Should Waiheke Island De-Amalgamated from Auckland Council?

Forums › Off topic › Should Waiheke Island De-Amalgamated from Auckland Council?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

20174 posts

Uber Geek

#1262437 19-Mar-2015 14:16

I don't think 20 million will go very far in running a council, and with a smaller population,the cost per property will likely be higher to run it due to lower scales of economy. You have all the staff that are needed, eg staff f building consents. You will need to setup a district plan and staff to police it. You will need to pay for CEO on a 200-300k salary and mayor, elected council. You will also need to inherit a proportion of the debt the auckland council has, as infrastructure, libraries, sewage plants etc, are usually built on debt, and paid off over 20 years.

Also I imagine that you would still need to pay a contribution to the Auckland council, as here in Wellington we have our local rates, but we also have regional rates, which pays for regional infrastructure and facilities, like the stadium. eg. You aren't a republic, you are part of the Auckland community. But you could always always try to become a republic.

cyberhub

224 posts

Master Geek

#1262441 19-Mar-2015 14:19

trig42:

... snip
So just based on those rough figures they balance themselves out. Based on those rough figures a majority of Waihekians don't go to Auckland.

What??

Find me someone who lives on Waiheke that does not go to Auckland. There may be a couple of hermits, but I'd say a vast majority do regularly go into the city and beyond. Those over 65 even more so since it costs them nothing to do so (and doesn't AT pay some of the Gold Card fares? - I thought they covered the after 5pm fares, or the evening rush hour ones).

Remember, there are Statistics, Damn Statistics and Lies. Your infographic means nothing to me without the source of the underlying data - it is just a pretty picture. THings cost more to do on Waiheke - you can't just drive things in (like roading machines) to do it. We know that when we move here (I didn't, I was only 2, but my parents, who are still there, did).

Trig42 you are right, what I meant to write is a vast majority of people from Waiheke don't daily commute to Auckland.

We don't have accurate figures on this but we think is about 2000 people commute a day into Auckland, and we know that in the last census that we have 8340 on the island. So that leaves approximately 6340 people from Waiheke that don't use Auckland infrastructure on a daily basis. Now these figures are old, and Our Waiheke are investigating this issue and will be updating those figures so we have clearer picture of how many people commute and what Auckland infrastructure they use once in Auckland.

It is interesting chatting to people on this subject, please actually have a look at the "pretty picture", you can do that here

http://www.ourwaiheke.co.nz/council-comparison/

What you would notice at the bottom of the "pretty picture" there is a breakdown of where the information came from. For those that can't be bothered reading it. The population statistics came from Stats NZ 2013 Census, the council information came from the respective Council websites. The websites are listed, so you can go and double check the information yourself.

If the stats in the "pretty picture" are right, how do you feel about paying more in rates (assuming you own your house) than other areas in similar populated areas and having less infrastructure? Also how do you feel about those rates going up a minimum of 70% over the next 10 years?

CyberHub - Hosting Made Simple

SpookyAwol

626 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1262455 19-Mar-2015 14:30

I see the initial supercity amalgamation as a way of sucking funds from other councils to fund what Auckland wants (rail loops, internal roading)

The suggestion it would be a more efficient system employing less people certainly wasnt true. Costs have kept going up....

An example - old Franklin District Council charged around $900 for a new home water connection. The same service by watercare costs $8000+......

mattwnz

20174 posts

Uber Geek

#1262459 19-Mar-2015 14:35

cyberhub:
trig42:

... snip
So just based on those rough figures they balance themselves out. Based on those rough figures a majority of Waihekians don't go to Auckland.

What??

Find me someone who lives on Waiheke that does not go to Auckland. There may be a couple of hermits, but I'd say a vast majority do regularly go into the city and beyond. Those over 65 even more so since it costs them nothing to do so (and doesn't AT pay some of the Gold Card fares? - I thought they covered the after 5pm fares, or the evening rush hour ones).

Remember, there are Statistics, Damn Statistics and Lies. Your infographic means nothing to me without the source of the underlying data - it is just a pretty picture. THings cost more to do on Waiheke - you can't just drive things in (like roading machines) to do it. We know that when we move here (I didn't, I was only 2, but my parents, who are still there, did).

Trig42 you are right, what I meant to write is a vast majority of people from Waiheke don't daily commute to Auckland.

We don't have accurate figures on this but we think is about 2000 people commute a day into Auckland, and we know that in the last census that we have 8340 on the island. So that leaves approximately 6340 people from Waiheke that don't use Auckland infrastructure on a daily basis. Now these figures are old, and Our Waiheke are investigating this issue and will be updating those figures so we have clearer picture of how many people commute and what Auckland infrastructure they use once in Auckland.

