The Press FRIDAY, JANUARY 29, 1937. The Rating Question

Press, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22003, 29 January 1937, Page 10

The Press FRIDAY, JANUARY 29, 1937. The Rating Question

An article printed in our news columns yesterday makes it apparent that before very long the Christchurch City Council will be called upon to reconsider the system of rating now in force.

For the last 35 years Christchurch has been rated on unimproved value. The City Treasurer, Mr J. W. Niven, is an advocate of rating on the annual value, and at his suggestion a committee of the council has undertaken an in-

vestigation of rating systems in other parts of New Zealand. That the report will present a clear and convincing case for any one of the

three systems of rating permissible in New Zealand—unimproved value, capital value, and annual value—is not likely. The once-popular belief that rating on unimproved "value is the perfection of social justice has long since been exploded. It is now beginning to be recognised that no system of rating has inherent virtues which make it superior in all circumstances to any other system, even though one system may be the best suited to a particular rating area. For that reason it must be hoped that the Christchurch City Council's committee of enquiry will not be content merely to investigate rating in other parts of New Zealand; it should also consider minutely, having regard to administrative convenience and to incidence, the relative merits of the various systems as applied to the types of land in the Christchurch rating area. It can, of course, be admitted that in recent years the practice of rating on unimproved value has worked badly in Christchurch. But that is due not so much to defects in the system as to the obstructive and short-sighted policy of the Valuation Department. Local bodies which rate on unimproved value are required to have their valuations done by the Valuation Department. But until recently the Valuation Department has been *so inadequately staffed that it has fallen hopelessly into arrears with its work. The Christchurch City Council —and many local bodies are in a worse plight—is now levying rates on a valuation made in 1929. This situation has been made worse by the existence of a clause in the Rating Act enabling property owners to receive individual revaluations in certain circumstances. Since values fell heavily after 1929, this clause was freely used and resulted in an inequitable distribution of rating burdens. In 1934 the Coalition Government attempted to cope with the situation by the manifestly clumsy and unsatisfactory device of permitting the council, and other local authorities similarly situated, to rate on 75 per cent, of the previous general valuation. It can be said at once that, if the policy and methods of the Valuation Department remain as unsatisfactory as they have been in the past, Christchurch would be well advised to change over to rating on annual value, valuations for which are made by the local body itself. There is, however, good reason to suppose that the department has entered upon better days, and that in future local bodies will be able to have their valuation rolls revised at frequent intervals. If that is so, the Christchurch City Council should be content to leave the rating situation as it is.