3 Waters Reform
| # | Post |
|---|---|
| 1 | If the 3 waters reform happens, what would you expect to pay for a average house? would it be a one off bill similar to rates or something like a monthly power bill? taieri3 - 2021-09-04 22:54:00 |
| 2 | Good questions. Nobody knows, is the answer. Believe an increasing number of councils are concerned about the costs and benefits to their communities. Some would like to see provision for a public referendum of their residents and ratepayers to opt in or opt out. If that happens the costs and benefits would need to be very clearly spelt out and substantiated. Hard to see it proceeding in the face of widespread concern/ opposition. artemis - 2021-09-05 07:02:00 |
| 3 | I'd say it's irrelevant, more likely you'll pay via water rates. lythande1 - 2021-09-05 08:24:00 |
| 4 | This was discussed on the local Neighbourly site (Nelson) and it was said that the Nelson Council have some figures on cost...$2000 per year! gettinggrey - 2021-09-05 09:01:00 |
| 5 | gettinggrey wrote: I don’t know how most households will,wear that cost either. We already pay over $4000 a year for a bog standard house. We will all be living on the street soon. Edited by lakeview3 at 9:11 am, Sun 5 Sep lakeview3 - 2021-09-05 09:11:00 |
| 6 | gettinggrey wrote: You need to go back and look at what the 3 Waters Reform research is saying. In summary: Most councils has so chronically underfunded infrastructure that over the next 30 years massive investment is needed. Water rates will need to rise massively to cover the required spending. Individual councils are very inefficient at running these services, so a number of centralised bodies will do it better and at a lower overall cost. So 3WR argument is that costs will rise to cover the required spending, but far less under 3WR than if left to inefficient local councils all trying to do their own thing. sparkychap - 2021-09-05 10:57:00 |
| 7 | lakeview3 wrote: At least there are some local motels the govt can put you up in. sparkychap - 2021-09-05 10:58:00 |
| 8 | Trouble is that Nelson area is lumped in with lower NI group (Wellington, etc). gettinggrey - 2021-09-05 11:31:00 |
| 9 | gettinggrey wrote: Yet that's how we fund education, health, national roading etc. Why not water? ETA national roading Edited by sparkychap at 11:54 am, Sun 5 Sep sparkychap - 2021-09-05 11:46:00 |
| 10 | Could have a 2 tier system. If ratepayers choose to do their own thing they can. Otherwise councils can opt in to a national system. Of course that means that councils with good and efficient water infrastructure will opt out, and the others will opt in with urgent funding requests. But it would solve the perennial problem of rewarding the inefficient by taxing the efficient. artemis - 2021-09-05 14:10:00 |
| 11 | The reality is that there are a lot of councils around the country have underfunded infrastructure for several reasons: used long term funds for vanity and nice to have items; popular vote to keep rates down (not so much these days!): "unexpected" growth or, in several cases, are so small in rate base that they just cannot afford to upkeep the systems. Water is a basic function with good systems required to enable growth in housing areas which nearly everywhere is demanding and the basic right to healthy clean water. There'd be very few councils that have the asset base required to 1) bring their current systems up to scratch, 2) put in enough resource to supply new housing growth, greenfield or brownfield. hers.nz - 2021-09-06 22:13:00 |
| 12 | But then there are people claiming they own the rain. So if that is how it is going to be surely they should be paying damages caused by "their ' rain, flooding etc. mercury14 - 2021-09-07 14:19:00 |
| 13 | They arent saying . But can bet we will be paying a LOt more . There is the 4 new boards & staff to pay for plus their charges Its completly unnecessary its only money that holds back the upgrading Govt could just give councils interest free loans for 20 years to do all the upgrades but i the maori partners want to own 50% of the the assets we ratepaers have paid for elect70 - 2021-09-07 17:12:00 |
| 14 | I can see why reform is necessary, councils have under-invested for years and only want the water assets on their books to use as security for borrowing more money (to waste on cycle tracks, cultural advisors, and pet projects no-one wants). masturbidder - 2021-09-08 11:46:00 |
| 15 | That is what I find rather interesting. How can centralising the 3 waters into four groups actually lower the costs. Updating the infrastructure will cost what it costs no matter who does it or when it is done. Management is covered now by the local councils and requires a certain number of staff to keep the lights on. That will not change. What is the unknown is how much future upgrades will cost and who is going to fund that. The government hasn't set an overly wonderful example that they can actually do better when you look at our health system, education system etc. We could in effect if the government gets handed our "3 waters" end up way worst off than what we currently have. By all means set some sensible standards however that can be quite a challenge too when the ministers are not listening. Centralising doesn't cut the costs like some people suggest. In some cases it can actually increase the costs. Edited by strathview at 3:08 pm, Wed 8 Sep strathview - 2021-09-08 15:05:00 |
