Waimairi special rate

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32677, 5 August 1971, Page 12

Waimairi special rate

Sir, —A handful of Waitnairi County householders in a block backing on the Upper Riccarton shopping centre, in addition to the usual annual rate rise, now have to pay another $2O to $4O yearly, for the rest of their lives, to service a special $20,000 loan. This loan is to finance yet another Micky Mouse off-street parking idea, a belated attempt to remedy years of muddled development and lack of foresight. Surely this is a right and proper opportunity to use some of the petrol tax for the benefit of car owners. It is quite beside the point that there is already a surplus of I off-street parking; another

’.will not solve the shopkeep-; Hers’ need for kerb-stopping! i i provision in the area.—Yours, I '! etc., LET’S JOIN THE CITY. July 22, 1971.

[Mr D. B. Rich, chairman of the Waimairi County Council, replies: “If your correispondent is one of the proIperty owners recently writ- ' ten to on the car parking proposal at Upper Riccarton, he knows full well that the statements made in connection with now having to pay $2O to $4O yearly for the rest of their lives, to service a special $20,000 loan to finance off-street parking, are incorrect. If, on the other hand, he is commenting on hearsay, which it appears he must be, he has been misinformed. The council recently wrote to the property owners in the block bounded by Leslie Street, Waimairi Road, Riccarton Road, Yaldhurst Road, and Brake Street to ■ascertain if they would be agreeable to having the block declared a special rating area so that a loan could be raised to cover the cost of establish- ! ing a car park. The property owners within the block would be responsible for the annual loan charges of $2.50 per $lOOO of capital rateable value, on a loan of $20,000 for a 30-year term. Of the 24 owners written to, 14 have replied to date. When all replies are to hand, the matter will be further considered by the council in the light of the support or otherwise conveyed in such replies. There is no suggestion that the property owners, “now have to pay $2O to $4O yearly.” The matter has not been resolved by the council and the letters were sent out to obtain an expression of opinion, for or against the proposal, from the property owners concerned. If your correspondent requires any further information to make himself better informed, I suggest he contact the County Clerk.”] -