The council today are starting to get serious about the next Long Term Plan (LTP) which will shape the councils spending for the next decade. We’ve long criticised them for blindly holding on to legacy projects from before we had a single council and it appears a key feature of this LTP is that they will finally start making some difficult decisions over which projects to keep. I’ve had it suggested that this will see blood on the floor as they wield the knife cutting out projects.
Just what projects and services get cut is being discussed today in a closed session of councillors.
Aucklanders will be given clear choices, including tolls and congestion charges, to pay for big transport projects in a black budget being partly unveiled today.
The Herald understands the new 10-year budget will slash up to $2.8 billion of new spending at Auckland Council to put the brakes on soaring debt and rates.
Nothing will be spared from a review of council services, even the $2.86 billion city rail link, which has no funding certainty.
Budgets for services like new libraries, swimming pools and playing fields are under the microscope.
Councillors, local board members, council agency staff and directors, and members of the Maori Statutory Board will be taken through the first draft of the new 10-year budget today.
They will be told the post-Super City spending spree is over, replaced by a new era of “prudent financial management” and “affordability”.
It will be interesting to see just what projects get cut. I suspect the CRL will still go ahead but perhaps with the K Rd and Newton stations delayed along with some of the other aspects like extra trains. Either way it’s something we will keep a close eye on.
Processing...
Heh I have already started an argument with Councillor George Wood as I slowly plant the idea into Councillors to have the AWHC fully removed from the Auckland Plan once and for all. NZTA wont back it, Labour and the Greens wont back it, heavens even National are dragging the chain over it (for now) although might see something more clear on that coming up soon
Is there any council related funding required for this though? Wouldn’t ultimately it be funded by NZTA? (Not for one moment do I think it’s a good idea I hasten to add).
If AWHC goes ahead, the existing bridge would link only to Fanshawe, Wellington and Cook Streets, so would that mean the tunnel would be State Highway 1, and the bridge no longer a State Highway at all?
I can easily see the council not wanting to be responsible for maintaining the bridge.
The approaches at the City Centre end would need to be handled by Auckland Transport I believe
This is a perfect time to prioritise the Congestion-Free Network. To do this they *need* to get Auckland Transport under control. Otherwise Auckland Council is headed towards a huge slice of $22,787,000,000 in spending.
Let’s give people their swimming pools and libraries, and cut back on massive roading duplication.
I actually think some considered financial austerity is a good thing in a transport context, as it helps to focus our minds on making the most out of what we’ve got, rather than relying on massive injections of cash to expand what are in many respects relatively inefficient systems.
And in the long run a more efficient PT system (both bus and rail) will support lower fares, higher patronage, and create the conditions under which future expansions are justified more by their ability to meet what I call “prevailing demands” rather than premised on an ability to “induce demand”.
Of course, chopping a couple of unnecessary and grandiose highway projects, e.g. another Harbour Crossing, would also go a long way.
Agreed,
AT need to go from the “we can have it all” approach they push now based on the fact that “50%” of all roading projects (once approved) are paid for by NZTA, so its really only “half the price”.
(And if NZTA are paying for it all then its “free”).
They have to finally stop the “never mind quality feel the (motorway) width” patter they spout.
AT right now is like the little old lady who goes to endless garage sales and buys all sorts of the junk on offer – not because she needs it, but because “its going cheap”.
Agreeing to pay 50% of the price for stuff you don’t actually need or can use – doesn’t help solve the underlying problem.
Staging of K’Rd and Newton Stations might be worthwhile considering if it gets CRL build sooner, as right now, I think a lot of Western folks will take a 10 minute shorter journey over being able to use K’Rd and Newton stations in the shorter term. And that will save a massive chunk of the actual CRL build cost, leaving Aotea as the only interim (usable) station.
And of course, dropping AWHC from the plan, even if its fully Government funded will help focus all their minds too.
AT are like the person who buys a new car every couple of years, despite having a large mortgage. They’re using our rates as their credit card.
AT are like the person who buys a new car, drives it until it runs out of petrol, then buys a new one.
Perhaps the time has come to say “This is the rates bill, this is what it pays for”
Everything else, should be self funding, afleast until the residents of Auckland start digging big holes to the centre of the earth and selling what comes out.
This is what the law allows, apparently.
Everyone hates paying rates – me included!
