PLEASE CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGEPLEASE CLICK HERE TO READ THE STORY ONLINE
There is likely to be a debate about what is an equitable or reasonable rate to pay to provide the services a city's citizens depend upon. There is quite a bit of subjectivity in the idea equability but it is something every ratepayer is looking for.
Mayor van Zetten says in the Examiner today that "the rating system deemed to be the most equitable will be implemented for the 2012-13 financial year." Is he saying that the present system, and the proposed rates for 2011-12 are inequitable? You would be forgiven for thinking so.
The Examiner reports that the Aldermen have been told that Ald. Ball's ambition to implement changes to rates for the 2011-12 budget "was impossible," presumably by GM Dobrzynski. By what criteria? It may take some time and effort but an inequitable rating system should not be tolerated by Aldermen, the ratepayers' representatives.
Mr. Dobrzynski, in a communication to the TRA, has said that the "comparisons with Boorandara City Council [and LCC] reflect a fundamental misunderstanding on the way the rating system works." If you were to be paying rates in both jurisdictions there would certainly be a lack of understanding in regard to the differences between your two rate bills. It is open to conjecture as whether or not it would be a "fundamental misunderstanding of the rating system" or not.
It seems that Launceston City Council deems that rate equity is a matter of discretion rather than anything to do with the quality of being fair and impartial: equity of treatment. Its seems that it has been deemed that Launceston's ratepayers can wait for it, however long that may take.
Petar Hill
2 comments:
In 2007, the Local Government Association (LCC is a principal member) told the Commonwealth's Productivity Commission in context of the burden imposed on individuals using traditional property value based rating, that "It does not recognise the circumstance of being cash poor but asset rich. While the family home may be considered a premium asset, particularly in the case of many elderly Australians, the low level of disposable income and the inability or lack of desire to realise on that asset, makes a property based system of taxation particularly insensitive to the plight of many community members in a council area.
Capacity to pay is not a factor that councils are able to arbitrate upon because they do not have access to income information. General rates are therefore based on a notion of fairness.
While rating remains a progressive taxation arrangement, based on property value and a notional concept of capacity to pay, the consumption of particular products and services is deemed to be more fairly or appropriately paid for based on actual cost. This has seen a stronger emphasis on userpay principles being adopted across councils."
So, LCC, Why are you nor adhering to these views? Why are you not charging at least the flat rate of $550 instead of only $120? with the rest based on an inequitable AAV rating system.
Was this consultation just a cynical exercise because you NEVER had any intention of changing the rating basis this year at all?
While ever councilors and aldermen, this goes for any council, devolve important policy making to their functionaries their constituency is NOT being represented, or at least not well represented.
When constituents see these functionaries play the consultation game with thick reports and text filled powerpoint slides flicking past their eyes at 100 miles per hour it should tell them something. It is a rather old trick.
Not only are these people being, very poor communicators, or are they? Anyone who studies these things can tell you that a POWER DRESSED official presenting a word dense slide show can read the signs. This class of presenter is being self serving and deliberately opaque. Why? Maybe its actually transparent because you can see right through them if you care to look hard enough.
The real worry is when the councilors and aldermen let these people do all the talking and "speak for them." Its worse still when they are allowed to do most of the thinking too. This is a clear sign that they have abandoned their constituents to the wolves. Forget any idea of "equity" or representation.
From all accounts this was the kind of consultation process Launceston's ratepayers have just been through. Its not the kind consultation the shareholders of a large corporation would tolerate.
Why do the representatives of ratepayers put up with this kind of thing?
Post a Comment