It is interesting chatting to people on this subject, please actually have a look at the "pretty picture", you can do that here

http://www.ourwaiheke.co.nz/council-comparison/

What you would notice at the bottom of the "pretty picture" there is a breakdown of where the information came from. For those that can't be bothered reading it. The population statistics came from Stats NZ 2013 Census, the council information came from the respective Council websites. The websites are listed, so you can go and double check the information yourself.

If the stats in the "pretty picture" are right, how do you feel about paying more in rates (assuming you own your house) than other areas in similar populated areas and having less infrastructure? Also how do you feel about those rates going up a minimum of 70% over the next 10 years?

Those people who aren't working are still benefiting from those that do work, which are those that use Aucklands infrastructure on a daily basis, as the ones that do work in Auckland are the ones making much of the money that comes onto the island. Also rates are done per property or household, so on average you probably have almost all households with someone who is using Aucklands infrastructure regually. Not unless you plan to rate per person, which is a fairer way to rate, but more difficult to do.

You have to remember that you are choosing to live an a piece of paradise, that other people in Auckland don't get the opportunity to live in, and that comes at a cost. Building costs more, services cost more, smaller economies of scale and distance cost. So you have to expect less services etc. It is the same in the Wairarapa, many people pay the same or more in rates, but don't get the facilities that Wellington ratepayers get.

mattwnz

20174 posts

Uber Geek

#1262463 19-Mar-2015 14:37

SpookyAwol: I see the initial supercity amalgamation as a way of sucking funds from other councils to fund what Auckland wants (rail loops, internal roading) The suggestion it would be a more efficient system employing less people certainly wasnt true. Costs have kept going up.... An example - old Franklin District Council charged around $900 for a new home water connection. The same service by watercare costs $8000+......

$9k sounds a lot. Probably cheaper to buy a tank and get water off the roof.

Geektastic

17944 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1263490 19-Mar-2015 15:32

I propose the whole of NZ become a single Supercity. It will still be smaller than New York.

mattwnz

20174 posts

Uber Geek

#1263503 19-Mar-2015 15:49

Geektastic: I propose the whole of NZ become a single Supercity. It will still be smaller than New York.

Basically let it be central government run. Perhaps have a poll tax instead of basing rates on properties, so people are paying a fairer share of costs, as currently people in expesive properties are subsidising people in cheaper ones, so rates are are currently a type of wealth tax, which are aren't supposed to be

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

trig42

5816 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#1263504 19-Mar-2015 15:51

cyberhub:
trig42:

... snip
So just based on those rough figures they balance themselves out. Based on those rough figures a majority of Waihekians don't go to Auckland.

What??

Find me someone who lives on Waiheke that does not go to Auckland. There may be a couple of hermits, but I'd say a vast majority do regularly go into the city and beyond. Those over 65 even more so since it costs them nothing to do so (and doesn't AT pay some of the Gold Card fares? - I thought they covered the after 5pm fares, or the evening rush hour ones).

Remember, there are Statistics, Damn Statistics and Lies. Your infographic means nothing to me without the source of the underlying data - it is just a pretty picture. THings cost more to do on Waiheke - you can't just drive things in (like roading machines) to do it. We know that when we move here (I didn't, I was only 2, but my parents, who are still there, did).

Trig42 you are right, what I meant to write is a vast majority of people from Waiheke don't daily commute to Auckland.

We don't have accurate figures on this but we think is about 2000 people commute a day into Auckland, and we know that in the last census that we have 8340 on the island. So that leaves approximately 6340 people from Waiheke that don't use Auckland infrastructure on a daily basis. Now these figures are old, and Our Waiheke are investigating this issue and will be updating those figures so we have clearer picture of how many people commute and what Auckland infrastructure they use once in Auckland.

It is interesting chatting to people on this subject, please actually have a look at the "pretty picture", you can do that here

http://www.ourwaiheke.co.nz/council-comparison/

What you would notice at the bottom of the "pretty picture" there is a breakdown of where the information came from. For those that can't be bothered reading it. The population statistics came from Stats NZ 2013 Census, the council information came from the respective Council websites. The websites are listed, so you can go and double check the information yourself.

If the stats in the "pretty picture" are right, how do you feel about paying more in rates (assuming you own your house) than other areas in similar populated areas and having less infrastructure? Also how do you feel about those rates going up a minimum of 70% over the next 10 years?

IMO you are still skewing statistics.

Since you obviously have Census figures, how many of those 8340 people don't work? Under 18, over 65? On benefits?

I'd say more than half of Waiheke's Working Population commute. There are simply not that many jobs on Waiheke (I'd say the Council could actually be one of the biggest employers - lots of wages to come out of your $20m!). I'd work on Waiheke if I could.

