City Valuations.

Press, Volume LXIX, Issue 20829, 12 April 1933, Page 10

City Valuations.

A report by the Finance Committee of the Christchurch City Council, summarised in " The Press" yesterday,, draws attention once more to the confusion and injustice created in Christchurch by the Valuation Department's inability to catch up with arrears of work. At present the Christchurch City Council is striking rates on a- valuation made in 1929, a year of comparative prosperity. Real estate values are now much beldw the 1929 level and not likely to reach it again for several years at least. The disparity between actual values and valuations for rating purposes would be less objectionable had the 1929 valuation remained intact. But section 50 of the Valuation of Land Act enables a property owner to obtain a fresh valuation at any time by payment of a fee. In the financial year 1932-33. according to the Finance Committee's report, revaluations under this section have reduced the rateable capital value of the city by £74,065 and the unimproved value by £43,510. This widespread use of the safety provision in the act has two unfortunate results. In. the first place, it makes it difficult for local bodies to budget with any accuracy. The actual yield from the Christchurch City Council's general rate, for instance, will be £4OO less than it would have been had no special re - valuations been made. In the second place, it makes the incidence of rates inequitable, since not all ratepayers can afford to pay the cost of special revaluation. The Municipal Conference's suggestion that the act be amended to provide that individual revaluations shall not come into effect in the financial year in which they are made meets only the first of these objections. The only satisfactory solution of the problem is more frequent valuations. To judge by the experience of the Christchurch City Council, however, there is little prospect of increased activity on the part of the Valuation Department. Last August the Valuer-General not only refused the council's request for a revaluation before April 1, 1933, but declined to give any undertaking regarding the probable date of a revaluation. In England and some parts of the UnitedJ&tates frequent

valuations are ensured by making the rating authority also the assessing authority; but the disadvantages of such an arrangement are so obvious that its adoption in New Zealand would be a doubtful improvement on the existing system. The difficulty might be overcome by making local bodies bear the whole cost of valuations in return for the right to demand valuations when they are necessary.