THE PRESS THURSDAY, MAY 21. 1981. Paying for city services

Press, 21 May 1981, Page 16

THE PRESS THURSDAY, MAY 21. 1981. Paying for city services

Christchurch city ratepayers who had hoped , the new Labour-dominated City Council would find .a-way of reducing the increase in rates 'are probably feeling cheated. The City Council’s rate for the coming year will increase-by 20.3 per cent, more than the rate of inflation and only a little less-than the increase of 21.79 per cent last year.,Total rates paid in the city area will actually, increase by 22.14 per cent when hefty increases in the money ; required by the Christchurch . TransportBoard, the North Canterbury. Catchment Board, and the Drainage Board are taken into account. . There is no evidence, however, of mismanagement, or waste, or unnecessary expenditure by any of the local authorities. Many of. the increases in costs and wages which have. to. be-met Have been forced on. local, authorities by circumstances quite 'beyond their -control.. Figures given this week for the salaries and wages of City Council staff might look startling. When rthe Municipal Electricity Department is taken account, running Christchurch city, is a business with a turnover of more .than-.' $lOO million a year. Competent management of a business of that size, is worth;paying f or. The' incomes enjoyed, by many council staff should ensure, however, that councillors and the ratepayers they represent can require ' efficient service from all council staff.

Many house owners who will find themselves paying, perhaps, $2 a day in rates this year might well reflect that .■without the work of local authorities life in the city would quickly become unhealthy, and even intolerable. The provision of safe water, the removal of rubbish and sewerage, are priceless services in a concentration of people. The City Council is spending more this year to maintain the water reticulation system; that is surely the most important service it provides.

It remains to be seen whether changes in the rubbish removal system are justified. Collection and safe disposal of rubbish is. a vital matter. Attempts to reclaim usable materials from the rubbish are commendable, but less important. Reducing the number of rubbish bags supplied to households might turn out to be unfair and short-sighted. Residents paying high rates should not have to buy extra rubbish bags to keep up a weekly disposal. Nor should they be tempted to consider illegal or unhygienic means of disposal, which is likely to happen once a household’s supply of “free” bags runs out. The most startling increase in rates comes from the Labour-dominated Transport Board which needs 60 per cent more this year from ratepayers to maintain the city bus service. That figure could have been much lower had the board decided to increase fares again. The board has broken away from a general arrangement in the last few years where half the cost of each bus ride, has been met from fares and half from rates. Now, those . who use the buses will have well over half their fare paid for them. ' ■; 1 The Transport Board is imposing a redistribution of income, requiring -those who can afford another: means of'travel to subsidise those who cannot, or those who choose to use the buses. There lies the board’s best defence. If Christchurch residents made more use of what is still a cheap and reliable bus system, less would have to come , out of rates. The Transport Board’s rate is a price that has to be paid for the use of private cars. Those who object might find, if they looked at their pattern of ( travel, that they can help to reduce the board’s loss, and its rating requirement, by using the buses more. After all, when more than half the fare has already been paid,, a bus trip is surely a bargain.