The NZ Herald story on the first forcible sale of a homeowner's house and property, for lack of paying the rates, brings to mind activist Penny Bright, who was vocal and active in Wairarapa during the debate on the super-city process.
Ms Bright is before the courts for refusing to pay Auckland City Council rates because she insists on full disclosure of Auckland City Council's spending. I'm sure a lot of us are tempted by the prospect of withholding money because of a perceived lack of service or failure to deliver on an agreement.
In fact, we frequently do, by arrangement and negotiation, when it is a matter of purchasing goods or services that haven't eventuated completely or fully.
But the key aspect is, "by arrangement". Tenants, for example, may perceive a "wrong" in their accommodation and decide, hell, we're not paying rent until that leaky window is fixed. But this is hypocritical, as well as illegal. You still enjoy 99 per cent of the privileges of being leaseholders, but you decide to arbitrarily withhold money on a small matter? I've encountered ratepayers before who have decided they need the "big gesture" of withholding rates on principle.
A Kapiti resident once threatened to refuse to pay rates on any statement that contained a macron above the "a" on the word Kapiti. Doubtless Ms Bright feels the principle of the situation matters, yet she still (so far) has a home serviced by the council, which considers it is entitled to claim rate payments for doing so. It is gaining access to the courts, and getting publicity, by forcing another party to act against you.