I do however wonder why we aim to have the world’s most liveable city with rate increases of only 2.5%. With the exception of cash poor superannuatants and people struggling in exceptional circumstances shouldn’t the rest (us) pay a little more to get the city we want (and deserve). Imagine what we could do if everyone else was paying an reasonable 3.5-4.0% increase every year
I applaud the simplication of rates across the various areas of previous councils but was very surprised that some went up substantially (+10% for 3 consecutive years), while others dropped. Surely it would have been best to have none dropping and just simply hold them for a for more years until everyone else has caught up?
If the Govt will not allow for targeted regional fuel taxes then rates would seem simpler to apply then congestion charges and tolls. Really great shame that Akld could not put up the petrol taxes by 5-10 cents.
I would be extremely interested to see some figures to show the value of rates being increased by 1% (may show 3, 4 and 5% values). Same would be great to see for petrol taxes going up. i.e. how much would we need to help fund this $2.8b shortfall?
Everyone hates taxes, or has a strong aversion to them if they are of sound mind. The answer appears to be to setup a shell company in the Cayman Islands.
How people on lower or fixed incomes ( such as those who have long term experience of ventilation) is key.
It’s fine if you somehow find yourself with a house on the beach, and are able to sell this for enough money to buy a small Island ( at the rate the house prices are going), but largely considering all the other taxes, like income, GST, the doctor, etc, it can become a very difficult thing for people.
Ultimately if people find things are all struggle and no benefit they leave. Perhaps we should canvass the opinions of the million odd New Zealander’s who no longer live here to find out exactly why they don’t. It isn’t just wages.
you allude to a lot of important but somewhat distinct issues there.
1. First, I don’t hate paying rates. I feel like I get very good value from my rates in Auckland, especially compared to other cities I’ve lived in where rates are higher and/or services are lower.
2. Second, low income households can qualify for rates rebates. Questions over these rebates are somewhat distinct from discussions about appropriate levels of city wide rates increases.
3. Third, the process by which rates are equalised under Auckland Council is governed by legislation. I think you will find that some households had to drop in order to meet legal requirements.
4. Fourth, completely agree with you: More targeted transport user charges are required, including regional fuel taxes and congestion charges. Shame these have been taken off the table by Government.
Hi Stu
1. Hate is a strong word, and I have only myself to blame for using it. People would choose not to die, if it was a practical option too.
Personally, I think the welfare state is a fair price for a beating heart. People who I consider The Walking Dead disagree. The question is one of loading and how affordable, reasonable ( as in where the money is going ) and fair this is.
2. Great. Does this apply to people with little income and an expensive house?
3. Not quite sure what that means? Is this like Council Tax “bands” in the UK? Band A,B,C – with bands based on valuation ranges?
4. Indeed. User Pays, although it sort of cuts both ways in terms of public and private transport, with public it depends on how close you want to get to revenue neutral or outright profit, or whether you accept subsidy as we do with people and the welfare state.
Exactly Marco. Aucklanders want the world’s best city…without paying for it. The sooner Aucklanders understand that 1) nothing in life is free and 2) it’s important for everyone’s future that we look at the big picture rather than just what directly benefits moi, this city and indeed country, will be a better place and with a better future.
“Aucklanders want the world’s best city”
I think you may be getting confused between Len Brown’s grandiose mission statement and what Auckland ratepayers actually want.
another champion of mediocrity along with Leighton Smith
Well I know that is what I want and I will be leaving very soon if we don’t start moving towards it.
Will you be moving to the world’s best city? What is it? What objective metrics have you used in your evaluation of this “best” city? Are they metrics that are universally embraced by all Aucklanders or are they just your opinion? Is there a published survey that supports the assertion that “Aucklanders want the world’s best city”?
“Is there a published survey that supports the assertion that “Aucklanders want the world’s best city””
Given the voters of Auckland elected Len Brown under this banner (‘World’s most liveable city’ you’ll find) the answer seems to be yes.
You haven’t really thought that one through, have you?
The voters of Auckland is a subset of Aucklanders
An election is not a single issue survey.
The world’s most liveable city (based on formulae for recompensing expats) is not the same as the world’s best city
Based on your flawed logic one could claim that New Zealanders want RONS because the National government was elected.
A survey by itself very nature is always going to be a subset of a group. Or are you suggesting the only valid survey is one where every single person’s view is counted? Unfortunately the census can only ask so many questions.
The National Party did not use ‘RONS forever’ as it’s campaign slogan.
Do you have any concept of statistical sampling theory? Of the significance of random sampling? Selection bias?
