CITY VALUATIONS.

Auckland Star, Volume LXII, Issue 69, 23 March 1931, Page 9

CITY VALUATIONS.

MANY OBJECTIONS HEARD.

ASSESSMENT COURT.

"LITTLE REDUCTION IN VALUES."

"There does- not appear to be much reduction in property values yet, and the reductions have occurred only in the cases of forced sales, so far as we can see," said Mr. P. F. Notley, Auckland city valuer, at a sitting of the Assessment Court this morning. In all 959 objections were received, affecting 3612 assessments, but the vast majority of them were settled or withdrawn. Mr. W. R. McKean, S.M., presided over the Court, and gave relief in some cases. Reporting to the City Council in January, Mr. Notley stated that the total ratable value for the new valuation list, which was subject to revision by the Court, was. £2,784,893, while the total ratal-le value for the 1930-31 valuation roll (exclusive of new items made in June) was £2,757,987. The increase, £2G,90G, was largely accounted for by new buildings, valued at £38,873. Civic Square Boom. A statement that the City Council had taken advantage of the boom in valuations caused by the Civic Square scheme was made Avhen Mr. G. E. Allcock applied for relief in respect to a property situated at 310, Queen Street, next door to St. James' Theatre. Mr. Alleoek said that when the Civic Square scheme was proposed, ten years ago, the rental -of the property instantly jumped from £4 to £'8. Two years ago the rental was increased to £12, a figure which he considered was not justified. The ratable value of the property was given as £375. While seeking relief Mr. Allcock said it was no use pleading bad times, as everyone was in the same position. The question was one for an adjustment of rates throughout the city. Mr. Notley: You have managed to carry on all the time? Mr. Allcock said that surely the council expected people to do more than to carry on. It was pretty hard if they could only afford to do that. Business men in adjoining premises had actually paid to let their leases lapse, but he was struggling to adhere to his contract. The case was adjourned in order that Mr. Allcock might produce evidence in support of his claim for relief. Trouble with Rent-payers. "I don't get half my rents these days," complained a man who sought relief in the case of properties in Scarborough Terrace. Mr. McKean: That is not the City Council's fault. The fact that your tenants sometimes don't pay is no reason why vour valuations should be reduced. I'must take Into consideration the rents you are asking for your properties. Appellant: But we don't receive the rent —that is our trouble. Mr. McKef-n: A fair rental is charged the tenants, and if they paid you, you would not have any objection. I am afraid your objection cannot be sustained. When a similar complaint was made •later,,. Mr. Notley observed that when the rents were high the valuation department did not take advantage of them, but when they were not there was a flood of objections. Closing of Horse Bazaar. The objections of Alfred Buckland and Sons to the assessments of £110 on a brick store in Federal Street, £30 on a brick dwelling in Kingston Street, £788 on a workshop and offices in Albert Street, and £1100 on a brick saleyard and store, also in Albert Street, were not sustained. It was pleaded that, owing to the depression in everything connected with farming, the values of the properties had much depreciated. Special reference was made to the closing down of the horse bazaar in Albert Street, which, it was stated, the firm had endeavoured to sell for £27,000 without success. Rent paid last year for the bazaar totalled only £420, and there did not appear to be any prospect of improving on that figure. Grafton Bridge Shops. A reduction in the annual rateable value of two shops opposite the Grafton Bridge approach from £184 to £170 was granted on the application of Mr. Quartley. The valuation was reduced to £184 from £200 last year, stated Mr. Quart-

ley. Before the war the shop commanded rentals of £1 15/ a week, but later the rents increased to £7. The valuations remained fairly low for a time, and were then increased to £200, probably because the owner had escaped the valuations she ought to have paid when rentals were progressing. The leases had now run out, and one shop was empty. It could not be let for £3 10/ a week, plus rates, and Mr. Quartley submitted that £135 a year was sufficient to pay on the properties. Mr. Notley observed that the general cry had been that rents had dropped, but the valuation department did not find that so. Business Man's Protest. A protest that he was paying 15/ more rent a week than other people in the same street, owing to the existence of a lease, was made by a High Street business man. He said he found himself in this unfortunate position because rents had come down considerably in the past two years. He was paying £123 rent a year, plus rates. Mr. Notley asked the objector if he did not benefit by redress that had been given other High Street business men last year. The Objector: We did not get any redress, and Ave should not have been forced to pay £123 rent if we had been in the open market. Mr. Notley: If you got offices for nothing would you expect to be rated at all? The Objector: It is not a fair rental. Mr. McKean: Therefore you say that I should reduce your rates to nothing. Mr. Notley said that he had tried to meet the case and had brought the valuation down from £120 to £90. There was only one other objector in the building, which was six storeys. The Objector: If the others have not vigilance enough to watch their interests, that is no reason why I should not succeed in my objection. When Mr. McKean intimated that the objection would not be sustained, the objector remarked resignedly: "Oh, well, I suppose I will have to leave it till next year."