What do you think of Council's proposals as part of the Review of Rating Policy?

Non resident ratepayers should not be given ANY concessions. By definition they are living elsewhere and so own their local property from a position of wealth, either a holiday home, a rental property or a vacant block. Therefore I believe council should extract as much as they can from these wealthier persons and so reduce the burden on people living locally in their own home. For absentee landowners, their rate expenses are a tax deduction which strengthens the case for no concessions.

I am a non residential interstate (NSW) rate payer with a vacant residential block. The cheap rates were one of the reasons we invested in this area. We do plan to build eventually and move or use it for holidays. We bring family and friends from interstate many times (at least two weeks a year). We are not wealthy, we still have a mortgage and pay two lots of rates. Our rates are set to go up by close to three hundred dollars a year. This may stop our long term strategy of retiring and holidaying in this beautiful area as there are now many NSW spots that are closer and as cost effective. As a wage earner rates on a vacant block of land are not tax deductible.

Not all non resident ratepayers are WEALTHY landowners. Many are retired people living on a pension after having worked hard all their life. If they have managed to have a property in the Alexandrina area it was through sheer hard work and savings in order to enjoy their retirement.

I totally fail to see why in a review you are choosing not to look again at the greatly reduced rate for Primary Production, Do they not enjoy most if not more of the services from council some have the same services as town blocks roads rubbish and access to the other services why are these rate payers being subsidising.

Another area is the method of charging rates to all businesses occupying a commercial site and not just the one rate for the site like most other councils do.

My husband and I own vacant land in the Alexandrina area. We love the area and spend a great deal of time visiting from the city, taking part in community activities and consequently spending money in the area. We always bring our interstate visitors to the Alexandrina area and take them to the sights, the shops and restaurants.

We are not 'wealthy' people but have a view to moving from the city and living in the area we love in the future.

Increased taxes on vacant land will be an unfair burden for us. We will also feel that we are being taken advantage of and made to feel 'outsiders' in your community which we have always found extremely warm and welcoming. Such a moneygrabbing decision by Council will be a very shortsighted because it will ignore the contribution which we already make and which we hope to make in the future in the Alexandrina area.

From the proposal to reduce the basic charge to a single $250 for an owner of adjoining properties, it would suggest to me that all ratepayers are now being charged a fee to pay their rates, otherwise why would the basic charge not apply to all properties? If an owner has adjoining properties it would most frequently be as an investment measure, most likely rental, and subsequently they are gaining an income. Permanent residents are being penalised. Their rates will rise considerably, in my case (as a retiree/pensioner who has lived here and contributed to the community for over 20 years) it will mean another $30/40 per quarter. Whoever owns investment properties should share the full burden of maintaining the community services, if only for the benefits of their tenants.

Whatever we may save in slight reduction for the discounted rate for primary production and the lack of services and facilities that we have/don't have being at one of the furthest locations from Goolwa Council office is far out weighted by the extra cost that we are burdened with. $1400 a year for emptying a rubbish bin. This seems a little excessive.

One example of the extra cost is we maintain our own access road which often cost in excess of approx. $400 per year.

This provides us with a road that is barely accessible by car.

Many families use this road which is narrow and safety is always an issue. One accident has already occurred on out main gate, lucky no-one was hurt.

Council refuses to help us!! This is just ONE issue!!

I own two properties in the Council area - one property where I reside full time (and have done for 17 years) plus the adjoining (contiguous land) block. I already resent the fact that I have to pay water and sewerage fees for my "vacant" block - when no water or sewerage is connected or used.

For what reason does Council make these proposals? Not to free up land and make available for further building as they suggest - any person can see that there is a great deal of land available for purchase already - furthermore - available land more…

It is very difficult, if not impossible, to make an informed comment on this subject. Everyone has their own opinion dependant upon their individual circumstance. Maybe Council could make available all information related to making an informed comment when we have an issue like this to deal with.

In the meantime all we achieve from these forums are views directly related to self interest which are not necessarily beneficial to the whole Community.

As a local real estate agent in Goolwa since 1984 and my family having a farm here since 1966 I fail to see what benifit the proposed changes will have. Councils decision will result in driving away development by charging increased rates on those people who buy a block here with the intention of building in the future or developers who are charged every possible fee and who install the infrastructure that then becomes the property of the council or state government. The rating system is not perfect maybe developers should be given a rate discount for having the forsight to invest in the area and in turn upgrade council and state government infrastructure. The current rating system should be left as is. If the council need more funds they might have to do as private enterprise do and cut their cloth to fit.

I am very concerned about the proposal to greatly increase the rates for vacant blocks of land. I bought a block on Hindmarsh Island a few years ago as an investment for my retirement. I already pay a high rate as well as water rates and sewerage rates neither of which utility is connected. I do not benefit from any council infrastructure or services. The council's argument that increasing the rates on vacant land will encourage people to build is nonsense - the only consequence of putting up the rates is that people will be discouraged from purchasing land in more…