After many weeks and years of fires and floods we are watching the same people crying over loosing their homes
and all their life's work. Yes its horrible but not the point.

These people continue to rebuild and start again over and over and over again. Why?
It's inevitable that these natural disasters will be back again. We support, assist, help, use alot of resources and
endless supply of money to help ( yes they need it ) but why?

IMO people need to relocate for many reasons, lives are lost and helpers getting injured.
These people become a burden to society due to their stubbornness to stay.

Thoughts?

I do feel compassion and upset watching/reading these stories but how many times do we help before they get moved
on or die.

Yes serious

When a problem is permanently ongoing and lives are constantly at risk and other's are placing themselves at risk to help the same people over and over.
Whilst all these resources are helping those out of state other area's in their normal jurisdiction are minimal and now they are at risk and work capicity
is overstretched.

Australia is a fantastic country and we help everyone the best we can, but why because people choose to live in certain area's the country has to be burdened time after time.. It just makes more sense to relocate or stay at your own peril. Not being nasty just realistic.

Edit: at a job site people take risk analysis ( most sites mandatory) Now if we took these cards and risk assessed these locations the plan of action would be to unsafe, previous problem's. We would be ticking the catastrophic to major - almost certain which = a rating of 20 to 25, no company would allow this to take place and the action of building domestic housing would not be allowed.

Where would you have these people go to rebuild their lives youngbull? Somewhere that hasn't been affected by a fire or flood...yet?

I think the issue is more with the style of homes being built. Maybe there needs to be a shift away from "normal" building styles and more consideration given to the risks in an area. Then build accordingly.

Traditional Queenslanders on stilts breeze through most floods while in the same streets cement slab brick houses are up to their ceilings in water.

Earth covered buildings could be the answer in some bush fire prone areas.

"My wife of the time was in a real panic as she had just driven home through the almost impenetrable smoke that filled the street. I hurried them all inside and in calming them down, there was great deal of comfort and satisfaction in my being able to say to them, 'there's no need to be afraid. You're inside now, you're safe - you live in one of the safest houses in the world. It had a remarkable effect on them to hear that, and it had a great effect on me, to be able to say it."

^^ That came from here: www.ecospecifier.com.au/knowledge-green/articles/bushfire-shelter-and-earth-covered-homes.aspx

I think it's a bit rude when the insurance company tries to make up their losses on insuring such places by putting everyone elses insurance up 60% in one year, which is what they tried to do to me. I told them to stick it. My house is on top of a hill, 80 feet above sea level, and not surrounded by forests of bushland. There hasn't been a fire through here for a hundred years so I don't see why I should have to pay for the insurance companies stupidy in insuring all those who choose to live on the edge of a river bank or on a nice treed hillslope with bushland all around.
They can live there if they like but they should be aware, if it all turns pear shape then don't make others pay for their bad judgement.

Insurance companies will use any excuse to jack up premiums. This thread is not about people losing the right to do what they want. Its about people continually making wrong decisions and when there are bad consequences, everyone else has to bail them out.

Ian1 said..



Thats the way this country was built.
We don't give up and walk away.

No Ian1 of course not. But these people are selling their homes to others or rebuilding and it will happen again and again.
If the dwelling is still habitable then its fine, but rebuilding or selling on, no.

2 ways of dealing with living in a high risk area are
1. build your home to be very fire or flood resistant (can be done, but is expensive and not popular with architects / builders)
2. build your home to be lost every 10 years - ie limit the replacement cost of the whole building and contents to some arbitrary figure (say $50,000) that you could afford to replace without insurance.

Toph said..

I lived in the suburbs once. My premiums where up due do to a higher chance of burglary. I lived in north Australia once too. My premiums where high due to the greater threat of cyclones.

These days I am a resident of the Perth Hills. My premiums are up due to the risk of fire. My block is relatively clear and I have a sprinkler system on my roof cap for ambers. I also have a petrol fire pump with 2 40 metre 25mm fire hose and 1 30 metre 40mm fire hose. With all on full, I can still deliver a wall of water to the tops of the Marri/jarrah/gum trees from the other end of my yard with the 40mm hose. I have 9000lt tank full, solely for the purpose of defending against a fire. If I am home I will stay and defend my property. If I am not, then a firefighter if they see fit, can access the pump and defend mine and my surrounding neighbours property using my equipment leaving the rest of the crew and truck to concentrate their efforts else where. I am as prepared as possible with a clear plan to defend and or evacuate (family). I DO NOT see how you lot can construed this as using "bad judgement" or "continually making wrong decisions", just because we don't want to live so close to other people you can hear them fart.

I don't believe others should pay higher insurance if you are not in a risk area, but I don't believe I should be paying for floods or cyclones either. Oh and I shouldn't have to pay higher premiums on my tub just because there are an increasing number of drunk louts grounding their boats on sand banks or reef. But I do........

Australia has a weather/environment system as diverse as its people and we will all be affected by natural disaster one way or another. Its just some days you are the statue and other days the pigeon.

It is ironic to me that the OP of this post comes from a state where between floods, fires, drought and cyclones within the last 5 years, the majority of the state had been helped out by the kindness and generosity of Australians.

you are imo only probably the exception, prepared and prepared to spend the money and effort

tmurray said..

2 ways of dealing with living in a high risk area are
1. build your home to be very fire or flood resistant (can be done, but is expensive and not popular with architects / builders)
2. build your home to be lost every 10 years - ie limit the replacement cost of the whole building and contents to some arbitrary figure (say $50,000) that you could afford to replace without insurance.

