Members of the Mr Fluffy homeowners' group are outraged at the suggestion homes could be subject to a compulsory buyback, with owners forced to compete on the open market to get their blocks back.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
"People are contacting me furiously behind the scenes saying we have children in our local schools, we volunteer in our areas, we look after the next-door neighbour who has a disability. The idea that we will be driven off our land is just too much to bear," Fluffy Owners and Residents Action Group spokeswoman Brianna Heseltine said. "People have a deep emotional attachment to their family homes and governments should not forget that in the formulation of a reparations scheme."
It was unacceptable that owners might be "flung on to the open market" and forced to compete for new homes.
ACT Chief Minister Katy Gallagher will not discuss the details of the buyback and demolition scheme, which is still being negotiated with the Commonwealth, but she confirmed this week that a compulsory buyback, with cleaned blocks then sold on the open market, was on the table. She also said the ACT government wanted flexibility in the scheme, and the situation of people who wanted to stay on their land was being "factored into our thinking", but she stopped short of guaranteeing that people would be allowed to stay. The Government wanted to minimise the cost of the scheme and that meant realising the value of the land, she said.
Ms Heseltine said of 100 owners who had responded to a quick online poll overnight on Tuesday, 55 wanted to return to their land and rebuild.
She is developing a reparation scheme that she will put to the ACT and federal governments, which would see all owners paid the unimproved land value plus the replacement value of their home and other improvements (using insurance contract figures for the calculation or another new-for-old valuation).
Under her scheme, stamp duty would be waived on the purchase of a new home for those who wanted to move on. People who wanted to return to their land and rebuild would be given first option to buy the land back at the same unimproved value once the demolition was complete.
Comments from owners on the group's Facebook page on Thursday reflected a strong desire to return to their homes, people variously saying they loved the location, were settled into communities with their children at local schools, doubted they could afford to buy again in the same area, and were unsure what they would be able to afford on the open market, especially if the market was inflated by demand with up to 1000 buyers suddenly looking for homes.
"People are just so devastated and angry at the moment," Ms Heseltine said. "We understand that governments need to conduct some discussions on finance behind the scenes, but the form of the scheme will affect our lives in the most profound way … They are talking about our family homes."
Ms Heseltine pointed to another worry for families whose financial circumstances had changed since they took out their mortgages. They would be applying for new mortgages with extra children, or down to one income, or now retired, she said, calling on the Commonwealth to liaise with banks to ensure such people could get home loans.
It had been six months since the February letter to owners and owners and tenants were desperate to reclaim stability, she said.
