disaster.
I know! (sad exclamation mark). But it will be used and a 'reason' ,Elley. The aftershock will be another chance to lower the rate. It is designed to penalise the thrifty and reward the profligate. It's our only way of slowing the inevitable collpase in property prices :) As you may recall - all I have now is ..cash...so I'm certainly not 'talking my book'.
That's what the DMO and the Covered Bonds are all about. Pay the premium for overseas liquidity, and drop local rates to 'aid' business ( keep the property raft from sinking!). The system isn't that dependent upon local depositors money. They don't figure that highly in the mix. So, I'd have to , sadly :( , diagree. Deposit rate are also going down as well.
Yes that is right Nicholas.
The only thing that we can do it try and punish the Covered Bond banks and move to the banks who have not yet done this. If enough people moved their funds en masse the depositors would have some power.
I like you am all cashed up. Over 3 mill on deposit with the banks at an average rate of 5%. Bloody horrible feeling too. My average was over 8% a year ago but term deposits are falling due all the time and the new rate is crap.
You aren't trying hard enough! All the banks advertise 'special' rates for deposits over a certain amount. It's right there on the websites! Some people discussed this here only a year ago or less. People with several $100,000s in TDs were getting 6-7% easy. Regular TDs under the threshold got 5% at most.
Wow we are stuffed that is pretty brave and scary. I've just cut and pasted this note to you in my diary to pop up and remind me what I said 12 months back.
$3mil today June 13th will buy you approx 1,500 ounces of gold in NZD (@ buy price).
$3mil today will also buy you 3754 of the basic cheapest iPads inc gst.
$3mil today will buy you approx 1,500,000 litres of 91 petrol in Akl
$3mil today will buy you 416,666 boxes of 560g Nutri Grain at Countdown
Check back here for the results on 13 June 2012 when I compare the purchasing power of $3mil dollars to the purchasing power of 1,500 ounces of gold (@ sell price).
Steven
I wouldn't be so sure about deposit rates staying up if the OCR drops again, or even if it doesn't.
Last week a bunch of banks cut their deposit rates
http://www.interest.co.nz/news/53795/asb-kiwibank-sbs-bank-cut-some-ter…
There is relatively little new lending going on right now.
The big four banks are also firing up their covered bond issuance overseas, which reduces their need for local term deposit funding.
Here's Westpac's announcement yesterday on its covered bond. http://www.interest.co.nz/news/53849/westpac-2nd-new-zealand-bank-issue…
And Kiwibank is borrowing heavily in the hot European money markets, because interest rates are cheaper there.
cheers
Bernard
I know it won't, hence why I am saying no point in rushing to rebuild. What are your thoughts in terms of "people should plan accordingly"? Do you mean rebuilding/not rebuilding/leaving the city/moving it/...? It just seems so pointless to rebuild until things have calmed down (2-3 years down the track maybe?).
Elley I mean all of the above dependent on people making an honest assesment of what they can live with and what they cannot. I agree it is pointless to rebuild currently... what people don't appreciate is the potential timeframe is long than people expect. That point is well documented yet not become a media issue. It is also pointless discussing it here as unless you live in Canterbury you have no clue what it is like.
For me I have moved a substantial business out of the city to keep my staff happy, divested most of my NZ assets and will continue to live here for family reasons.
I have made a few hints here, if you want to make an informed choice get you hands on a few specialist reports and have a read, compelling reading.
Hi Elly, just wanted to say, on behalf of our team here, we feel for you all down that way. Having lived through Sept.4, which was mild compared to everything since, it's a hellish and mentally tortuous thing to have to endure those aftershocks. Wish there a magical solution. Stay safe! Amanda
At 2.20pm I was driving near the corner of Manchester and St Aspah.
A large number of facades fell on already cordoned buildings. One strengthened masonry building was just getting it's new paint work after repairs had been completed. The painters clung to the scaffold as the facade bulged and cracked.
