Shore Can

Whenuapai Airport & WAAG

2007-09-09T20:36:00.000+12:00

There is an interesting piece in the Sunday Herald about Whenuapai Airport and the influence that WAAG and AIA has.

Gary Holmes should be commended for sticking his neck out and blowing against the wind. I don't believe the environmental issues are anywhere near resolved, but if the government's report is correct, that Auckland doesn't need a second commercial airport, then why has the government owned airline (Air NZ) talked of flying into Whenuapai and why has the Labour Party President, Mike Williams, been appointed to the board of the company that has been established to 'own' the airport? It all smells a little rotten to me.

Councils should look after the rates, rats and rubbish. It shouldn't run airports. Ratepayer money must not go to this airport.

Local Government issues

2007-09-05T21:49:00.000+12:00

Frank Newman is a Whangarei District Councillor. He has an excellent post at NZCPR that sums up pretty tidily what is wrong with local government. I am pretty confident the problems and issues are much the same at North Shore City Council.

Some pertinent quotes:

Today's Council is more like a social agency that thinks it has to deal with every social itch and scratch. Now virtually everything is considered “essential core business”, including stadium, swimming pools, athletic tracks, libraries, tree strategies, strategies for youth, positive aging strategies, walking strategies, cycling strategies, disability strategies, cultural strategies, heritage strategies, strategies for Maori participation in the decision making process, policies for immigrants, plans for civil defence, annual plans, ten year plans (which are reviewed every three years), master plans, structure plans, coastal management plans, district plans, regional plans, and on and on.

On Wednesday for example, we will be discussing a motion “That the WDC expresses its concern regarding the threat of extinction of the Maui’s dolphin species” and “That Council supports other Councils by communicating this concern to the Ministers of Conservation and Fisheries.”
We also have more than our fair share of issues arising from the “politics of phobia”. Over the last three years we have had to discuss the apparently imminent threats of genetic engineering, global warming, bird flu, and tsunami. Remarkably our district has managed to survive all of these crises, but I am not sure our many hours of discussion on these issues can be credited for our lucky escape. It is more likely the phobia were never the threat some assumed them to be.

On core council spending:

Eleven of the fourteen councillors considered funding a hip-hop concert to be a core role of council. Fortunately, there have been occasions when councillors have said “no” to funding requests but these have been rare – like the application to fund a contest to see who could stuff six American hotdogs into their mouth the fastest. I mention this to illustrate the nature of the requests that local authorities are being asked to consider.

And on spending and rates increases:

It is council spending that is causing the rate increases. I agree with the Report of the Local Government Rates Inquiry that “Local Government needs to show more restraint in its expenditures…” However, I doubt that this will happen unless ratepayer protest forces it as none will want to admit that they are not showing fiscal restraint.
If councillors were to give ratepayers an informed and clear choice about rates and spending, I think most (75% is my guess) would say do the basics and keep rate increases to a level that bears some relationship to changes in household incomes.

All of this is excellent reading and imperative for any candidate. And all of this is precisely why Shore Can candidates need to be elected this October: so we can Cap Rates, curb out of control spending, and return the council to its core activities.

Rates Inquiry

2007-08-29T21:43:00.000+12:00

The long awaited Rates Inquiry has been released. You can find it here. There is a Herald report on it here where Dick Hubbard says it vindicated his council. Whatever tickles your fancy I suppose Dick, but no one else sees it that way.

It confirms what Shore Can has known for a long time: that Rates increases are unaffordable; that spending is unbridled; and that councils plan very poorly.

Auckland C & R Candidate, Aaron Bhatnagar, makes a case for a council version of the Fiscal Responsibility Act. I like that idea.

One thing is for sure, under Shore Can there would be a Cap on Rates to inflation plus an adjustment for population growth. It is easily affordable as I will outline in due course.

Whenuapai Airport

2007-08-23T09:19:00.000+12:00

One of the big issues in this year's election is Whenuapai Airport. Used currently by the RNZAF it is due to become available in about 2015 for general use when the RNZAF move to Ohakea Air Base.

