ASSESSMENT COURT

Evening Post, Volume CII, Issue 40, 16 August 1921, Page 8

ASSESSMENT COURT

| VALUATION OBJECTIONS ; / ..;■ THE liAMBTON LEASES. The sittings of the Assessment Court were continued yesterday afternoon. Mr. V ; . G. Day, S.M., presided, and -with h}m sat Mr. T. B. Dwan (City Council Assessor) and Mr. Ewen Campbell, (Government Assessor). „-.. ,■..-•■ gin the'case ;>in. which" J. ,M.: Bertram '; appealed against the unimproved valuations of three sections in Rodrigo-road, the valuation of one section was reduced by £15, and that'of the other two by £10 each. , ißeuben Morrish, appealed against a valuation.of £820 placed on his property in Taranaki-street. The section measured 33ft by 92ft, and appellant felt that the unimproved value (£595) was too high, and the value of improvements too low. The part of the street where his property .was situated was wind-swept, he said. "James Ames, City: Valuer, said the lincl was now valued at £18 per foot, as •gainst £15 in 1914. .'••/' ' ifThe valuation was sustained. ' fJ. W. Jafek protested against the capital value-'of £3155 (unimproved value £2405, impfove'd £750) placed on his property fronting Everton and Clifton terraces. On behalf of appellant, it was , stated that the land would be difficult to subdivide by reason of the situation of a right-of-way giving access to other, properties:. The value of the improvements was not opposed^ ' "James Ames, City Valuer, considered that it would be possible to subdivide, access to.'Jbe obtained from Everton-ter-race. ■ . , ■ - '»After hearing further evidence, the Court reduced. the unimproved value by £150. j 'MORE OBJECTIONS. •- ;jMore .objections to property valuations were heard by the Assessment Court today. ftLy.rt .V.-iO.- Day, S.M., presided,, and with, him sa^j.Messrs. .T.B. Dwan ■ (Gity Council assessor) and Ewen Campbell (Government!"assessor). . Mr. F. E. AJJard represented the! Valuation. Depart-' mjmt. ' . • ' *'The Hon. T. W. Hielop raised objection to the ..valuation placed on ,a projsrty owned by him at the corner of Aurora-terrace and San -Sebastian-road. The, unimproved value fixed was £4920, v aftd the,^improvements were valued at £,5000.',,, Mr. Hislop said that the new valuation, was greatly in excess- of ■ the , real value. " At the'end of 1919, the pro-. 'pj^rty had been sold for £5500,.after beltig on'the. market-for about ten years. The property" had "a," "frontage of about 900 ft to'Aurora^terrace.'For a long while' 1 Were was a<'reserve of £8800 on the property, bitt no'one would look- at it at that price. , „., ... „„. _. ,_. , * James Ames, City - Vainer, - said •; h»v*lu£d the land,-at £24 per foot, the ■ area being five-eightha of an acre. Twelve years ago, a property.opposite had been sold at £25 per foot. In 1914 the land was valued at £22 pev/'foot. %C. C:' Crump; valuer, endorsed the val-' \ ujjtion fixed by Mr. Ames; •• . . —.. .-Mr. Hislop-said thai the building standing on the land was started before prices began to rise, but even to-day the '* return from it did not amonnt to 6 per :;The 'unhiijipro^ed^valug: was induced r,to '4M500. •^T-^%. tt ft-' ■£' .■"■'. ■„? T he"Cov^»tfi«i'r»suin«d»coiSiderati6'n:. of further questions concerning the yal-. u&tions placed on the_ Lamb tonjreclama: tion leases, the hearing of evidenqe u,poh which was commenced-yesteirday afternoon^, „; „ „-.,, „ .;„ ».,:,.,.,,, ... : .... :Evidence; wasgiven by Mr. C. J. S.-Harcourfc,.a-valuer»oi-,property r .who: was ■Called by Mr. G. G. G. Watson, counsel for the D.1,C.,-that he valued one of the D.I.C. Lambton-quay sections " r at £240 per foot, whereas the Government valuation wa£'£26.o;v Another section he esti-mated-to be worth £225 a foot, as asrainst-'the Government ."valuation of £260. '; Hg "was'estimating his valuations, as if the-sections were freehold. XA-LPE OF BUSINESS PROPERTY.. /'tyl£j K TV.a^son;'"Has the value of mercantile property fallen, sinise the', end oJ last year.?".'.' „".' <. '""."'." "i '„.'.'. ; '. .'." Witness?; " Tliere was "a ' boom' on until November last. It is very hard to say whether land has receded in value, . for it is not being sold." „' Mr. J. O'Shea (City Solicitor): "Are , these Corporation pretty saleable?"—" I don't"!quite follow you." " Can jyou tell ms ;:of -any sales- of the freehold on the Lambton reclamation?"— " There are 96 sections on that reclamation, and, not including the Post Office, there are twelve freeholds.' ; It Vis very natural to conclude ' that any 'freehold coming into the market would be keenly sought after, and the result would be that' very, high prices would be paid. TThat, however, is no criterion of the value of'the remaining sections." v In reply, to Mr. Campbell, witness said tliat a frgejiojd section would be sought after-in'preference to a leasehold every i time.'. " '"■. " .."'t;.';;. ""' ' ' t 'In'answer to Mr. O'Shea, the witness stateij thatlthe Huddart, Parker Co., Ltd.., paid something like £4000 for the Isaselj'pld it, occupied on Jervois-quay. Business areas'had shifted towards Willisstreet, and land between Old Custom-house-street and the Duke of Edinburgh Hotel,-was -worth £250 per foot. The Duke of-Edinburgh was the best corner iii Wellington'^" % ■ ■■-■■■■■■■ "Mr.' O'Shea." " You discovered that ■when you had the compensation claim?" "Witness: „" It, has always been known." ' ■ l ■ T. Answeririf! further questions, Mr. Harcourt .stated that the Wellington Investment Company had sold a section ,on , £ambton-quay to the Bank of New Zealand for £36,000. This showed that in fifteen years values, had gone up 10.per ■ cent. . ' '.-■ • •',- v -..- •. * Mr. O'Shea;;: "Is it not a fact that fjpople in 'j.biisiness on.the reclamatic-n Have retained^these site's!for years arid years?" ' • 'f?.i'J ~J,' .'■"/./ .^,. ... .'•..„., * Witness: ' "There is a- reason for that." •Mr.,O'Shea: "The reason is that they cannot get such cheap, land anywhere ?Jse." . , '^Witness -replied- that that was not so. The reason, was that the lessees had p^irth6ir'rTio«ef_ln" When the leases-were rcnewe'd. In k n's,.:(a^e. r's case, he had taken vp 1 his lease-on certain 'conditions and had stayed there. The reason was that there ..was a .goodwill in the site, ' which he-had'occupied-for thirty years. '3 To Miy-•Watson': :By negotiation, .out # ■ Court,,th_e.yaluajtipn,pn- the Neyv ,Zealand Insurance Company s property had fi'een reduced .below the'l9l*4 TeyeL' In 1914, the capital value was £25,000, the unimproved value being £14,500, and the improved value ( £10,500. Now, Kowever, the-unimproved value had been "reduced t0'£13,750, while the.value of tne improvements remained the same. •• LEASEHOLDS AS-SECURITY. '■Mr. Watson: "Do you'know that no lending institutions in 'II Wellington will lend on city leaseholds." ; •Witness: "That was brought out in evidencp somewhere or other. ".His Worship: "What the witness says_ is only hearsay. He says it was brought', /somewhere or ...other.',". ;; Mr. 'Watspn:. "It „^;as pyidence before i'Royal Commission in-1917." "This is part, of the agitation of the leaseholders tp cry,, down .theafe lease-' holds^"-; remarked; Mr.; O^Shea.-\-. s >;; Jv i; His Worship :■. "How>-aro^the .firms on these leaseholds financed ? Arelnone' „of them subjfefit "to rrtortgagc?" ";' ; Air. Watson: "T^hey can get finance from private individuals or from the S!ity Sinking Fund Commissioners." Mr. O'Bhea:, "\They caa't-g;§|b finaaced,,

