'Ratepayers group seen as vital after rises.” 'Recreation cost may be met from uniform charge.” 'New charge called unfair.” 'Legal opinion puts end to charges review suggestion.” 'Cost increases during 21 years.” 'Council prunes $200,000 from estimates.” 'Council slashes $450,000 from estimates.” '‘Catch' to rate cut.” 'Finance for local
bodies welcomed.” And many more similar headlines.

You might think that these headlines are from recent newspapers, but you would be wrong. They are actual headlines from the Bay Times of February/March 1982. I wrote a couple of weeks ago that the more things change, the more they stay the same.
This set me thinking about the situation that catapulted me into local government in the 1983 Council elections. So I dug out a folder of old newspaper clippings kindly sent to me many years after, by Mr and Mrs Barrett and I see that issues facing the city remain pretty much the same despite amalgamations, massive rates hikes, fiddling with the rating base, (capital value and removal of differential rates) runaway growth, expanding bureaucracy, even creation of another unneeded layer of local government and we still have too much of the ‘wants, needs and deserves' mentality. And not enough money from a large portion of ‘ungrateful' ratepayers who don't ‘want, need or deserve' a lot of services foisted on them by people who ‘know' what it is that the city really needs.

Massive rates revolt
It was this situation that saw the 1980-1983 Council, lead by then Mayor Roy Dillon, to propose a 30% rate revenue increase that saw a massive rates revolt focused by a meeting organised by Rob Moores and I in the Town Hall on March 3, 1982. Around 1500 angry ratepayers turned up, much to our amazement.
As an aside I remember the date well as I had inadvertently double-booked the evening, forgetting it was my wife's birthday. I had assured her I wouldn't be long, as we were only expecting the usual 50 or so ardent ratepayers to turn up. I haven't forgotten since! Women get funny over that sort of thing I discovered.

Distractions against real issues
So it was with some amazement that I was told by Mayor Stuart Crosby that he had had a call from a well known local identity telling him to put the rates up 30% and be done with it once and for all.
Even though Stuart didn't get on the City Council until 1989, he has a long memory and reminded his informant of the consequences of this ‘I know better' mentality. A lot of the old guard were outed and some of those that got back on were with much reduced majorities. That's what will happen again if elected members were to try that one again; which this Council certainly won't. Throwing money around will solve nothing and neither will amalgamations. They are mere distractions to take minds off real issues. This works short-term but long-term, if evidenced by 1982-2007, events evolve regardless.

Value of basic services
If you were given $10,000 to spend on your home, you would spend it; $100,000 would make it a bit flasher but in most cases not add much value or improve its capacity to protect you from the elements – just like Council's basic services.
What's happened is that money for Council's basic services out of the total rate demand has been siphoned off for ‘flasher' social services like operating expenses in libraries, ($7 million) museum, ($600,000) art gallery, ($800,000) swimming pools, ($1.5m). Like the home analogy above, if you make more money available, the system will soon get rid of it. The big money munching machine!
The point of all this is that there is no fix for this, like they are trying in Auckland, like increasing rates 30%, until you change the whole basis of funding. This includes realistic user pays, targeted rates and a citizens' community levy (to fund social services) based on income and abolishing the general rate tax on property.

In the media spotlight
I see Environment BOP, the regional council, has been given the green light to evacuate from Whakatane to move to Tauranga at a quoted cost to ratepayers of around $800,000 for the court case alone.
Apparently they will move gradually into Regency House, where the IRD are presently housed, as the various current leases expire. In my opinion, given the fact that it does exist, it was a travesty that it ever was based in Whakatane. EBOP grew out of the Catchment Commission – basically a drainage control authority pre-1989 that attempted flood control on the plains. Tauranga City ratepayers were compelled to pay a levy to help fund flood control works down there.
Outrageous! If EBOP survives then I predict a massive increase in their funding requirements.
Except that a move to Tauranga should put them under a media spotlight like we are at City Hall. This could bring them up with a round turn, having largely escaped the media during the past 20 years. But a Super Council amalgamation anywhere, including Auckland, will not solve anything.

Creative accounting
I see Jane Nees, a Tauranga based regional councillor for EBOP, quoted in the Bay Times showing 'only” a $20 or so rate increase for Tauranga EBOP ratepayers. It is hard to figure the initial media release of a 2.4% rate decrease. I make it around 18% increase for my rate 'decrease”. Very creative accounting! Of course Jane didn't mention that the other 50% or so of EBOP's insatiable demand for more and more of our money comes from dividends from EBOP held shares in the Port Company.
This money is your money but another effect of it being applied to keep your rates down is that it masks the real expenditure levels. Quite misleading and naughty in my view.

Conclusive poll results
TECT poll results are out. Over 56% of vote papers returned. Around 80% for Option A. That's for continuation of a continuation of 20% of TECT dividend to community. Wow! That's a pretty conclusive outcome and now maybe there can be a return to normality with perhaps a little more thought and support for all the projects that TECT helps fund, from Waipuna Hospice to the Brownie packs. Our community structures have fallen on hard times with the downturn in volunteers. TECT support makes up for a part of this and perhaps this issue being brought to a head will refocus on just what we stand to lose.