Prosper’s submission to Victoria’s Local Government Act 1989 Review by David Collyer | Sep 20, 2013 | Commentary review-of-local-government-act-1989-prosper-submission 2 Comments EMILY TANG on September 29, 2016 at 8:29 pm My name is Emily Tang, I am the candidate of Manningham City Council for the coming election in Heide Ward. I totally agreed to use the Site Value to adjust the rate and it is more reasonable than the Capital Value. Government need to keep changing for the 21th century. Best wishes, Emily Tang, JP, MBA Public tax accountant & Reg. Tax Agent Geraldine Gonsalvez on October 3, 2016 at 4:05 pm • Thank you for the information I will commit to consulting and engaging with local residents in the Silverleaf ward and city wide on this topic if I am fortunate to get elected as a Councillor in this the 2016 Greater Dandenong City Council Election. I believe strongly in giving residents maximum value for their rates and will actively curb waste when it comes to how rate revenue is expanded. As I understand SV rating does have merits that are worth considering and that I happen to agree with such as: • I do not believe ratepayers should be penalized for maintaining the site value by adding value to their properties by building, rebuilding, extending or renovating. • I happen to agree that real value should be in the land as opposed to the value of the building which is complimentary. Better-maintained buildings contribute to the value of surrounding locations. It has its merits when it comes to the redevelopment of inner-city sites which will no longer incur a Rates penalty consequently there will be more infill developments and less pressure for Greenfield developments on the urban fringe. Reducing less sprawl, resulting in shorter commuting distances, hence less pollution and more family time. • Families that renovate homes at great expense for the benefit of disabled members will no longer be hit with higher Rates bills. • site-value rating is more conducive to economic activity • Rate value of a building is limited by the depreciated replacement cost, whereas a site has a location, and locational value by definition, are imposed on property and rateable properties includes a site. • The Benefit for Government that owns the parks and gardens is that it also taxes the value of the surrounding land, and hence has an incentive to preserve that value by preserving the site-value rating. • Some of the disadvantages appear to lie in the reality that site-value rating can make it particularly acute by deliberately targeting the appreciating component of property residential use land and urban farm land. It is good to know that s.161A of the Local Government Act enables any Council using NAV or site-value the possibility to relieve the alleged hardship by applying a differential rate to land in either of these categories. In Victoria, each municipality could implement such a reform by itself, achieving the “no losers” feature by suitably calculating the Municipal Charge permitted by the Local Government Act. However given my limited knowledge I do have some concerns may be we need an economically efficient hybrid rating system. There is merit in examining a hybrid combination that allows for flexibility. I do like to see a win/ win solution democratically decided incorporating reduced inflationary pressures to allow or enable higher speed limits on job creation and economic growth that would benefit and add value to the rate revenue for locals. Thank you for the opportunity. Geraldine Gonsalvez Candidate for the Silverleaf ward in the Greater Submit a Comment Cancel replyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment Name * Email * Website Δ This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.