CORRESPONDENCE

Evening Post, Volume CXXVIII, Issue 24, 28 July 1939, Page 8

CORRESPONDENCE

HUTT BOROUGH RATES

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—l have read with interest the request of your correspondent, Mr. O. ■ E. Dormer, for information as to the rates . in the Hutt Borough, and the reply.of Mr. J. W. Andrews, the Mayor of Lower Hutt. Mr. Andrews has directly inferred by his statement that the major increases have been due to the increased hospital levy and the failure of the Government to pay rates and fees on land taken or purchased tor housing purposes in the borough. Well, Sir, an analysis and comparison of the current rate demands and those of the year 1936-37 bring out these very interesting points:— 1080-37. mfMO. llfttOM. d. , (!. <1. Oiiarnl .. 5 27/505 7 223/675 *2 3843/13G35 I/lKhtlui,' 150/505 IBS/675 tflDO/18035 JloHpHul . 1 200/805 3 51/075 *l 6850/13835 Special ... 3 354/1505 2 233/875 fi 4882/13035 ♦Increase fDocroaso. From these figures it will be seen that the greatest increase has been in the general rate, and not the hospital rate, as Mr. Andrews would have us believe. Incidentally the rates in 1936----37 were levied on approximately twothirds df the then Government valuation, and aa the 1839-40 rates are levied on the Government valuation they have actually been increased by one-third for each section. With reference to the Government housing scheme, Mr. Andrews has definitely shelved Mr. Dormer's question in his answer. Mr. Andrews makes reference to a block of land purchased for housing purposes in 1937 and subsequently subdivided, on which there had formerly been paid £280 14s Id in rates, and which had • paid on it only £51 19s 3d in special rates and no general rates in 1938. He states that the land was cut up into 83 sections, on which 82 houses had been erected. He then goes on to show that if the subdivision had been a private one then the Government had deprived the borough of £1937 6s lid so far as last year!s finances were concerned. His statement as to the loss in this case rests entirely on one phrase, "if the subdivision had been a private one," for in the first place he has no guarantee that this particular estate would 1 have been subdivided, and, secondly, it is extremely doubtful whether, even granting that it had been subdivided, there would have been 82 houses erected within the year. So that when Mr: Apdrews's statement is carefully read the only conclusion that can be drawn from it is that the actual loss to the borough's finances for 1938-39 amounted to £229 3s 4d, and not £1937 6s lid, as. he has inferred. :,, Mr. Andrews has not replied to either of Mr. Dormer's questions fully yet, and has definitely not replied to his second question, which was, "Is it the intention of the Government to pay rates on Government houses erected In the Hutt Borough?" In conclusion, would Mr. Andrews endeavour to answer the following questions clearly and fully:—- J ... 1. What is the total amount paid to date by the Government in rates on houses constructed for the Housing Department and occupied? 2. What is the total amount in fees paid by the Housing Department for houses constructed for the Department? . 3. Why has Mr. Andrews always made reference to the increase in- the hospital rate and never to the increase In the general rate?— l am, etc., ANOTHER RATEPAYER:

(To the Editor.) Sir,—ln yesterday's "Evening Post" a correspondent asked for information regarding the increase in the borough rating, and justly complains.of continued increases which are indeed a very sore point with a great number of ratepayers. Ido not agree, how- j ever, with the Mayoral statement tnat the increase is due to the hospital and charitable aid levy. If the charitable aid contribution of approximately 2 l-10d in the pound on the unimproved value were taken out altogether, that would be a reduction of only 16 per cent., whereas a reduction of more than 33 1-3 per cent, is required to account for the substantial increase in the rating. My rates have increased nearly 50 per cent, since the 1935 rating, or approximately 4d in the £. (Unimproved values.) v - As a matter of fact, the borough is still paying interest on loans taken out in 1904 and 1911, while conversion loans involve a rate of approximately lid in the £ and cover loans for who knows how far back. Surely it should not bo necessary in 1939 to be paying interest on £1000 sanitation loan taken out in 1904. There is no mention made on the rating notice that any part of this has .been repaid in the last 35 years or that a sinking tund has been provided sufficient to repay it even another 35 years hence. Is there no legislation which imposes on boroughs and other local bodies that borrow money the absolute responsibility of providing reasonable sinking funds that will repay the thing within a generation, or a lifetime? I do not know whether the assets created by the £1000 Sanitation Loan and other similar loans and conversion loans are still in existence, but I do think that all ratepayers are of one mind that these things should be cleared up within a reasonable time instead of carrying on Indefinitely. ■■. The Mayor's figure of £14,000 for Hospital Board rates gives an indication of the total amount of rating which would, on that basis, be in too neighbourhood of £90,000, of which over £60,000 is allocated to "the general purposes of the borough." Seeing that all their loan moneys are provided for by separate rates and that tne borough seems to have only a small number of employees, what are the principal items that this general rate is required for? I understand that all new roads opened in the borough have to be formed, metalled, drained, serviced, surfaced, kerbed, channelled, and footpathed before they ar<f defeated to the'borough. Street lighting and water supply are separate rates-. Drainage is provided for in the loan money rates. So Xar as. the hospital and charitable aid imposition is concerned, even at its greatly increased rate it represents only about £2 a year to the average I ratepayer, and I for one do not object to this. I pay a good many times more than that in deductions from my Weekly salary for social security, and more again by way of indirect taxation for social security and hospital expenses. We are to get a new hospital in the Hutt, and I do not mind paying £2 a year for having it so long as that price does not go on increasing. The Mayor has indicated that considerable sums of revenue <have been lost to the borough because of Government failure to pay rates, and yet wheriever this has'come before the Minister responsible, some sort of denial has been made and figures given in support of the denial. Surely, Sir, this is only a question of facts, and cannot all the facts be made in one statement instead of a series of halfstatements. In any case, is it not true that the unrecovered Government building fees represent, not extra cost, but only a profit which failed to materialise.

I am sure that ratepayers would be interested to know how much of the Is in the £ rates they aro called upon to make this year is in the form of charitable aid to support unpaid rates on Government properties.—l am, etc., EATEPAYER.