The answer seems so bleeding obvious.
Local governments are ruling on what people can do with their own land if it happens to be near seas recorded as rising at a frightening 1mm per year. Home owners are losing options and home value, not because of the rising water, but because of rising nonsense.
Let’s assume that IPCC projections might, incredibly, actually come to pass — why don’t the councils just get all residents to sign a clause before they buy or renovate. We the residents and potential residents, won’t mind signing that we have seen The Official Council Climate Warning:
“The IPCC estimates the oceans may rise by (insert wild prediction here).
The council cannot be held responsible for the weather, and will not hold back the ocean.
Buy or renovate at your own risk!”
Who has more incentive to assess the threats to a house (your house): a/ you, the homeowner who just hocked yourself to the grave and wants to live in it, hand it to your kids, or on-sell it for a decent quid; or b/ the local councillors who will never set foot in it, and won’t be councillors by the time said threat may or may not occur?
Not to mention that Councillors are equipped to assess complex coastal threats just like any bricklayer, newsagent, pharmacist, teacher, unionist or minor career politician would be. In other words — Not.
In a true free society, people could make up their own minds about the likelihood of the predictions made by UN committees which quote Greenpeace reports, and whose own lead authors say things like: “All the models are wrong” (but only when they don’t think anyone is listening).
If the IPCC are right, only silly skeptical fools will have wasted their money (and why would the council care about them?). If the IPCC are wrong, the only losers are the bed-wetting patsies who believed them and sold out a bit cheap to move for an uphill house. I say, let the people decide.
Fifty years from now, no one would blame the current council if erosion, or even a storm surge led to property damage. In 2062, disgruntled home owners who have to fork out for a small sea-wall certainly won’t be suing the 2012 Council.
It’s time elected representatives stopped treating voters as if they were children.—————————————————————————————————–
Owners fighting on the beaches
- Vikki Campion
- The Daily Telegraph
- December 09, 2011
WITH its pristine golden beach and picturesque lagoon, it’s no wonder people like Heather McDonald consider Lake Cathie on the NSW mid north coast a dream place to live.But for Mrs McDonald and others living close to the water those dreams could soon be washed away – not by rising sea levels but by “alarmist” government policy. Among the options Port Macquarie Hastings Council is considering to combat dire predictions of sea level rises in the suburb over the next 50 to 100 years is a “planned retreat” - the forced eviction of waterfront residents as a pre-emptive measure. More than 70 homes are in the firing line, many occupied by retirees who have put everything they own into living there.
UPDATE: Reader Lawrie reports on legal action against the Lake Macquarie Council:
Jeff McCloy is a property developer here in NSW. He is taking Lake Macquarie (near Newcastle)Council to court over the councils sea level rise policy. Mr. McCloy stated at a public meeting, reported in the Newcastle Herald and I sent Jo a copy, that the science the council relied on was faulty and therefore their decision was faulty. The meeting of local business people gave Jeff a resounding acclamation as he told Mayor Greg Piper of his plan. As Jeff said he had been to court several times over such issues and won.
Best of luck to McCloy!