Rates affordability Debate

Community Wellbeing - Equality & Inclusion

Option 1

Residents supporting Option 1 emphasize the importance of maintaining and enhancing public services, particularly in areas like public transport and sustainability initiatives, which they believe are crucial for community wellbeing. They argue for a more equitable distribution of financial burdens, suggesting higher rates for wealthier landowners and those with properties fully paid off, to alleviate pressure on those less financially secure or with significant mortgages. Additionally, there is a call for creative solutions to reduce costs, such as increased community involvement in services, which could foster greater community engagement and resource efficiency.

Table of comments:

Point No	Comment
841.1	The services council provides are important. We also need to keep investing in infrastructure and ramping this up more.I also want to see more money spent on sustainability initiatives such as our public and active transport infrastructure.Rates decreases will also end up favouring those who already have money (own property), not those who really need the extra money the most. That said, I think we also need to be more creative with how we spend money and use resources. e.g Could there be more community involvement/volunteering to save council spending money on labour?...
894.1	Specifically not cutting community compost’s funding from the LTP (See more info/thoughts in last section) However, things like the infrastructure cost contribution to the mahitahi bayview subdivision could be cut as it shows councils support of said subdivision when that money could be used for other more future focused and thought out projects like composting and many others which won’t be a ticking time bomb waiting to cost much more in future flood events which as i’m sure you are aware we are currently still recovering from financially with this 300$ storm recovery per household on top of rates which I understand the cost is too big for council to pull out of thin air and make more debt. But, we don’t want to support projects that will set us up for more events like this. We need well thought out options like higher density housing in non-flood prone places as is now allowed for as of the last long term plan in some areas, not a money driven subdivision in a recently flooded area because no matter how much money is spent on drainage systems the mighty maitai will have the final say lets be real. The evidence can be seen from around the motu here in aotearoa and overseas like we have just seen in dubai. Also not only flood prone but of great recreational, cultural and ecological value the maitai valley would be forever changed by a whole subdivision. So I would support the mahitahi subdivision infrastructure cost being removed from the long term plan irrelevant of if the developers would likely pay it back. I would also hope NCC would do everything in their power to stop this subdivision as it will be NCC that would have to cover the costs of future flooding that would be much higher if said subdivision goes ahead, even if current councillors will have passed away or be out of council when the next flood happens. Also if possible i would love to see higher rates increases on people who have payed off their mortage for the property the rates are for, rather than the same for a first home buyer with a large mortgage and a 5+ properties investor with no mortages and lots of rental income
1003.1	I would prefer no service cuts and in fact an increase to public services, particularly support for public transport. It would be best if the rates could be further bracketed to take larger fees from wealthier land-owners, if this is within the council's power.
1009.1	I would in fact very much prefer an increase to public services - particularly that for public transport. It would also be best if the rates could be further bracketed to take larger amounts from our wealthier residents - if it would be possible for the council to do so.