Residents of a small Selwyn community say they will keep fighting to save their homes after being told they must vacate them by 2039.
The district council last month voted to confirm the eviction of the entire Upper Selwyn Huts settlement on the shores of Lake Ellesmere because of the impact of climate change.
It sounds like the land itself is owned by the Crown, so I guess this is a lease ending?
Also:
Fea said people were given no warning, which had been the hardest thing.
“It’s come out of the blue and the reasons they’re giving us, they don’t justify the 15 years maximum.” Selwyn Huts
Fea said residents would be urging the council at the public meeting to reconsider its decision - ideally they would like 30 years before they have to leave.
It’s a bit rough for sure but I feel like saying they have been given no warning is a bit odd given they are being given 15 years warning. But I’m guessing they can’t exactly sell their houses to move.
It’s not even leaseshold proper. It’s baches on crown land with licenses that need renewing every 5 years. Some of them have until June 2024 and others another 15 years.
The thing is, no one was allowed to actually live in them full time until 2015. So I think what’s happened is people thought cool, an affordable way to have a house, poured all their money in and then this… but yeah they’ve known for years.
By “climate change” specifically the flooding means the council can’t give it a sewerage and wastewater system. People can be really deep in denial about climate stuff; you try to warn them and they think it’s “political”. Smh.
(I was just curious and read a bunch of articles to get a better picture. This from 2019 sets most of it out).
That looks like it’s about a nearby settlement (Selwyn Hutts) that is being kicked out next year. This article is about Upper Selwyn Hutts, a separate settlement. They probably thought they were safe, though surely they would be starting to get the hint.
Weird though that your article has people say they poured all their money into it, but also say their family has owned the hut for 100 years. Maybe I’m misunderstanding their point.
But realistically, it seems crazy to pour all your money into a house that only gets it’s lease extended for 5 years at a time! I guess the lesson is that cheap houses are cheap for a reason.
It sounds like there may be 4 settlements with similar names in the same area!
The hut system is definitely not a good idea by modern standards, but it’s 100 years old and runs on a similar system to other leasehold land. I even got the impression that perhaps the 5 year renewal cycle is reasonably new. Perhaps it started as 100 year then when it came up for renewal the council switched to 5 yearly while they worked out what to do.
Yeah, though I think typically leasehold is on long terms (like 100 years). If you build a house at the start of that 100 years you get your money’s worth. But if the 100 years is ending in 5 or 10 years, you’d be pretty careful about what you spent on the place.
The major problem with lease hold, is that picking up a house and moving it to a new lease is extremely difficult and expensive or just impossible. Unless your house is a transportable by design.
So when the lease holder decides to increase the cost of the lease (usually by a lot), you are effectively trapped.
Contrast that with leasing a building for a business, if the lease holder decides to increase you lease, you can just move your business…it may be difficult and expensive but it is never impossible.
Its definitely not out of the blue; particularly given there’s 3 different hut settlements around the lake and all of them are undergoing the same process. Lots of background & history on the decision here:
Ah yes. It looks like they were told in 2019 that it was likely they would not be renewed for much longer, and now they have been given an a actual date. So you could say 20 years notice.
I wonder about the person in the original article that moved there in 2019. I wonder if someone went to that council meeting, heard they won’t be renewing for much longer, and sold their place while they still could. This lady comes and buys the place, then finds out it’s all ending. Might be a lack of disclosure, a lack of due diligence, or maybe she moved there at the start of 2019 and had bad timing.
Yeah I think there’s probably a bit of some folks not really understanding what they were buying into as well. Like you can’t really talk about something being your forever home when its a place that’s not really for permanent habitation, where you don’t have a land title at all and all you have is a license to occupy a structure on an otherwise communal piece of land.
Add comment