Sign In / Register
Radical review needed
Over the past few years, I have seen people struggling to stay in business and charities struggling with donations. Cost of living goes up, disposable income goes down – now an unreasonable rates hike adds to this vicious cycle.
As a widow, living alone and on a pension, a 41 per cent rates increase is a scary situation to find myself in and I will struggle to sustain it. My husband and I worked hard to set ourselves up and, although he is no longer here to enjoy it, I was hoping to enjoy my life here and not feel forced to move out of my forever home because of unreasonable charges.
This 41 per cent increase in rates is a sudden and huge step up, which far exceeds the 5.8 per cent “average” increase the council communicated and I haven’t seen any justification for that increase. A reply [to my letter] from Wayne Brown suggested I apply for rates rebate or postponement. That’s not the point – I shouldn’t have to do that! I am happy to contribute to my community, but I would like charges to be calculated fairly and transparently.
Words in response to my queries from Phil Wilson’s team (Auckland Council): “The value based general rate for rural residential properties is set at 90 per cent of the rate for urban business properties.” Does that even make sense? Are they trying to start an argument? To me that wasn’t a clear explanation allowing me to understand the calculation and demonstrating the fairness of the process.
Is an arbitrary property valuation the best way to fund our council? I appear to be getting penalised for living in an area where property valuations keep going up – not something I have control over. I am also in an area that council services don’t reach.
Council communication was misleading, downplaying the increases. Is it too much to expect that our central and local governments are clear, open and transparent with us? Without an increase so extreme and justification so lacking, I would have paid without much thought but … is it too much to ask for clear, easily explained and fair rates charges?
Kathryn Ashworth, Mahurangi West
Rates debacle
The debacle about rates can be sheeted home to one single flaw – the rates are set by property value, in effect being a wealth tax. However, unlike income tax, it has no relation to the ability to pay. Also, it is incomprehensible why the rates for a property with a sea view should attract higher rates than the property behind the hill. To add insult to injury, this wealth tax also attracts a tax on a tax: GST.
To be equitable, rates should be related to services provided. That would also justify charging GST. However, not all is lost. The government looks to change the rating base, said John Banks when he was Whangarei’s MP and Minister for Local Government … That was 30 years ago.
K H Peter Kammler, Warkworth
Rodney rorted again?
It feels like Rodney’s being singled out, doesn’t it? First it was the Regional Fuel Tax (RFT). Now Auckland Council can talk about a 5.8 per cent rate increase, but here in Rodney, we’re staring at an average of 15.7 per cent – nearly three times as much! Some residential properties face increases much bigger than our average 19.3 per cent jump.
The revaluation is not the problem. Rodney ratepayers are wealthier if property values increase, and council allows those who can’t afford to pay to defer their rates payments. The real problem is what are we getting for it? It feels like we’re pouring more and more into the pot without getting a fair return.
Rodney rates revenue is set to surge by 17.6 per cent, while the city-wide increase is just 8.2 per cent.
Are we really getting proportionally better services, or are we just subsidising the rest of Auckland?
And it gets worse. We’re a growing community, and you’d expect development to pay its way, right? But the development contributions – the fees charged to builders to help fund infrastructure – aren’t staying in Rodney. They’re being siphoned off to “Priority Investment Areas” elsewhere in Auckland. There is no money in the Long-term Plan for growth in council assets and facilities needed here to cope with the growth in people and houses they want here over the next 20 years. How is that fair? We need $200,000 spent on these assets and facilities for every new dwelling. Rodney is experiencing unplanned development, unprovided for, and chaos.
We deserve to know where our rates money’s going. The whole one-size-fits-all approach for council is a scam on Rodney, like the council is deliberately bleeding us. Where do the funds go? Where’s the transparency?
This isn’t just about money; it’s about our community, council’s indifference and neglect. We need representatives who will stand up for Rodney, fight for our fair share and demand accountability from the council. We need to make our voices heard. It’s time for our Local Board to ask – who is paying for what, and why?
Bill Foster, Leigh
Dire situation
Your 18 August edition contained two contrasting headlines: “Rates bombshell” on page 1, and “Council accused of neglect”, on page 3.
