Not sure who has seen this today, but it really does for me bring a head to ask the question:
Just what mandate should the WCC have to determine "essential" or "core" services?
They have promised their renters a "no increase" year, and I would then ask was that promised before or after the healthy homes initiatives were enacted that are being given as the excuse for potentially passing costs onto you, and to me. It is a serious question for a legal challenge.
We are all "cash strapped" when considering real-time incoming and outgoings (unrelated to actual balance sheets) and so why should sub-optimal budgeting by a government body become the liability of a set group of people (Wellington renters and landlords who do not have any connection with WCC housing).
Just what mandate should the WCC have to determine "essential" or "core" services?
They have promised their renters a "no increase" year, and I would then ask was that promised before or after the healthy homes initiatives were enacted that are being given as the excuse for potentially passing costs onto you, and to me. It is a serious question for a legal challenge.
We are all "cash strapped" when considering real-time incoming and outgoings (unrelated to actual balance sheets) and so why should sub-optimal budgeting by a government body become the liability of a set group of people (Wellington renters and landlords who do not have any connection with WCC housing).
Comment