CITY RATES.

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20647, 9 September 1932, Page 16

CITY RATES.

TO TUB EDITOE OF THE PRESS (Sir, —When your correspondent, Mr H, B. Dalley, commenced his letters on City rate*, it was quite evident that he did so with the idea of trying to discredit the Labour Party. However, when he-commenced to draw comparisons between Christchurch rates and rhe rates in other cities in New Zealand, he got on to very thin ice. Mr Dalley knows full well that the City Council its not responsible for the rates levied by the Drainage Board, Firo Hoard, River Trust, and lio*pital Board. Now let us make a •-oiii]<arinuu of the rates of Auckland and Chrintehurch lor the year 1930 to 1931, leaving out the rates for the bodies above named, and also the water rate, as Mr Dalley says he has a private supply. We will take Mr Dalley's property an an example: unimproved value, £4l'o; annual value. £OS Bs. The rates for Auckland, -tccording to the Local Authorities' Handbook, would be £lO 7<t; for Christchurch, £0 8s lid. As Mr Dal ley was a candidate in the < itizeu»' Association's interests at the last municipal elections 1 would like to refer him to a speech made by his colleague, Councillor Andrews, on the night of the opening of their campaign and retried in The Pkf.ss of April 24th, l'J'M. Cr. Andrews said that the general rate was the only one within the power of the council to control, and in Auckland it was £l2 us per £IOOO of rateable value, in Wellington £ll 10*, in Duuedin £l3, iu Christchurch £lO 7«. In New Brighton the rato nu* lOd in the £1 unimproved value; in Christchurch, 7d. Referring to the debts of thv cities, he said that Christchurch »> uudcr £2,000,000; Auckland, £ S,O'JO,UOU; Wellington, £5,000,OOU; Dunedin, £3,000,000. Cr. Andrews then remarked that Christchurch was not badly off. Surely Mr Dalley is going back'on his colleague when he writes in the strain of his letters? If Mr Dalley analyses his rate demand I am sure be will find that tile rates over which the council has no control aro more than half of the total contained in the demand; yet we seldom see him writing in a critical strain about these bodies. I presume this is because they are managed by his colleagues of the Citizen*' Association. Mr Dalley in his latest letter (states that it is not right to compare rentable values in Auckland with those in Christchurch,. as if a property had a higher earning power •me would naturally expect to pay more rates. However, properties such as Mr Dalley'* have no earning power, as they are ui»e*l for residential purposes, and if similarly situated in Auckland would be msseised at a higher annual value and eon*equently would be rated liifher. — Yours, etc., E. PARLANE. September 7th, 1932.

TO VIIK EDITOR Oft TUB I'UESS. Sir, —While condemning the exorbitant demands made by the City Council •it the ratepayers, it would be no more if an. fair to the Hospital Board to point •at that the rate levied by the North Canftrbury Board is lower, than that collected in any of the other large nmttto. To take my own property as an example, the rates are £1 Is sd, wfcereas in Auckland they would bo £1 7s 3d, in Wellington £ 1 Is 6 l-3d, and ia Dunedin £ 1 Is 9 3-sd. Probably tho reason why they compare so favourably with the other centres is that there is kn Labour domination, and more control by the country representatives on the North Canterbury Board. ' It is interesting to note that County Councils have in some cases reduced their rates, while none that I am aware of Juts raised tliem. May I suggest that a much simpler rate demand form be adopted here, similar to those in use elsewhere. They are much easier to efceck; but perhaps that would not be considered a recommendation by our councillors. It js interesting to note that there is uniformity in the method •f rating in other centres, Wellington rating on the unimproved value for all Crposes, wflile Auckland and Dunedin ve adopted tho annual value as" a basis. In this City rates are collected oil the capital, unimproved, and annual Z a and the fire rate on tJ »e v alue of buildings. Surely the time for a com«J#t« overhaul of our civic officers 13 overdue.—Yours, etc., *> * u « R ' B ' DALLEY. September Bth, 1932.