Technically the government cannot force anyone in the red zone to move, because red zone “has no legal status”, as explained by a government policy adviser in her response to parliament.
Legal status or no legal status, red zoning has many real life consequences for the people affected. For starters, you won't be able to sell your home (on the market), mortgage it, repair it (if a building consent is needed, good luck getting that), or insure it (after the insurance market stablises).
CERA's communications with the public are full of "management speak", that the average citizen are disinterested.
"Management Speak", also known as "business speak" is defined in Wikipedia as "a term used to describe a type of jargon often used in large organizations. The tone is associated with managers of large corporations, business management consultants, and occasionally government."
Don't you just hate it when managers and, governments speak in indecipherable gobbledygook peppered with business management jargon?
Explanatory note: The CERRAct 2010 was replaced by the even more draconian CERAct 2011. Particularly, property rights abuses are erroneously justified by expediency [for earthquake recovery]. S.64 of the CERAct 2011 circumvents S.62(1)(c) of the Public Works Act 1981.
Reprinted from Pundit-
An open letter to New Zealand’s people and their Parliament.
We write as a group of concerned citizens with academic expertise in the area of constitutional law and politics.
Brisbane has had several major flooding in recent years. Their city and state governments responded in ways that are by far more sensible and perhaps more economical than their kiwi counterparts- Cera and central government.
Their flood-prone land is being retired from residential use, similar to what we have here in certain parts of Canterbury after the quakes, by the decisions of government.
Andrew Geddis, from the Otago University Faculty of Law says Christchurch's [residential] Red Zone offer is "An offer you can't refuse."
The red zone offer is structured in ways that it is effectively compulsory, not "voluntary" as the official propaganda says.
Let's not forget the "offer" specifically excludes some property owners, using insurance as a criterion. In effect red-zoning condemns people's homes but without a full compensation to everyone affected.
Red zoning forces people out of their homes, even if the quakes spared them.
Otago Law School associate professor Andrew Geddis commented in an article back in 2010 that the powers the government had given itself under the quake legislation were more powerful than the powers given under the Epidemic Preparedness Act 2006 (EPA).
Essentially if we compare the CERRA Act (the less powerful predecessor of CERA Act) to the Epidemic Preparedness Act, government powers are far greater after the Canterbury quakes than a hypothetical zombie-infestation scenario would be.