|
|
|
The biggest leaks are on likely on the supply side so metering won't take away the need to pay for that regardless how much you use individually.
freitasm:
No. The rates reduction is less than the water bill.
Thieves.
This happening was my first thought when three waters was initially announced. You have an additional organisation with its own administrative overhead, and the councils are taking the opportunity to keep some of the rate revenue. I wonder what the total cash grab is nation wide?
This is just how councils behave. For example, the Marlborough Council switched from bags, recycling tubs and collection being included in rates to wheelie-bins and collection being an additional charge, with no rates reduction. What are you gonna do?
Mike
MikeAqua:
freitasm:
No. The rates reduction is less than the water bill.
Thieves.
This happening was my first thought when three waters was initially announced. You have an additional organisation with its own administrative overhead, and the councils are taking the opportunity to keep some of the rate revenue. I wonder what the total cash grab is nation wide?
This is just how councils behave. For example, the Marlborough Council switched from bags, recycling tubs and collection being included in rates to wheelie-bins and collection being an additional charge, with no rates reduction. What are you gonna do?
The fundamental issue is that council kept getting elected by keeping rates rises below the rate required for asset basic asset maintenance. At the same time they resisted user pays for water because it was unpopular.
The only way to stop that happening is structural separation of water from other council activities. There's absolutely an overhead of cost that goes with it but if you don't want basic infrastructure to be a political football I'm not sure there is a better way.
cddt:
geoffwnz: the calculations being based on rateable value rather than actual use (not that we even have water meters).
Is there a reason Wellington doesn't have water meters?
Probably. You'd need to ask the various councils that question I guess.
Until now, it's always just been part of the supply and a component of the rates charge.
cddt:
geoffwnz: the calculations being based on rateable value rather than actual use (not that we even have water meters).
Is there a reason Wellington doesn't have water meters?
The ratepayers of Wellington kicked up a stink when the idea was mooted some years ago and the idea of water meters was shelved.
Interesting to see the experience of Kapiti residents where meters were put in place ~25 years ago.
Until meters were introduced, water restrictions were put in place most summers. Since meters, water restrictions have seldom, if ever, been required.
Turns out if something is free, people waste it. Who knew?
Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit, Wisdom is knowing not to put it in fruit salad.
cddt:
Is there a reason Wellington doesn't have water meters?
Expensive to buy - unless you make the rate payers pay for them. Expensive to install - unless you make the rate payers pay for that too. If you make the rate payers pay, they might vote you out!
The rate system is highly tweakable by councils. This gives the council considerable discretion about how much rates they collect and how. But then the exercise of that discretion becomes a big election issue. Hence the reason we have decades of underinvestment.
Mike
elpenguino:
The ratepayers of Wellington kicked up a stink when the idea was mooted some years ago and the idea of water meters was shelved.
Interesting to see the experience of Kapiti residents where meters were put in place ~25 years ago.
Until meters were introduced, water restrictions were put in place most summers. Since meters, water restrictions have seldom, if ever, been required.
Turns out if something is free, people waste it. Who knew?
We got meters in Whakatane maybe 30 years ago (I remember them going in when I was a kid, but no idea what the costs were like). We get separate rates and water bills. Water's crept up recently but is currently sitting at around $500/year for me (single person).
I don't believe it does, but it's very light on detail. I'd need to check the actual rates bill for mentions of water, but I don't have one handy.
Edit: Or I can look on the website!
Stormwater is on the general rates bill at $622.09 and Sewerage at $634.97.
MikeAqua:
cddt:
Is there a reason Wellington doesn't have water meters?
Expensive to buy - unless you make the rate payers pay for them. Expensive to install - unless you make the rate payers pay for that too. If you make the rate payers pay, they might vote you out!
The rate system is highly tweakable by councils. This gives the council considerable discretion about how much rates they collect and how. But then the exercise of that discretion becomes a big election issue. Hence the reason we have decades of underinvestment.
Former UK High Commissioner Laura Clarke said it best: "New Zealand has Scandinavian ambitions in terms of quality of life, but a US attitude to tax."
The British have the same issue: "The structural shortfall in public services arises from an awkward truth of British politics: we want to pay American taxes and expect European services. Truss’s champions splutter that the UK tax burden is the highest for 70 years. True, but Britons still pay significantly less tax than most of those Europeans who enjoy more generous services."
"I regret to say that we of the F.B.I. are powerless to act in cases of oral-genital intimacy, unless it has in some way obstructed interstate commerce." — J. Edgar Hoover
"Create a society that values material things above all else. Strip it of industry. Raise taxes for the poor and reduce them for the rich and for corporations. Prop up failed financial institutions with public money. Ask for more tax, while vastly reducing public services. Put adverts everywhere, regardless of people's ability to afford the things they advertise. Allow the cost of food and housing to eclipse people's ability to pay for them. Light blue touch paper." — Andrew Maxwell
deepred:
MikeAqua:
Expensive to buy - unless you make the rate payers pay for them. Expensive to install - unless you make the rate payers pay for that too. If you make the rate payers pay, they might vote you out!
The rate system is highly tweakable by councils. This gives the council considerable discretion about how much rates they collect and how. But then the exercise of that discretion becomes a big election issue. Hence the reason we have decades of underinvestment.
Former UK High Commissioner Laura Clarke said it best: "New Zealand has Scandinavian ambitions in terms of quality of life, but a US attitude to tax."
The British have the same issue: "The structural shortfall in public services arises from an awkward truth of British politics: we want to pay American taxes and expect European services. Truss’s champions splutter that the UK tax burden is the highest for 70 years. True, but Britons still pay significantly less tax than most of those Europeans who enjoy more generous services."
It's somewhat easier to accept higher taxes when you have a highly productive economy. Norway, Sweden and Denmark all 50% or more GDP per capita than NZ. There is a lot more money to go around.
elpenguino:
The ratepayers of Wellington kicked up a stink when the idea was mooted some years ago and the idea of water meters was shelved.
Interesting to see the experience of Kapiti residents where meters were put in place ~25 years ago.
Until meters were introduced, water restrictions were put in place most summers. Since meters, water restrictions have seldom, if ever, been required.
Turns out if something is free, people waste it. Who knew?
When meters were installed in Whitianga a couple of years ago and residents began to be charged for water separately, usage immediately dropped about 25%.
|
|
|