Why a Rates Cap would be disastrous for Auckland
I have been receiving these increasingly strident communications from the Taxpayers Union demanding to know what I will do about three issues if elected, and threatening to campaign against me if I fail their ideology test.
They are seeking candidates to sign up to these commitments:
Oppose any measures that will see the total burden of rates, levies and additional council charges exceed the level of inflation and population growth
Support initiatives that will improve transparency of council expenditure, including the public disclosure of all expenditure items
Oppose unelected appointments onto council committees with spending and regulatory powers.
Here is my response ...
I can understand the first commitment. At a time where there is a cost of living crisis increases in rates hurt.
But for a growing city the problem is that their proposed rates increase ceiling will result in infrastructure and services deficits. Growing cities have to develop new housing areas, be they in greenfield or brownfield areas and with a growing population the need for services will also increase.
If all of the following features are present then a rates freeze or cap is feasible:
Modest inflation
A static population
No growth in urban form
Infrastructure is in good shape
The area is not being hammered regularly by one in one hundred year storms
None of these features are currently present in Tamaki Makaurau Auckland.
A rates cap would mean that greenfield areas could not be built and the condition of our current infrastructure will worsen.
New Infrastructure, including roads, water supply and sewerage systems as well and telecommunications and other services, is expensive. Capping rates increases at the rate of inflation with an allowance for population growth will result in a deficit.
And it ignores the fact that thanks to climate change we live in a changing world. The storms that happened two years ago have cost Auckland Council the thick edge of a billion dollars in repairs and property purchases. And future proofing the city will cost a lot more. The Taxpayers Union’s proposal would prevent the city from adapting and changing.
For those thinking that developers should contribute more than they currently are commitment one requires candidates to oppose increases in levies and government charges. The Taxpayers Union thinks that Councils should contribute to the cost of private development.
If the Taxpayers Union was fully committed to minimising rates increases then it should apologise for its full throated opposition to the last Government's Three Waters proposal.
The need to upgrade water infrastructure and improve water quality so that kiwis are not poisoned is clear. The proposed reforms would have made improvements more affordable. Currently many Councils are struggling with double digit rates increases, just to keep the water flowing.
Don't get me wrong. I believe there are areas of Council spend where economies could be achieved. Council processes are too complex. And senior management salaries are too high. But capping Auckland’s rates increases would see the region deteriorate.
The second commitment is also difficult. Of course as much information should be made available as is possible, subject only to Council's need to maintain commercial secrecy in appropriate cases. I am not aware of there being a huge level of complaints about the operation of the LGOIMA system.
As for the third commitment this is a thinly veiled attack on having Iwi representatives on committees. My experience is that they bring a lot of worth and knowledge to proceedings. And if article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi has any meaning then Councils should respect the promise to Iwi to preserve for them their lands, forests, fisheries and other taonga and at least give them a limited say in what happens.
I won't be signing up to the Taxpayer Union's commitments. They would be disastrous to a growing city and insulting to Iwi.
