EDITORIAL: Who pays no simple walk in the park

There will be sympathy for the group of Havelock North residents who have been fighting the proposed targeted rate to cover the cost of parking.
While the dispute over who pays for parking in the village may cause bemusement elsewhere - the principle having been accepted, if not embraced, that parking does cost and that ultimately someone has to pay for it - the idea of a targeted rate seems an inelegant solution.
It is clearly the majority preference of villagers who responded to a council questionnaire. Of 4546 ratepayers who received the circular 56 percent responded, of which 62 percent favoured targeted rates.
No doubt the view that revenue-generating council parking administrations are greedy feeders on the motorist has helped inspired the desire to make the village different: Nearly a year ago the Hastings District Council planned to install 25 pay-and-display machines in the village at $8500 each. Payback would take years. There is a belief the council perceives a need for parking management where no such need exists.
By the council not adopting user-pays, it is evident those not liable for the targeted rate - $20 for households and $70 for businesses - are favoured, while locals are not. The counter has been that shoppers from outside, drawn by the additional incentive of free parking, will benefit the village economy (though the benefits of increased are debatable).
However, the downside of targeted rates - and that which prompted a group of residents to challenge the proposal at meeting of the council today - is that those who do not drive to the shops regularly have to pay, regardless.
Some folk, particularly elderly people live near the main shopping centres, don't own cars and choose to walk to do their shopping. Why, they reasonably ask, should they have to pay for parking? Indeed, when walking is singularly beneficial in the maintenance of good health in senior citizens, it seems odd to provide no disincentive for residents to do one's shopping by car.
The counter to such criticism might be that their $20 contribution is meagre; a small sacrifice for the greater good. Like supporting a public library though rates. But how great is the good of not charging for parking?
Circumstances change. Rates are like taxes. They have a habit of sticking around long after their justification has ceased.
What of the cost of policing when too many are seeking too few spaces? And who will pay for the additional public car parks and control of traffic as the village's stocks rise for the region's shoppers?