LAND VALUES

Dominion, Volume 22, Issue 218, 11 June 1929, Page 13

LAND VALUES

OBJECTIONS TO CITY ASSESSMENTS FURTHER CASES HEARD A further sitting of the Assessment Court—Messrs. J. G. L. Hewitt, S.M. (president), A. Longmore (assessor for the Government), and T. B. Dwan (assessor for the public)—was held at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday. ' Mr. F. Mackenzie appeared on behalf of the Valuation Department. Mrs. Florence McClellan objected to the valuation of her property, fronting on Young's Avenue, The Terrace, and Abel Smith Street, 3 roods and 16.9 perches—capital value £7350, unimproved value £5500, improvements £lB5O. Mr. M. F. Luckie, who appeared for the objector, said that the Government valuation of the improvements was too low. The owner estimated them at £6OOO, and had actually spent £4OOO in improving the property since she 'bought it in 1922.' The house was known as “Inverlochy,” and had been erected by the late T. K. McDonald. It was a 24-roomed house, and there was also an eight-roomed house on the land, the total insurance being £6500. The land could not be further subdivided. The owner estimated the unimproved value at £3500 and the improvements at £4OOO. The Court decided to inspect the property. Terrace Values. John S. Swan (architect) contested the valuation of his property on The Terrace, nearly opposite Aurora Terrace—capital value £4500, unimproved value £3500, improvements £lOOO. He estimated the unimproved value at £2500 and the improvements at £6OO. He said that he bought the property eight years ago for £1650, the land value being then £3O a foot. The new valuation made the land value £92 per foot. The building was 70 years old, but the Department had increased the improvements value from £6OO to £lOOO. Mr. Mackenzie: What is the insurance? Mr. Swan: £l2OO. He explained that a section alongside was valued at £7l per foot ■ , , OAA The capital value was reduced to £4300, the unimproved value (£3500) was sustained, and the value of the improvements was reduced to. £BOO. In Hobson Street. John McGavin Duncan (represented by Mr. D. M. Findlay) objected to the Valuation of his property, of 3 roods and 1.7 perches, with access to Hobson Street and Thorndon Quay—capital value £3OOO, improvements £6550. Mr. Findlay said that the objector estimated the unimproved value at £1640, and the improvements at £12,000. The property had really no frontages, having only two accesses, 7ft. and 22ft. wide respectively, to Hobson Street, and one of 12ft. to Thorndon Quay, up a very steep slope. Land values in the district had been falling of late years; .and the buildings, which were insured for £l5OO more than the Government valuation, had been built twenty years or so ago for • some £13,500, and would now cost to build to-day a good deal more than that There was a considerable drop to Thorndon Quay. . „ .. , . Mr. Mackenzie: You yourself valued the buildings at £6OOO in 1921. Mr. Duncan: The value of the buildings was a matter of indifference then. It is a ferro-concrete house that cost over £13,000 about twenty years ago, and the value is all there.' It would cost £20,000 to replace. .The president: What it cost .to build is neither here nor there. Mr. Mackenzie: We are prepared to give you a reduction of £4OO off the unimproved value. The Court reduced the unimproved value to £2600, but sustained the valuation of the improvements. , . The Hotel Bristol. Mr. H. H. Cornish appeared in support of the objection of G. T. London to the valuation of the Hotel Bristol property, at the corner of Cuba Street and Ghuznee Street—capital value £64,000, unimproved value £39,000, improvements £25,000. He said the owner estimated the unimproved value at £28,705. The Government’s unimproved, value worked out at £3OO per foot. He did not dispute. that there had been some high Sales in-the vicinity; but freak sales and fantastic prices did not prove that the values were as stated by the Department. The total value of the property was not disputed; it was well worth £64,000, but they claimed that the value of the improvements was not less than £45,000. He had in mind the sale by Mr. Hannah to Mr. Smith at £15,000. : Mr. Hannah had bought it some years ago at £9OOO. On the same side as the Bristol, Mr. Edilson had paid approximately £3OO a foot for the land. There were empty shops in the street, and one shop with a 16ft frontage had been let by the Public Trustee at £4 a week. Mr. Mackenzie pointed out that land in Cuba Street bought by Mr. Hannah at £6OO a foot was valued by the Department at £4OO a foot; and the valuation of the Hotel Bristol site was equally conservative. Mr. Edilson had paid £lO,OOO for his land, ..and it was valued at £9ooo. There were .no other objections to the Cuba Street valuations. It was true that there was a watercourse under the Hotel Bristol property, .which deteriorated the value of the land somewhat. The case was adjourned. i