Yesterday the Mayor Len Brown presented his amended proposal for the council’s Long Term Plan (LTP) which follows on from the public submissions and surveys. The most significant change from the draft that was consulted on is in the area of transport. Len seems to have heard the message that the government isn’t about to agree to tolling or regional fuel taxes to pay for the council’s massive transport wish list and that if it is going to happen, it will need a lot more discussion and work between the two parties.
As an interim step he’s proposed a three year targeted transport levy of $99 for residential properties and $159 for business properties – that’s roughly $2 & $3 per week respectively. That levy is said to be enough to fund just over $170 million worth of extra investment a year or about $500 million over three years.
As a comparison the LTP documents that talked about either motorway tolling or a combo of regional fuel taxes and rates was to raise enough money to cover around $300 million in extra investment a year. As such Len’s proposal represents just over the half of that.
We frequently criticised the council for its build all plan that would have required all that extra funding and called for a middle ground to be found that prioritised the projects that Aucklanders have repeatedly said they want more focus on – public transport and cycling. And of course we weren’t alone in this suggestion with Generation Zero creating the Essential Transport Budget (ETB) that explained this idea in more detail. Both the AA and the NZ Council for Infrastructure Development (NZCID) also called for a middle ground to be found although they didn’t specify what projects should be included. The table below shows the transport area’s submissions to the LTP said should have more or less focus.
I think that aiming for enough money to fund $170 million and doing so through a targeted levy is probably a good outcome. It means there should be enough money to build the good projects we need while retaining some pressure to ensure the council and Auckland Transport focus on high value projects that will actually deliver good outcomes. I think one area there could be some contention with the transport levy is in the fact it’s the same flat rate for all residential/business ratepayers. That means there’s no differentiation based on property capital value like there is with rates and as such is likely to hit lower income households more than higher income ones.
The council haven’t released the full details about what extra projects will go ahead however Len did mention these ones specifically were included. All figures are over the next three year period
- Busways to the North and Northwest
- Increase walking and cycling funding from $14 million to $124 million (including $75 million from the Government and NZTA).
- Increase the network wide safety programme from $28 million to $111 million
- Bringing forward some PT interchange projects
- Electrification to Pukehoke
- Park & Rides at Papakura, Westgate and Silverdale
- Tamaki Dr and Ngapipi Rd safety and amenity improvements
- Improvements to Lake Rd
- Road sealing budget in Rodney to increase from $3 million to $10 million
That seems like quite a good list but as mentioned we will really need to see the full details first before commenting further. Some of these – such as busways to the North West – don’t seem practical to be built in the next three years so any funding is likely to be around the planning work needed.
Now that some of the council meetings are also being recorded and published online you can now see the debate if you’re interested. The two video’s below include Len presenting his proposal however you can also see the councillors questions in the other video’s available here (Governing Body – Item 11). The transport part is in the first video and as part of it Len also confirms the government is open to working on a transport accord.
The second video above is also interesting as it contains the comments from Councillor Cameron Brewer. I say interesting as Brewer has a history of being quite hostile towards Len and his priorities however he now appears to be quite supportive and even called on Bill English to add a line into the governments upcoming budget for their 50% share of the City Rail Link (from about 17 minutes). He also put out this press release on his support for Len’s rates proposal and the transport levy.
As mentioned earlier the transport levy have given the council three years to work on getting the government over the line. It seems to me that once ratepayers have adjusted to the extra money on their rates bill that the levy is something we could see stay much longer than three years as an easier alternative to implementing other funding mechanisms such as tolls. This wouldn’t necessarily be a completely negative thing either as the reduced funding compared to the tolling/regional fuel tax options would hopefully help AT remain focused on high value projects that will improve accessibility by all modes.
Not everyone is happy though, Michael Barnett from the Auckland Chamber of Commerce has called the levy a lazy way to raise money.
“I would hope that the capital raised will go to fast-track the big inter-generational Auckland projects that will make a measurable difference to reducing congestion.”
“The last thing Auckland needs from this proposal is for the ‘interim levy’ – really a targeted rate – to become a permanent fixture in Council’s revenue provisions,” said Mr Barnett.
Auckland still needs to see serious action by Auckland Council to seek new revenue sources other than ratepayers, make smarter innovative use of its $40 billion-plus asset base and achieve efficiency savings by focusing spending on core activities.
“The use of ratepayers this way – while an interim measure – is outmoded and will be seen as unfair to the many property owners who make little use of the transport system or are retired and asset rich but have little spare cash.
