But to set local body rates for them at four times the level of other rural landowners, just because you hold prejudices against foreign landowners, or feel they might be wealthier than you, is wrong.
Road damage by log trucks is usually the reason given for differential rates. But it doesn’t stack up. Not at the four times the rates levied on beef and sheep farmers as seen in Waitaki district and now proposed by Wairoa.
There are several studies that look at the impact various land-uses make on rural roads. Some show that dairy farming makes similar use – and causes similar damage – to rural roads as forestry. Beef and lamb, maybe a little less. Apple orchards, somewhat more.
Log trucks can certainly rip poorly maintained rural roads to bits. But so do milk tankers, fertiliser lorries and truckloads of apples. A tonne of wood on an axle is no more damaging than a tonne of anything else.
It’s just that logging tends to take place in a burst once every 30 years or so, which makes the poor state of the roads blindingly obvious. Log trucks get the blame, yet for 29 of those 30 years, forest owners have paid their rates and make little use of the roads.
So, where did their rate payments go? Better ask the councils. But clearly they didn’t use them to upgrade or maintain the roads that would be needed for the inevitable harvest.
In Waitaki where forest rates already have a 400% loading, the district councillors make their prejudice blatantly clear. Farmers with woodlots don’t have to pay the surcharge. Thankfully, the council is not suggesting farmer’s logs weigh less than anyone else’s.
For someone who has worked for the forest and pastoral farming industries, I believe the use of differential rates to target ratepayers who are not in public favour needs to stop. Not only because it’s clearly unfair and unjustified, but it also sets a bad precedent.
Interests in Hawke’s Bay, for example, would like their region to go organic. If those interests had a majority on the council, could they penalise non-organic farmers with sky-high rates? Chemical pollution could be used as an excuse.
What if there was a majority of vegetarians on the Auckland Council. Could they use their personal prejudices to penalise livestock farmers in that region? Reducing methane emissions might sound like a plausible justification to urban ears.
çWhere capital assets need to be periodically maintained or replaced, a portion of rates revenue should be set aside to fund future work.
Rates should never be used to penalise others, regardless of the prejudices councillors may hold.
Who am I? Trevor Walton is a communications and marketing consultant with involvement in deer farming, forestry and sustainable land management. The opinions expressed in this article are his alone and may not reflect the views of his clients.
