Readers' views: Runaway rates

The Herald asked for your reaction to big rates increases throughout the country. Below is a sample of readers' views.

Reading the varied commentary, and Dick Hubbard's poor defence of the recent rates increases, I am amazed at the lack of noise coming from the North Shore as a result of our recent rates increases - 9.6 per cent! Our council seems to be lying low and letting the Auckland City Council take all the heat.

I have come to the conclusion that the Auckland councils do not get why we are all unhappy with the rates increases.

The North Shore City Council is trying to tell us that compared with our phone bill, petrol bill etc the rates are good value for money. But the point they miss is that we have a choice where we spend our money when dealing with these other companies. But with rates we do not! We do not have a choice which council we wish to pay rates to.

If Telecom puts up the phone charges, we can generally choose to change suppliers, if we wish.

As consumers we have options and protection within the law from being ripped off when using other suppliers of services.

We should not vote at the next elections. Hopefully that would result in no councillors/council/mayors and therefore no one able to approve the next rates increase.
- Jeremy Foley, Albany


If the World Cup 2011 is to bring so much income to the district, why aren't the businesses who will gain the financial benefits being charged with the cost of the upgrade?

The residential ratepayer is to be socked to benefit a few - and I say this as a rugby supporter! Will the NZRFU and the spendthrift councils be providing ratepayers with seats to the Auckland games? Is that a herd of pigs flying by the window? Or merely a mob of councillors looking for another trough?
- Ron Hamilton, Kohimarama


Why are rates based on the (supposed) value of one's property? Why does it cost more for council services to be provided to a property valued at $1 million than for a property valued at, say, $100,000?

After all, I pay the same price for petrol whether my car is worth $20,000 or $120,000.

And, as a bonus, if rates were no longer based on property values, there would be no need for Quotable Value with their three-yearly revaluations.
- Maurice Robinson, Whangarei


We are getting extortionate rate rises because the Auckland City Council has lost sight of what should be its prime objective: getting the best bang for our bucks.

It is squandering our money on expensive policies and projects that, it believes, will be "good for us". Shouldn't we first expect to see hard evidence that there will be a worthwhile benefit?

What we need is an independent audit of the costs and benefits of things like recycling, rules and regulations that increase compliance costs, electric rail against better roads, and so on.

If the council did that, we would soon see that many of its policies have more to do with blind beliefs and social engineering than giving us value for money.
- Bryan Leyland, Pt Chevalier


Recent examples of rate rises in Auckland City and other parts of the isthmus demonstrate that the current use of property values for determining rate payments is now inappropriate and grossly unfair.

Despite Dick Hubbard's well meaning words, no resident should be facing rate increases of hundreds or thousands of dollars. No resident should be paying double or triple the rates of fellow residents. This is ludicrous.

For example, does Catherine Curlett use substantially more council services, put out more rubbish etc etc. I think not. The increase in her property value should be largely irrelevant.

Dick Hubbard and the council ignore the plight of these people yet there are mechanisms available to help deal with these situations but one suspects for Auckland City this is "too hard". Councils have a duty to all ratepayers, not just Mr Average.

Local body and central government politicians should get together urgently to develop alternative fairer methods of rating. Unfortunately most, seem uninterested but it is evident from correspondence in your newspaper that this is an important issue for many readers.

Calls for the amalgamation of Auckland's councils into a single authority are spot on. Let's get on with it - and the search for a capable leader.
- P.Gillon, Herald Island


I own a home and I am happy to pay higher rates, because I want to be part of a generation who can look back and say, yes we built that - I helped make Auckland better as opposed to the last couple of generations who have been nothing short of selfish.

We have all been happy to sit back and watch Auckland fill with people, the value of our property soar, and then borrow against our shrewd investments so we can buy flat screen TVs and a trips to the Gold Coast. But now that we are being asked to pay for what we have been moaning about (traffic, footpaths, infrastructure etc) all I hear is more moaning.

It is our city and we all need to participate in its improvement.
- Ian Hughes, Newton


It would be interesting to find out exactly how many residential ratepayers are paying the oft-quoted 13.4 per cent increase.

Media coverage and anecdotal evidence would suggest that a considerable number of residents are paying well above this figure.

It would also be interesting to see which areas have been targeted for substantial rates hikes. As with many Waiheke Island residents our rates have skyrocketed out of of all proportion to services provided; we are facing an increase of 114 per cent and this is certainly not the highest on the island. 13.4 per cent ... oh how I wish.
- Derek Payne, Waiheke Island


We still have the inequitable situation of pegging rates to the value of a property. People use council services, not property.

I suggest that the total rates take be held at the rate of inflation for the 2007/2008 year (to give all ratepayers time to catch up and absorb a new rating system not pegged to property value) and the Uniform Annual General Charges and targeted rates be increased to their maximum: ie 30 per cent for the UAGC. Also, all services and resources that council operate/supply are set up under a targeted rating system: ie, dispense with the general rate. These services then become transparent to the ratepayer and the council is held totally accountable for the use of all ratepayer monies. From the 2008/2009 rating year the targeted rates are then increased annually by a reasonable and affordable percentage. Ratepayers will then know the amount of rates they are to pay in the coming years as rates are not pegged to property values.
- Garry Bryant


The new rates are charged on the GV. Since the Government is satisfied that the GV represents the true picture of valuation, let IRD allow revaluation of the property and depreciation on the new GV. That would be a fair deal for some of us.
- Gopal Ayyar


Related to the Auckland City Council's unconscionable 2006 rates hike is the laughable 2.15 per cent discount "incentive" for paying those rates in one sum. It hardly takes a rocket scientist to figure out that ratepayers able to pay the full amount at once are better off depositing it in a high-interest bearing on-call account and paying by instalment on the due date. Come on Dick H, you're supposed to be a businessman - do the sums!
- Mike Wagg


Dear Dick,

How about this for a vision for Auckland: We could live within our means, then we could all share the cost equitably! See if you can get your head around that one.
- Peter Lavelle


On checking why my rates were so high (from $854 to $1597 - up 87 per cent) I discovered that the Auckland City Council has set my annual value at $31,000. The annual value is what is used to calculate the rates and is usually 5 per cent of the CV which in my case should be around $22,000 (CV is $450,000).

The help desk say that the annual value is either 5 per cent of the CV or the estimated rental (20 per cent for expenses). They take whichever is higher. But how did they work out that my three-bedroom, run down former state house on 362 sq m in Hillsborough - not a swimming pool or tennis court in sight - could be rented for $720 a week?
- Rachael Hellowell


The recent rates rises are completely out of control, and obviously we have a city full of irate home owners.

We live in Ellerslie, and yes, our rates have jumped considerably as well. We have no problem realising that the city needs funds to support the necessities of urban living, and to also further develop Auckland into the future, but when I read that some rate increases are over double, it begs belief that a council can deem this as fair. These folk don't get better facilities than anyone else - tell me why such a huge increase?

We all need to stand together on this and refuse to accept it. Councils cannot get away with this type of extortion.

And just to add insult to the injury? We got home yesterday to find a letter from Metrowater that our water rates will increase by 9.6 per cent.

Come on. When will this end? People simply cannot afford to live like this.
- L. and B. Schour.