It also seems that Transport Minister Simon Bridges isn’t happy with the mix of projects the council has planned based on his responses in Parliament yesterday. He repeated variations of the text below a few times, just which projects he thinks should be prioritised is unknown though.
What I certainly can say is that we are always interested in ways to reduce congestion in Auckland and ways to improve public transport. In fact, what we have seen so far in terms of Mayor Brown’s preferred plan in Auckland does not do that sufficiently in the 2030s and 2040s. We want to work with him, with the council, and with Auckland to make a better, more optimal plan that does deal better with congestion and public transport.
There are also some more comments by Bridges in this article.
Overall the Mayor’s announcement yesterday is a good outcome however as mentioned we really need to see a list of just what projects are in and which aren’t.
Processing...
As I have been saying all along the council is going to put the rates up to pay for this dam pet project of Mr Browns .You watch this year the rates will go up at least 7 % or more
When is the council going to take notice of what the rate payers are having to put up with to get silly projects that are not needed and over priced which will never make enough income to pay for its self … sadly I will be looking at moving my company out of Auckland and i bet there is going to be lots more relocate away form this stupidity
Bye
You will be missed
If $160 is what’s got you reconsidering where you’re located I’d suggest you had already has been thinking of it. Given your comments in the past is more to do with AT not using your product.
Matt you need to understand we don’t make much as we have had to reduce what we charge to sub contractors what is going to happen when the council have another big priced project they are wanting to fund yet another rase in rates ..it has got to the stage where it is unfordable to operate in Auckland and off course we are sick is this carry on all year the council have been trying to fund projects that at the end of the day are extreme to say the least and for only for a small % of Aucklanders will use
If my rates only go up by 7% it will be one of the lower rises I have had under this regime. Most have been 10% capped presumably because even they think 11% is ridiculous.
Maybe this levy will actually be a good thing if we can use it as a step towards road pricing. Sort of like ‘here is a tax you will all get to pay regardless of whether you travel or not’ followed by ‘we are moving the tax from households onto drivers as an incentive to change modes or travel time or where you live’.
Last year our household paid $50k in income tax and all we got was a vague promise of superannuation in 30+ years time, free health care that we are unlikely to need much, and a handful of road improvements we barely use. Forgive me for thinking you are being a bit petty.
And police and fire and welfare and military and the list goes on. Your income tax covers many more things.
Bugger off then. Auckland’s economy is actually thriving. It will thrive even more with a good public transport system.
“and i bet there is going to be lots more relocate away form this stupidity” – I will take that bet. How much are you prepared to put up?
Interesting. What projects are you referring to? You don’t say.
Rates in Auckland are, if anything, too low. There is a lot of catching up to do. The under-investment of past generations of rate payers is crippling the city.
Rates are too low? Clearly you are on a good wicket. What about the rest?.
It would be helpful for the Government to outline what they see as a sensible working plan. Calling out from the sidelines that they don’t like the current plan is not helpful.
Moooaaaaaaaarr motorways!
The devil will be in what the extra money goes to.
Walking & cycling and the new PT network’s crucial interchanges = good.
Mill Road and Penlink = not so good.
conan thinks waving good by to industry in Auckland is a good thing … when we pull out there is going to be 40 people out of work nice ay
Bye
The devil is indeed in the detail which we will know next week when the Budget Committee handles the individual budget lines.
However, yesterday proved to be a clanger in that Brewer giving general support rather than open hostility. However, again at the individual budget line level is where things will get interesting.
So Barnett and the Governments are fast becoming the only opposition left to a 21st Century Auckland. Ah well history shall judge them in due course.
Have you left yet
Where did I say it would be a good thing? You are welcome to set up your business where ever suits you best. Your workers will find other employment. The great thing about Auckland is the wide extent of employment options.
Mike your view comes across as petulant. For the cost of less than half a flat white per household a week we get investment in improving the efficiency and capacity of the whole city. That cost will be repaid quickly and many times over. Pretending that scale and growth don’t require investment in infrastructure will just lead to inaction and the city choking instead of thriving.
But if city living isn’t for you go somewhere quieter, there’s plenty of little towns that aren’t growing that would delighted to have anyone.