How much does rubbish removal cost? Bet its not cheap (or is your groups plan to give it back to a certain somebody who lost the contract a few years back?).

$20m is not enough to run Waiheke. And with the way the current Local Board seems to look after it's members own interests (just my opinion, looking from the outside in), I wouldn't trust them with $20, let alone $20m. They are far too left leaning, and everyone knows a left leaning government spends up large (look at Auckland Council!). I don't want to pay for that. Better the devil we know I say.

With regard to rates rises, would you be saying that any new governance would not impose a similar rates rise? In 10 years (if the last 10 are anything to go by) property values will increase 100%, a 70% rates increase over that time is actually a saving is it not (if based on property value)?

On another point, since you seem to have all the numbers - what percentage of eligible voters voted in the last local body elections on Waiheke? My thinking is that not enough people care about LB politics, and Waiheke would be hostage to the minority that do and their beliefs and opinions (until it got so bad that the everyperson got sick of it and got rid of them). I do not know anyone in my circle of acquaintances that voted for more than one person on the current board (that they admit to anyway). I know even fewer who would vote for any of them again.

trig42

5816 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#1263509 19-Mar-2015 16:05

mattwnz:
cyberhub:
trig42:

... snip
So just based on those rough figures they balance themselves out. Based on those rough figures a majority of Waihekians don't go to Auckland.

What??

Find me someone who lives on Waiheke that does not go to Auckland. There may be a couple of hermits, but I'd say a vast majority do regularly go into the city and beyond. Those over 65 even more so since it costs them nothing to do so (and doesn't AT pay some of the Gold Card fares? - I thought they covered the after 5pm fares, or the evening rush hour ones).

Remember, there are Statistics, Damn Statistics and Lies. Your infographic means nothing to me without the source of the underlying data - it is just a pretty picture. THings cost more to do on Waiheke - you can't just drive things in (like roading machines) to do it. We know that when we move here (I didn't, I was only 2, but my parents, who are still there, did).

Trig42 you are right, what I meant to write is a vast majority of people from Waiheke don't daily commute to Auckland.

We don't have accurate figures on this but we think is about 2000 people commute a day into Auckland, and we know that in the last census that we have 8340 on the island. So that leaves approximately 6340 people from Waiheke that don't use Auckland infrastructure on a daily basis. Now these figures are old, and Our Waiheke are investigating this issue and will be updating those figures so we have clearer picture of how many people commute and what Auckland infrastructure they use once in Auckland.

It is interesting chatting to people on this subject, please actually have a look at the "pretty picture", you can do that here

http://www.ourwaiheke.co.nz/council-comparison/

What you would notice at the bottom of the "pretty picture" there is a breakdown of where the information came from. For those that can't be bothered reading it. The population statistics came from Stats NZ 2013 Census, the council information came from the respective Council websites. The websites are listed, so you can go and double check the information yourself.

If the stats in the "pretty picture" are right, how do you feel about paying more in rates (assuming you own your house) than other areas in similar populated areas and having less infrastructure? Also how do you feel about those rates going up a minimum of 70% over the next 10 years?

Those people who aren't working are still benefiting from those that do work, which are those that use Aucklands infrastructure on a daily basis, as the ones that do work in Auckland are the ones making much of the money that comes onto the island. Also rates are done per property or household, so on average you probably have almost all households with someone who is using Aucklands infrastructure regually. Not unless you plan to rate per person, which is a fairer way to rate, but more difficult to do.

You have to remember that you are choosing to live an a piece of paradise, that other people in Auckland don't get the opportunity to live in, and that comes at a cost. Building costs more, services cost more, smaller economies of scale and distance cost. So you have to expect less services etc. It is the same in the Wairarapa, many people pay the same or more in rates, but don't get the facilities that Wellington ratepayers get.

Exactly.
3 People in my household. I am in Auckland daily, they are in Auckland at least monthly, if not more.

As for the Paradise thing - agreed - we know what we are getting into - it should cost more to live there (freight etc.).

As for Rates - we own a house in Napier. It has a GV of $330000. Rates on it ($1600, 0.4848% of value) are proportionally higher than our house on Waiheke - GV $480000 (about $1880 pa (.3917% of value). Smaller Council (Napier) = Higher Rates.

And, since I'm looking - One of the councils you are comparing to - I picked a random street from google maps:
2 Summit Drive Otorohanga - CV $255000. Rates $2404.90. Is that what Our Waiheke is comparing to? No thank you.

old3eyes

9120 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1263512 19-Mar-2015 16:09

SpookyAwol: I see the initial supercity amalgamation as a way of sucking funds from other councils to fund what Auckland wants (rail loops, internal roading) The suggestion it would be a more efficient system employing less people certainly wasnt true. Costs have kept going up.... An example - old Franklin District Council charged around $900 for a new home water connection. The same service by watercare costs $8000+......

