Rates affordability Debate
Environmental Benefits - Sustainability
Option 1
Residents supporting Option 1 emphasize the importance of maintaining and enhancing services that contribute to environmental sustainability, such as composting, environmental monitoring, and public transport infrastructure. They argue that investing in these areas, despite higher rates, is crucial for long-term environmental health and sustainability. Additionally, they highlight the need for responsible financial planning that does not defer costs to future generations, advocating for immediate investment in sustainable practices and infrastructure to avoid greater future costs and environmental impact.
Table of comments:
| Point No | Comment |
|---|---|
| 275.1 | dont have a problem with rates increases as long as the money is spent appropriately with an environmentally sustainable long term plan |
| 500.1 | I particulary support increased environmental monitoring and maintenance of key infrastructure, maintainance and increase of public transport and cycling network and investment in arts and community facilities |
| 534.1 | Support option 1 - maintaining and improving current services and standards. Noone wants a rates increase, however it's critical we appropriately fund infrastructure and invest in the thriving region we all desire. It's not acceptable or responsible to defer and pass on costs to the next generation. Support the recommendations which emerged from the Review into the Future of Local Government (Future for Local Government Review - dia.govt.nz), particularly those pertaining to funding. Would like to see NCC advocate for the implementation of these recommendations, including increasing central government funding. This will relieve pressure on rate payers. |
| 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?... |
| 884.1 | Use the money to keep composting |
| 885.1 | Keep composting on the long-term plan and use these issues to save money and put it towards environmental initiatives instead! |
| 886.1 | Save Compostin! |
| 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 |
| 923.1 | Keep composting on the long term plan and use the higher rates to pay for it |
| 948.1 | As mentioned above it is presumed that the Eco Design Advisor service is proposed as a service cut under Option 2 to maintain rates affordability. We agree that affordability is a key issue and critical to get right to ensure households in Nelson City are not pushed into financial hardship especially during a cost-of-living crisis. Financial hardship is often linked with a sacrifice of winter heating resulting in unhealthy indoor environments which can lead to poor health outcomes (particularly respiratory illness).Removing the FREE Eco Design Advisor service removes a key support function for households to understand and reduce their energy consumption and alleviate household energy costs. Most Eco Design Advisors also provide advice to support households to reduce their water consumption and in turn reduce water costs. Eco Design Advisors can be empowered with meter data to support their visits and target water efficiency advice where water consumption flags exist.By removing this service, the Council removes a key support function for households to reduce their operational costs exacerbating affordability.Eco Design Advice provided for new build projects supports residents and developers to achieve more energy efficient housing which is resilient to a changing climate. Improved energy efficiency outcomes result in less energy and emissions over the life of the asset. This has the potential to mitigate affordability issues for future generations. |
| 958.1 | Fewer cuts specifically to community compost. See their submission for why. |
| 1028.1 | Although many Nelsonians are currently grappling with the cost of living crisis, I worry that lowering services will derail Nelson's long term goals and objectives. We have a lot of work to do before we can really call ourselves: 'The Smartest Little City,' we have a CBD that lacks vibrancy and we're losing businesses to the Tasman region. Revitalising the CBD is going to take a lot of resources before we can have a bustling city centre. We do not have a curbside composting solution, diverting food waste is one of the easiest and most effective way to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. Becoming a more sustainable community, with a more developed CBD will make Nelson a more desirable place to live, but will require investment. |
| 1098.1 | I would be happy to see some cuts in services, but I support keeping rates high enough to comfortably cover our environmental needs, for example environmental monitoring and activity such as weed control, environmental restoration, bike paths, etc. |
| 1108.1 | I am disappointed to see that you are removing public rubbish bins. I think this is short-sighted and will lead to more rubbish around the city. We do need rubbish bins that rubbish cant blow out of. Happy however to finally see some recycling bins around town. (Good to see that we are finally realising that we are now in the 21st century. Now we just need to recycle it instead of people wasting precious time to sort and wash rubbish only for it to end up in landfill !!!) |
| 1273.1 | Ensuring that we have enough money to maintain our infrastructure and continue to move towards achieving climate change emission targets will pay off in the long run. |