Mt Pleasant votes strongly to quit City

Press, 2 December 1985, Page 1

Mt Pleasant votes strongly to quit City

Residents in the Mount Pleasant to Taylors Mistake area yesterday voted to continue their efforts to become part of Heathcote County, in spite of the City Council’s proposed rating changes. About 150 residents attended the meeting, held at the Mount Pleasant Community Centre, and listened to speeches by representatives of both the Heathcote and the Christchurch City councils.

Feelings ran high and there was often loud applause when points were scored against ,the City Council.

The motion that the area continue in its efforts to join Heathcote was passed with few dissenting voices. A motion that residents continue their protest of paying

only last year’s rates plus 10 per cent was carried, with only two votes against. An initial motion that the City Council be thanked for introducing changes to make the rating system more equitable and that the Mount Pleasant to Sumner Rates Action Group committee be disbanded, lapsed for want of a seconder.

A motion that the group continue to pursue ways of achieving a better rating system was passed unanimously.

The group now plans to try to get more signatures from residents of the area to support its petition to the Local Government Commission for an amalgamation with Heathcote.

Oscar Alpers, Heathcote County Chairman, was the first of the council representatives to address the meeting. He spent much of the time speaking about the Local Government Commission’s investigation into rationalisation of Christchurch local authorities. Heathcote’s proposal to the commission had been that the area south of the Heathcote River and the Estuary be formed into a new Port Hills local authority, he said. “What Heathcote wants is what the people want themselves.” Although the Local Government Commission would make the decision, it had to take into account the views of all people and it was important that these views be made known, Mr Alpers said. The ideal council size was between that of Heathcote, with a population of 9000, and Paparua County Council’s 32,000 population. If Heathcote joined with the Mount Pleasant to Sumner area and Huntsbury, the population would be about 20,000, he said. “We don’t say that Heathcote is perfect but it is the size and style of local government we have in Heathcote which I am suggesting to you is the right solution.” Cr Gil Laurenson, Heathcote’s deputy chairman, said that the revaluation of properties in Heathcote and Waimairi this year meant that both councils might next year have the same problem with rates that the

year. However, Heathcote planned to consider this before the rates were struck next year, he said. “I am still quite confident that Heathcote rates will remain substantially lower than those of the city.” Cr Matthew Glubb, chairman of the City Council’s policy and finance committee, said there was no such thing as a free lunch and “you get 1 nothing for nothing.”

The Mount Pleasant to Sumner area had been part of Heathcote County about 30 years ago. “I don’t think it would be forward looking to go back to a position of 30 years ago,” he said.

It had been apparent last year that the City had to find a more equitable system of rating. It had now proposed a change to capital value rating, with a $l5O uniform charge and changes to both the commercial and the multi-unit differential rates, Cr Glubb said. “I believe that the City Council provides a good level of service — I am not saying that there are not ways that economies could be made, and I am not saying that we could not do things better. “We have a budget this year of $177 million and when you look at the portion of unpaid rates against that — it’s insignificant and it’s not going to bring the council to its knees,” said Cr Glubb. The chairman of the Rates Action Group committee, Mr Donald Walker, had earlier said that about 20 per cent of the people in the area had underpaid their rates by a total of $73,000.

Mr John Gray, General Manager and Town Clerk of Christchurch City, said that the problem now was but a symptom of a wider problem.

Reshuffling properties between boundaries was not a solution. The problem was that rates followed a nineteenth century property tax concept — that the wealthy people owned property and most people did not. He advocated a policy of revenue sharing and said that people should press for this when the Rates Act was reviewed next year. Rates provided only 6 per cent of the City’s annual income, he said. “Rates are not a major income source but it is the most sensitive because it is the one that affects us most. “This revenue sharing

gives an opportunity to spread the cost of administration programmes of local authorities more evenly over the city.” During questions from the audience, several residents queried the efficiency of the City Council. One man said his rates had gone from $5OO a year to $l5OO a year. Although people had heard of the changes under a capital value-based rating system, there was no guarantee that this would come about. Many city councillors strongly opposed the change.

“As far as I am concerned the City Council forges ahead regardless of what people say. I think our rates are going down a hole in the ground and we can’t see very much for it.”

Loud applause followed his statement. Another person took issue with Cr Glubb’s view that people got nothing for nothing. “As far as I am concerned we get practically nothing for a great deal — my rates almost doubled.” A suggestion by Mr Alpers that the residents form their own district community council similar to those in Paparua was immediately quashed by Mr Gray who said that that would be against present law.

In a final motion, the meeting decided that the committee should call another meeting when the Rates Act was reviewed, so that submissions could be made to try to get a more equitable rating system.