‘Robin Hood in reverse’: Ratepayers slam council rates plan
Murray Bridge’s councillors have copped a spray from furious residents after proposing to increase their property rates and give a break to big business.
This story is now free to read. Help Murray Bridge News tell more stories like this by subscribing today.
Ratepayers have slammed the Murray Bridge council for suggesting property rate changes that would take from poor homeowners and give back to the wealthy.
Councillors copped an absolute hiding during a fiery public meeting attended by about 60 people on Monday night.
Speaker after speaker raged at a proposal to slug ordinary homeowners an extra $204 per year, on average, and pass the benefits on to businesses, farmers and the owners of valuable properties.
The council has not yet decided whether to go ahead with the plan – a public consultation period only finished on Tuesday.
But they will face nearly unanimous condemnation if they do.
Resident Noel Bradtke put it succinctly.
“This proposal is … an attack on the most vulnerable in our community,” he said.
“Pensioners, families and farmers will pay more while businesses get a break.
“It’s a regressive tax that benefits those with the most while punishing those with the least.”
The changes might have been worthwhile if the council had planned to use the revenue to do something great for the community, retired teacher Glen Chamberlain suggested.
But most of the benefits would go to big businesses, so what was the point?
“You’re not raising more rates for the good of the community; you’re swapping money from one set of ratepayers to another,” he said.
“It’s a reverse Robin Hood scheme.”
Businesses might want a property rate cut, Rockleigh resident Dave Dennison said, but businesses could put their prices up – farmers and residents could not.
Long-time local Neville Gregory agreed.
“I’ve only got so much disposable income,” he said.
“If rates are going to impact my disposable income, local businesses are going to suffer because I don’t have that money.
“I’m pretty upset.”
Many residents criticised the council’s failure to properly communicate what the changes would mean.
A mail-out asked residents whether they preferred a system with a minimum rate of $1151, or one with a fixed rate of $750, making it sound like the second option would be cheaper.
Not included in that brochure was a table showing how much different property owners would actually pay under each system.
“The first I heard about the whole rate revaluation was when Peri (Strathearn) posted about it on Murray Bridge News,” chocolate shop owner Ian Pithers said.
“A lot of (locals) haven’t had the time to actually understand what the heck’s going on.”
Some speakers suggested the council had intentionally tried to deceive its ratepayers with “smoke and mirrors”, while others blamed incompetence.
Several suggested the council restart the consultation process from scratch.
Mr Thorley became visibly irritable and defensive at times during the meeting, arguing that the council had had its reasons to consider the policy change.
He gave the example of retirees with limited income whose houses had dramatically increased in value, and who were now forced to pay council rate bills that were beyond their means.
“This has been about trying to ensure that our rating system is ready for our growth times … (and) is fairer,” he said.
“It’s not about trying to raise additional revenue from people.
“It’s about trying to be fairer to people all through the system.”
‘It’s just not fair’: State MP weighs in
Interestingly, state MP Adrian Pederick also made an appearance at the meeting.
“I didn’t know you were a resident,” Mr Thorley remarked as he got up to speak.
“I used to have a house here,” Mr Pederick muttered.
The MP urged Mr Thorley, Deputy Mayor Airlie Keen and the rest of the council to dump the unpopular proposal.
“It’s just not fair and it’s just not equitable,” he said.
“In a cost of living crisis, it is hitting hard, and we all know that it’s the biggest drought in forever.
“I think you need to look at this in a different way if you want to adjust the rate system.”
He also criticised the council for taking too long to grant development approval to people who wanted to build new homes.
What will happen now?
Murray Bridge’s councillors will decide whether to go ahead with the proposed changes, keep the current rating system or choose an option somewhere in between at their next ordinary meeting, scheduled for April 14.
Any changes to the council’s rating policy would take effect from July 1.
Mr Thorley said the council had received almost 200 public submissions during the public consultation period, and that 70 people had attended two information sessions held during office hours earlier this month.
He declined to speculate about whether the proposal would be dumped, but promised that the council would listen to its residents.
“We’re trying to do the best we possibly can for our community,” he said.
“All of my colleagues here are ratepayers, and we feel the pain as well.”
If the proposal gets up, it would be the first change to the council’s rating policy since 1999.
If councillors ultimately vote againstit, itwouldbe their second majorabout-faceinthreemonths, following their rejection of a planned sewer on Murray Bridge’s east side earlier this year.
