Waimairi rates

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32661, 17 July 1971, Page 16

Waimairi rates

Sir, —The critics appear to ignore two important factors. First, they do not seem to suspect, as I do, that the majority of the councillors do not possess enough wit to appreciate what takes place at the council meeting (otherwise they would never have allowed the dragooning of the ratepayers by way of the “no option” law); and second, they do not seem to realise the council’s desperate need of money to pursue the ambition of becoming the world’s classic example of the truths of Parkinson’s Law. To acquire this dubious notoriety, a lot, a woeful lot, of ratepayers’ money will have to be wasted.—Yours, etc., TREVOR W. STRINGER. July 16, 1971.

Sir,—As a ratepayer who made payment in full every February, I object to the 10 per cent penalty this method will incur. If the council wants a time payment scheme, have it; but give a 10 per cent reduction for all rates paid in full by August 31 instead of a 10 per cent penalty paid in February. Encouraging early payment would be a better method than imposing penalties.— Yours, etc. < N. R. ASHBY. July 16, 1971.

Sir, —“Poor Waimairi” may like to know that most Waimairi ratepayers are appalled by the drastic , upgrading of the rates after last year’s revaluations. Most ratepayers had hoped that the petrol tax Would at least have held rates to the former already high levels. The value of our section was upgraded 50 per cent, from the already inflated value of $6OOO to $9OOO. Not one penny has been spent since the former valuation by us, the council, or the Drainage Board, and yet our rates were increased 16 per cent. Many family people in lowcost homes have had an increase of 20 per cent, bringing further cost-of-living worries. It seems the time has come for a more down-to-earth council to be elected. —Yours, etc., R.A.B. July 15, 1971.

Sir, —My rates have advanced 29 per cent over last year and we cannot even get our footpaths (or rather lakes in wet weather) attended to. The increase is no doubt due to the higher valuations but I strongly object to the instalment

scheme. I have received no notice of the council's intention to bring in this system and I intend to pay my rates next February as usual. 1 presume this year’s collection of rates is legal and if so I will be charged 10 per cent penalty on two instalments.— Yours, etc., WAIT AND SEE. July 16, 1971.

Sir,—lt would appear that we are living in a country of minor dictators. The Waimairi County Council sees fit to demand payment of the rates six months in advance of other councils and under threat of penal rates. How democratic is this? Mr Rich talks blithely of giving ratepayers an “opportunity” to pay in instalments, when in effect he is saying, “Pay up —or else!” The percentage increase in my rates, the increased capital value of the county and elementary mathematics tell me that the county will have an approximate increase of 17 per cent in its share of the rates. As it has been steadily collecting its share of the petrol tax I think it can afford to wait until February for the rates. Surely it is time someone took a good hard look into the affairs of the Waimairi County Council with a view to amalgamation with a more practical body.—Yours, etc., POORER RATEPAYER. July 14, 1971.

Sir, —I have always made a practice of paying my rates soon after receipt of the demand; it helped the county and saved me meeting the dues at the same time as my tax in the following February. My records show rate payments as follows:—July, 1968, $96; August, 1969, $109; September, 1970, $l2O. Imagine my surprise to now receive a demand for $139, and to be told that I’ll have to pay 10 per cent more, on $46, if it is not paid by August 31, 1971.—Yours, etc..

MR 7 PER CENT. July 16, 1971.

Poisoning and wildlife Sir,—Once again bait is being laid for rabbit poisoning with 1080 in and around the Bromley wildlife sanctuary. These areas contain such protected game as pukeko, grey ducks, pheasants, and recently a rare white heron. Birds do not know the attractive poison laid in compact rows is not for them, neither do the predators which feed on the poisoned rabbit carcases—chiefly the local cat population. The last spree presumably accounted for all the domestic cats in our immediate neighbourhood which went missing within a few days of poison being laid. It was the extermination of these feline hunters that most likely accounted for the increase in the rabbit population afterwards. Surely such a systematic distribution of deadly poison is totally unwarranted in city areas as well as defying the purpose of a game sanctuary.—Yours, et:., NO TEN-EIGHTY. June 28, 1971. [Mr M. J. Home, secretary of the Christchurch Drainage Board, replies:,: “The matter of eradication of rabbits in the treatment works area is being undertaken by the Plains Pest Destruction Board at their request. Inquiries regarding their methods and any effects should therefore be addressed to that board.”] [The Plains Pest Destruction Board replies: “This operation has been carried out by the board with the approval and knowledge of the Christchurch Drainage Board, Christchurch City Council, Department of Health, the Police Department, and Department of Internal Affairs, and under supervision by the Acclimatisation Society. This letter has been written over a nom-de-plume. If the correspondent is genuine, he should direct his complaint to the Plains Pest Destruction Board.”]