1. is wrong, i am a builder, most cant simply afford it. The fact is it costs significantly more to achieve this and people are happy to take the chance "it wont happen to me"
2. is not possible unless you live in a Donga and walk away at every fire

Great post youngbull, it is freedom of choice to do this, it is council/government job to make sure that we are not allowed or that the appropriate defences/building regs are put in place when building in these areas.

Is it our "right" to build anywhere and expect help ? i dont know

Being insured is not the only answer and insurance companies are like any other business whether you like it or not to maximize profit for shareholders. A lot business somewhat subsidizes other not so profitable areas of their business, or they would not provide any service/cover to these areas. Which if government were not so bogged down in bureaucratic procedure they could run this.

That's abit rude Dezman. I am not having a go at anyone. Just because the council approves it does not mean you should live there.

I busted my ring in the floods a few years back helping everyone one the roads, clearing trees and so forth. My job was air conditioning at the time
countless sites I helped clean up the mess. I would help again in a heartbeat.

You are reading topic wrong.

the gibbo said..

you are imo only probably the exception, prepared and prepared to spend the money and effort

The frustrating thing Gibbo, is that besides the tank which was here when I moved in, the rest of it cost less then a weekend in Margs. And I didn't skimp on quality either.

the gibbo said..

Is it our "right" to build anywhere and expect help ? i dont know

I believe we have the right to live where we want, but I don't believe we should expect help. Although help would be greatly appreciated if offered whether it came in the form of accommodation, a spare shirt or a cold beer.

^ Easy.... go find another topic.

Youngbull consider the financial implications of what you are saying. If people were to move out of a fire or flood prone area then their land would be worthless because as you said they should not sell on.

With most families being up to their ears in debt they cannot afford to give up the value of their land. So the insurance gives them a payout to cover the cost of rebuilding and replacing their belongings. How do they afford to replace the land? I'm damn sure the banks won't give them a break so in many cases they have no choice but to rebuild.

youngbull said..

^ Easy.... go find another topic.

Look I'm not 'bulling you' and I'm sure you agree that some people will have different opinions to yours!
It's great you helped once and if I had a medal I'd pin it to your chest if I could find one. :))....
And yes it's Really a pain when stupid people make stupid mistakes and cost hardworking people like you,
The government should make laws against stupidity.
But then they could find themselves out of a job!
I'm sure you've got some great ideas on how to fix the problem, maybe you could find a forum and post them.

grumplestiltskin said..

without even worrying about increased insurance premiums etc. one of the big problems for these guys will be, "great got my building and contents insurance payout, now where am I going to build?"

That is, they get their money for their house and contents, but they are stuck with the land. If they want to move out of the area they still need to sell that land and that would be extremely difficult immediately after a fire/flood/cyclone/earthquake. Who is going to buy 5 acres of blackened bush?

They dont really have much choice but to build there again.

Aren't insurance payouts for houses that need to be rebuilt on a 'like for like' basis?

choco said..

I remember reading about the Victoria's bush fires a few years ago

The recent fires in Australia and the loss of life and property were apparently compounded by a draconian policy that prevented people who lived in the fire threat zones from cutting trees and brush near their properties. We witnessed something equally tragic in Lake Tahoe fire in 2007, owing to similar eco driven government stupidity forcing heavy handed policies there. Residents couldn???t get permits to cut down brush and trees, the result was a firestorm of catastrophic proportions.
A family in Australia saw the threat, decided on civil disobedience, cleared a firebreak, and got fined $50,000. They feel vindicated now, because their house is one of the few in Reedy Creek, Victoria, still standing, the only one in a two kilometer radius.
www.smh.com.au/national/fined-for-illegal-clearing-family-now-feel-vindicated-20090212-85bd.html

Maybe all homes in bush land should have a compulsory 100m clearing around them.

You're right there choco. I deal with planning in rural areas and it amazes me the contradictions within the planning schemes that property owners have to deal with in order to either build, or simply extend their homes. I recently had to provide an application for extending a family's home that is nestled within the surrounds of a state forest. They had previously contracted a third of their property for conservation and had installed a 'set & forget/leave' sprinkler-system on the roof with dual pumps and 30kl of static water set aside for fire-fighting purposes (apx 8hrs of continuous use). The CFA required a 'defendable space' of 24m (inner) and 15m (outer) in order to achieve a BAL (bushfire attack level) of 19. The CFA approved this, but planning needed to asses it. During a site meeting, they commented that no more than 15 trees could be cleared without triggering a need to seek approval from the DEPI (which there was a chance that it would be denied).

So - an existing family home (built pre-bushfire regs), with CFA and planning approval - yet not allowed to remove the required trees in order to ensure the safety of their home in preparation for a bushfire. Needless to say, a few trees 'fell' during a wind-storm one weekend and the owner legally cleared the 14 trees to ensure that the defendable space would allow the extension to commence.

Regarding the initial post - I'm an advocate for people having the right to build on their own property. I also try to ensure that I'm well versed in both planning/building requirements and a firm believer that the building should respond to the site. Although Vic planning/building guidelines are extremely restrictive (and could be called draconian), there are ways to build in bushfire and flood zones, but not without making the appropriate adjustments specific to the site. These add costs to the build - raised floor levels & site works for floods...BAL construction methods and site clearing for bushfires etc. I've witnessed both flood & bushfires with homes flattened by fire and houses inundated with floodwater. After speaking with owners that have gone through hell with planning depts. in order to build, these property owners are generally the first ones that sigh with relief when their home is left standing at the end of the day.

As for insurance companies - they own the building industry and will use any 'natural' disaster as an excuse to raise premiums without actually needing it simply for profiteering and for their shareholders.