THE NEW RATING SYSTEM

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 260, 3 August 1928, Page 13

THE NEW RATING SYSTEM

Sir,-—On July 25 I wrote to “The Dominion’’ in connection with “the new rating system,” and in support of Councillor 11. D. Bennett’s views on "the inequitableiiess of the waler rate.” In reply to this Mr. P. J. O’Regan has thought fit, in mis mornings issue of "The Dominion,” to give your readers a long harangue and dissertation on liow 1 acquired my house, and what 1 proposed doing with it, all of which is nothing more than a product of his own imagination, absolutely inaccurate, and is as much “news” to me as it will be to any one of your readers. However, his vitriolic vituperations leave me unabashed, as they have no bearing on the subject matter m hand—"that of the-rating of-water on the .unimproved value of land,” and is no more than a deliberate and intentional attempt to cloud the issue.'

If Mr. O'Regan can justify his views on the rating of water on the unimproved value of land as being the best and mist equitable, will he please coniine himself to this matter, for that is the subject under discussion and no other; so please cease dragging red herrings across the trail? I contend that the rating of water on the unimproved value of land is neither just nor equitable, on the grounds that the consumption of water should form the basis of taxation for this essential commodity, as being the fairest, and strictly logical. :. ... On the- present, system of rating an empty section 'will pay water rates as much as another section of'equal value with a nine-storied building-on it. The former consumes no water at all, and the latter, water enough to supply the whole of the establishment free of charge. Or to bring the application nearer home: A --house housing an ordinary family pays as much in water rate as a building with 50 or 100 tenants if the unimproved value of the land is equal. I contend that this is neither just nor equitable, as the consumption of water has no ; connection whatsoever with the unimproved value of land, as water, on the present system, is rated now on this basis of unimproved value, would it not be logical to rate the lighting system on.the same basis? Sir. O’Regan, who so strongly advocated the change over for water to the present system, to be absolutely consistent, and in justification of his views, should set about advocating a change-over in that direction for lighting. To quote from his own letter. “I hold accordingly the cost of all such utilities is properly .chargeable to the: rates.” This in reference to water, lighting service, tramways, etc. ..

Again, to quote Mr. O’Regan : “Moreover, there is.not the slightest reason to believe that when the block of modern buildings which Dr. Hughes Steele visualises has come into being, the “occupiers” (sic) will have any reason to murmur at the water rate.” Exactly!—that.is my ' contention . Why should the occupiers of a block of modern buildings pay the same amount in water rate as a residence with professional rooms? The subject under discussion is not, and never has been in connection with the total- amount of the rates which I am called upon to pay as Mr. O’Regan would have the public believe, but solely and ■ entirely in connection with the injustice of the-present. system, of water rates (which benefits one section of tlie community at tlie expense of tlie other), which Mr. O’Regan advocates. It is neither my desire nor intention to enter into a newspaper controversy with Mr. O’Regan, as I have neither the time nor inclination, for I already know Mr. O’Regan’s views on the matter with which views I do not agree. I think I have made myself clear enough this time to satisfy even Mr. O’Regan, and will now retire and leave “the public” to judge. —I am. etc.. HUGHES STEELE. M.R.C.S. (Eng.). ■ Wellington, July 31.