My sibling and I recently purchased the family home and property off our mum. We were all living in the family home. We added a minor dwelling less than 60m2 (after paying $10K to the council for the building consent). I have moved into the one-bedroom dwelling. The property is still a single title (not partitioned) and the dwelling is not rented. The land is still in the same location (Outer Kaiti) and it is still used the same - for example, wastewater usage has not increased.
In July our rate record was updated; the capital value had doubled. We recently received our 2024-2025 rates bill that has doubled. In particular, there is an increase from one to two charges for all the following: refuse, wastewater, water, general charges, animal control, noise control, stormwater and passenger transport.
The much-needed speed bump in our road has also doubled from 0 to 00.
I’m thinking if the council can calculate the increases for rates, then why can’t they at least - for transparency - break down their calculations in the rates bill/invoices?
That way I can figure out how a minor dwelling not rented and on the same property with exactly the same number of property users before and after it was built, has doubled the rates bill?
Are you confused like me? It seems that simply if you build a granny flat, your rates are going to double.
J. Koia
Help appreciated
Thank you so much to the group of people who helped me with my epileptic seizure on Ormond Rd while I was heading home from Mangapapa School on the evening of Friday, August 16 - and waited with me until my father came and picked me up. I really appreciate the support from you all. Thanks again.
Madeleine Pittar
Gizzy people care
Thank you to all those who came to my assistance when I tripped and fell on an uneven Grey St footpath, including the very thorough ambulance and ED staff. All is well thanks to your efforts. Gizzy people care.
Trina Northcott
Let’s stay GE cautious
In a recent interview with Reality Check radio, Judith Collins, Minister for Science, Innovation and Technology, once again assured us that the Government’s controversial decision to lift the ban on GE field trials is completely safe. Why? Well, because other countries are also doing it!
However, a recently published study in Nature - www.nature.com/articles/s41588-024-01758-y - shows that the use of CRISPR/ “gene scissors” technology causes unintended genetic changes that are different to random mutations. According to the study, major structural changes in chromosomes occur much more frequently in the genomic regions targeted by the “gene scissors” than would otherwise be the case. The location and frequency of the unintended genetic changes cannot in any way be equated to the occurrence of random mutations.
In humans and animals, these kinds of changes are particularly associated with the risk of cancer. As far as plants are concerned, the risks are different and principally include, for example, negative environmental effects and a change in the composition of food derived from these plants.
Breeding can also be affected: if the unintended changes go unnoticed, they can accumulate in the genetic material of plants, and thus impair both the genetic stability of future plant varieties and their suitability for use in agriculture.
New Zealand’s royal inquiry into genetic engineering in 2000 advised a cautious approach to genetic modification, allowing the technology to proceed but with stringent controls and monitoring to manage risks and uncertainties.
This wise advice is valid even more today, with more science coming forth about the risks associated with gene editing technologies. The unintended consequences can put human health, nature and food at risk, not to mention NZ farming. Any GMO must be put through the most stringent safety checks for impacts on human health and the environment. Also, any GMO product must have mandatory labelling and a mandatory audit trail to allow traceability throughout the food system.
Some GE genies are best left in the bottle, as we can’t reverse the unintended consequences of their release.
Simin Williams
No 3 factor, actually
“Alcohol and drugs are the No 1 contributing factor in fatal road crashes in New Zealand.” (August 20 column.)
What is it with National using incorrect figures? Alcohol and drugs are not the No 1 factor in fatal crashes. It is in fact the third factor behind “lost control” and “too fast for the conditions”.
National’s policy of raising speed limits will underline/highlight this.
Ian Findlay
