Looking more closely at that data, in terms of the variation from the mean, poses some interesting questions about the basis for the proposed amalgamations or boundary adjustments.
The four local governments with the highest charges (Serpentine-Jarrahdale (+36%); Mundaring (+27%); Armadale (+27%); Swan (+24%) are all outer-eastern, semi-rural areas, which suggests that some common factor in their shared situation is responsible for the high charges. Yet it is proposed that they merge with each other (Swan/Mundaring and Armadale/(part of) Serpentine-Jarrahdale), which will do absolutely nothing to address this shared disadvantage.
Of the three local governments left unchanged (Wanneroo (+19%); Rockingham (+9%); Joondalup (-8%)), two are within what might be described as a central band, but Wanneroo (+19%) is the sixth highest charging local government in the Perth Metropolitan Area.
Why is Kwinana (+19%) chosen to be the 'continuing council' taking over most of the better-performing City of Cockburn (+5%)?
Why is Cambridge (0%) chosen to be the 'continuing council' taking over the better-performing City of Subiaco (-9%)?
Why is Gosnells (-3%) chosen to be the 'continuing council' taking over most of the better-performing City of Canning (-26%)?
Why are five western suburbs Councils (Cottesloe (-20%); Claremont (-20%); Nedlands (-10%); Peppermint Grove (-5%); Mosman Park (-1%)) to be amalgamated when they all have lower charges than the mean for the Perth Metropolitan Area?
Why is the City of Vincent (-12%) to be taken over by the City of Perth, when it performs substantially better than the mean for the Perth Metropolitan Area? Although the City of Perth appears to do better, it currently subsidises residential rates substantially so, in reality, is unlikely to be much (if any) better than Vincent.
Why is the City of Stirling to be reduced in size when it is the sixth-best performing council?
Where, I ask yet again, is the evidence for economies of scale.
No comments:
Post a Comment