Massive plumes from many collapses in the Manchester St area. The back half of Harcourts Grenadier in Madras St which was due to be demolished collapsed (a modern 5 level office building).
This will be just another delay for recovery.
Large amount of liquifaction well round to the north west. Large amount in St Albans (even after 1pm Madras was under water, now barely passable), liquifaction out in Bryndwr possibly further out.
Noticeably this occured on yet another full moon. Still just a coincidence?? Of note a series of localised quakes in Christchurch starting in 1868 lasted for over two years and these were of smaller magnitude than our 2010/2011 series, so perhaps this could be a longer term sequence?
CJ....the Moon pulls on water and land....18 inches I am told is the vertical movement for the land...we don't notice it...so yes it's quite likely to trigger movement in a fault...but where and when is still a guess.
As for the facades....you gotta be kidding me....they were rebuilding one....in what...brick?
It will take a while yet but at some time in the future the "experts" and dunderheads will realise the area is unsafe for many types of building methods...and useless for suburbs....I see a flatter city with heaps of parks and an even greener future with new outer suburbs that are well supplied with transport systems and services....in the long run a better Chch...it just won't happen tomorrow.
Wally -
".I see a flatter city with heaps of parks and an even greener future with new outer suburbs that are well supplied with transport systems and services....in the long run a better Chch...it just won't happen tomorrow".
Now there we agree. I posted a long time ago that this actually cleared away a lot of the baggage of the old - CBD's are sooooo yesterday - and gave Chch a chance at the new.
Sad that the powers that be won't be the initiators - it'll be the scarcity of insurance availability that drives it. Inasmuch as that is a reflection of reality, I guess it'll do.
It's nearly full. Technically the 15th is the full moon, however peak tides for the month occurred from about 2pm today.
Anyway just bringing to attention that Feb 22 was near the peak tide (within 48 hours of the full moon), as were quakes on Jan 20, Mar 20, Apr 16 and the first big one on the Port Hills fault on Sept 8. Quakes on the Port Hills fault seem to be rupturing on these dates where as ones on the Greendale fault are not quite as regular.
So far no significant quakes have occurred on the Port Hills fault outside the 2 days either side of the full moon.
I'm not saying it's casual but it is interesting. Perhaps the extra forces exerted on the fault during peak tides is acting as a trigger?? Surely worth investigating? Perhaps it's not quackery?
Yeah it does seem a little more than coincidence, still a lot of guess work as well though I suppose.
Looks like Ken Ring won't talk about it anymore because he started getting death threats, it's a shame because it was interesting to see if the correlation was there or not.
I noticed there was a big outcry when the official earthquakes started predicting more as well, some people would rather not hear bad news I suppose.
You're going to LOVE this philthy...enjoy!
Berend, actually the peak tides don't occur exactly on the full moon.
According to Linz tide info:
http://www.linz.govt.nz/hydro/tidal-info/tide-tables
The peak tides in February (at Lyttelton) occurred during the day on Feb 20 and 21. The peak tides for June from the 13th to the 17th (same peak high and low tides on these days).
The peak for March was on the 21st and April the 17th.
Personally I think Ken Ring's predicitons are too vague and too numerous to comment about. However that does not mean that any correlation between the moon/tides and the timing of this aftershock sequence does not exist.
I have a degree in Physics and Mathematics, and personally I feel that the correlation between the dates of major events on the Port Hills fault and the peak tides is higher than you would expect if they were random. Therefore this should be an active area of research, and officials and others ridiculing the idea is a very "flat earth" approach which may well be proved wrong.
The other claim which "officials" have made is that there has not been ruptures on these Canterbury faults for thousands of years.
This is clearly untrue.
At 8am on the 5th of June 1869 "a most severe shock" was experienced in Christchurch. It was felt in Lyttelton, Christchurch, Akaroa, Kaiapoi and Okains Bay, but not significantly anywhere else. Many chimneys collapsed, the Pronvincial Chambers were damaged many brick buildings had walls collapse.