Patrick I have meet and talked to a number of rate payers who have a hard time paying there high rates .in fact there are numbers who are having problems feeding there kids .When are you going to see that …then there is the meany who are on a pension they are on a limited budget ..At some stage Auckland council is going to need to need to open there eyes to what the real world are having to go through to pay for these big ticket dreams … there are other ways to save money one is by hitting the maintenance contracts as there is major savings in this area … We are in the industry in which we see how much these company’s are making by the process of clipping of the ticket .for example we supply a number of sub contractors in Auckland products .they are having to quote at prices that would shock you then the maintenance contract holders are charging the city council at rates that amount to 70% higher than
the subbie has charged them ..the make things worse the maintenance contract holders don’t Evan turn up to the job .and if there is a issue the maintenance contract holder will say there is no issue which leaves the council in a spot were they have to pay to get the job redone .We see this happening every day …. At the end of the day the people who are footing this bill is the rate payer
For those on low incomes such as pensioners the council have a rebate programme. Perhaps the person is unaware that exists. As for rates just did a quick search. A randomly selected house in Tauranga with value of $830k pays rates of $3.3k. A random house in Auckland valued at $840k is paying $3.1k in rates. Auckland often has cheaper rates as has economies of scale other places don’t
Firstly Mike, spending extra on transport will mean time and cost savings for everyone who has to get around this city. So that $2 per week levy could save you $2 in petrol or save you 20 mins per week.
As for pensioners, whilst I do have sympathy for their situation, most have a large appreciating asset (mortgage free 700k house anyone?). They need to downsize, or move somewhere more affordable, or go to the retirement village. Big cities aren’t really the place for elderly. Places like Tauranga are popular with elderly for a reason… It’s cheap, it has nicer weather, and is elderly friendly. It also frees up housing for young families etc in Auckland.
Arrogance. I can not believe your callous comments about pensioners. If you really believe what you wrote then I am frankly dismayed. Big cities aren’t the place for the elderly? Really? Maybe you could learn something from their years of experience.
Clearly you have not read the news paper lately now they are saying the rates hike is looking more like 9 % As for hiding behind RB who are you
.As I see it all this year Brown has been on the hunt for money (rate rise) or tolls and now it looks like the council are holding the government to task over housing
The question you need to ask is what next
$2 a week for the whole household. Get it in perspective: Sky TV, SUV, Lattes…. is really $2 a week that breaks household budgets? It is not credible that this is the source of financial hardship for people struggling, and I know people are struggling.
I would rather it wasn’t a uniform charge, I would rather it was proportional to value as that is fairer, the wealthy do benefit more from the growth in the city as they have more property, but those defending wealthy interests are pretty vocal, Brewer.
smoking, booze, gambling, church tithes, buying a newer car to impress everybody.
Unfortunately rates are a cost of owning a house just like insurance and power and mortgage repayments. If the retired cant afford it, maybe they should take a reverse mortgage on all that free equity they have acquired over the last few years. Kind of getting sick of people who have million dollar houses claiming to be poor.
the rich people can afford it its the people who are everyday people who are having a hard time finding money to feed them self’s and the low income family’s who have just bought there first homes …come on guys think about the costs these people have at present 4% increase in rates is going to hurt all for a big ticket project that wont even pay for its self….
Obviously it is hard for some people out there, and maybe a uniform charge isn’t the best approach, but expecting to be able to provide a whole lot of new infrastructure for a whole lot of new people coming into Auckland without increasing rates is not really feasible (unless the Government helps out which seems very unlikely).
If Auckland does grow by 500,000 and we don’t build any new transport infrastructure, I’m sure the average household will spend significantly more than $2 a week extra getting to work
Asset rich and cash poor. Many people are in that boat due to circumstances beyond their control. Selling is not an answer.
This is a real problem. The government’s forced amalgamation is behind much of it. Plus ratepayers have had an easy ride for decades…. and the easy ride is over.
The government’s low-wage policies definitely are hurting many, many people. Blaming the Council for the consequences if that seems perverse.
Is this Brewer moving to the centre in preparation for a go at the Mayoralty next election?
Lord help us. Luckily Phil Goff is almost guaranteed to win if he runs (assuming he doesn’t do anything stupid)
Anyway this is clearly a good thing if they invest wisely. On that I agree with the Minister. However his idea and our idea of what wisely means in our only city of scale not doubt differ.
I’d be interested in comparing the different schools of thought on where the spending priority should be and the justifications for those spending decisions.
Given that different stakeholder groups have different opinions on what should be the priority contrasting CID, AA, GenZero, AT & Government lists would be an interesting exercise.
Gen Zed, Transportblog, the AA, AT, and AC are all on the same page. NZCID just wants to build anything and everything. That just leaves the government out on a limb; as they only want to build State Highways. And they are. So really this is about AT and AC trying to get a little money together to add a small amount of balance to the vast motorway overbuild by central government. Only argument is over the priorities and the timing. It’s all urgent after 60 years of neglect, and years of growth.
