Posts by Sacha
-
If the process was in any way open, we might have cause to be less cynical
-
And this isn't an accident
I'll say. It's all part of a pattern of deliberate transfer of benefit from citizens to developers, corporates and wealthier ratepayers, and it has been going on since the Royal Commission reported back, including related appointments and legislation.
-
The Auckland Transition Agency is setting the fees chargeable for the new Council's services, with interesting implications.
These councils work on the principle of cost recovery. For example, an applicant should pay for all the council work that goes into a building consent rather than be subsidised by ratepayers.
But the principle varies between councils, albeit only within narrow bounds and on some issues. Some seek to recover only direct costs, others a share of council investment in the likes of computer systems. All ensure applicants for small projects, say, a home extension, are subsidised in part by large projects such as a subdivision.
Similarly, a council can decide it should transfer to ratepayers some costs it considers in the public good. For example, pensioners might pay lower dog registration fees.
Exactly where a council draws the line is a matter of politics, in the best sense of the word. Councillors, responsive to their communities, decide.
But there's no room for such constructive politics in the ATA. Ford says the politics are set by Wellington. The ATA is solely a massive project executing those directives.
The ATA has also shunned professional advice. Although it has pulled in a lot of information from experts in these intricate regulatory processes from within existing councils, it has kept them out of the decision-making, a number of them say. The ATA has refused to say how it is making its decisions on fees and it has refused to show them the financial modelling.
But one person familiar with the modelling says that operating costs for regulatory fees was $102 million across the eight councils in the latest financial year. Of that, fees covered $89m while ratepayers picked up the balance.
Under the modelling for new, lower uniform fees, the Auckland Council will collect $80m from fees. And some of the fee changes are large such as reducing the hourly billing rate for final building inspections from an average of $157 to $110, implying a 30% increase in staff productivity.
But the ATA has no accurate forecast of the operating costs. Given the trends in plant and staff costs, productivity and RMA penalties it is highly likely costs will rise, not fall, for the foreseeable future.
Thus Hide's directive on lower fees will merely transfer more of the financial burden of regulation from users to ratepayers.
He must be hoping that nobody will notice until after the next general election.
-
Oh, cmon. I would have been dinner. The words were obvious to most observers, and so was the context. Why try and defend it?
-
It's a different worldview and some people are just not willing or ready to put aside the one they're more used to, even for a few minutes. Scared folk resist change.
-
Tariana's piece
Another important read, a considered explanation of the deep link between Tuhoe and Te Urewera - and the comments were way better than I expected.
-
Yvonne Tahana's article in today's Herald
Ae, recommended reading and concise. The Urewera situation is quite specific, and suggesting other iwi will re-litigate settlements and demand chunks of national park here or there is just dog-whistling. What a surprise that Your Views and talkback are full of barking and whining.
-
kitty litter
:)
-
Thank you, Craig.
-
Tom, I don't doubt the size of the issue, but where does making a knowing "joke" fit in? Market research, testing the waters?