by the City Sinking Fund .Commissioners. It is against/ the Trustee Act/ This is a campaign of calumny against these leases." His Worship: "It would be an extraordinary state of affairs if they did not have mortgages. It would be remarkable if that were the case." "They have made money out of these leaseholds," remarked Mr. O'Shea. Mr. Watson: "It is indisputable that lending l institutions will not lend on these leaseholds as security.. This was proved at the Royal Commission over which Mr. Justice Hosking presided." It was subsequently explained that . Mr. Ames had reduced the valuation on the New Zealand Insurance Company's property because a mistake had been made, and it was discovered that an overcharge had been made on Bft of the frontage to Lambton-quay. ; , AN ASCENDING SCALE. Mr. O'Shea stated that sales of land in the neighbourhood of the Lambtan reclamation leases amply justified the valuations placed on the leases by Mr. Ames. Throughout the reclamation, the sales of leaseholds had always been on an Ascending scale. ' , Giving evidence, Mr. Ames stated that within recent years sales of land had taken place on the western side of Lamb-ton-quay at from £200 to over £500 per foot. A section opposite the Bank of New Zealand had been, sold at £400 per foot, and further along, by the Kelburn tramway, a sale had taken place at £528 per foot. Witness also stated that Mr. A. L. Wilson had sold a lease on Lambton-quay, with twelve years to run, at a profit of £6000. This lease had originally been taken out for 21 years, at a rental of £260 per year.. The building on the land was valued at £1500. Mr. O'Shea : "Supposing these city leaseholds were freeholds, would -they cell >at the prices fixed in your valuation ? Witness: "Sell? Yes. , They, would sail at £300 to £350 per'foot, 1 I am borne out by the sales which have taken place." In regard to th,e D.1.0., the Court sustained the valuation of £11,270 (£9710 unimproved and £1560 improved) placed on a corner section, and reduced the valuations on the three remaining sections by £5 per foot; ■■ • [Yesterday's proceedings of the Assessment Court having i particular reference to Lambton-quay leases appear oh page page 4.] '. . ,