If you vote NO for the first question, whatever way you vote in the second question invalidates your 1st answer. Who the hell wrote this. IS it designed to give answers you want??
This is not the Kiwi way of living. Totally unsuitable for families. How is this fair to ratepayers who have paid rates for a lifetime. They will be expected to pay for the shortfall Check out the negative impact on these residential buildings have had on the Wellington CBD . More crime and more assaults!
NO There are the kind of things that rates were always meant to cover. . How about the Council considers spending less on nice to have projects so that rate actually cover what they were designed to cover. Think its called cutting your suit to fit your cloth.
Same as question 1. If you vote NO to question 1, the second question is misleading. If you have already voted against a remission how can you vote for or against something that you have already said you don't agree with. both YES or No imply you accept a remission. In my opinion this sort of nonsense completely invalidates your poll. That is a public good and should be paid for by Government and Taxation.
I don't believe it is the responsibility of existing ratepayers to subsidize growth. This should be paid for by the beneficiaries of that growth.