I’m interested in the shift of AA and what projects they think will benefit their members most.
When the AA consider that PT projects are the most beneficial, there will have been a shift in thinking from early adopters to early majority and that’s the point at which the friction felt in decision making will ease. This ties back to the re-evaluation by communication by AT.
Well the AA did the rational and commendable thing of asking their members, and changing their policy to reflect those answers.
Hard to believe anyone would think $2 per week is excessive. There are poor households out there who have to run multiple vehicles so they can access jobs. Often the vehicles are on finance, and of course are depreciating at around 25% every year – a certain recipe for poverty.
For $2 per week even households in far-dispersed suburbs will have access to a startlingly improved frequent transit network which means potentially thousands of them can ditch the second or third car. This also applies to the asset-rich elderly who will have far greater mobility and freedom as the transport improvements are implemented. Already the trains, buses and ferries are fair heaving with grey-haired people enjoying days out on their super-gold cards.
Isn’t this just kinda an inevitable result of boxing yaself into a corner with silly promises of tiny rate increases though?
Busting out an extra 2.5% or whatever rate increase over a couple of years seems a better idea, but that’s just me.
I guess like any politician, Len knows that taxes can be your political death. And while overall rates increases may not have been so massive, you can be sure he – and the Herald etc… – hear a lot of complaints from those people whose local rates have been raised more strongly over the last couple years to bring them in line with the SuperCity overall rates levels.
I am more interested as to whether he accepts that this is his last term, and thus valiantly takes that popularity hit of being seen to again raise rates for the better of the city, or whether he aims to run again, and figures that the alternative of doing nothing is worst. Either way, good on him for making a move that isn’t status quo.
I’m dismayed at some of the responses on here.
Mike has presented his viewpoint well and deserves better than being encouraged to move out of Auckland by a few trolls. Mike’s case is similar to many around Auckland who just can’t afford to run businesses in such a high cost city. It is not a case of an extra $2 a week. It’s a case of cost after cost after cost being levied with no end in sight. Rates rises averaging 5.6% when inflation is 0.8% etc. All to fund a bloated council whose latest pet project is a “Rainbow advisory board”. WTF.
Matt L provides a disingenuous rate comparison between Auckland an Tauranga. An $840k house in Auckland is a middle income household. In Tauranga it’s a wealthy household. The ability of those two households to pay rates is vastly different.
The graph presented is fundamentally flawed. It shows everyone wants additional transport in all areas!! You’ve got to wonder which stage 1 Stats student came up with a question that yields a result like this.
All of this comes from a Mayor currently polling 5%. A mayor who should have resigned some time ago. Why are we not exploring mixed ownership models for Council assets? Why are we not investigating selling council assets?
Finally I’m absolutely disgusted by the comment inferring elderly should F Off out of Auckland. Our senior citizens should be treated with utmost respect. If we are designing a city they can’t be a part of we are designing the city wrong.
I’d say you have quite a different understanding of the word ‘well’. Mike started the conversation by saying he’s out of here. I’m fine with that as stated. If he feels his business would be better suited to another place for cost reasons then that is his choice.
By far and and away the biggest cost our business faces after wages is central government tax. Rates is so far down the list it’s not a separate line item in any of the reporting we do, just bundled into Lease payments and outgoings. If out of control rates are really such a huge burden for Mike I’d suggest he’s paying his 40 workers well under the minimum wage.
TRM have you overlooked the changes to the business differential which means business rates are declining substantially as a percentage of the total take?
Look Conan i have just read your fine with me moving my Business out of Auckland .Who the hell are you to be saying something like that .Cold hard facts are .Aucklanders are paying for something most wont use and don’t want .Auckland has been lied to over this all year there has been a grab for funding anywhere they can … Its quite shocking to say the least . I deal with a number of city councils around the country .I can say what is happening in Auckland is shocking to say the least.Brown is pushing for a start on this stupid rail link so when he is voted out of been mayor of Auckland they have to keep working on it …
i can say has a stop at the casino and k road by looks of things the 2 places that have to most crime and misery ,One only has to look overseas to get the crime states from there underground rail system its not good in fact in the US they have to have police stationed at every station same as in the UK
Myself I am worried that the rates will go up every years to cover the escalating cost of the build as we all know is going to happen …
there are more people out there who have the same thoughts as I do than you think
You started this comment thread with ‘sadly I will be looking at moving my company out of Auckland and i bet there is going to be lots more relocate away form (sic) this stupidity’.
