THE adoption of the 2015 Limerick City and County Council budget provoked mixed responses among members, with the introduction of a property tax for council tenants coming in for particular criticism.
Sinn Fรฉin council group leader Maurice Quinlivan accused Fine Gael and Fianna Fรกil councillors, who voted to pass the budget, of continuing to impose โthe failed policies of austerityโ.
โFianna Fรกil and Fine Gael councillors have decided to impose at local level the same failed template of austerity that successive governments have imposed across the State for the last seven years โ policies that have caused unprecedented levels of hardship, unemployment and emigration.
โWe are facing both cuts to and a failure to invest sufficiently in local road maintenance, housing and environmental supports to those most in need,โ commented the City North councillor.
He concluded: โFianna Fรกil in particular, who opposed the Local Property Tax in a recent council motion, but now ensured that Council tenants who are not property owners will have to pay this regressive tax.โ
The Anti-Austerity Alliance also condemned the introduction of the โฌ87 Local Property Tax charge on council tenants.
AAA council group leader Cian Prendiville remarked: โThis proves that far from being a tax on property, this is a tax on the family home. It also shows that, whatever promises Fianna Fรกil made during the local elections, when it comes down to it they support this austerity charge.โ
He continued: โThe Local Government Fund for Limerick has been cut down from โฌ40 million to zero, not to mention the cuts in special grants for roads and other services. This has been passed on to ordinary people by previous councils in a 20 per cent cut in jobs, 25 per cent cut in spending in roads, and cuts across other services too. This budget continues that underfunding, and includes further significant cuts.โ
Cllr Prendiville welcomed the additional โฌ100,000 added to the bin waiverย compared to the initial proposal, but warned that the amount allocated was still โฌ70,000 less than last yearโs allocation, and could result in cuts to the scheme.
He concluded: โNow those on the waiver, particularly unemployed peopleย in the city, face uncertainty over whether they will lose their waiver โ worth โฌ200 to โฌ300.โ
Independent councillor John Gilligan commented: โSome of the poorest in society are expected to cough up an extra โฌ2.5 million. We have a huge amount of money and now weโre looking for more. Adding a property tax onto that is just nonsense. I think itโs wrong.
Regarding water charges, Cllr Gilligan remarked that it was โintrinsically wrongโ to ask the public โto pay for their water twiceโ.