Auckland's mayoral candidates are all but ruling out spending cutbacks to libraries and parks.
The region's 21 local board chairs have unanimously opposed proposals to slash spending on basic local services.
Newstalk ZB's Michael Sergel says most of the mayoral candidates agree.
Phil Goff, Chloe Swarbrick, David Hay, Tyrone Raumati, Susanna Kruger and Stan Martin all oppose cutbacks to library and park spending.
Vic Crone said the council needs to find alternative sources of funding for big projects like the City Rail Link, so funding for local services doesn't suffer.
Mark Thomas said local boards should have a greater say on council spending.
Penny Bright said services would not cost as much to provide, if they were provided by the council rather than outsourced to contractors.
You can vote at libraries and council offices before midday Saturday.
We asked the candidates: Local boards have opposed proposals to cut spending on parks and libraries. Do you support or oppose such cutbacks to reduce rates?
Here are their responses:
I'd like to broaden Council's sources of funding, particularly for the big projects like the CRL. At the moment central projects are sucking funds away from investment in communities across Auckland and core facilities like libraries and parks. Secondly, local boards know their communities better we should be listening when they are shouting their priorities from the rooftops.
Spending on parks and libraries should not be cut. We need expanded public open spaces, not reduce them, as our population and intensification grows.
I do not support cutting funding for parks, this is not where the money is being wasted and not where it should be taken from. The funding of new library in areas that already have libraries is questionable. There are better areas to make cuts.
Oppose cutbacks on spending for parks and libraries
Parks and libraries are fundamental components of an equitable and flourishing society - to cut rates at the cost of our communities would be damaging for all. I’ve located other means of funding and areas to cut spend. My arts and culture policy ensures the retention of funding for libraries and parks.
Parks and libraries are both essential community amenities that contribute to our quality of life - our social, cultural and environmental wellbeing. Cutting back in these areas will result in unacceptable social costs. Furthermore, I am confident that the perspective of local boards reflects that of their constituencies, and if they opposed such cuts to adopt another stance would seem undemocratic. Any council must be aware of its responsibility to curb excessive rate increases. However, there are other areas where efficiencies can be gained and cutbacks made that will not have such negative impacts on communities. Again, meaningful consultation with communities is important to ensure cutbacks are made with the people’s interests at heart.
Local boards opposed these cuts because they weren’t based on an assessment of the services needed and were made just to save money. Many communities also strongly opposed them. I support a fair review of how we can deliver more cost effective services, with local boards as the decision makers answerable to their communities.
I don't. Savings to reduce rates should be sought elsewhere.
Definitely oppose!!! Its the councils core responsibility to maintain such resources, there are plenty of other non-core aspects of council spending that could be focused on to reduce rates.
Chose not to answer this question.
I am absolutely opposed to cuts in spending on parks and libraries. International research has proven that contracting out public services to the private sector is twice as expensive as 'in house' service provision. So, returning contracted services back 'in house' could save rates, and provide more for local communities.