RIVER BOARD RATES

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 91, 14 October 1931, Page 3

RIVER BOARD RATES

CAPITAL OR UNIMPROVED

VALUE

Tho Hutt Biver Board had before it last evening a request from Mr. F. M. Theseman, secretary of the Waiwetu Progressive Association, that th« board should collect its rates on the' unimproved value in place of the capital value. The valuations on the capital value were: Class 1, £2,890,146; class 2, £2,228,487; class 3, £308,025; class A, £116,529; class B, £167,783; and class C, £41,495; total, £5,752,465. The general rate struck on this was 13-100 th of. a penny; and. produced £3116. Tho unimproved value in the board's area was: Petone, £61,420; Hutt County, £353,610; Lower Hutt Borough, £1,988,407; total, £2,403,437,, or, less exemptions of approximately £200,000, £2j203,437. A rate of 34-lOOth of a penny would produce £3116. If the ,rates were struck on.' this basis a section- valued.at £250, wonld be rated 6s lid, whereas,; on a capital-value of £1250 for house and section, the rate now was 16s 3d.

Special rates in a like manner, would also be reduced. . '•■ r In submitting these figureg . Mr. Thessman went on to say that- if tho board were to bring into its xating area those parts of Petone which are protected by the board's stop banks, yet do not pay rates, the rates, could bo reduced even further.

The chairman (Mr. F. Hewer) said Mr. Thessinan did not say who would pay the extra amount of the rates if some paid less. It was clear tKat if Mr. Thessinan was going to pay less someone was going,, to pay more. Iti was a question really of the few paying for the many. Mr. H. E. Leigh ton said he could not at all agree with the proposition. ' Mr. Gf. A. Chapman contended that; Biver Board rates were a form, of; insurance, and could not be .classed as ordinary borough rates. Ratepayers with houses on their land benefited far more than .those, with vacant land. A flood on a vacant section would do little damage, but it would be otherwise where buildings would be dam* aged. ■ . ■ - . Mr. Leighton pointed out that'Petone) could not be. brought in \yithout a poll of the ratepayers, who would, of course f refuse. > . ' ■ :

Mr. C. Gostclow criticised Mr. Thessman's figures, stating that the amount to l)e paid on a £250 section would be 7s lid, not Cs lid, while the amount under the capital value would be 13s 6d and not 16s 3d. He did not at all agree with the idea oi rating on unr improved value, unless for tho pur* pose of breaking up large estates. A» Mr. Chapman had-said, Biver Board rates should be regarded as insurance. On the motion of Mr. Mitchell it was decided to reply that the board .could not see its way to alter its system of rating. : - ■