This event was before any recording devices were located in the province. So the hypocentre and magnitude are unknown however it could be speculated that it was a M5-M6 on the Port Hills fault or nearby.
There were also "sharp" shocks on Boxing Day 1868 felt only in Lyttelton. Sharp "jumping" shock on 23 July 1869. A severe shock on 31 August 1870 at 6.23.
These events possibly occured on local Canterbury faults, but large earthquakes were known to occur nearby such as the 1881 and 1888 quakes that both toppled the Cathedral spire.
So large quakes weren't expected in Christchurch? Read some old newspapers.
The reason why St Michaels and All Angels was built in timber was because of the shock of the 1869 quake. One Oxford Tce property owner even took his neighbour to the Supreme Court to sue them for damages because they had built such a tall chimney to make his property unrentable! Such was the early aversion to brick structures of ChCh's early quake shaken residents!
Only if we remembered the past! By the way the August 1868 Arica (Peru) earthquake caused a 7m wave in Lyttelton and inudated houses in Little Akaloa (and would have indudated coastal ChCh houses too but the areas were largely unpopulated then). Do we not learn anything??
What's the matter Hugh?
Did the CCC once decline planning consent for some atrocious "property development" or other of yours, and so you've dedicated your life to bringing them down?
You may be horrified to learn that most people are damn glad the councils are preventing the likes of you from being completely out of control and despoiling the world with your cash-grab land rapes.
Hugh is on the side of affordable housing . And as he's proven ( many times ) that gullible local councils are restricting land supply for new property developments ...... neatly playing into the hands of greedy property speculators and developers ........
...... the cost of a new house is dominated by the exorbitant price of the postage-stamp sized piece of soil underneath it ..... not by the actual material & construction costs of the building ...........
...... whose side are you on , Anon , the idiot local councils and the rapaciously greedy speculators & developers ?
and you really believe him, of course you both share the same political viewpoint so I shouldnt be surprised....Hugh says he's on the side of affordable housing...that doesnt mean the actions he wants will create affordable housing.....What he wants is a throwing away of the regs which will turn cities into over-crowded cesspits and make money for developers....most of his mates by the sound of it...and of course meet his political point of view....uh no thanks.
Land prices play a small part in the cost of a house....the margins on materials and expectations of builders and developers who want 100% markup is what dominates the prices....
Simple Im on the side of the families who would like to buy but if do so right now will get wiped out by the price collapse I see coming.....that and the quality of the NZ [living] environment, so better for them to stay out and buy in later when they are affordable....All Hugh's ideas will achieve is [maybe] a mad building spree kicked off by "cheap" land that will cause a huge over-supply aka the US where house prices are in free fall...and more than a few houses/developments have never been occupied....that will cause a collapse or make it far worse as surely as the banksters are doing right now...
regards
Not sure if you thought things through before posting that comment Steven. Of all the people that I know here in Chch, I can think of very few who are thinking of leaving because of the quakes - those who have lost job prospects, or really worried about their kids, or just freaked out.
People are staying because of familly, they have secure jobs, they live in less-affected parts of the city, or they simply love the Chch lifestyle, the outdoors and the city despite all. But that doesn't account for all, and I think that the power of community is stronger than you give it credit for.
With all the reading that you clearly do around resource depletion and collapse, I would have thought that you understand the power of strength of community, and how it binds people when times are hard.
Yeap we had a serious discussion last night and have decided we are hanging around because we have a house (that is still in good shape) and good jobs, kids school is all good and they are still happy...it's not like anyone is going to want to move to canterbury so chances of selling your house is about zero i would say..mother in law is leaving, always a sliver lining I guess...
But when people say why dont you just get out of there....you can't just up and leave your whole life...if I was young and had no asset ties I probably would, and I suspect that is probably going to happen..which would be bad for the university/polytech's etc if this happens..
