Super City? Yeah right

Dear Editor, Garry Law is right to be concerned about the recent proposals to amalgamate Auckland's councils into a 'super city' NZ Herald 24 august 2006). The merger contention was forced on us in 1989 amid promises of cost savings and efficiencies. History shows us that these undertakings were exaggerated. Rates have risen sharply since amalgamation city administrations have ballooned and democratic processes constrained.

There does need to be greater attention to solving regional difficulties but each community has different goals and priorities. There is ample evidence that stronger areas subsume smaller communities' needs in favour of their own. Less democracy will not provide better democracy or lower rates, quite the opposite.

The answer lies not in the creation of a ponderous monolith or expensive consultants with an "I know best" attitude. It lies in enhanced democratic processes and in ratepayers endorsing clearly stated objectives for their communities.

Mayor accepts that people are being rated out of their homes

Dear Editor, (NS Times)
I cannot believe that the Mayor accepts that people are being rated out of their homes and is unable to consider any alternatives to the high rate increases. Suburban cleansing is not the answer. No one should be forced to move from their local community. Many Shore residents especially the elderly, less abled and the ill need the support that comes from close friends, public amenities, medical care and nearby shops to be able to exist in any sort of comfort. The answer is not the forced evictions of residents to unfamiliar suburbs where they know no one, are with bus routes and have to find new doctors and other support professionals. There are only two real problems and they are not with valuations or the rating mechanism. The problems are what the City spends the money on and the attitudes displayed by those who do the spending.

Original Article reproduced below,
Downsize says mayor 17 August 2006
By LIZ WILLISPeople who can't afford the increasing North Shore city rates rises should consider selling up and moving to a cheaper home, says Shore mayor George Wood.
"At the end of the day if it becomes totally intolerable people are left with no option but to consider downsizing," says Mr Wood. "I have had people in previous years saying `Mr Wood we're paying $180 a week in rates' and I cringe when I hear that. I couldn't afford that," he says.
"We must face reality sometimes in life and that is one of the realities some people must face."
Mr Wood's comments come as Shore ratepayers face average rates rise of 8 percent over the next 10 years. This year's increase was 9.5 percent.
The average Shore rates bill is set to more than double in 10 years, increasing from $1456 in 2005-2006 to $3151 in 2015-2016.
Mr Wood says downsizing is an option for people who can't afford their rates and don't want to postpone paying them until after death or aren't helped by the changes to the rates rebate scheme.
Paying rates after death through their estate isn't palatable to everyone, he says.

"Some people just don't find that something they really want to enter into.
"I hear some horrendous cases where people are paying huge levels of rates, $7000 to $8000 a year, and they just don't have the wherewithal to meet the bill."
Mr Wood says it's "regrettable" that some people find themselves unable to afford rates increases and admits some people may think his comments lack feeling.
"It's not that. People do get into very difficult situations. It may be that they cannot afford to live in a particular property that has been their home.
"It's a very difficult situation. The rating burden in some cases is very large. People really have to look at their options."
Mr Wood says rating is a "very harsh mechanism to fund a council" but it's the only option available at the moment.

NS City should provide the citizen’s referendum on the sale of Techscape

Councillor Tony Holman (NST 4/8/2006) has made an extremely pertinent point regarding another sale of NSC ratepayers’ assets; Techscape. North Shore residents should recall the pasting we took when Council sold our Auckland airport (AIA ) shares. In 1991, North Shore City sold our 7.1 percent stake (30 million shares) in Auckland Airport to Singapore Changi Airport Enterprises Pte Limited at $2.90 per share. AIA shares, already up 5c ahead of the initial announcement immediately rose a further 8c to $2.93 on the news. Later Auckland City received $4.90. After only two years Changi sold the stake reaping a profit of around $20.4 million. The shares are now worth an equivalent $8.36 allowing for the four for one share split last year.

It seems that the AIA sale decision has cost the ratepayer about 165 million plus dividends. This would have gone a long way towards funding many of the City’s projects. This incident should serve as a warning. It is easy to predict that the sale of Techscape will contribute to large increases in the costs of residents’ water and waste water; not to recover costs but to fund company profits. We don’t want to embark on the limited survey that preceded the AIA share sale. However, If the council remains confident in its decision then provide the citizen’s referendum as proposed by Councillor Holman.

The Shore deserves a Council that advocates for the people's needs

Lyndsay Brock (NST 4/8/2006) offers a perceptive analysis of the appalling self-congratulatory pamphlet which the City's internal PR department distributed to ratepayers last week. Ironic that the pamphlet paid for by rates was used to justify increased rates and indicated a reduction in spending on libraries, parks and beaches. So where is the extra spending going?
I was amazed to see the comparisons on the back page. The first column compared rates to the high petrol prices propelled skywards by wars, atrocities and social upheavel. The next comparison was with the high cost of telephones, something which one company's behaviour has seen them into strife with both shareholders and government. The comparison with power costs after the recent power cuts, artificial spikes in spot prices and criticism of a certain power company's maintenance programme (admittedly a different company than that featuring in the NSC leaflet) does the Council little credit. Or, are we being told that the massive rate increases are due to warfare, shoddy investment or monopolistic action. Social agitation is the result.
The Shore deserves a Council that advocates for the people's needs rather than for the Council's bureaucracy.