Shore Can's policy is very simple. Ratepayers money should not be used to fund a commercial venture that is not even in North Shore City. If private enterprise wish to fund feasibility studies and raise funds and go through the resource management process etc than that must be their risk, not the people of the North Shore.

Very simple.

You just don't pick fights with empty pockets like AIA, Dubai and AIrNZ (the government). The ratepayers will suffer dreadfully if we do.
Linked Article

Takapuna Boat Ramp

2007-08-05T19:33:00.000+12:00

This is one of the silly things about the RMA. One of the best boat clubs in the world, next to one of the most fantastic beaches, will struggle to get their much needed concrete boat ramp leading into the water.

Environmentalism has overtaken common sense.

The boat club should get the ramp without any fuss or fanfare. Better RMA interpretations is one of the areas Shore Can will focus on when our people are elected.

It's not just us

2007-07-26T20:25:00.000+12:00

It's not just Shore Can going on ad nauseum about rates and spending.

A Palmerston North councillor, Gordon Cruden, tells us what it's like there, here.

And blogger Insolent Prick has a good piece on the shambles at Auckland City Council here.

Insolent Prick also makes another good point about the City Vision crowd in Auckland:

Their core principles are:

1. Make Auckland City Council more democratic through effective public participation and political accountability
2. Promote a diverse city that provides opportunities for participation and belonging for people from a wide range of social and ethnic backgrounds
3. Conserve our heritage, promote quality urban design and celebrate our arts and diverse cultures
4. Honour the Treaty of Waitangi and continue to strengthen our partnership with tangata whenua
5. Enhance the principles of public service in our Council through responsible social, financial and environmental approaches to the management of the city
6. Implement policies that address social and economic inequalities in the community.

Yes, that is the actual politically correct hogwash that substitutes for policy from that sorry bunch of losers. What is missing from the formula—staggeringly—is not a single commitment to delivering quality roading, water or wastewater services. Nor does CityVision make a single commitment to improving building consents or RMA processes. The touchpoints between ratepayers and local authorities—the services that ratepayers actually use from Council—are the great hole that has been lost in successive local government engagements in the last twenty years. CityVision is simply the apex of absolute disgust with which ratepayers hold local government generally. While CityVision councillors swan off overseas on exhorbitant junkets, ratepayers are seeing less and less actual service delivery. At the same time, in the last six years, local government spending—and ratepayers’ contributions—have grown a massive 60%.That kind of wanton profligacy simply isn’t sustainable.

What CityVision won’t tell you is that they hiked rates more rapidly than any other Council in Auckland history.

The simple point from all this is that councils need to be accountable for the rates money they take off citizensn, and councillors need to have clear messages on what they stand for. Slogans and feelgood words don't wash. The accountability comes through providing core services that councils should provide: keep out the rats, keep low the rates and collect the rubbish.

It's very simple.

Let's Cap Rates

2007-07-22T21:20:00.000+12:00

My post the other day focused on capping rates. Here's how it could work.

Rates would be capped to inflation plus annual population change or no more than 5 per cent over any three year period. This cap could be over-ridden by the ratepayers in a poll commissioned for that purpose.

Polls are not a new thing. Sections 24-25 of the Local Government Act 1974 (repealed) allowed for polls to take place where districts (as they were then known) wanted to merge, abolish or even for the establishment of new districts. A procedure was set out in the Act.

The cap would not necessarily apply to such matters as emergencies, council debt service or perhaps to fund transport initiatives or to programs or services that assist senior and disabled citizens. And, rates collected in excess of those needed to fund council services within the cap could be divided two ways. The first half of the ‘excess’ would be placed in a ‘rainy day fund’ to meet council needs in times of contraction or emergency. The other half would be dedicated to rates relief.

Alternatives to Rates

[It is acknowledged that help for some of the following ideas and suggestions has come from www.NoMorerates.com].

The main alternative to rates as a form of council revenue has to be a residents levy, or as Margaret Thatcher named it, a poll tax. There is no reason why someone who owns land but does not use the services in the city in which the land is located should pay rates to the council in that city. Assistance for the levy would be available for those who need it. The tax would be set by local councils and would be capped (see above).

The second form of income for councils could be a local income tax which would be collected centrally via an increased GST and funded to councils on a per capita basis.