But anyone who thinks that this rebuild will take place over a 3-4 year period is kidding themselves..it is fast turning into a 10-15 year rebuild...it's going to be a long road, communities are going to be displaced and will need to rebuild somewhere else.but who pays for this and have they got the money for this is another issue. EQC has to pay for land damage (8 meters from edge of your house only)
Oh Ive thought it through....Ive had time to think on it....right now if you hadnt noticed ppl are dying....now if ChCh had settled I might agree its worth staying...maybe....but its had not so my life and my families are at risk...also the long term prospects of ChCh is frankly dire....long term staying in a city that will never recover isnt the best thing IMHO.
Community, indeed except ChCh and indeed most cities today are probably too large...towns that have seen decline for decades will probably actually see a comeback and these are small enough to have an effective community.
regards
The developer scum are on the back foot over this one.
Parker and Co have done an excellent job, and, more to the point, they've been seen to do an excellent job, even as the developer scum brayed for "justice" after being shut out of a greedy exploitative free-for-all.
If the choice is between the stifling bureaucracy and the selfish developers, I'll take the stifling bureaucracy every time.
I have been following these 'quakes today , in no little amazement , on www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/recent_quakes.html .......
....... and the Gummster is curious , why didn't you all follow Ken Ring's advice , and get the heck out of Canterbury today ?
... Ummm , Ken ring did see this coming , and did warn you all .......... didn't he ?
'Ken ring did see this coming , and did warn you all ......... didn't he ?'
When the cats started with their Earthquake Dance, I sent warning email to several people, and of course they laughed at me and the cats. Two of those people have since apologised for doubting the Seismic Kitties, but most people haven't.
Those who haven't apologised are almost all Ken Ring fans. But I'm sure it's just coincidental. :)
@Malarkey
Saw a documentary a while back, that in China they are aware of animals signaling a coming earthquake. Some villages keep snakes within concrete caves/borrows, when an earthquake is about to approach, the snakes come out and start to knock their head against the concrete as if they would like to kill themselves. The villagers in earthquake prone areas could leave the area in time to save their life.
In Europe it is also known that dogs, horses, cows behave extreme restless before an earthquake.
Malarkey I blogged you at 1.25pm yesterday 59min b4 the 6.3 to ask what the cats were doing?
Your reply at 2.25 the 6.3 had struck or at the time you you were returning blogg ? had it not struck but was about too?
Just interested thats all.
Whats your cats names by the way ?
We noticed that they had started acting-up in the early evening, and kept at it for much of the night and into the following morning. Then they disappeared outside until their usual dinnertime (late afternoon).
They did the same thing the day before the previous biggies.
Normally the buggers just lounge about.
Is it all to do with planet alignment? This prediction from a week ago
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iM0UT56aad0&feature=channel_video_title
ChCh and New Caledonia featured
check out http://hewsweb.org/seismic/
ChCh, tonga and Fiji on the 13th
A magnitude 5.0 tremor has rattled Christchurch this morning, as scientists say there is now a higher chance of a new large quake.The tremor, which struck at at around 6.30am, was centred 20km southeast of the city at a depth of 6km.
I am of the opinion that the Canterbury events just MIGHT prove to be the wake up call that sparks useless councils across the country into ending the madness whereby thousands of dangerous heaps of shite line the cities waiting for a good shake...the facades are bloody garbage and should come down....the concrete fiddly crap capping must be removed....the rotting borer riddled structures bulldozed....all this should be happening right now....and yet bugger all is happening!
It is plainly bloody obvious whole areas of suburban Chch will have to become parkland with no more than toilet units on them...places to play and enjoy...while the residents will have to be relocated to new subdivisions on the edge of the city....this is a fact...so why is it taking the "experts" and CERA bosses and Gerry Brownlee et al so bloody long to make a friggin decision....what the hell are they waiting for...
Chch will be renamed the........ Groundhog Capital.
