In last week’s edition of The Adviser, we posted a front page story in addition to a Letter to the Editor within the body of the edition that seemed to be at odds with it.
The context of it all perhaps needs some explanation. The story was an article about prominent local citizens asking Council candidates to examine why Greater Shepparton rates were higher than other comparable councils.
The Letter, written by one of the candidates and a former Councillor, appeared to start to answer then drifted off by explaining ‘what’ the Council does with the money without answering the ‘why’.
If Council charges higher rates, there is no doubt it has the capacity to do more, somethings beneficial, somethings simply for the sake of doing them because there is money in the jar.
The prominent citizens were asking, particularly why in a time of hardship all around, the Council saw justification in living large when those having to make the payments into the jar were all undergoing some level of belt tightening at home.
For Council however, typical of the process at all political levels, decides how much it is going to take in for the year, often based on what it plans to spend rather than looking at the capacity of those that provide the funds to sustain the payment.
According to some of the prominent citizens, Shepparton is becoming uncompetitive, in part due to the cost of doing business with rates being a major additional cost being factored into those decisions.
More than 100 buildings remain vacant around the city, hamstrung by unsustainable costs associated with their occupancy. There are reported instances where property sales or rentals are being cancelled once the rate costs have been factored in.
Shepparton’s rates are one of the highest in regional Victoria. We do get some benefits, some necessary, some completely unnecessary, particularly when austerity is demanded. The Greater Shepparton City Council has by far, the largest income generated from the city of any business or even collection of businesses.
Candidates have been asked why it is. Why should the Council go on as if nothing has changed, why it should regulate to live beyond its means, why in a national downturn, it should not be constrained by the same conditions that the ratepayers are? They are yet to give a satisfactory answer.
