Tauranga City Council is currently debating the many options and plans for the future and the amount of the rates increase for the next few years. Anyway, it looks as if the ratepayer is again to be charged more and receive less. Growing a city costs more than the rate take of the new areas and the existing ratepayers must subsidise this development. A suggestion is a period of consolidation and catch up - no more growth for five years. At some point getting bigger becomes too big.
Tauranga City Council is voting soon on controlling the domestic kerbside rubbish, recycling and food scraps collections. This could cost each household about $500 per annum additional to their rating bill.
The public debate for this is quiet. The Papamoa Residents and Ratepayers Association has analysed this idea and firmly believes Tauranga has a competitive rubbish collection industry which keeps the costs low and the residents only pay for what they use. It does not believe residents who have minimum waste, take their recyclables to the transfer station should subsidise those who are wasteful. We welcome the public debate.
Papamoa Residents & Ratepayers Association
How much was spent on legal opinions?
I note that The Bay of Plenty Times has reported that the Tauranga City Council spent $100,000 on legal opinions on the begging/rough sleeping ban and the rights of those affected under the Human Rights Act.
How much was spent on legal opinions of the rights of the pedestrians, shoppers, retailers and landlords under the Human Rights Act?
And if not, why not?
The Bay of Plenty Times welcomes letters from readers. Please note the following:
• Letters should not exceed 200 words.
• They should be opinion based on facts or current events.
• If possible, please email.
• No noms-de-plume.
• Letters will be published with names and suburb/city.
• Please include full name, address and contact details for our records only.
• Local letter writers given preference.
• Rejected letters are not normally acknowledged.
• Letters may be edited, abridged, or rejected at the Editor's discretion.
• The Editor's decision on publication is final. No correspondence will be entered into.
• Letters may be used in other NZME publications.