So to summarise. Democracy doesn’t count. Surveys are the way forward.
You seem to be having trouble with logical constructs.
You have asserted that the election of Len Brown is evidence that Aucklanders want the city to be the best in the world. In order for that to be a valid assertion the following need to be valid:
The “world’s most livable city” formula is directly equivalent to “the world’s best city” (the former seems to be based on a number of formulae for determining the income uplift for expats rather than Aucklanders, the latter is so subjective as to defy an agreed definition)
All Aucklanders who voted for Len Brown want the city to be the best in the world and those that did not, do not. (stretches credibility)
The number of Aucklanders who voted for Len Brown as a proportion of all Aucklanders constitutes a proportion sufficiently high to justify the generalisation
164338/1415550 = 11.6% (clearly false)
http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/AboutCouncil/HowCouncilWorks/Elections/Documents/mayorfinalresults2013.pdf
OR Those that voted represented a random sample of Aucklanders (it didn’t and Brown’s share of the vote was 48.5%)
Brown’s mission statement is aspirational fluff of the motherhood and apple pie variety. Puffery, Nothing wrong with that providing it is not followed through to actual financed strategy. That would be ruinous.
Staging by removing those two stations in the initial build seems like a very poor idea. How much would it actually save of the total cost? Won’t it be prohibitively more expensive to build them at a later stage? While it may reduce the costs a bit, how much of the benefit do we also lose?
If they ‘stage’ the two other stations they will never be built. There is no way they will ever come back five or ten years later and be able to fund them, because the marginal benefits will be relatively low and the costs even higher than if they are built at the same time, plus they would have to shut down the CRL to do it. Seriously, who is going to be able to spend up to half a billion dollars to add a station at K Rd after the fact? Then again at Newton?
That would be a shame too, because we will simply end up with an expensive commuter system, and not the highly effective metro we could have. In particular we ‘d lose the two key sights for future development and intensification (Aotea is about serving the existing city, but the other two are about growing the CBD afterwards), and there would be no simple way to transfer between the western and southern lines.
We have had this debate on this side of the ditch. There is usually much, much more you can do to get ‘capacity’ long before digging holes in the ground, so I don’t by CRL as a ‘capacity’ argument. Please don’t make the mistakes Melbourne made with its City Loop, which really added little or nothing to capacity that couldn’t have been done for 1/10 the price, and now, they are claiming is full when it is not (below design capacity).
I would suggest if cost cutting is needed, look at whether the Western Line can have the hole dug first, build the one station (Aotea) with boxes for the other two for later fitting, and a stub towards Britomart, but not built. You will find that the Western trains can terminate at Aotea quite well (electric now) with no need for reversal at Newmarket obviously, their absence from Britomart will not be missed and the slots they free up available for East and South providing a lot of extra capacity for the system. Just pick a number eg 20 trains per hour for the Western line alone into Aotea, could even reduce that to 15 trains from the West, and the other 5 from the South, which by definition would free up even more capacity at Britomart.
Knowing the politics over here quite well, I can still see the CRL lacks the ‘breakthrough’ public sell-ability concept that we had with Perth’s Mandurah line or the new Sydney Cross Harbour Tunnel.
I feel this would be better achieved with a Auckland harbour tunnel and uniting the North Shore doubters, getting them onside. I’ve read all the good arguments on CFN and they all make sense for a public transport enthusiast, but do they cut through?
“Buy” not “By”
The major major major problem with this is that we would end up with a massively disjointed rail system. People who go to the West from the South (or vice versa) would suddently have to trek down from Aotea to Britomart and then onto their train rather than just crossing a platform. It’d be nice for those who go from the West to within 500m of Aotea Square but the number of people it would screw over in the process…
Plus that is still building about 3/4 of the project to achieve 1/4 of the benefits.
If we do want to stage they should do what they are talking about anyway, build the first bit of the tunnel under the downtown mall site as a simple stub tunnel with a switchback in it. This would allow a bit of a boost at Britomart, basically all trains could enter and drop people off on platform 5, move into the tunnel, change ends, then exit on platform 1 to pick up outbound passengers. The important thing there is you could then terminate and stable three trains on the middle platforms inter peak without blocking regular operation. You could probably stable a couple more up the back of the stub tunnel too. So that might be five or six trains in the peak direction that can enter the station without having to exit again, which effectively frees up five or six more slots for extra trains. In the evening peak the process works in reverse, you have five or six trains already in the station that you can send out without occupying an inbound slot in the tunnel.
