Tax plan

By Melissa Grant
LANDHOLDERS have hit back at claims that a proposed infrastructure scheme is fair, saying the charge is “scandalous” and may send them broke.
They have lashed out at comments made by Growth Areas Authority (GAA) chief executive Peter Seamer, who last week (Gazette, 18 March) rejected their claims that the $80,000-per-hectare levy disadvantaged people who owned land in the Urban Growth Boundary’s fringe in Officer.
Mr Seamer said most residents were excited to have property declared in the UGB – a claim that has enraged some affected landowners.
Officer resident Robyn Early, whose seven-hectare property was included in the UGB in 2005, said she would lose out if she had to sell up soon. “With this $80,000-per-hectare tax we would have to sell at a highly inflated price so we would at least get back what we have worked so hard to keep,” she said. “At our age (60s), you would think that our retirement is set but, if the government has its way, we will be renting and living on the pension.”
Robert Wuchatsch, who has farmed a property in Cardinia Road, Officer, for 27 years with his brother, was outraged by Mr Seamer’s claim that landholders could “always sell at a time that suits them”.
“This is a ridiculous statement as the land will be effectively devalued by $80,000 per hectare,” Mr Wuchatsch said. “If we could find a buyer willing to pay what the council values the property at, we would not receive enough to pay the Growth Areas Infrastructure Contribution – in fact we would be in debt by $1.9 million.”
The proposed scheme, announced on 2 December, requires landholders brought into the UGB in 2005 to pay $80,000 per hectare, while those included in or after 2009 will be taxed $95,000 per hectare. In Casey, the UGB is set to expand with 5500 hectares of land from Cranbourne East to Clyde being considered for inclusion.
Five Ways couple Jenny and Allen Rowe are concerned that the State Government will eat into precious green wedge area if the plan went ahead. “It’s a horrendous, stupid scheme that nobody wants – it’s an absolute scandal,” Mrs Rowe said.
Mr Rowe, whose property is just outside the investigation corridor, was angry the State Government was changing the land’s green wedge status to suit itself.
“We have been stuck to the green wedge the whole time (and can’t subdivide),” he said. “If this scheme goes ahead we will be absolutely rated out of the place. They’re using this land (UGB) as future guarantee for cheap housing.
“Urban and rural do not intermix, I don’t care what anybody thinks.”
Mr Wuchatsch said it was unfair to slog landholders for infrastructure, and suggested the impost should be on the developer.
“It should be paid by whoever owns the land when it is finally subdivided/developed,” he said.>>> Letters, page 6.