Perhaps we are seeing the worst example of bureaucratic NZ.......!
Yeap it is sad wolly, people here are just over it, no energy left, we are all waiting for another big one, wondering if this is the one that will finish the rest of our houses off or work places, waiting for some direction from government, maybe even a timeline fro re/de-construction even if it is not what people want to hear, it's at the back of everyones mind, it is the one time when you don't want any money tied up in a house or fixed assets and had the opportuntiy to walk away, but most can't and we have to wait it out playing this game of Russian roulette with Mother nature, a game I would not wish on anyone.
I didn't awaken during this mornings's M5, so perhaps I am getting accustomed to these terrestrial disturbances!!
This is a time for clear and level heads not rash decisions.
Unfortunately a lack of action from the Government and Insurers has everyone already angry. If decisions had been made months ago Monday would have been much easier.
But what we don't want know is a rush to illconsidered action. There is a simply declaration that can be made - that the worst affected areas aren't worth fixing. But this was something that could have easily been decided months ago.
All of the positive talk, no action rhetoric after Feb 22 got us nowhere. Now I think what Sutton, Parker and Brownlee said in the media yesterday was overly negative and fatalistic.
We need action and decisions. They are not difficult decisions. It is not impossible action.
Obviously it was never viable to remedy land in Bexley after the first quake. The average section in the are would have only fetched low $100s prior to Sept 4. If it were to cost even just $50,000 per site to compact and fill then the repair would likely be unviable given that it would cost a further $50,000 per site to repair roads and services.
Indeed it has made no sense that on an average $250,000 Bexley property, that EQC would likely already have paid out $115k, they had liabilities under land cover to a further $115k (not paid out) and CCC had a liability of a further $50,000 to replace infrastructure. Already that is a potential potential $280,000 in payouts before considering the the rest of the private insurance cover if the policy was for full replacement. A full replacement policy would be a further $100,000 on an average property.
All in all, the homeowner would in general be a substantial winner on an average Bexley property. However many would prefer just the market value paid out tomorrow and be able to move on.
So given that EQC and local Government liabilities amount to, in many cases, the market value of the property. It is a simple solution for the Government to just straight out buy those severely damaged properties. take over the private insurance policies and then do a deal with the private insurers. In doing so, it could in fact be cheaper for the Government as immediately cash will be in the hands of those who need it, who will then spend it on a new home or new build. It limits costs associated with doing temporary repairs in the areas and temporary housing costs for residents. It solves the problem without any great extra expense or risk for the Government as they already held the liabilty and if they can hold the insurers to their full replacement policies then the Government could be the winner if they wait for the rebuild on an alternate site.
This won't apply to all areas, but in the worst affected parts of Dallington, Avonside and Avondale, the same approach could be taken if residents are willing and the land could potentially be repaired if possible at a later time by the Government.
Of course the same should apply to Brooklands and Kaiapoi even though they weren't so badly affected in February and June.
In the City, consultation needs to be made with proerty owners to sort issues out. It is sad that a total disregard for the people who are most needed to rebuild the city has occured since Sept 4 and moreso since Feb 22.
Leadership is not bullying to make things easier on oneself, nor is it delaying indefinitely on the hope that hard decisions become easier.
Hugh, I had thought the liability for land was to $100k +GST (as was reported recently in the media), however checking the exact wording of the Earthquake Commission Act 1993 Section 19:
Residential land-
Subject to any regulations made under this Act and to Schedule 3, where a residential building is deemed to be insured under this Act against natural disaster damage, the residential land on which that building is situated shall, while that insurance of the residential building is in force, be deemed to be insured under this Act against natural disaster damage to the amount (exclusive of goods and services tax) which is the sum of, in the case of any particular damage,—
-
(a) the value, at the site of the damage, of—
-
(i) if there is a district plan operative in respect of the residential land, an area of land equal to the minimum area allowable under the district plan for land used for the same purpose that the residential land was being used at the time of the damage; or
-
(ii) an area of land of 4 000 square metres; or
-
(iii) the area of land that is actually lost or damaged—
whichever is the smallest; and
-
-
(b) the indemnity value of any property referred to in paragraphs (d) and (e) of the definition of the term residential land in section 2(1) that is lost or damaged.