That might bring the effective peak throughput up to 24-26 trains an hour in the peak direction.
The uncertainty around the cut and cover of Albert St is causing the most issues in regards to any major works in the CBD, including East-West bus corridors. So this part actually needs to be done with urgency, and as the section under Downtown shopping mall must be built next year, makes sense to do most of this section. That means with your proposal would only be left with a several hundred metre gap between Aotea and the Britomart end, which makes no sense.
Great thing about CRL is it doesn’t just deliver great extra capacity, but also a bug increase in catchment, and the ability to through route trains. Both of those last 2 would be lost under your proposal.
Of course, but it isn’t me saying Auckland is too poor to build CRL now.
We had Brisbane’s proposal go from $6B to $4B, which people seemed to be able to take, the result is inferior but does achieve the same objectives.
In Melbourne they made the same outlandish claims about disruption to city streets, but didn’t win any points for cost cutting.
In Sydney they are spending $9 big ones right now with another $11B for the next section and not a single stakeholder saying “That is too much”.
But if Auckland is too poor, then it is too poor.
We’re not too poor. We’re just planning on spending cash on the wrong things and have not held the gov’t to ransom over their motorway spend up. NZTA should be chipping in big time for the CRL.
I was in Copenhagen this week- they’re doing a lot of work around the place, often blocking streets. The thing that stood out was that it’s no big deal as most people aren’t in cars. Presuming buses can terminate somewhere else, is the problem with Albert St primarily a problem because we’re so car based? Maybe we need a massive mode switch in 2015 and 2016 then the Albert St dig will be far less of an issue 😉
You guys are lucky. We get this sort of shit:
PM Abbott: “Budget Crisis”
Treasurer Hockey “Your grandchildren will be paying off your debts”
NSW Premier “Let’s have $20B of new underground railways in Sydney”
Vic Premier “Let’s have $10B of underground and airport railway in Melbourne”
Qld Premier “Let’s have $4B new underground rail and bus tunnels”
WA Premier “Let’s have $1B underground airport railway”
The public end up confused whether there actually is a budgetary problem or not.
Not the Northwest busway! Noooooooo
Riccardo, the problem Auckland has is that it has recently undergone an amalgamation that has meant some ratepayers have faced huge increases (up to around 40%) while others have had zero increases or even reductions. Those getting the rates increases have been offered no new services, just cutbacks.
Now the CRL is an expensive project that all Aucklanders will be asked to fund, but as luck would have it the people who got hammered by the rates increases just happen to be the same folks who will get the least benefit from the CRL. That is why it is so divisive – the project itself is perfectly good with a sound basis in logic, but in its current state it may well be a no-go.
There has to be some political realism around this – funding for the CRL certainly won’t fly on the basis of dishing out extra charges and taxes to the same ratepayers who have already been hit with such massive rates increases. That would undermine support for any Councillors who are supportive of public transport and get them all unelected in short order.
The CRL project has been unlucky to hit this hurdle, and as a result I think that somehow the project needs to broaden its benefits and its appeal if it is to get to the next step.
That is because some people (i.e those out West) have been overpaying for years, whilst those in the central city have been underpaying for years. Keep in mind that it used to be the case that a 300k house in WA, attracted the same about of rates for a 2 mill house in Mt Eden. Also, those out West still have user pays rubbish/inorganics and have had for years…
Those out west had been overpaying? Can you explain therefore why the old WCC debt per ratepayer was around $11k while the old ACC had around $7k at the time of the super city formation?
Hence my comment you might need to build the cross Harbour line first, irrespective it isn’t the best boost in capacity. As for their snobbery, we had that in South Perth and beat it. Same crap, same answer. Proof is in the pudding.
Wasn,t their some Auckland council that was mowing the resident’s roadside grass for them? Geez. That would take hundreds of men on mowers.
> Wasn,t their some Auckland council that was mowing the resident’s roadside grass for them?
Well, let’s feed the troll.
No councils have ever mown residents’ grass for them. The former Auckland City Council, (like the current Wellington City Council), mowed grass that was part of the council-owned and council-controlled right-of-way. Other councils have generally not bothered to mow as much of their grass. Residents who lived near that grass often decided to mow it themselves, or have it mowed at their own expense, because they preferred it shorter, or had confused ideas about where the boundaries of their property were.
The moral of the story is: berms are pointless wastes of space and no-one likes them, and we might as well not bother putting them in when we lay out new streets. Plant trees, or don’t bother. As for existing streets, they could usually do with wider footpaths, and if there’s still space left over we can always try to sell it to the adjoining property owner.
