Post-Script on The LTCCP 2009 -2019

LTCCP 2009-2019 voting record on some big expenditure items in the worst recession in 100 years. For the record I was joined by Councillors Steph Cook, Leonie Gill and Helene Ritchie in opposing the continued switch of commercial rates onto the residents rates bill. Foster and Pannett voted with me in opposing the Indoor Community Sports Centre funding. I alone opposed the extra $450,000 to the Marine Education Centre for a further feasibility study (they have already received close to $791,000). So much for living within our means with Gross Borrowings now $322,954,000 and rising. Cr Bryan Pepperell Wellington City

A QUESTION OF AFFORDABILITY AND RATES FOR WELLINGTON CITY / WHY WE HAVE FAILED WITH OUR LTCCP 2009-2019

From: Bryan Pepperell [mailto:Bryan.Pepperell@wcc.govt.nz]
Sent: Sunday, 28 June 2009 2:17 p.m.
To: Kerry Prendergast; Councillors (Councillors)
Cc: Dave Burgess (DPT); wellington-residents-coalition@googlegroups.com; Tom; Jim Candiliotis; Island Bay Residents' Association (Te Roopu Kainga O Paekawakawa); Bryan Pepperell

Subject: A QUESTION OF AFFORDABILITY AND RATES FOR WELLINGTON CITY / WHY WE HAVE FAILED WITH OUR LTCCP 2009-2019

JUDGMENT DATE 24/05/1996 Decision of :RICHARDSON P

The following is taken from “IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND” BETWEEN WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL

Appellant

AND WOOLWORTHS NEW ZEALND LIMITED AND OTHERS….

Page 19

Conclusion

“Rating is essentially a matter for decision by elected representatives following the statutory process and exercising the choices available to them. The breadth and generalityof the empowering provisions applying to territorial authorities and affecting the general rate and differential rating (in contrast with user charges and special purposes authorities), make it clear that rating was not intended to be a calculation of benefits and allocation of the incidence of rates by reference to the outcome. The very complexity and inherent subjectivity of any benefit allocation for these specified outputs points away from using relative benefit as a definitive criterion. The relative inter-dependence of the commercial and residential sectors suggests a degree of artificiality in any such exercise. The various assessments in this case, so apparently intuitive and unable to be supported by empirical data as they are, demonstrate this. Quite reasonably, Mr Sanders’ second assessment was not taken by the Council as determinative. It was attempting to arrive at a very broad brush measure of relative benefits. At best his assessment was indicative of justification for moving the ratio to favour commerce to some
extent. Neither as a matter of law nor on the evidence in the case could Mr Sanders’ assessment be required to be regarded as the primary consideration.”

Later on Page 20 of the same Judgment

Result
The Appeal Court states “ Rating requires the exercise of political judgment by the elected representatives of the community. The economic, social and political assessments involved are complex. The Legislature has chosen not to specify the substantive criteria but rather to leave the overall judgment to be made in the round by the elected representatives. Unlike Mackenzie this is not one of those extreme cases meeting the stringent test for impugning the rating determinations. We allow the appeals, quash the orders made by Ellis J in the two judgments and dismiss the statement of claim.”


On page 4 of the short version of “Your City Your Say” of the LTCCP 2009-2019 it says “we are gradually reducing the amount that the commercial sector subsidises the resident.” That statement is not appropriate when it is set against the above Court Of Appeal Ruling. It is also a misleading justification for moving the differential in the general rate.

Recently it was argued that the business sector received very little benefit from the library and that was a further justification for shifting more of the rates burden from the commercial sector onto the resident’s rates bill. Apart from factual considerations of the amount of commercial publications held in the library which could be argued to contradict such an assertion, the existence of the library enhances the community that business exists in. One could argue that a much heavier subsidy should come from the business community because of the value libraries add to the community as a whole. It is not businesses or corporations but people who pay rates and they are individuals who can either pass on their rates or cannot. Given that it is not business that pays rates but people, where does the notion of subsidy lie? The council document is subjective and political and misleading in the way it puts its case.

Councillor Bryan Pepperell
Wellington City

WATER NOT FOR PROFIT

A MAN TO REMEMBER / MICHAEL TRIM

Monday 15th June, a day to remember.

Michael John Trim

1954 --- 1992

Wellington Motorcyclist.

You'll never walk alone

Save Manners Mall / The second battle!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtHOHWnkVlQ

Buses to go through Manners Mall

Hi – I’m sorry to say we lost this battle today.

Those voting against opening Manners mall to buses were:

Councillors Bryan Pepperell, Leonie Gill, Hayley Wain and Jo Coughlan

Special thanks to the Facebook Group Save Manners Mall and WGTN LOVE MANNERS MALL (Maria)

Cheers

Bryan Pepperell

www.pepptalk.net

Misrepresentation bound to succeed!!

Don't forget-its called democracy, NZHERALD, May 25, 2009.
Sir,

Mr Rudman's comment about ``proportional representation'' for Auckland points to the real faults causing the present embarrassing mess in Auckland. First, we should have had ``regional'' MPs instead of these list MPs with no formal attachment to any community base. We had a 1986 royal commission visiting five European countries. But this ignored what was occurring in Germany, and has now spread to Scotland and Wales. These two countries now have a proportion of MPs accountable to their regions. This is what Auckland, and all other properly constituted regions here urgently need. But ``Super City'' simply leaves out many rural areas and must induce confusion about the proper accountable management of the various valuable public utilities in this wider region.

Another problem must occur down the track regards the role of the confused collection of Wellington based departments and agencies now trying to advise Government and Parliament in this matter. None of these are capable of producing the sort of Report
as the late MInistry of Works and Development(MWD), with the help of Treasury and Internal Affairs, did in 1977. Entitled AUCKLAND:THE COSTS OF GROWTH, this 200 page study pulled together all, repeat all the total capital investment planned by all state agencies and local bodies. In a surprising twist, the decisions on the priorities for this huge programme were to be decided by a Joint Committee with strong local and transparent representation. I think Mr Rudman would call this ``democracy''. But how Auckland, in any form, is to now handle its fifty billion dollars worth of physical assets, will indeed be a spectacle to watch, that's if we can see!!



Tom McRae,
BA, MA(Hons), Dip.Aer.Eng.
Constitutional and Parliamentary Consultant.
28a Weka Road,
Raumati Beach,
Kapiti,
Wellington Region 5032,
NEW ZEALAND.

Tele; +64-4-905-1854
Email: atthemountains@paradise.net.nz
Website: www.Reddfish.Co.NZ/TomMcRae