This drastic simplification is one solution available to the Council in compliance with the law requiring it to produce one rating system for the region. The same "one size fits all" approach is being applied to dog licences, rubbish collection, and I dare say to a whole heap of council services which have been applied in different ways and with different priorities across Auckland by the previous different City Councils.
There are lots of nice-sounding words used to describe this process. Like "harmonisation".
But is this gross simplification of Auckland's rating system justified? Especially in light of the fact that the impact of the Auckland council's rating proposals will be a massive increase in rates for those in properties of above average capital value, matched by a corresponding decrease in rates for those living in properties of lower than average value.
The Local Government Act calls for a Funding Impact Statement. In fact it's a requirement. I couldn't find one in Auckland Council's draft long term plan. To give you an idea of what one of these looks like check this one from Tasman District Council. You will see that the Council has assessed the level of service that different parts of the district receive, and this has been translated in a "cents in the dollar" rating value, by service type. In other words your rates contribute toward the cost of the services that you get.
Auckland suburbs are not the same. So why should they pay the same rates for the same house value? Over the years the costs of living (including rates), and the priorities for Council expenditure (parks, clean beaches, free swimming pools etc) - have influenced the decisions of people in where they choose to live. That is called choice and is fundamental to the development of diverse communities within the city conurbation that is Auckland. These communities have developed over more than a hundred years - some of them. Other communities are more recent. But they are not the same. Nor have they had the same services. Nor has their development been subject to the same planning rules.
In its time the Auckland Regional Council recognised that different communities benefited from different levels of public transport service. For example some communities were close to rail services, high frequency bus services, or the Northern Busway. And houses of the same value paid different rates as a consequence. This is rational and fair. It is also transparent. Ratepayers can examine the Funding Impact Statement and understand what services they are paying for with their rates, and they can also understand why they might pay more rates - for example - for sewer infrastructure (because of the amenity of local beaches), for public transport, for rubbish collection using pay-by-bag (instead of bins). And so on.
Auckland Council's harmonisation is more like Stalinisation. This might suit Council's bureaucracy and internal systems, but surely Auckland is entitled to a little more sophistication and diversity in service delivery and rating from its new Council. And surely Council can find room for fairness in its rates.
Just because someone is living in a home with more than average Capital Value, does not automatically mean they have the ability to pay significantly more than average rates. I know that Councils generally take the view that home value is a rough proxy of the ability to pay. But many pensioners and pensioner couples on fixed incomes who have lived in modest sized family homes and had families should not then find themselves suddenly rated out of their homes because the Council has not properly thought through the consequences of its blunt proposals - particularly a UAGC set at $350.