While councils choose to waste space on pointless grass expanses, they might as well mow them. No-one’s going to mow the council’s grass for them, except for those suckers in the outer suburbs.
Apparently, now a 20% cycleways budget cut is also on the cards. Of an already ridiculously low budget. Surely somewhere a photocopier could be switched to black & white only to make those savings.
Comeone, why don’t we just all close the city for a few days each week to save money? Lets just save money in all the least sensible places!
Agreed, 20% of a ridiculously small budget isn’t even a saving – it’s actually a cost later on as you’ve now closed the door on people having any choice to move around by anything else than a car. Really bizarre logic being shown here.
Well if you cut 20% of nothing you still basically end up with nothing.
Small potatoes, Heck the council not mowing berms saved them what $3m a year and thats way more than the 20% cut to the already so-minimal-you-couldn’t-make-it-much-smaller-if-you-tried cycling budget.
And given that right now AT can’t even spend 1/3rd the pokey cycling budget they have now, all that means is no carry forward of cycling budgets year to year.
Well AT could you know, like, cancel all AT pool cars and then put on a proper fleet of express buses between Henderson and Britomart and save the whole cycling budget every 6 months.
Or a train…wait a minute
…wait thirty minutes more like it!
Why do they keep talking about tolls and congestion charges, when the council has absolutely no power to enact either, and the government has made clear it will not allow?
But on costs, there are many things AT could do to reduce spending. I can write a long list of the wastage I’ve seen from that organisation.
Why are cuts to cycleways being thrown about as if they’re anything more than spare change, cut the whole budget and you’d save less than $10 million. But out goes any pretence about making Auckland a better place or more liveable place.
Perhaps we should put Weta to use and have a CGI movie of how Auckland might look?
If you think about it, Peter Jackson might be our Warren Buffet and although he obviously loves Wellington more then Auckland he may be open to philanthropy of some kind?
hmm, another letter coming on
I’ve long thought it would be great to create an interactive 3D world using modern game technology that would allow people to explore what the city would be like with the projects proposed.
Visuals would certainly help sell and communicate what could be achieved and what needs to be done to make a business case for them.
It may require a rethinking of the organisational structures of the city to work properly though, something like Development Corporations to actively sell change and the benefits.
At the moment am not sure we don’t “encourage” people to adopt a default position of fear that a shoebox will be landing on them shortly instead of rail will be arriving shortly etc.
Rendering is not an area I know anything about, I’d be “slightly surprised” if the council didn’t already do this kind of thing?
http://youtu.be/W0256duDmJ8
If they are serious about cutting spending, and I hope they are, then award ATEED and Waterfront Auckland the DCM. Don’t Come Monday! That would trim the budget nicely and we wouldn’t see any difference.
Personally I think Waterfront Auckland have been one of the better performing CCOs. That doesn’t mean I don’t think there couldn’t be changes though. In my mind merge them with ACPL and create an urban redevelopment authority that has clout across the region looking after other redevelopment projects e.g. New Lynn. Some of the property management functions of ACPL might also be better suited in ACIL.
Except that as soon as you employ people to do urban redevelopment they start spending public money on it. It’s not like there aren’t private businesses in the development game and at least the private ones are incentivised to make a profit. Council organisations know they can make dud decisions and just make it up from next years rates increase. As for ATEED do we really want to pay for them to do the bread and circuses crap?
Agree with you mfwic. They are not essential services that benefit Aucklanders long term.
Given the $10million awarded to Pukekohe V8 races, under dubious circumstances and council procedures – when other countries are addressing climate change, I despair to think where other “Economic Development” grants are going.
Yes, heaven forbid the 100,000 people who went to the event this year enjoy something that isn’t another theatre or council-sponsored festival.
Think I understand your reasoning- the Council wastes money on theatres and festivals so they should waste more on motor-racing
Here’s a simple suggestion. What about ensuring all passengers pay their correct fare (or any fare) on the trains rather than running it as the charity service that it currently is. I know certifiably crazy but hey its got merit, get on a train service and pay for the ride! I mean this kind of business model exists in the real world everywhere.
And no I don’t accept for one moment the ridiculously unbelievable 4-5% evasion claim either for exactly the same reason I don’t believe in the tooth fairy.
Simple fact is we cannot afford the CRL NOW. May have to push it out by 10 years?