So clearly no limit to liability, except as to size. Now most severely damaged land is L1 with minimum size 450m2, but in reality a 450m2 site is worth not much less than 750m2 in suburbs such as Bexley, so everyone will be entitled to a full payout essentially. (Except people on double or subdividable sections - however some compromises will need to be reached as there are also owners of vacant lots (uninsured) that need considered).
On the hills the minimum size is 650m2 (as of right) hence most clifftop properties will be entitled to full value which will be perhaps $500-1,000,000 per lot depending on the property.
EQC therefore hold a huge liability, and owners should not stress even if they only have indemnity policies, EQC's liability is written in law. They will in almost all cases be entitled to the full pre September market value. If they have full replacement they may be better off.
In regards multi-units there is no question, if the insurer was aware the dwelling house contained multi units (even on a single title) then EQC is liable to the limit of cover ($100k+GST) per unit.
EQC (and therefore the Government) have control on this issue and hence the delays are entirely of their own making. Decisions about the worst affected sites could be made instantaneously, the cost of fixing land in say Bexley is greater than the market value so it's a no brainer. Why no action? But then why is the CCBD still in lockdown? These issues could have been sorted months ago but nothings happened. Why?
-
EQC therefore hold a huge liability
So it appears, and in that case it could well exceed the $4 billion upper limit for re-insurance. The following then needs to be questioned:
http://www.rebuildchristchurch.co.nz/blog/2011/2/eqc-funds-still-strong
New Zealand still has insurance cover for two more big earthquakes. Despite Prime Minister John Key appearing to suggest in a radio interview that the Earthquake Commission's Natural Disaster Fund would soon be exhausted, the fund still has $3 billion of assets, as well as reinsurance contracts to cope with any future devastating earthquakes.
There have been calls for a rapid recapitalisation of the fund through levies on wealthier taxpayers, but commission chief executive Ian Simpson said the combined expected claims paid by the fund as a result of the earthquake on Tuesday and the one in September last year would not go over $3b.
The fund would spend up to $1.5b on paying claims on residential homes and reinstating the land under them for each quake – so far it has paid out $750 million in claims for the September quake. After it has met the first $1.5b on each quake, international reinsurers pay for the next $2.5b in claims. Simpson said the combined EQC fund and reinsurance payout cap of $4b for each quake was very high and would likely be enough to cover the repairs to residential homes and land damaged in the two earthquakes.
Simpson said that left around $3b of assets in the fund in addition to the reinsurance contracts, which "reset" after each claim, so the fund could sustain another two $1.5b payouts. If the claims for each of the quakes topped $4b, the fund is empowered to call on the government to pay the rest, preserving the rest of the fund to allow the cover to continue. Simpson said the fund had performed exactly as it was designed to do. It had been designed to be able to cope with a giant magnitude seven earthquake and still leave in place cover should a second quake strike.
As would TSY's assesment of its impact on crown finances:
http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/forecasts/befu2011/028.htm
All of which might help explain some of the government's 'delays' in releasing decisions on the matter.
I think we were already broke before Christchurch's earthquakes made the fact much harder to hide. But being broke is not the worst of our problems - rather an inability to effectively respond.
