Readers irate over new 'unfair' ARC rates

Ratepayers expressed their anger at the Auckland Regional Council's rates rise in about 100 emails and faxes to the Herald yesterday. This is an edited selection.

* * *

I cannot believe that increases of up to 200 per cent can be fair. Do people's real wages increase at this rate? How does the ARC expect the average working person to pay this extra money?

With taxes, water rates and everything else, what do they think Auckland residents are - slaves?

Once all these bills are met, the average worker will not have the money for petrol to get to the parks.

Wake up ARC. It's rumble time. - K.J. Rogers

* * *

Let me say up front that I have no fundamental problem with the concept of paying rates. In most cases it is a relatively fair method of funding public services, and Auckland really needs some form of public transport strategy.

That said, quite frankly I am livid. Not only has the ARC put my rates up by 280 per cent, but it patronisingly offers a 2.5 per cent discount if I pay within 11 days of receiving the bill. How am I supposed to budget for this when I had no prior notice of the amount due?

To rub salt into the wound I am permitted to pay in 10 instalments, but only if I choose to pay by direct debit, thereby robbing me of any flexibility to pay a few days early if it suits my circumstances. I don't even know when the payments will be taken!

Some form of transition would have been helpful and would probably have prevented the outcry which is now occurring. The ARC has shot itself in the foot with this one and it will take a long time for the public to trust it again. - Gary Ward

* * *

We have just received our ARC rates bill. We were shocked to see that in addition to the $1300.82 that we already pay our local council each year, we now have to pay the ARC a further $128.73.

The amount is outrageous, considering the breakdown of the bill. Approximately 50 per cent goes towards passenger transport. My husband and I own one vehicle. I work from home two days, and my husband walks to and from work.

We do not use public transport. Yet the ARC expects us to pay for transport projects which will not benefit us.

In order to receive the pitiful 2.5 per cent discount, we are required to pay our bill in less than two weeks. This is not much time to find a spare $128.73. We have a small child, a mortgage, bills to pay (for things we actually use, like electricity and telephone).

Shame on the ARC for using its power to extract money from people who are simply trying to provide for their families. Although refusing to pay is somewhat appealing, we are aware of the consequences.

Obviously we do not want to be penalised - that way we would end up paying the ARC even more money. - Hannah Blair

* * *

The rate increase that the ARC has implemented is theft on a grand scale. The property owners of Auckland are being made to pay for the Government's reluctance to build the transport infrastructure that Auckland needs at a time when the Government has a $3 billion surplus. It is unjust and wrong. - Malcolm Powell

* * *

The ARC rates didn't go up because it adopted a capital value rating system.

They went up because the ARC's budget more than doubled from about $50 million to about $100 million. Most of the increases were in new transport and biosecurity rates.

The transport rate includes a subsidy for the Britomart Transport Centre, which may turn into a white elephant.

How did the ARC get away with such a large budget increase? Previously, there were only seven purchasers of its services - the local councils which passed on the ARC rates in their own rates accounts.

Naturally, these councils would fight long and hard with the ARC over its budget.

Direct rating, introduced by the Labour-led coalition Government, means the ARC is now dealing with relatively powerless individual ratepayers. The ARC bureaucrats have naturally "gone for the max" because they think they can't be stopped.

Only the formation of a substantial ratepayer organisation to take the budget negotiation place previously occupied by the local councils, and/or a serious threat that councillors could be removed from office at the next election, would change their views. - Ian Andrews

* * *

The rates increase is a total disgrace and goes to show the totally thoughtless way our city is managed.

As a single-income family, I am required to pay more than $200 to the ARC this year, although it hasn't improved anything that has or will make the slightest difference to me.

It is obvious that this charge is purely to fund the ARC's wish to support central and South Auckland by expending ludicrous sums of money on Britomart. What do we gain in East Coast Bays?

Come on, Auckland, get up in arms about this. - -Ben Dearlove

* * *

I might just stay here in the US rather than come back to my now-overtaxed Devonport property. At least here the police respond to accidents and patrol the streets, schools have money to work with and medical services are available, albeit expensive. - Andrey Kurylo

* * *

I agree with the comment made in the Herald that the more people who boycott paying these new rates the better. They surely can't take us all to court.

I am going to pay only the general and biosecurity part of the rates bill.

For our household, this is about $120.

As we live in a user-pays society I don't see why I should pay for Auckland's rail system, which I'm never likely to use. As for buses, I have never used one in 14 years of living on the North Shore and I'm never likely to.

Come on, people, stick together on this one. Refuse to pay. - Chris Abbott

* * *

I don't understand how an individual who owns a valuable property costs the ARC or the Auckland City Council more money than someone whose property is less valuable.

Surely a flat rate per person or per dwelling can be applied? - Louise Coombes

* * *

It's hard enough to get by in Auckland as it is, without increases in rates and levies from the council. While I understand that our transport has to be paid for somehow, surely an increase of 200 per cent is unjustified and should be recalculated, especially as it is based on capital but not on income. - Stuart Hawkins

* * *

Of course we must pay rates. But this rise is punitive. It ought to be re-thought. - M. Ramage

* * *

I live in Mairangi Bay and my ARC rates have increased to just over $500.

I use the ARC facilities no more or less than anyone else, but because I live in a property with a high valuation I am forced to pay substantially more than average.

It would be much fairer if a user- pays system was used or everyone was levied the same rate and user-pays was applied for certain facilities.

