Posts by Sacha
-
Southerly: Tower Insurance Have Some Bad…, in reply to BenWilson,
Silence and backroom discussion just isn't an option
I doubt the government would agree based on their conduct so far. Though CERA's Roger Sutton might - could be an interesting tension of styles emerging there.
-
Southerly: Tower Insurance Have Some Bad…, in reply to Hebe,
But the land is so poked that the Govt has declared it uninhabitable! Surely Tower's view cannot stand up in law.
Can if Fieldmarshall Brownlee declares so. Again, bound to have been part of those secret negotiations anyway.
-
Russell's NetHui session is up soon from 1.25pm:
video stream and
twitter stream (note: you now have to make sure the "All" option is selected on Twitter searches or only some tweets are shown). -
Legal Beagle: Referendum Fact Check #1, in reply to peterpeasant,
eh?
-
John Armstrong is surprisingly unimpressed.
Vote for Change looks very much like the National Party Preservation Society in drag
-
Speculation at launch event for that report about the impact on future insurance for building owners.
Some Christchurch buildings may be regarded as "uninsurable" or the premiums set for them may be too costly for their owners, says a senior engineer involved in the reconstruction of Christchurch.
Structural Engineering Society president John Hare, a director of the Holmes consulting group, said today that he would "certainly expect" insurance companies to be more selective in future about which buildings they would insure.
"I would certainly be expecting that some of the buildings at the lower end of the scale - certainly earthquake-prone buildings, but other buildings of types shown to be prone to damage - may not be insurable, or may be prohibitively expensive to insure," said Hare, who is a principal engineering adviser to Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (Cera).
-
The Royal Society have released an information paper on #eqnz building design issues. (h/t Cheryl Bernstein)
-
Legal Beagle: Referendum Fact Check #1, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
that's for parties to determine
not in some voting systems
-
Southerly: Tower Insurance Have Some Bad…, in reply to DexterX,
The assessement - would it be the market value at the date of the incident.
From what was discussed earlier, the value is at the date of assessment - say, in nine months time when plans to bulldoze houses and rip up existing services are in place and only a few holdouts remain.
-
Southerly: Tower Insurance Have Some Bad…, in reply to Fooman,
I'd say the market value will hinge on amenity, wouldn't you? If a house is unusable because of where it is, I doubt any other factors will count much.
And if the government are prepared to do deals with the insurance industry to claim white is black, what makes you think the terms of CERA's assessment of any holdouts would be at all favourable?