Start with a leadership deficit, and then make it worse with our unwillingness to address that problem. An example today regards Christchurch:
Great idea, re donation list Kunst. Whew, I'm in the clear...so is my conscience. Couldn't agree more on shared responsibility. People need to step up!
http://www.interest.co.nz/news/53904/insurance-council-looks-high-court…
So how long till our politicians start doing this,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/15/catalan-politicians-protest…
and our banks get treated like this http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jun/15/bank-of-ireland-agm-inve… and Im looking at the NZ$ and its all red. Mish has a good video on Greece http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/ How long till we get capital flight in our money market as Stephen Hulmes 'unpayable liabilities' gets general acceptance. and we start the sale process http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dylan-ratigan/america-for-sale-is-goldm_b…So how long till our politicians start doing this,
Not while our idea of stepping up (and maintaining a clear conscience) is limited to making a donation.
We get the politicians we deserve, then eventually we riot.
The alternative might be to get off our arses now and start working towards deserving better politicians.
Hugh, I had thought the liability for land was to $100k +GST (as was reported recently in the media), however checking the exact wording of the Earthquake Commission Act 1993 Section 19:
Residential land-
Subject to any regulations made under this Act and to Schedule 3, where a residential building is deemed to be insured under this Act against natural disaster damage, the residential land on which that building is situated shall, while that insurance of the residential building is in force, be deemed to be insured under this Act against natural disaster damage to the amount (exclusive of goods and services tax) which is the sum of, in the case of any particular damage,—
-
(a) the value, at the site of the damage, of—
-
(i) if there is a district plan operative in respect of the residential land, an area of land equal to the minimum area allowable under the district plan for land used for the same purpose that the residential land was being used at the time of the damage; or
-
(ii) an area of land of 4 000 square metres; or
-
(iii) the area of land that is actually lost or damaged—
whichever is the smallest; and
-
-
(b) the indemnity value of any property referred to in paragraphs (d) and (e) of the definition of the term residential land in section 2(1) that is lost or damaged.
So clearly no limit to liability, except as to size. Now most severely damaged land is L1 with minimum size 450m2, but in reality a 450m2 site is worth not much less than 750m2 in suburbs such as Bexley, so everyone will be entitled to a full payout essentially. (Except people on double or subdividable sections - however some compromises will need to be reached as there are also owners of vacant lots (uninsured) that need considered).
On the hills the minimum size is 650m2 (as of right) hence most clifftop properties will be entitled to full value which will be perhaps $500-1,000,000 per lot depending on the property.
EQC therefore hold a huge liability, and owners should not stress even if they only have indemnity policies, EQC's liability is written in law. They will in almost all cases be entitled to the full pre September market value. If they have full replacement they may be better off.
In regards multi-units there is no question, if the insurer was aware the dwelling house contained multi units (even on a single title) then EQC is liable to the limit of cover ($100k+GST) per unit.
EQC (and therefore the Government) have control on this issue and hence the delays are entirely of their own making. Decisions about the worst affected sites could be made instantaneously, the cost of fixing land in say Bexley is greater than the market value so it's a no brainer. Why no action? But then why is the CCBD still in lockdown? These issues could have been sorted months ago but nothings happened. Why?
-
Hugh, Chris - how much one is paid is one important question. However, who should be paying is another. In the case of areas known to be prone to liquefaction that were subsequently developed, who should pay? CCC, when they contested such development? Or, the government = NZ taxpayer = you and me? (I don't recall benefitting from those developments ....) Who benefitted, who should pay?
So a question, reinsurers, ratepayers, taxpayers, the home-owners and many observers further afield will likely be asking is - why was development allowed and why am I picking up the tab, when the risk was well known?
It's a story that needs to be told Hugh and you'd be one of the most appropriate to tell it. I doubt many would be aggrieved by compensating where the issue was unknown before development, but where it was - user pays, not the used. Am guessing those who benefitted would strongly support 'user pays' principles, so why not?
I wonder if 'Crusader Campbell' might get onto it?
Hugh - to correct myself:
"Christchurch mayor Bob Parker had to apologise last week after he wrongly said the council opposed such subdivisions because of concerns over land quality, taking cases to the Environment Court. [This is what I thought - any comment Hugh, anyone? However ...]
There was no court case, and it was Bexley residents who opposed plans by the council, which had proposed more of the wetland for housing.
