Waimairi rates

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32665, 22 July 1971, Page 14

Waimairi rates

Sir, —Once more the Waitnairi County Council has shown ratepayers gross lack of consideration. Surely a council’s purpose is to efficiently conduct a county’s affairs. This one taxes heavily but gives little. We get broken promises, spot zoning, roads and footpaths in bad condition, and poor drainage. (In spite of many requests the council has completely ignored the problem of an open stormwater drain with an outlet higher than the drain). Unleashed dogs are left to roam streets and interfere with dustbins. (Can the council not enforce its own by-laws?) For many residents the "high pressure” water supply' is too low to run a tap and flush a toilet at the same time. This latest imposition over payment of rates is just too much. Could someone supply information as to the correct procedure for calling a vote of no confidence in the council with a view to turning them out. — Yours, etc., M.G. July 21, 1971.

Sir, —Since its introduction, we have had the pathetic efforts of the County Clerk and treasurer to try to justify the new rate collection system. This farcical situaton must make many ratepayers wonder if the money collected (sooner or later) is spent with the same disregard for the best interests of the contributors. Waimairi councillors must have forgotten that they will need the support of ratepayers to avoid being absorbed into the amalgamation likely to be proposed by the Local Government Commission. To provide some justice, and to restore ratepayers’ confidence in the county, I challenge the council to rescind the decision to collect rates by instalment for the 1971-72 year, and to introduce an instalment system for 1972-73 based on discounts for early payment.—Yours, etc., HARROWDALE DRIVE. July 21, 1971.

Sir, —At the outset a statement was made to the effect that a pamphlet was distributed to the ratepayers notifying them of instalment payment. When the residents indicated that none had been

received, it was then reported that the pamphlets were not mailed because it was thought that the ratepayers would object to the cost. Now, in contradiction to this concern for the expenditure of our money, the council will be making three mailings of rate notices, and then three mailings of receipts. Why doesn’t the council, at this point, sit down and reevaluate the whoje problem, provide an incentive for early payment, and eliminate the penalty for late instalment payment, just retaining a penalty for late final payment as in the past.—Yours, etc., ANOTHER RATEPAYER.

July 20, 1971. [This correspondence is now closed.—Ed., “The Press.”]