Rates revolt: Readers respond

Readers continue to write in on the ARC rates increase. Some think Auckland mayors, such as John Banks in Auckland City and George Wood on the North Shore, should look at their cities' rates increases first; others strongly object to being called "small-minded hayseeds" yesterday by Heart of the City chief executive Alex Swney; still others question what they are really getting from the ARC:


I see that part of my ARC rates goes on Civil Defence, so I thought it would be useful to see what I get for my money. I went to the ARC website and searched for "Civil Defence".

Top of the results was "civil-defence home". Excellent! I clicked that link, eagerly looking forward to seeing all the good things that are being done by our regional council.

The page quickly came up ... blank! Nothing, nada, not a sausage.

Did I perhaps get the correct answer to my query about what the regional council is doing with the rates we pay it?

Mike Nixon (former civil defence officer, One Tree Hill Borough Council), Pakuranga

* * *

Alex Swney in yesterday's Dialogue column must indeed think we are all small-minded hayseeds if he thinks we can't see through his argument about the ARC rates.

He states that local councils are anti-business. But wait a minute: isn't a huge chunk of the latest rates demand supposed to go to rail and bus subsidies, and aren't these companies owned by somebody other than the ratepayers?

If so, we are effectively giving these companies a guaranteed profit. Doesn't sound anti-business so far. When you are in business you choose the site to conduct your business on and if that happens to be a high-rent, high- rates area then all this is built into your business' prices.

As well as this, council rates are taken off the business' income, with all other expenses, before tax is calculated so the business effectively pays 33 per cent less to begin with.

What has happened with the council taking away the differentials is that it's just given business a huge profit increase and put the load on people who don't get tax breaks and aren't on huge salaries, because most of us are ordinary "hayseeds" and not CEOs like Mr Swney.

Why is it that the ARC can decide that Auckland stretches from Wellsford to Pokeno and all points in between. The outer areas don't get the services they are paying for.

Driving my vehicle around Franklin doesn't have the slightest effect on Auckland's gridlock but I'm expected to pay extra for petrol and council rates to alleviate the city's suffering. Those that don't contribute to the problem shouldn't be forced to contribute to the solution.

What the ARC and all council rates are, is a sneaky capital gains tax and doesn't fairly reflect use of council resources.

Jim Partington, Pukekohe

* * *

My grandmother was right when she used to say, "People in glasshouses should not throw stones". John Banks and George Wood were the first to cast stones at the ARC and the regional rates increase. However, it seems that both of them are "black kettles" themselves, with rates increases which will make the ARC rate pale into insignificance.

I am happy to pay my regional rates to the ARC. We do need a better public transport system, it provides fantastic regional parks and our environment does matter. The rates may be based on capital value, but I believe this is the most fair system for the region. For example, has anyone noticed why it's mainly the wealthy folk of the North Shore and Rodney with lovely coastal views and million-dollar homes who are making the most noise?

Bit of advice to George and John: put away your knives and start taking a long, hard look in your own backyards. As ratepayers, we will speak up when your rate bills start hitting our letterboxes.

David Parker

* * *

It never seems to amaze me the enthusiasm that can be engendered when people are sent an account for money.

The recent ARC rates debacle is a case in point. The need for a substantial boost to Auckland's transport infrastructure has been canvassed in the media and at numerous meetings over the past several years. The fact that taxpayers in other parts of the country did not want to pay the extra required was also made apparent.

It was obvious that it would have to come from the Auckland ratepayers and the fairest way and only way was for the ARC to spread it over the region as a whole. The system of rating using capital value is also the fairest available as it allows the richest people with the biggest assets to make the largest contributions.

A poll tax is hard on those with the least wealth and supposed ability to pay, and a differential rating system imposing most of the cost on businesses also is hard on the less well off because it must be recovered from increased prices.

There is little discussion of real alternatives apart from someone else should pay. No mention is ever made of the many things the ARC has managed to do within its previous rates, such as the modernisation of the Mangere sewage-treatment plant or the new parks such as Scandretts Bay in Rodney.

It is obvious that there should have been more investment in transport in Auckland over the years but the region's transport revenue such as the petrol tax and road user charges have always been bled away.

Now is the time to pay up, show Auckland can put its money where its mouth is, and then demand some more action from central Government.

Actually I was proud of the way the ARC stood up to the shrieking of the people who wanted to foist their responsibilities elsewhere. Every other region has had to address these issues or soon will. We must either pay for our infrastructure ourselves or get a Government with different priorities to pay.

Endless prevaricating will not suffice.

Jim Dollimore

* * *

I have been appalled at the arrogance shown by the ARC and particularly Gwen Bull, but hats off to John Banks, hardly someone I am used to praising for his attempts to get the protagonists round the table.

The response by Mrs Bull was indicative of the where the problems lay.

To say that the ARC had collaborated with the councils is misleading. It should be to the ratepayers that they should be accountable as they now have a direct relationship with them. They provide services, we fund them. They are accountable to us.

Robin Ducker

* * *

I have watched this rates debacle with some concern and can only say the problem is one of fairness.

To have a rating system as struck by the ARC or a differential system as proposed by Manukau Mayor Sir Barry Curtis are both unfair on the ratepayer. The problem should be approached on two fronts.

First has got to be user-pays: charge the users a more fair and equitable fare that is reflective of the true cost of the service and benefits thereof.

Second, charge a flat-rate transport subsidy across the city, the same rate for every residential household property irrespective of its value.

And finally, charge the commercial properties according to the benefits they gain from staff, customers or clients using the transport system.

To give a 250 per cent increase to retired folk who choose to live in a nice area is just not on.

Keith Ingram

* * *

Infrastructure Auckland is holding millions to be used in Auckland, and is under Government regulations that only allow it to GIVE AWAY this money, ultimately diminishing the fund.

If the Government allowed IA to lend this money at no or low interest (sufficient interest to cover costs) to councils including the ARC, then the cost of borrowing could be lowered. This would have the effect of keeping rates increases down and keeping the IA fund going longer.

Of course, being a cynic, I believe we would still have the politicians deciding that they could then afford to put in more grandiose schemes, such as stadiums. Ho hum.

Also, when are we in Auckland going to get back from the Government slush fund (the Consolidated Fund) the petrol tax that was supposedly being collected from us to be spent in Auckland?

Vivienne Keohane

* * *

I think the new cost of rates is callous and cruel, and set by a group of people who have no idea how it feels to live off $160 a week, then to pay power, phone, car and house insurance, car repairs, petrol, clothing, house repairs, food, medical and chemist bills, let alone to buy gifts for (as in my case) 20 grandchildren and four children or close friends. Thank goodness for the local library.

I see a huge backlash coming from the people of this country and I'm not talking about Maori issues either. Brown or white, no one likes poverty and oppression.

Delma Pitman

Tell us what you think about the rates increases:
* Email the Herald News Desk