The Planning Tribunal eventually reduced the area available for development.
Earthquake Recovery Minister Gerry Brownlee says land can be made safe, but many Bexley residents don't want to rebuild, fearing they will never be able to sell their homes.
The Pacific Park land changed hands three times in the 90s as developers sought to profit after the council changed the zoning from industrial to residential – against residents' wishes."
From:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/news/4168261/Quake-hit-residents-may-sue-council
What Hugh really means:
"All restrictions must be lifted so that developers can cover the landscape with vast subdivisions jam packed with incredibly junky houses, built with every corner and cost cut, which they will then on-sell to suckers at an absolutely massive profit. When these houses begin to crumble even before they are occupied, and the neighbourhoods turn into demilitarised zones, we will not be held accountable or liable in any way."
L.O.L!
Hugh -
"and make sound provision for the depreciation of their assets",
If they're only putting 15% of what they're charging for an item, into that account - well, that's fraud.
Do them for it.
But - you've just put your finger on the flaw in your own utopian chimera:
To grow physically (as you advocate, no debate about that) they have not only to maintain the existing infrastructure, but to establish and then maintain, the new.
My appraisal of O&M for pipework, is that you can patch and repair for about 20 years, then it's just cheaper/easier to replace - a bit like an old, much-patched bike tube, thee comes a time....
So you're advocating the replacement of the existing every 20 years, plus the addition of the new, which in turn will need replaced every.........
And when you first came up with this brainwave, oil was what a barrel? And it's what now? And pipework is made of? And it'll peak when? And even if you doubled the resource it'll peak (http://www.hubbertpeak.com/bartlett/hubbert.htm) when?.
Even if they'd salted it away, it wouldn't get there, and it will continue not to get there in spades. Indeed, it'll fall short by an exponentially-greater margin, YOY. That's ex any Force Majeure forcing.
Make no mistake - I see them as being as silly as youself. I grew up in the same street as Corbett, have listened to Wells, and they don't get it alle same you. Growth-based nutters, in my humble opinion.
But -
They are, however, doing a better job at the moment - one you might like to consider; they are nurturing a community they genuinely care for.
One can do a lot worse than that.
Hugh - some advice:
cut the rhetoric.
Concentrate on facts, and don't assume your field is more 'important' than any other - there's abigger picture out there.
By the way - how many of those houses you laud, face North?
I'll bet they're random, and face the gated cul-de-sac.
I'll also bet that you haven't thought it 'important' enought to bother ascertaining.....
"LOL and PDK - our dear old Malthusian environmental mates, keen to send us all back in to the caves (or is it even earlier - up the trees?)."
As per normal, somehow you get this wierd idea that this is what we want.....really its a figment of you imagination....
Ive re-read Malthus just to confirm how I see his words. He does not say he wants such a thing, he writes that he believes such a thing is quite possible if no one is mindful. Its known as risk management, something I think you have zero appreciation for if you are so lacking in understanding where we are coming from....its the political blinkers you wear, but that's really your problem. I mean if you are driving along at 100kmh in the dark and wet and see a sign saying 60kmh curve, do you accelerate? from your posts it seems you do....anybody sane, brakes....of course most ppl are not paying attention so they are going to be in a bit of a pickle....but not as much as the ones who have pushed the accelerator down flat thinking they can make great gains.
Fortunately it seems and I hope that the ChCh council etc is ignoring you....but they still are not paying attention to the road....
regards
Another factor they appear to be wilfully overlooking:
http://sciblogs.co.nz/hot-topic/2011/06/15/rebuilding-on-a-rising-tide/
Maybeeeee Wolly, maybeee - and when we get the "obvious" answers on which "obvious" suburbs will be abandoned, why development was authorised on land with known liquefaction risk will be an obvious reasonable question to ask - for any reinsurer, at least, nevermind the unfortunate owners who bought in good faith.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.