I’m not going to be looking to stop you. Or were you looking for everyone to go ‘Please Mike, don’t’?
I suspect you’ll find the next mayor will be as supportive of the CRL as the current one. But that won’t matter to you because you will have left.
“in fact in the US they have to have police stationed at every station same as in the UK” – What are you talking about? That is just completely untrue.
Have you ever left NZ or actually used an underground system? Your comments sound like the ill informed concerns of a country bumpkin.
I used underground train systems every day in Europe for 8 years in a number of European cities. I occasionally saw Police at stations in Paris and London but for anti-terrorist activity, not crime.
In smaller cities like Prague (same population as Auckland and most used metro system per capita in world) and Bucharest, I don’t remember ever seeing Police on the trains – unless they were travelling somewhere.
You really sound hysterical with your comments. Take a deep breath. I know change can be scary but it will all be OK – really.
That statement is true goosold …I have been to both areas in the last year and seen this for myself .all stations are policed heavily …
“there are more people out there who have the same thoughts as I do than you think” – Then they must have avoided every single survey done on the CRL and increased public transport and failed to vote in the last two elections.
Every single person I speak to, once I have explained what the CRL is, things it is a brilliant idea and well overdue. So there are two bits of contrary anecdotal evidence, which proves…absolutely nothing.
As has been posted on another thread here, Auckland rates are at the low end by international comparison. What kills it for business is all the ticket clipping that goes on for most goods (eg we typically pay 50-100% more for goods here than overseas). When a business has to pay higher costs for that (and things like electricity) then that hurts. NZ as an economy is constantly having money taken out of the economy from foreign investment both in our companies and the banks. Couple with out of control land prices in Auckland (again mostly due to foreign investment in property) and it makes life expensive.
Hi Bruce
there are a number is good points that you have raised .One I strongly disagree to which is below
As for pensioners, whilst I do have sympathy for their situation, most have a large appreciating asset (mortgage free 700k house anyone?). They need to downsize, or move somewhere more affordable, or go to the retirement village. Big cities aren’t really the place for elderly. Places like Tauranga are popular with elderly for a reason… It’s cheap, it has nicer weather, and is elderly friendly. It also frees up housing for young families etc in Auckland
Why should these pensioners sell there homes they have worked all there lifes to pay for them .Its not good to force them out due ti high rates … My mother up until 4 years ago lived in Kingsland .she was forced to leave her home due to the escalating cost of living in Auckland she was faced with moving to Aussie at the age of 82 years old ..The older generation are the people who build Auckland we all should embrace that not punish them more ..They have a small income from the pension and thats it
In my opinion, the elderly are the people who screwed Auckland up and now they are reaping the whirlwind.
If they had supported Robbie Rail back in the 1970s we would have had a fully functioning transport system for 40 years. Even better if they had stood up to the city leaders and stopped the trams being removed.
Instead, they bet the house on cars and they lost.
Back then, they did not have the benefit of hindsight, like we do now.
Why do people think that just because they own a property somewhere, they have the right to live there forever whilst paying the same price for everything for ever more. Whether they like it or not, they are part of a changing city, and as Auckland grows, it needs more infrastructure, and this infrastructure needs to be paid for. Adapt or move on.
Why move to Aussie? As mentioned outside of Auckland most places are quite reasonable.
Auckland is a fast growing international city. Such places are typically the kinds of places that elderly like to live in. They can if they want to but can’t complain about costs. They can get a reverse mortgage if they choose to stay.
Why don’t they just set rates as a percentage of property value. Then they wouldn’t have this drama every year. Just like central government they would benefit from fiscal drag get to share some of property owner’s capital gains.
It is set as a percentage of property values. There is also a uniform charge per dwelling plus various targetted rates for rubbish collection etc, depending on where you live.
But they vary the percentage each year – why not keep it fixed or talk about a rates cut when they reduce it to take into account increased property values. That’s what central government does for income tax. On the other hand,wage and salary increases of 20% pa are not that common.
If it was a fixed percentage when a revaluation is done like the last one where prices increased around 30% on average this would mean rates would go up 30%. They are adjusted to keep the total rates take the same (or increased by the announced percentage). Since the changes in valuations are different for some areas (mine included) some rates go up more than the average and some drop.
From what I can see rates last year were 0.322889% of CV, and they have been lowered to 0.251870% of CV. A whopping 21.99% decrease in our rates percentage. If the national government were lowing our income tax percentage by a similar amount they would make a big deal about it.
