Which is telling the Government today that its idea of forcing a cap on council rates increases is “unrealistic and unworkable”.
Which is a polite way of saying “rates caps are a daft idea, so just drop it right now”.
And that’s what I think too. I’ve always thought it’s a daft idea to force local councils around the country to increase rates by no more than 2 to 4 percent each year. It sounds brilliant, but it’s never going to work.
The Christchurch council says even at the upper range of a 4 percent cap, it would be forced to cut costs by up to $120 million a year.
Which confirms to me that the Government either has no idea or no interest in the financial realities local councils are dealing with.
Christchurch city council says rates caps would force cuts to essential services, lead to a decay in assets, delay investment in critical infrastructure, and reduce the council’s ability to repay debt.
Not only that. It says they would drive up fees and charges. Which the Government isn’t being totally upfront about.
Because, just before Christmas, a Cabinet paper was quietly published which shows we’re only being told part of the story.
In the paper, the local government minister says the rates caps are intended to “incentivise greater use of user charges, which have declined in recent years”.
Which is what the Christchurch city council is warning us about today.If councils are forced to limit annual rates increases to somewhere between 2 and 4 percent, we’ll just end up paying more in other ways. How do you feel about higher parking fees? Higher dump fees. Paying more to use your council pool. Higher consent charges. Life won’t be cheaper, it will be more expensive.
I’ve always known that this idea isn’t actually going to deliver us any benefits.
This cabinet paper and the people who actually know a thing or two about how councils work - Christchurch city council staff and councillors - are proof.
No matter how much you might think your local council needs to rein-in the spending, this idea of rates caps won’t make one bit of difference.
John MacDonald is the Canterbury Mornings host on Newstalk ZB Christchurch. This article was first published HERE
The Christchurch council says even at the upper range of a 4 percent cap, it would be forced to cut costs by up to $120 million a year.
Which confirms to me that the Government either has no idea or no interest in the financial realities local councils are dealing with.
Christchurch city council says rates caps would force cuts to essential services, lead to a decay in assets, delay investment in critical infrastructure, and reduce the council’s ability to repay debt.
Not only that. It says they would drive up fees and charges. Which the Government isn’t being totally upfront about.
Because, just before Christmas, a Cabinet paper was quietly published which shows we’re only being told part of the story.
In the paper, the local government minister says the rates caps are intended to “incentivise greater use of user charges, which have declined in recent years”.
Which is what the Christchurch city council is warning us about today.If councils are forced to limit annual rates increases to somewhere between 2 and 4 percent, we’ll just end up paying more in other ways. How do you feel about higher parking fees? Higher dump fees. Paying more to use your council pool. Higher consent charges. Life won’t be cheaper, it will be more expensive.
I’ve always known that this idea isn’t actually going to deliver us any benefits.
This cabinet paper and the people who actually know a thing or two about how councils work - Christchurch city council staff and councillors - are proof.
No matter how much you might think your local council needs to rein-in the spending, this idea of rates caps won’t make one bit of difference.
John MacDonald is the Canterbury Mornings host on Newstalk ZB Christchurch. This article was first published HERE
8 comments:
When 3.2 million gets funneled from my rates to the local iwi (Kapiti) and there is literally nothing to show for it, a cap is justified.
When a city of 3.5million is managed by the same number of people as is employed by Kapiti council - a region of 58000….a rates cap is justified.
It’s not the services that should be cut it’s the meaningless feel good bull pukki that should be cut
Give me higher user fees any day of the week over the council’s relentless rate increases. This gives residents choice which they certainly don’t have today under the current practice.
It's a pity the government doesn't give itself a max increase limit.
Rate caps would work if the councils stopped wasting rate payers' money on creating monuments to themselves and appeasing taniwhas.
If they actually concentrated on their core and essential services, there would not be a bloody problem.
This article suggests that the author isn't seeing the issue from ratepayers' perspective. He appears to believe that it's ok for him to use - either for free or at a nominal charge - facilities mostly paid for by the ratepayers. Many of us disagree: increased user charges make a lot of sense. Why should I be paying extra for facilities I either don't use or can no longer use? I'm on a fixed income: the rates increases here in Wellington are leaving us impoverished.
The hard reality is that Councils must manage on less money, as all of us are obliged to do. They must strike a budget and stick to it. No more lightning raids on ratepayers ' wallets, thanks!
"It's a pity the government doesn't give itself a max increase limit."
I agree with you. But the - broadly conceived - welfare state makes a habit of demanding more handouts in the form of taxpayer cash. All government funding comes from us the taxpayers. Everyone dependent upon government funding for their livelihoods must remember it. There really is no such thing as a free lunch.
Let's have rate caps. Everything else would be user pays. Things like unsolicited art work, totem poles and street signage being "de-Euoropeaned" It would curb councils from spending money on frivolous, unnecessary items.
Councils believe they have an unkillable gold goose (rate payers)
There never is any consideration to can this be afforded or is there a cost benefit analysis that vaguely stacks up.
They just spend. Safe in the knowledge that budgets will be increased next year for more spending.
No wonder we have so much money going to all sorts of causes. Every cause is a worthwhile cause when you don’t worry about the bill.
Christchurch council is so outta control, they expect their spending to go up 120 million next yr at a minimum!
Delicously ironic that an article that claims to be against rate increase caps illustrates why they are so necessary
Is John MacDonald for real? Does he realise he's effectively advocating for socialism? User pays is a much fairer means of cost distribution!
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.