THE PRESS FRIDAY, DECEMBER 27, 1985. Ending the rate rebellion

Press, 27 December 1985, Page 14

THE PRESS FRIDAY, DECEMBER 27, 1985. Ending the rate rebellion

Christchurch City ratepayers in Merivale, Sumner, and Mount Pleasant have made their point that the burden of paying rates falls unfairly and unevenly on households in different suburbs. The City Council conceded the point, at least by. implication, when last month it proposed to overhaul the city’s rating system. For some of the 1200 or more rate rebels in those suburbs that faced the largest increases in rate demands, the city council’s proposals come too late and may seem to offer too little. Even so, important concessions have been achieved and most of the rebels can expect rather lower rate demands next year. The end of the year would be a good time for a gesture of conciliation from the city council At present, resistant ratepayers who have paid only a portion of their rates face a penalty charge of 10. per cent on the unpaid amount If their rate bills are not settled in full by March 31,1986, rebels may face legal action and the possibility of a further penalty in the form of interest charges, at a rate to be determined by the Court, on the unpaid amount The penalties may be sufficient to persuade some of the rebels to pay up. Some have already done so when paying their most recent rates instalments. Ratepayers’ groups in Merivale and Sumner-Mt Pleasant have indicated that they want the protest to continue. This is the time for the city council to announce that the 10 per cent penalty will not be imposed on outstanding rates for 1985-86, provided all arrears are paid when the last

instalment of rates for the year falls due. The council will lose a little — perhaps $40,000 — but it could well find a large amount of the outstanding rates get paid quickly without expensive and time-consuming legal processes. An amnesty on the 10 per cent penalty for the current financial year would be a gain for other ratepayers, not connected with the rebellion, who are simply being tardy in paying up. The council would need to make dear that the amnesty was not a precedent for lenient treatment in future of those who fail to pay their rates on time. It might also make clear that it will prosecute house owners who have not taken advantage of the amnesty to pay up in full by the end of March. The council should acknowledge that the rating rebels had some justice on their side. Without the rebellion the iniquities of the rating system would probably have remained unchanged. The rebels cannot expect to continue indefinitely not paying their bills. Their point has been made and action has been promised. They cannot expect the council to go further. The council has also to consider the majority of ratepayers — and electors — in other parts of the city. Waiving the 10 per cent penalty in return for prompt payment of the aixears would be a conciliatory gesture that would help to bring the council back on side with a substantial section of the people who provide its income. Those who persisted in their protest would then have to take their chances with the law. They could not expect much sympathy from the community.