jonathan18:[snip]  the oldest brat’s uni studies… 

 

🤣

It's like a tax change, pay central government less taxes but pay local government more taxes. And the latter went up more than the cut of the former.

I'm so surprised there aren't huge complaints around councils - rates up by 20% for some of them.

Zeon:

 

I'm so surprised there aren't huge complaints around councils - rates up by 20% for some of them.

 

It's a consequence of councils not charging greenfield development fees equal to the cost to service the new suburbs with infrastructure. Instead we (the ratepayers) get to subsidise either developers' margins or house buyers' purchase prices. 

k1w1k1d:

 

+$15.92/week. Single income, no kids.

 

Bang on what I also got. Same as you, single income no kids.

cddt:

 

Zeon:

 

I'm so surprised there aren't huge complaints around councils - rates up by 20% for some of them.

 

 

It's a consequence of councils not charging greenfield development fees equal to the cost to service the new suburbs with infrastructure. Instead we (the ratepayers) get to subsidise either developers' margins or house buyers' purchase prices. 

 

how do you figure that? councils offload as much cost as possible onto developers. that actually causes increases in housing prices and the fix (which they have not done) is to spread the cost over rate payers. 

main reasons i see for increased rates is inflation, deferred maintenance (because people didn't want small rate increases 20-40 years ago to cover maintenance) and of course 3 waters saga.

tweake:

 

how do you figure that? councils offload as much cost as possible onto developers. that actually causes increases in housing prices and the fix (which they have not done) is to spread the cost over rate payers. 

 

Because multiple studies have found that developer contributions on greenfield developments only cover a small portion of the actual cost of providing new infrastructure. 

E.g. Drury - the initial developments were charged development contributions of between $11,000 and $18,300 per dwelling, despite the cost of transport infrastructure alone being forecast at more than $100,000 per dwelling! Fortunately this has now been increased but still doesn't come close to covering even half the actual costs... 

Spreading the cost of new developments over all existing ratepayers is exactly what has been done for decades and is being done today, and is the reason there hasn't been enough money for maintaining and renewing existing infrastructure. We ratepayers are getting mugged so that our prime horticultural land can be concreted over. I shake my head in despair. 

And as evidence to the above, since you're misinformed about the proportion of costs developers have to pay: https://businessdesk.co.nz/article/infrastructure/drury-developers-on-the-hook-for-1b-in-contributions

"Developers of the Drury-Ōpaheke township south of Auckland will pick up a quarter of the estimated $4.2 billion infrastructure price tag."

This is after Auckland Council went back to the drawing board to increase the development contribution. And the developers are still threatening legal action over it. 

Who do you think pays for the rest? 

jonathan18:

 

At the risk of being accused of being one of the four Yorkshiremen - I can only but dream of a performance bonus! 

 

Thanks for the YouTube link. Thoroughly enjoyed the sketch and some of the Comments are funny as well.

cddt:

 

Because multiple studies have found that developer contributions on greenfield developments only cover a small portion of the actual cost of providing new infrastructure. 

 

E.g. Drury - the initial developments were charged development contributions of between $11,000 and $18,300 per dwelling, despite the cost of transport infrastructure alone being forecast at more than $100,000 per dwelling! Fortunately this has now been increased but still doesn't come close to covering even half the actual costs... 

 

Spreading the cost of new developments over all existing ratepayers is exactly what has been done for decades and is being done today, and is the reason there hasn't been enough money for maintaining and renewing existing infrastructure. We ratepayers are getting mugged so that our prime horticultural land can be concreted over. I shake my head in despair. 

 

that sounds like the council didn't realize that their sewage/water/road etc wasn't big enough to cope. that will vary massively case by case. just had one block split up here, all that was required was some roading repaired. another block just up the road required having the road widened and that cost made the sub division to expensive so they canned it. 

most of the ones i know of around here they make developers pay as much as they can, including changing it half way through devolvement when they have to much invested to stop.

the problem is the cost gets puts onto the housing market and generally pushed down the ladder. those who buy into the subdivision don't pay it, some poor fhber in another part of the country pays for it.