Heard the other day it was $13K inc GST. Also building consents have gone up about $1k in the past 12 months..

Regards,

Old3eyes

Technofreak

6531 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1263607 19-Mar-2015 18:05

trig42:

As for Rates - we own a house in Napier. It has a GV of $330000. Rates on it ($1600, 0.4848% of value) are proportionally higher than our house on Waiheke - GV $480000 (about $1880 pa (.3917% of value). Smaller Council (Napier) = Higher Rates.

Hmmm, Not a fair comparison I think to use rates as percentage of GV. I think it'd be a fair assumption that the average GV in Auckland is higher than the average GV in Napier. Therefore for the same rate take you would expect the percentage of GV to be smaller.

One fair way would be to compare the rates on two identical properties, one in each location, and compare rates.

What each property owner pays is what really matters.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

trig42

5816 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#1263684 19-Mar-2015 20:20

Technofreak:
trig42:

As for Rates - we own a house in Napier. It has a GV of $330000. Rates on it ($1600, 0.4848% of value) are proportionally higher than our house on Waiheke - GV $480000 (about $1880 pa (.3917% of value). Smaller Council (Napier) = Higher Rates.

Hmmm, Not a fair comparison I think to use rates as percentage of GV. I think it'd be a fair assumption that the average GV in Auckland is higher than the average GV in Napier. Therefore for the same rate take you would expect the percentage of GV to be smaller.

One fair way would be to compare the rates on two identical properties, one in each location, and compare rates.

What each property owner pays is what really matters.

No, probably not fair. The house in Napier is 4 bed 145sq m. Waiheke is 3 bed about 100sq m. Waiheke land size is a teice as large though.

The Otorohanga rates comparison I quickly did though may be more relevant. I'm

cyberhub

224 posts

Master Geek

#1263766 20-Mar-2015 00:30

Hi Trig42,
Thanks for posting your Waiheke house valuation and rates amount. I have done a rough calculation to forecast what your rates will be in 10 years time under the current rates proposal from Auckland Council. Something to bear in mind is that Auckland Council are proposing residential rates to increase by 5.6% compounding every year. People underestimate the power of compounding increases, not only that your house price is going to up in value too right!

I have some good news and some bad news for you.

According to Westpac Auckland house prices are increase at around 11-17.5% per year http://www.westpac.co.nz/rednews/property/investor-alert-the-hot-suburbs-right-now/

I have used 10% capital gains as an average as we may have some boom and bust years but generally we all know that house prices go up, so 10% is a conservative figure I think, I have heard that lately it has been more like double that on Waiheke.

Good news is that your house is going to be valued at more than $1.1million in 10 years, the bad news is that you may not be able to afford it as if Waiheke is still part of Auckland Council then your rates are going to be around $7,239 per year.

I have just created a Google Sheet so you or anyone else can play with the figures http://www.ourwaiheke.co.nz/auckland-council-rates-increase-calculator/

Please feel free to check my calculations to ensure they are correct.

CyberHub - Hosting Made Simple

mattwnz

20174 posts

Uber Geek

#1263768 20-Mar-2015 01:06

I can't see Auckland house prices increasing 10% a year, as they are already overprices. There is going to be a correction at some stage, although probably won't be until interest rates rise, as cheap credit and lack of supply that is fueling it. In Wellington since the GFC prices have been relatively static, so they don't always go up. But even if houses prices do go up, so will everyones, so proportionally you will be paying around the same in rates + a percentage a year, unless proportionally yours rise by more. They shouldn't however be going up by more than inflation. That is possibly why some people are paying a lot more now, because proportionally their house value has gone up more than others. But as rates are a wealth tax now, that is a cost of living in an expensive house and area.

SpookyAwol

626 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1263782 20-Mar-2015 07:07

old3eyes:
SpookyAwol: I see the initial supercity amalgamation as a way of sucking funds from other councils to fund what Auckland wants (rail loops, internal roading) The suggestion it would be a more efficient system employing less people certainly wasnt true. Costs have kept going up.... An example - old Franklin District Council charged around $900 for a new home water connection. The same service by watercare costs $8000+......

Heard the other day it was $13K inc GST. Also building consents have gone up about $1k in the past 12 months..

I wouldnt be surprised - we were lucky enough to get in under the old Council. Quite a few other compliance costs have been hiked since then (eg waste water costs) - directly due to amalgamation.

There have been no cost benefits for us at all.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5