The irony for me, apart from the pain of paying them, is that simply this … over decades, most councils have failed to upgrade, replace or maintain their existing infrastructure, roading, footpaths, park facilities, etc.
Watercare, a council subsidiary, is an exception. Ka pai Watercare.
Indeed, there was once a mayor who was elected on a ‘no rates increase’ ticket.
The reality is that while you report ratepayers/voters having difficulty paying for these latest rate bills, you also report complaints about failure to protect our historical heritage. We cannot have our cake and eat it, simple as that.
Past failures to keep up with infrastructure needs, inflation and now population increases unforeseen 20 years ago have led to the dire situation now faced.
Remembering that only about half of eligible voters actually cast a vote and those that do largely want to keep the status quo, while those who rent can vote but largely do not, we are now faced with many systems unable to cope with the existential immediate threat of climate change. Your move.
Michael Dymond, Warkworth
Omaha pipes
The flood prevention upgrades around the Omaha boat ramp have recently been completed. So which engineer thought it was acceptable to discharge two high-flow wastewater pipes onto a sandy beach from half a metre high?
You don’t need much common sense to predict the first decent rain event and the beach will scour. And all for the want of just one more load of rocks spread beneath the pipes? We just stand back and “shake our collective heads”!
Vernon Pryde, Omaha
Auckland Council Healthy Waters and Flood Resilience head of operations Andrew Skelton responded: “We understand the concerns but want to reassure the community that the flood prevention upgrades around the Omaha boat ramp were well thought out. Small rocks are often placed at the base of the outlets to disperse the water so it doesn’t keep scouring the sand and creating a hollow that will pond with seawater. Auckland Council manages over 20,000 stormwater outlets and so we cannot proactively check every single one, but we do if they block up with sand – this happens mainly in the summer with less rainfall.
“For some technical information, the pipe level was set slightly above the sand to cross over an existing wastewater pipe and reduce blockage risk without needing a non-return valve. A reno mattress was placed below the sand around the gabion headwall to prevent undermining, avoiding a visible placement for aesthetic and functional reasons. Although some sand scouring was expected, it appears minimal. Using rip rap was avoided due to its large size requirements, visual impact, trip hazard risks, and high cost.”
No brainer
There appears to be some misinformation and a certain lack of information regarding the pest free project now in operation on Kawau.
Firstly, we had an article in Mahurangi Matters (Aug 4) in which a resident claimed that toxins were being spread all over the place when, in fact, they weren’t.
Following that, we had a letter from another resident (MM, Aug 18) pointing out quite correctly all the dangers and unpleasant results of using toxins, but totally omitting the context in which these toxins are used. There is no toxin that does not cause suffering to some extent. An instant death toxin does not exist. Trapping and hunting have not in the past succeeded in total removal.
The context is that the native New Zealand bush nationwide is itself suffering dreadfully from the presence of these animals. They are not only destroying the undergrowth and chewing through any young seedlings, but are compromising and breaking down the whole unique and complex ecosystem.
Anyone visiting the Kawau DOC reserve will see the devastation in some areas. On the other hand, in areas that have been hunted and trapped, the regeneration of the bush is evident.
A recent survey of kiwi on Kawau showed them to be undernourished. This can only be due to lack of suitable nourishment.
In the end, we have to decide. Do we want these alien predators, a very sick native bush and very probably further extinctions, or do we want a healthy native bush and no predators?
I believe it’s a no brainer.
John Millais, Kawau Island
A self-serving entity
So the ruined Mahurangi oysters growers are offered financial assistance, in the form of a sum of money, less than half the annual salary of at least one Watercare staff member.
These retrospective, jerky reactions in response to public outrage display how inept and shallow Watercare actually is.
The Mahurangi estuary is the heart and soul of our area. Now, thanks to Watercare, it is shit alley.
Watercare has clearly become a self-serving entity, unanswerable to fisheries minister Shane Jones, small business minister Chris Penk or Mayor Wayne Brown. What’s going on?
The whole stormwater system needs a detailed camera survey and all consents put on hold.
On the topic of rates, I suggest Wayne Brown and Chris Penk drive down Omaha Flats Road and ascertain the surface quality to remind themselves of what rate robbery really is.
Simon Colquhoun, Leigh
