Complaints - Please scroll to the bottom of the page
« Capital v. Land Valuation | Main | Stormwater »

Revenue & Finance Policy (2)

The discussion on this paper was notable fo one giant howler by Cr Bartley, who in his usual manner of delivering a sermon from the Mount, drew attention to the 4 year old Census (Stats. NZ) Statistics that shows Whangamata with rates at 8.5% of average household income - 3.5 % over the Shand Report recommendation, while Thames was much less at 6.1% - "how affordable is that?" (presumably for Whangamata). 

As others were quick to point out, the more up to date Prioritisation Survey data shows a completely different picture with Thames on 6.3%, Coromandel 4.3%, Mercury Bay 3.8%, Tairua/Paiuanui 4.4%, and Whangamata 5.5%. Cr Bartley huffed and puffed at this, but clearly had not read the second table, and Cr Wells chimed in to the effect that "they must all be all wrong" - clearly, what is important is that statistics are only correct if they support your case.

You may expect plenty more on this issue before the end of the year, but the Policy planners are to be congratulated for at least having the courage to bring the alternative figures to Council's attention even though they directly contradict the Stats. NZ figures that Blind Ned could have seen were totally faulty, but which have formed the basis of Council's rationale for so long.  

Council finally adopted the a recommendations to go forward into the formulation of the Revenue and Finance policy for later this year, with the bottom line in regard to the incorporation of the Essential Services Proposal being a 10% UAGC resulting in the following changes:


Thames $275, Coromandel $160, Matarangi $90, Whitianga/Tairua $60, Pauanui $10


Onemana/Whangamata $125

Colville, Waiomu, Te Puru, Little Bay, Farming Hort., Rural Other - all $100

These indeed indicate a significant and long overdue move in the right direction were it to be adopted - by no means certain - there was steam rising from certain Eastern Seaboard quarters this morning that does not auger well for its eventual success. And rural residents will of course react with the somewhat irrational vehemence demonstrated durind the last Ten Year Hearings.

What is clear is that there is a new and refreshing wind blowing through Policy and Planning. I trust that the final document will present watertight arguments in favour of the proposed changes.


PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>