This is just a wealth tax. - Bob Jones

* * *

Increases such as these need to be phased in over time. Most people, myself included, just cannot stump up a 200 per cent increase.

The councils and the ARC need to re-evaluate implementation. Anyone on a fixed income just cannot pluck increases of this nature out of thin air. I might just join the crowd which plans to boycott payments! - Maureen Clark

* * *

People who don't own houses also use public transport and the roads.

I assume they will be getting their equivalent fair share of the rates rise in some other form? Or is it that just home owners are expected to contribute to the transport needs of the region? - A. Couper

* * *

My comment is, why is it that people with higher house and land valuations pay more than people with lower-valued land and houses?

The services that the ARC rates provide have nothing to do with house or land value.

A person who has a $400,000 property doesn't use any more bus, train, park etc services than a person with a $200,000 property.

So why the difference in price? Shouldn't it be the same no matter how much your property is worth? - Scott Highet

* * *

It is of no surprise that given the opportunity, this body has undertaken a huge tax grab. This is a wealth tax, nothing more or less.

If the citizens don't rebel against this impost it will keep increasing.

It is designed to take away the freedom of motorists and force them to use a chaotic public transport system that will require a subsidy (rates) of ever-increasing amounts. - Grant Diggle

* * *

Obviously the submissions that were made at the annual plan meetings were completely ignored.

Why does the city need all the deadwood at the regional council?

What is wrong with the other local councils in Auckland taking over the statutory responsibilities of the ARC.

The fewer bureaucrats running people's lives the better. - Alan Waller

* * *

I am horrified at this increase. It is just one of many increases. I have had enough. Anyone want to join me in civil disobedience? - Anne Hone

* * *

Maybe Kiwis aren't apathetic after all. Roll on a rates revolt. I'll gladly join.

This ARC insult is adding to the injury of no corresponding drop in council rates. Then we are continually fed the specious argument for the cessation of differential rating, on the basis that businesses should not have to subsidise private ratepayers.

Well, when I can use my rates as a tax deduction too, I'll agree wholeheartedly.

For God's sake spare us from people who spend our money as if it's their own (to paraphrase Auckland City's esteemed mayor.) - Lou Girardin

* * *

The recent rate increase is completely unacceptable. The concept that rates be based on capital value is nonsense, resulting in Aucklanders being taxed on inflation in housing values.

Does a house valued at several million consume more services than one valued at $100,000?

Of course not. This tax assumes that those who choose to live in and own more expensive housing can pay more and subsidise others, and is clearly absurd.

The ARC does not have the right to make such a sweeping and substantial change to the rating system without the mandate of the electorate.

This change requires ratepayer approval. - Guy Williams

* * *

I have just moved to Orewa. It is a lovely place to live at the weekend, but the travel to and from the city I do every day is ridiculous.

At some of the most congested parts of the motorway going into the city there are only two lanes, and there is no train service.

It takes me more than an hour to get from Orewa to Auckland City every day. A work colleague gets the train from Papatoetoe and it takes her 25 minutes. If she were to drive, it would take more than an hour.

Why, then, should I be paying for increased travel costs when there is no train service in my neck of the woods?

If the ARC expects me to pay for the increased rates it is only fair that I get some benefit from the rates I am paying. - Daisy Powell

* * *

I support the ratepayer revolt against the Auckland Regional Council rates rise of 200 per cent or more.

I support the boycott of this new unfair, mean levy. - John Chang

* * *

What a bunch of useless moaners Aucklanders are - insisting that "something should be done about the roads" and then revolting when the rates go up.

Congestion tolling will no doubt receive the same knee-jerk reaction. Do people want to get to their destinations or not?

If so then why not shut up and pay up. Otherwise, we can all continue to exercise together our "right" to be on the roads that "we have already paid for in taxes, etc" - spending all that idle time wondering when "someone" is going to do something about the traffic. - Mike Roberts

* * *

I totally object to the manner in which these ARC councillors have increased our rates without debate or reference to the people they are rating.

As a North Shore resident, I object to the laughable reference to increased transport services. To where? From where? And how? One new dedicated bus lane. C'mon, I think you're dreaming, ARC, and asking us to pay for it. - Tony Callis

* * *

I have just joined the ranks of the superannuitants and look forward to my fortnightly paydays.

Now I have just seen one week's benefit going to the ARC. My levy is going up from $89 to $225 with a generous discount for prompt payment.

Thank you, ARC, for your consideration to pensioners in my situation. I will certainly support any petition against the increase in the Orewa area. - George Galbraith

* * *

If we, for once, unite, there is nothing the ARC or the Government can do, short of coming to terms with us - the people.

We do not have to march down the streets to make our point. Just don't pay. Each and every one of us.

We elected those so-called leaders and executives. We can also de-elect them - immediately, if necessary. - James Andrew

* * *

This is so typical of New Zealand. We all complain about improving infrastructure, and then complain again when we are asked for the money to pay for it.

Wake up. When you say, "The Government should pay for it", what you mean is that we should. The Government and local councils don't make money, they spend ours.

If you want better public transport, or more roads, open your wallet. If we spent half the time and energy on these projects that we do on organising petitions, think what could be accomplished. - Stu Colson

* * *

As a returned serviceman in my 80th year relying on national superannuation to live, I must object to the 100 per cent increase in my ARC rates caused chiefly by the use of capital valuation as a basis for calculation.

I strongly support the Herald's initiative to bring about a rethink by the ARC and bring an end to this banditry. - Bruce McRobie

* Email the Herald News Desk