Rate increases

Press, 1 July 1985, Page 20

Rate increases

Sir, — The present Christchurch City Council seems incapable of economising. Take the reconstruction of Rugby Street east, which has been going on for the last three months. If it is necessary to slow down through traffic, would not traffic lights at the Winchester

Street intersection have been cheaper and more effective? Was it necessary to construct those winding kerbs and channels which not only cost more to install but more to maintain? If, as Cr Vicki Buck claims, the City Treasurer misrepresented the council’s income from interest in order to justify a greater rate demand, then it is time there was a commission of inquiry into the council’s activities. Would it not be a good idea if at the time of the next local body elections, council officers as well as councillors, retired? They could offer themselves for reappointment. — Yours, etc., S. L. DONALDSON. June 26, 1985.

Sir, — Thank you for making public the sorry affair of rate increases and how they affect citizens who live in the “more favoured” areas of our city. If a citizens’ tax is not practical, even in this computer age, residential property owners should pay a share in the costs of running the city but why should the rate be tied to the value of the property? Permanent residents have no control over this value and not many single fixed-income families live where they are for financial gain. The council, knowing the extra money needed, could easily divide the increase on residential properties equally over them all. This would be far more satisfactory than the unnecessarily complicated and unfair system we have now. It might also remove our employee who fields calls from incredulous and frightened ratepayers by telling them to solve their rate problems by selling up and moving. — Yours, etc., M. E. WALSH. June 26, 1985.