TCDC’s “fairness” argument for Capital Value rating does not survive scrutiny
Thames-Coromandel District Council justifies its shift from Land Value to Capital Value rating on one word: fairness. It says Capital Value better reflects a ratepayer’s “ability to pay.” That claim does not withstand basic examination, and ratepayers deserve to know why.
Ability to pay is a measure of income and cash flow. Capital Value measures the market worth of an asset a person is not selling. A retired homeowner sitting on a $1.5 million property with a modest, fixed income has no more cash in hand than before revaluation – yet Council now treats them as having “greater capacity to contribute.” That is not ability to pay. It is a proxy for wealth on paper, and Council knows the difference: its own postponement scheme exists precisely because postponing rates is not the same as being able to afford them.
Worse, the system punishes improvement. A ratepayer who spends their savings on insulation, a new bathroom or a garage does not thereby consume more roads, more rubbish collection or more emergency services. Yet their Capital Value rises, and so does their rates share. Council cannot point to a single unit of additional service consumption to justify that outcome – because there isn’t one.
Council also leans on the fact that 65% of New Zealand councils use Capital Value. Popularity is not fairness. Neither is a 6–4 vote following a consultation in which the majority of respondents actually favoured retaining the status quo.
Capital Value rating may be lawful. It may even be defensible as a wealth-based allocation mechanism. What it is not is an honest measure of “ability to pay,” and TCDC should stop dressing it up as one.
David Yeomans, Pauanui
Electricity – get rid of private competition
If the Freidman philosophy of market forces, and private competition needed to be shown as flawed, it is epitomised by today’s electricity bills/accounts. A time ago the government (the taxpayer) constructed the electrical system for the welfare of the citizens. Its workers were dependable. Then, that idiot, Roger Douglas sold off the govt. assets to the wealthy and the welfare reason for being was replaced by competition and driven profit. Finished off later by the Bradford reforms and John Key. By keeping more that half the asset shares each Gov. has a monetary reason to not nationalise or change the present system.
With the cold spell and fossil fuel costs, the need for electrical heating in residential housing, where solid fuel fires are missing, has leapt. Subsequently the wealthy who bought in are ‘coining it’ just like the Aussie banks.
The new generation from wind-power, geo-thermal, and solar panels is for commercial interests. Don’t expect electricity prices to go down. Vested interests have introduced the ratcheted-up availability charge.
Peter Wood, Whitianga
Flemming Rasmussen’s recent articles
I attended the Whangamata Business Association’s After Five meeting on the 9th September where Flemming Rasmussen was the guest speaker.
He gave an articulate address with the facts, figures, statistics, and possible outcomes concerning our venture into Amalgamation. I had also read his comprehensive thoughts and reasonings in the recent issues of The Informer newspaper.
In my view, as the vote was 7-4 in favour of the Amalgamation process,
isn’t that the end of the story? So let’s get on with this task and work proactively with our new partners.Over the next two years in office, I’m sure Mr Rasmussen could be part of a majority vote with a different set of circumstances.
There will also be some Councillors, and possibly the Mayor, who may carry the minority status. Let’s hope they don’t disagree publicly with the majority vote, as I believe it’s not a good look for those in office.
Graeme Smith, Whangamata
Mayor acted in good faith
A note to Cr Rasmussen – a unified amalgamated Council is one based on catchment management (a regional council function) and the provision of community utilities and infrastructure (district council functions).
Hence: 1) The concept of a unified TCDC Council was always a dud because it would split the integrity of the Thames valley catchment and; 2)The concept of a combined TCDC and Western Bays council was a dud too, as that would have split catchment integrity within both those council areas.
As ‘duds’ these two alternatives are nonsense and never were things that could be seriously used as bargaining chips to get a better amalgamation deal for the TCDC.
In my opinion Mayor Revell has gone about the process both realistically and in good faith. I don’t think he deserves a blindside for that. And by the way if you have expressed the same ideas from your ‘The Informer’ article at Council meetings, then it would seem to me that you were not writing as a private person at all.
Dal Minogue, Ferry Landing
The Proof is in the Pudding
Just before the last elections we were told by Mr Warren Mayer that WRC rates would stay where they were if he was elected. I challenged him to a simple offer , thru’ the Informer that for every $ they went up he would pay me $10 and for every $ they went down I would pay him $10 if he was elected. He was elected but he didn’t accept offer he was silent on the issue and now we know why because he would owe me more than $2k.
Did the $2m in some WRC savings account get transferred back into our rates operating account or not? He also promised this.
The bigger question is why have these rates gone up ? Well I suppose if you give away a truckload of money to a sick train service that hasn’t been financially viable for 30 years that helps.
Then there’s the issue of the government directive to dissolve the WRC anyway, how much time and money have these all day coffee club councilors spent on trying to save their seats over the last 12 months? Come on tell us the truth everything , meetings, travel communications, dinners, drinks entertainment etc .
I suggest to all rate payers that they go on a monthly rates pay plan so if the WRC are dissolved shortly they won’t be having to pay any more than they need to and won’t need to seek a refund for rates not due as a result of the business not being there.
Rob McHardy
