RATING.

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 18310, 18 February 1925, Page 11

RATING.

CITY COUNCIL'S METHOD

CRITICISED.

At last night's meeting of the Christchurch Drainage Board, an interesting discussion arose over the discrepancy existing between rating on the capital value of properties on the one hand and rating on tho unimproved value on land on the other.

The 6ubject was introduced by Mr A. Smith, who instanced the difference in rates which he was paying on two of his properties, each adjoining tho other and each of the same size. The City Council, he said, struck its rate for the Drainage Board on the unimproved value of the land, and this ho considered was manifestly unfair. The drainago rate was essentially one for capital value, otherwise the man with the.vacant section was paying a large sum and getting no benefit therefrom, whereas the owner who was using tho drainage facilities was being charged at a lower rate—the difference being made up by the unfortunate owner of unimproved sections. The City Council struck the Drainage Board rate on the unimproved value, and it had no right to do so. Moreover, it was unfair for the suburbs to have to pay rates for the city areas. He suggested tEat tho secretary should find out the reason why the City Council was converting the' Drainage Board's rates from capital to unimproved value rating. Mr H. G. Livingstone supported Mr Smith's suggestion, and stated that in his opinion a special committee should be set up to go into' the matter and confor with a similar committee from the City Council. Mr J. W. Beanland said he realised the difficulty which had been met by the previous speakers, but nevertheless he contended that the City Council was bound to collect ou unimproved values. Its loans had been raised ou the understanding that rates would be raised on unimproved values. It might be a. very good thing to raise rates on capital values, but. he Understood that nothing could be done at present, whether rates .w;cro raised on capital or unimproved values. Mr E. H.'S. Hamilton said that a special committee should be set up to meet. on the matter. The Drainage Board was the real rating body, and the City Council merely collected the rate for it on commission. He moved that the Finance Committee go into tho matter and confer with the City Council upon it. Mr D. Itowse seconded the motion. He stated that there was a considerable quantity of land in. Woolston which would never be built on on account of its swampy nature, but owners of this property would have to pay increased rates on it-as the drainage facilities extended in other parts of the city. These people were paying for the benefit of others. '

Mr Wood:."What right has the City Council to strike a rate for us anyway? The chairman. (Mr H. J. Otley) said there was no , doubt that the City Council collected the money for the Board, but there was grave reason now why it should not do so. The rate had been collected by the Council in the first place in order to save a good deal of work. Formerly the Council had struck one,rate over, the whole of the rateable area, but now it struck one rate for the Hospital and Harbour Boards and. another for the Drainage Board. At all events he did not see why the City Council; could not strike its rate on capital value. The matter v was referred to,the finance Committee for, consideration.