BIRKENHEAD BOROUGH VALUATION.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXII, Issue 53, 4 March 1901, Page 2

BIRKENHEAD BOROUGH VALUATION.

(To the Editor.')

Sir,—Our. attention has been called to a letter signed by "Ratepayer" referring to the action of the Council in. connection with the recent valuations.

Now, sir, there is a persistent attempt, the reason . why we are unacquainted "with to misrepresent the present Birkenhead Borough Councillors in their endeavours to have a fair and impartial valuation, notwithstanding'your recent reply in "Answers to Correspondents," which was as follows:— "Birkenhead"—"Such a meeting, though unusual, would be quite in order. The | borough valuer, not having submitted his valuations, all the Council can do is to go over the valuations of the previous year, with a view to lodging objections! to the valuation lists when submitted, i£ ! the objectionable values are not altered in the new lists." It is a well-known fact in the borough that hitherto the valuations have not been as satisfactory and just as could be wished. At the recent elections candidates were pledged to haye a fair and equitable valuation made, and with this object the I Council decided, with one exception, unanimously, to meet in committee before "and after the valuer had placed his valuations on the table, but in no instance -has the valuer been present at these meetings (nor "was he aware in any shape or form of the result of same) prior to placing his valuation on the table. The base insinuations of your correspondent that he "understood in some cases the valuations have been altered" we treat with the contempt it deserves. We may ! say that were such the case we are un- ■ worthy of the confidence of the residents. j In consequence' of such meetings the j ■whole of the values have been gone into j after much labour and care, the effect of which will be made known at the proper time and place. Any valuations that the Council consider are too low they will j object to at the Assessment Court, Wtfijch 1 power they have under the Act. j Now, your correspondent evidently asi sumes that we met in Council with tho valuer present, which was not so, but we i went through the valuation book of the! I previous year, and the reason why we did i meet before was that we thought it necessary to make ourselves acquainted with! the values of the different properties, j which is no easy matter, and requires, j even in our borough, considerable amount! of time and attention. The course we \ adopted may be unusual, but the circum-j stances warranted us taking it, and wo i cannot see why exception should be taken to our action, especially as it has been In the interests of tho borough as a whole. . We presume thai: ihe value of "Ratepayer's" property has been increased, along with a few others, by the valuer, and this may be the cause of him misrepresenting the action of the Council in this matter.—We are, etc., H. P. TAYLOR A. KKYBS JOHN HADFIELD . WM. WALLACE PATRICK DONAHOE.