Tahi, the simple fact is that Auckland can’t afford NOT to build the CRL now.
It will never be cheaper than it is now to build (imagine the cost in 10 years time – that won’t be less than todays price, in todays dollars will it?)
Without it the Auckland economy will stall – cars, buses and trucks all stuck in traffic jams – yes even on the motorways, the lack of CRL will still have a big impact everywhere.
There are plenty of other big expensive projects the council could delay or cancel completely (e.g. Penlink) to allow CRL to proceed, and all without as much or any impact as delaying CRL will have.
We just spent over a billion on upgrading rail, and without CRL the full benefits of that investment are wasted.
This is the same as when the harbour bridge was built it was only 2 lanes each way, when for a little more it could have been 8 lanes each way from day 1.
So if we delay by 10 years as you suggest what then?
How much did adding the clip-ons to the bridge cost only 10 years later – multiples more than the original bridge cost that’s for sure. Do you think thats a really wise decision?
And what about the lost economic opportunities over those 10 years – how much will that cost? Way more than the pittance the CRL will cost I’m sure.
If given the choice, I’d say to the Government, forget the Convention centre you’re pushing, and use that money to fund your half of the CRL like you agreed you would.
Fact: 1 CRL will be better for the Auckland economy in a shorter time frame and for a longer time than any number of Convention centres will ever be.
And if you can’t do that then spend some of the Future Investment Fund in Auckland (and NZ’s) future for once, instead of pissing it away on parliaments roof.
We could afford a lot more projects if rates were replaced with pole tax
Excellent idea Phil, while we are at it we should also tax broom handles, oars, walking sticks and all other pole-like objects.
On a completely unrelated note, a poll tax would only recover the same amount of revenue as rates, as rates are set by the given budget divided by property value. If we divide the amount per capita it is still the same amount.
No, what Phil’s saying is that overall he’d like households to be paying more, so we can afford more projects. Fair enough. He’s just a bit confused about the best method of funding it (which is not a poll tax).
What Phil is really saying is that he wants EVERYONE else to pay his share for him.
Pole tax?
Hmm, not enough people of Polish descent living in NZ to do that, let alone Auckland 🙂
As for a Poll tax, very hard to enforce as you have to then know who is living in the area (and who they are) to collect the tax from.
And it incentivises people to not answer census or take part in other official statistics gathering exercises or being on the voting rolls, which is the wrong way serve the population you’re charged with representing.
We do need rating reform however, simply collecting money from property owners based on the value of that property, rather than the services it can access (and also indirectly is gathered from those living at at property), is a pretty arcane way to gather revenue and exposes real distortions in the economy like car parks don’t pay much rates at all as they are considered “unimproved”, but they can access a huge range of council services for that nominal fee.
The main reason rates seem to persist is that you can legally encumber a property if the owners don’t pay the rates, try and do that to anyone via a poll tax.
The courts have trouble collecting fines from people who don’t want to pay, imagine what the courts outstanding fines would be like if everyone refused to pay their poll tax?
And what the alternative then? Throw people into prison if they don’t pay?
That sort of approach is what got Thatcher’s Government booted out in the ’90s
Maybe the Polish Government could make a kind donation to NZ. They clearly have more money to spare for railways.
http://www.thenews.pl/1/12/Artykul/174435,Polish-Railways-reveals-6year-investment-plan
More Zoltys now!
The real issue is the fact that rates are so in-your-face when income / fuel tax is somewhat hidden.
Our household pays about $2000 a year in rates, about $40,000 a year in income tax, and about $2000 a year in fuel tax. We seem to get by far the most value from rates.
Of course there are pensioners that effectively pay negative income tax, very little fuel tax, and $5000 a year in rates on their Remuera home. These are also the people with the most time on their hands to complain and the people that don’t really have an incentive to see Auckland improve.
We really need the government to make changes to how rates are collected, or counsellors to stand up and make the hard decisions that will see Auckland improve, not penny pinch to get the grey vote.
good point. I would much prefer to pay more rates and less income tax. 2k a year for using all the services of the city is not so much in my mind. While most of the income tax I pay I don’t get much back, I’m surely in that bracket that gives way more than what it gets.
The rates are tiny when you put it like that. Happy to pay a bit more each year – if it results in a transit network like normal large cities have it will save most households much more money than people realise. At present thousands of households need 2 or 3 cars to access work and education. The city rail link and the new bus network will make it easy to get around without a car. Many households will be able to go down to one or none.