Long Term Housing Loss

Climate change is likely to make some current homes unlivable.  The main causes of this are more frequent and intense flooding, sea level rise and coastal inundation, and extreme heat and water insecurity in some remote locations.  The people affected vary in their access to resources to solve their own problem, from wealthy dwellers in urban coastal and riverside properties to highly disadvantaged First Nations communities in the Torres Strait and the remote north of the country. 

​

In a worst case scenario this could result in unplanned moves of people into neighbouring communities, putting pressure on rental housing, overcrowding existing family homes and exacerbating homelessness.  However, such moves can also be planned out and accomplished in an orderly way.  The town of Grantham in Queensland’s Lockyer Valley shows one way of dealing with this situation.  After it was severely flooded in 2011 the Lockyer Valley Council engineered a land swap in which flood-affected residents were offered new sites on higher ground as an alternative to rebuilding their existing homes.  More than 100 Grantham residents took up this offer and as a result, were high and dry when the community flooded again in 2022.  

​

In the wake of the 2021-22 cyclones and floods the Queensland and Commonwealth Governments have launched a wider scheme, the Resilient Homes Fund, funded to the tune of $741m, to either buy back properties or support owners to rebuild in a more flood resilient way, either by raising the home or rebuilding with flood resilient materials.  

​

Lismore Council has commenced discussion about this same issue in the wake of its devastating dual floods of 2022.  They have launched a discussion paper and consultation process about moving large parts of their town out of the flood zone, including homes and businesses.  

​

These strategies are firmly directed towards property owners, who can benefit either from a subsidised buy-back (exchanging their land of diminishing value for a safer location) or a subsidised rebuild.  This can theoretically also work for rental investors and for social and affordable housing providers who may be able to benefit from similar schemes.  Their success relies on three things.

1. Ensuring there is a supply of land and housing that can replace what is being abandoned – this is the essence of the Grantham scheme and is also being considered in the Lismore discussion via potential rezonings of less flood-prone land, but is not considered so far in the Queensland Government scheme.

2. Getting the price right – one of the big challenges for property owners wanting to relocate after a flood is that the value of their land drops.  This means that for a scheme to work, a buy back needs to pay a price that enables the owner to buy a similar property in a safer location, and this requires some form of subsidy.

3. Community engagement and co-design – people are understandably attached to their homes and communities and the decision to move can be extremely difficult, even after a disaster.  For First Nations communities this is often overlaid with deep historical and spiritual connections to the place they live.  These considerations mean that there is no ‘one size fits all’ solution and governments and funding bodies need to work with communities to design a solution that fits those people in that place.

 

So far, moves to rebuild or relocate have very much been reactive but this process would be greatly aided by long-term planning, building effective models of the climate future of local communities as part of long-term land-use planning efforts and building safer and more resilient communities over time without waiting for a major disaster.