NRCs proposals for moorings

[Guest]

http://www.nrc.govt.nz/Resource-Library ... ters-News/

 

Have a read of the harbour masters news on the front page about proposals to change mooring transfers. I can def see two sides to this arguement.....should the free market determine the price of the use of a public space, ie the sea bed and or surface of the sea used by a mooring or should the council have more control?

 

With the price of a swing mooring in some places up here approaching the price of a marina berth in other places is it time to make some changes or should the market determine the price of a limited resource, even though it means people profit from the use of public space?

 

Undecided

[Guest]

Moorings should knot be able to be sold with a price inclusive of the ground space. It is public owned ground. Sell them for sure but you only sell the gear. Sure that gear maybe a little more expensive in popular areas than others but the ground they sit on should knot be seen to being sold or if it is the Council taxes 50%, which then goes back into the marine operations fund. Most of the most favourite spots are usually those that give the people with big bucks good access or convenience and as those users also come with a growth in demand for convenience services close by (a fully serviced marina in Matiatia for example) they can help pay for said services.

 

A similar thing happened in Matiatia where mooring spots are a massive premium. Just spots with no gear were changing hands for 30-40K. But that stopped, or prices trimmed back dramatically, when the Council moved in and said to everyone 'read your agreement with us. It states we own the land knot you so sell at whatever price you like but be warned we can terminate the agreement and you'll lose the lot', or words to that effect. The council also stated to enforce the rule that states they must approve any transfers.

 

Northland has to watch this close I'd say. If it allows moorings to change hands at any cost it'll push the smaller locals out fast. There is a pile of money coming into sea edge 'desires' by people with coin, many being foreign owners with flash holiday mansions they use rarely, they will set the benchmark if Northland isn't careful. Northland already has bays that recently have had installed and many that are about to go in plus a pile on the pipeline looking for approval. The Council could easily lose it and those nice spots will be lost to the general public for ever r a long time. South Halenea bay for example, a 18mts long pontoon has just gone in (but won't last long as the Aussie engineer isn't that smart) for a Russian squillionere. Along with a small 'path' over the foreshore you can drive truck and trailer units on. Take Kawau for another example, so many structures been allowed it's damn hard to get to land at times. Sure some are very old but new ones are still popping up monthly.

 

Sure develop the sea edge, carefully, but don't do it at the expense of the everyday kiwi. If you want to use seabed and foreshore the public who own it have to get something for that use, or lose of use as it usually is.

 

Example that Halena Bay one. The owner must have spent millions in planning and making it happen, it's knot a small project. The NZ public should get a large whack of coin for that one as it has destroyed the foreshore and taken up a lot of public space. If the project costs are millions a few hundy K extra into the public purse isn't a big ask. Note: I don't know if there is/was some 'fee' like this on that one or others so this might already be happening........... but I doubt it. Also note that when i say 'public purse' I mean a 'Foreshore improvement fund' or something like that locked for use like that, KNOT into any general fund.

 

Bit like the mooring holders in Akl, the ground rent they all pay each year goes to the Council Marine operations Team which is then funnelled back into harbour improvements and so on. The rent doesn't go to pay for unelected council bludgers or other of Len Browns dumbarse ideas.

 

If it's a public item being used privately it must come at a cost to the user which is then a benefit for the public. That is a win-win. Knot doing so is a 'Ya hoo, Thank you suckers - lose'.

[wheels 543]

Marlborough has this issue of huge costs in regards to moorings. Purely because you can no longer put any moorings down. You are allowed one mooring per Section of land in the sounds and in Waikawa and Picton etc, there is no more room, so Port Marlborough say. Only because they want to expand the Marina's. So if a Mooring comes up for sale, it goes for big money and it is common to pay $150 to $200/month to rent a mooring anywhere in the Sounds where there is road access. Where as here in Auckland, they seem to go for ruffly what the ground tackle is worth with age factored in. And most seem to be around the $50 to $100/month rental depending on size and location.

[1paulg 17]

KM ...one of the questions you have to ask though is.... do these funds actually get channelled back to where they were intended or are they swallowed up by the Council...?

Just like road tax for diesol cars - it is just a revenue producing scheme for the Govt and only a proportion goes back into the roads... (IMO)

But good point...

[Guest]

If you mean the fees paid by Akl moorings, Yes I'm told it all goes direct into the MAROPS fund knot the general council fund. That's how the ACC funds buoys, beacons, new piles, maintenance, loan gear for the assorted regattas, swimming things and so on. The bigger gear is paid for by the Ports with some help from the raft of levies paid by commercial operators.

[Murky 1]

It is an interesting conundrum for all parties involved and to me, one of those situations where developing and applying a policy to cover all eventualities has a high risk of disadvantaging someone in the chain.

 

The Russian squillionaire thing has alarmed a lot of people but unfortunately if you have squillions (or even a lot less than that, it seems), you will always find a way around the rules to get what you want. So personally, I would set that aside from the moorings debate.

 

What it seems we have is a situation of excess demand/insufficient supply in a very small number of areas of Northland - mostly BOI as I understand it. In other locations, there is not a situation of excess demand and moorings (and marina berths for that matter) can take a long time to sell.

 

Personally I am cautious about the concept of creating/expanding a local government department which would apparently become both the regulator and the marketplace for moorings, with x number of salaried staff, vehicles, presumably vessels as well.

 

I also think it may be hard to find the right kind of people (or the combination of people and policies) that recognise the different ways that boat owners might legitimately choose to use moorings e.g. if you happen to be out of the water for a refit, basing your boat in a different location, or borrowing a marina for three months or so, depending on your point of view, that could be considered a very normal way of using your boat, or alternatively denying a mooring to someone else who deserves the opportunity to have it instead.

 

Perhaps my view would change if I was the one being offered the salary, the ute and the boat!

[wheels 543]

My view, I think it is good that a Local Council, should supply and operate a Marina. It is just like making a Park or Sportsfield accessable and free to the Public to use. What many Councils and seem to have forgotten, is that they are there for the people. I do not mind a Council making a small profit in operating a Marina. They need to cover costs and even have enough in the Kitty to make improvements and expansion. But I do object strongly to the obsene profits many councils seem to be making from us boaties. They are making profits to pour into other projects, some that are questionable as to whether they should be part of a Local Bodies agenda anyway. And often their arguments are that the profits offsets rates. But that is like double taxing anyone into water recreation. We are taxed with rates and then taxed again with the part of the Marina fee that goes back to offset the rates. In some respects, you can argue, well someone not into boats shouldn't have to pay for me a boater. Well they wouldn't be if the Marina fee was not so high and if they are not into boating, that is their choice, just as it is my choice as to whether I want to go to the Park or not.