REVALUATION AND REVENUE.

Press, Volume LXIX, Issue 20828, 11 April 1933, Page 10

REVALUATION AND REVENUE.

LOSS IN CITY RATES. DESIRE FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION. The reductions made in valuations in the city during the last financial year will mean a loss of £407 18s Id on the present general rate of 21d, and if the same amount of revenue is required next year the rate will accordingly have to be increased. The Finance Committee reported to the Christchurch City Council last night that during the financial year 1932-33 valuations in the city had been reduced by £74,065 on the capital value and £43,510 on the unimproved value as a result of revaluations made under the provisions of Section 50 of the Valuation of Land Act, 1925. These reductions would come into force for the current financial year, continued the committee. There were further applications not yet dealt with, and the loss in rates was such that to raise an equal amount of revenue would require an increase in the present general rate. Views of Councillors. Cr. M. E. Lyons said a resolution had been passed at the recent Municipal Conference that where a landowner secured a revaluation on a lower scale, it should not come into effect until the next ordinary revaluation. That, he thought, was reasonable, though the Minister for Lands had not favoured it in the House. The position now was that the astute ratepayer was able to shoulder part of his legitimate burden on to his fellows. That was absolutely unfair, and had not been contemplated when the clause was originally framed. Yet there was no doubt the advantage given was being used a great deal by those who were wide awake. Cr. Lyons thought the council should forward some resolution on this question to the Government, urging a toning down of Section 50. The Mayor (Mr D. G. Sullivan, M.P.) suggested the Finance Committee of the council should be given authority to frame a recommendation to the Government. There was an alternative course of action to that suggested in the resolution of the Municipal Association, said Cr. J. McCombs. A revaluation was necessary, but it should not be piecemeal, giving some people an advantage over their fellows. The only equitable way was to get the Valuation Department to act, though a recent interview with the head of the department had not been promising. It was decided to leave the question with the Finance Committee for action.