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
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
posted by pepptalk at 7:39 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home