References:
http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/ratesbuildingproperty/ratesvaluations/ratespropertysearch/Pages/RatesSearch.aspx
http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/ratesbuildingproperty/ratesvaluations/yourrates/Pages/ratesguide20152016.aspx
Yep, that makes sense given the overall increase in values that that percentage is applied to across the city.
The disconcerting thing in all of this is that those surveyed were given a Hobson’s Choice. Higher rates or higher fuel taxes. There was no third option such as the Council learning to live within budget. For Len Brown to publicly state he is now following ‘Aucklander’s choices’ is beyond the pale. Picking either ‘choice’ was no real choice at all.
Did you miss the bit where you were asked basic or advanced transport network?
So is Len saying we will have electrification to Pukekohe and busways to North and Northwest within 3 years? Surprised all the comments are arguing about merits of extra $2/week rates. This sounds like massive news in that timeframe.
I suspect he means that planning for them can be advanced. All three projects are government led ones.
Not exactly a transport matter but I’m interested that people complain about their rate rises but no mention of the fact that the value of their properties and their wealth are also increasing. It’s not all one way. I agree it’s tough on those on lower incomes but property ownership’s never been easy street. And it certainly won’t be for many once interest rates start to rise again.
The ‘value’ of a property is irrelevant to the owner unless they are wanting to sell. And that is the issue – people potentially being forced out. And that is where those on lower incomes are suffering. they have no control over the increasing ‘values’, which mean nothing to them. The callous would say ‘move’, but why should they leave their communities? Livable city my arse.
Mayor Len Brown has been flying a Kite on this issue for some time via his Patsy appointed Advisory Committee who conveniently recommended the 2 issues that Mayor Len was well aware of the Government would Veto. He we are with a PAID Patsy Committee simply wasting Ratepayers Money (as usual) to recommend Fuel Levy and Motorway Tolls. Both would not Fly so out came Mayor Len Last week with “EUREKA ” I have found the answer. SLAP A LEVY ON THEM! Temporary will Read Permanent. None of the Levy to Go to C.R.L.
On this I actually agree – it was clear for a while that there really wasn’t going to be either of the two options. So the consultation was rather leading / disingenious.
But heck, you know what – the proposed levy is much better than doing jack nothing. As as for whether it is temporary or not – there’s elections every three years, you can vote in them, and those people then chose your rates increase. I think it’s a bloody good setup.
As for the CRL spending, don’t worry – it’s all budgeted for already 🙂
More taxes, just what poor people need. And with no real guarantee on where it will get spent. The left needs to move fast and get everything started before enough people get pissed off and vote Brewer for Mayor in 2019.
Many poorer areas have crap access to PT anyway so spending on PT will give a crap ROI. The poor again will be the hardest hit and benefit least. Most will be renters who just get rent hikes instead of rates rises. They cant really apply for rebates or assistance. Many will probably earn too much to qualify for any assistance.
The middle-class/wealthy will feel the least and benefit the most. Typical.
Oh Ari, swing the doom bell with the others worried about how a slight bit more money for non-car modes will be a bad, bad thing.
Better PT and cycling options benefit the poorer people more than the middle class, especially compared to this relentless spending on sprawl and motorways, where every family needs 3 cars to get around. I don’t get impoverished by doing that – they do, and they are.
And you and some others weak attempt to claim this is a “left-wing money grab” is particularly pathetic. There may not be an analysis showing whether right-leaning voters favoured PT and walk/cycle as heavily as the overall respondents, but by golly, overall voters did, so poor you if you think the average Aucklander votes left at Council elections.
Brewer, by the way will never win Auckland, because he’s a whitey who never even learned to pretend to be anything else (Len did that pretty well, probably due to a lot of contact with Pacifica and Maori, growing up) – but dream on. I love the idea of Brewer running. He’ll fail hilariously.
Ari, do you realise that not only has Brewer came out in the support of this Levy, but his one condition was that it was a fixed amount, and not based on property values, to make sure it’s nice and regressive for his Orakei constituency.
Ari I don’t agree that the PT spending won’t benefit the poor. Many poor households are saddled with having to own multiple cars because they live so remote from decent PT and have to work in dispersed locations. The New Network with it’s frequent all-day service and good connections will mean many thousands of households will be able to ditch the second or third car and thereby be better off by thousands of dollars every year – all for less than $2.00 per week per household. Looks like the bargain of the century to me.