Rate increases

Press, 10 August 1985, Page 18

Rate increases

Sir,—What justification does the Christchurch City Council have to raise my rates by 260 per cent. I rent a room to carry out repairs to electrical and electronic appliances, and this occupation feeds my family and pays our mortgage (now 19 per cent). My lease agreement requires me to pay my share of the pro-

perty’s rates. The landlord reaps the benefit of the increased property valuation, and I have to find more money to pay the greedy council. The less that you get from the council, the more you pay them. My alternative is to give up my business. It seems that if you work hard, you will be penalised for it. Many of my customers are local pensioners. Their increased rates are only the beginning of their worries. These Sheriff of Nottingham fees will do more damage than you think. — Yours, etc., C. KITSON. August 8, 1985. Sir,—The unfortunate ratepayers of the as yet largely unpublicised areas of East Ward paying annual rates over double the city average are, like those of Merivale, grateful for your forthright editorial of August 6. We realise the unenviable position the City Council has been placed in because of the revaluations of land and properties by the Government in July, 1984. Unlike most ratepayers at that time, however, the council was well aware of the effect of these changes on many elderly, retired and young residents, ill-equipped to bear the added financial burden. The council took no action then to warn electors or to put in train measures to alter the system even within the options allowed under the existing legislation. Instead councillors callously publicised only the deceptive figure of a 9.59 per cent increase. Increases of 70 to 100 per cent levied subsequently without warning are what have angered this ratepayer at least. — Yours, etc., NORMAN ASTLEY. August 7, 1985.