City rates

Press, 1 September 1986, Page 20

City rates

Sir,—Your editorial article on the uniform rates charge is wrong. Households have widely differing calls on city services because of different numbers of occupants, demands on different services, differences between localities, etc. A user-pays system is therefore impossible. A uniform charge is inherently unfair to one section of ratepayers or another, because of its arbitrary nature. Fairness must relate to ability to pay. Your allegation that ratepayers with expensive properties subsidise others, is as ludicrous in regard to rates as it is in respect of general taxation. If your editorial writer had canvassed as many ratepayers as I, as an East Ward candidate, he would know that a 90 per cent increase for a superannuitant in a small Woolston flat, because of the Citizens’ uniform general charge, is much more devastating than my increase last year on St Andrews Hill. Capital value rating is needed to restore fairness to all.—Yours, etc., D. J. O’ROURKE. August 28, 1986.

Sir,—Cr Morgan Fahey has publicly stated that I misinformed the council by mentioning an average Christchurch City rate increase of 50 per cent. It seems that, unintentionally, I did give wrong figures at the time I presented my petition. Since then, through talking to even more people, I have discovered that the percentage is even more alarming. The lowest increase in the South Ward is 41 per cent (two cases), the highest being 83 per cent. The majority of rises are in the 60 to 72 per cent bracket. My own increase is 73 per cent. These figures speak for themselves, but still do not tally with the council’s statement of

an average rise of 20 per cent. I feel I should apologise for “misinforming” the council and for understating the crippling increases in the Addington area. Last night’s council meeting was only the first round of the fight to have the uniform charge removed. We intend carrying on to victory.—Yours, etc., RUTH H. BARCOCK. August 26, 1986.

[Cr Fahey replies: “Mrs Barcock has conveniently quoted only the increases in rates for people she has spoken to. The average increase for a residential property in the South Ward this year is 17.66 per cent and the average rate for 1986/87 is $568.12. The average for the whole of the city is $617, which indicates that the average in the South Ward is lower than other areas. Mrs Barcock has derived her percentage increase at 73 per cent by referring to the difference between her first instalment amount and the second instalment. The first instalment is an interim charge calculated as one quarter of the previous year’s rates and, in fact, her increase for the year over last year’s level is 47.8 per cent. In dollar terms, her rates have risen from $272.27 to $402.03, which means she is currently paying 65 per cent of the citywide average. It is acknowledged that the uniform annual charge of $l5O has had a greater impact on lower-valued properties and on ownership flats in percentage terms; but it is more relevant to compare the quantum of rates than the percentage increase. The uniform charge is a base sum and the balance of rates is determined on the basis of property valuations; thus, those properties with higher values pay higher rates. The uniform charge merely acts to moderate the extremes at each end of the scale. The Christchurch South rates protest group headed by Mr Rice and Mrs Barcock recently exhibited their political bias and animosity towards councillors who have a genuine concern to help those most disadvantaged by the present rating system. They show again that they are ill informed, and if they aim for credibility they have a little more homework to do.”]