Other things that could be done to limit the impact of rates burdens are:

Remove GST from rates.
Central Government to fully fund any service required to be delivered by the Council that derives from parliament.
Business rates should be reduced immediately to come into line with residential rates.

And if you think I am barking up the wrong tree, check this Herald article out from today. I was suitably unimpressed with the way Labour handled the rates issue. Their inquiry was words but no action - not what was needed. But it looks like the report that is to come out of the inquiry is likely to confirm what Shore Can (and NoMoreRates who are not aligned to Shore Can) have thought for a long time: that 'money gouging' councils need to cut costs. And as the figures on the side-bar speech from Rodney Hide's speech spell out, the North Shore City Council is one of the worst.

A final way to slash costs might be to sell the North Harbour Stadium. The Council is guarantor under a loan by the trust which operates the stadium. From memory the loan cost $24 million in interest this year alone which the trust could not pay so we all paid it under our guarantee. The Council has confirmed it won't enforce the lender's liability to it as guarantor so that's $24 million down the toilet.

What would that do to your rates bill?

Shore Can believes serious consideration should be given to reducing the Council's liability under the Stadium loans. And if that means selling the Stadium then maybe that is what has to occur. But the people will be asked first.

Hope you like it because you've paid for it

2007-07-21T14:44:00.000+12:00

C & R candidate for Hobson, Aaron Bhatnagar, has said that a 7cm piece of bronze art has cost the Auckland City ratepayers $20,000.00. Well Aaron, I can match your $20,000.00 and raise it by $355,000.00.

The North Shore City Council has decided that it should spend $375,000.00 on artwork on a new motorway interchange at Onewa Rd. That is just the start. The total cost is close to $1.3 million with Transit providing $300,000.00 but it seems they will provide no more so the final amount required will be paid for by the Council again I am sure.

Councillor Andrew Eaglen got it spot on when he said it was a "complete waste of money". It is, along with the millions paid for the Devonport Theatre and the commercial property on Lake Rd, Belmont.

Just think what impact 3-4 million would have on rates bills.

UPDATE: Aaron has helpfully provided examples of wasteful spending from Auckland City Council. Check it out here.

Welcome to the blog of Shore Can

2007-07-20T22:44:00.000+12:00

Welcome to the blog of Shore Can.

Over the next few months a dedicated group of energetic North Shore citizens will set forth in an attempt to win places on the North Shore City Council and community boards. Our policies and ideals will be very simple: cap rates, end frivolous council spending, and return the North Shore City Council to its core responsibilities of rats, rates and rubbish. Keep out the rats, keep low the rates and keep the streets , beaches and environment clean of rubbish.

During the last few years the North Shore Council has, like many councils in the Auckland region, forced unsustainable increases on local ratepayers. Frankly, these increases are not only shocking, but are also highly damaging to the local economy.

It is my view that the process of collecting rates has practically become corrupted. Perhaps local governments have seen exorbitant tax takes from the Labour government and thought they would get a piece of the action.

The proposition I want to raise is this: why should rates percentages increase at the same time as a property's capital value increases? When the value of real estate rises the rates go up anyway because rates are assessed on capital value. But the North Shore City Council, along with many other councils, increase the rates percentage on residential properties at the same time. They're double-dipping.

There should be no increases based on increased capital value. Simply because the landowners are gaining in wealth (if they are at all) is no reason for the Council to grab its share. Rates must be capped to the rate of inflation plus population increase. One reason rates are collected is as a 'punishment' for using infrastructure such as stormwater and sewerage. Simply because a property's value increases does not mean that infrastructure is affected on that property. There is no logical reason for this double-dipping.

Utilising rates for revenue gathering is also unfair. Councils are monopolies and they use their monopoly powers to have practically a sole revenue gathering method from property owners. It is going to end up in the future that a larger percentage of the population will end up paying a larger percentage of rates as home ownership ratios decrease.

Rates are in the agenda this election. Shore Can will campaign on capping rates to inflation plus population change. If the council wishes to increase rates by more than this amount then it must ask the people first in a poll. Families and businesses have to tighten their belts and so should the North Shore City Council.

That is democracy and that is what Shore Can stands for.