ASSESSMENT COURT

Evening Star, Issue 17597, 28 February 1921, Page 6

ASSESSMENT COURT

j Monday, FraiEtnuiY 28. j (Before Air H. Y. Widdoweon, S-M.) i THE ASSESSMENT STANDS. 21, Cavcrsham East, objected to tbo rateable value of £SO placed on his property. There wore two houses on the gronodL He lived in one, and obtained 9s 6d a week for the other. The Government valuation of the houses was £550. He contended that the corporation was indulging in profiteering at the present time. He thought a rateable value of £42 waa a fair tiling. George Gray, assistant city valuer, said he considered the house occupied by the appellant would easily bring 15s a week rent- Similar houses in trio locality would bring £1 a week. The Magistrate said he was afraid that the assessment of the corporation would have to stand. It had only put tho rent j at 15s a week, and he thought it was j very reasonable. The appellant said ho • must accept the adjudicature, but he ! thought it very unjust. Ho was firmly against profiteering by charging higr: rents, but the corporation w.m profiteering. Tho Magistrate said he was in the same boat. DISMISSED. Bessie F. Dickson appealed against the valuation of £3O placed on her property at Howe street. Appellant said she considered tho property was •worth £550 to £6OO. Mr Ramsay, for tho corporation, said the Government valuation was £550. 'll in objection was dismissed. MAORI HILL APPEAL. Mr W. Allen made an appeal against the value of £165 placed on the property of Constance E. 6, Alien, 6 Grand on street, Maori UHL Mr .-Vilen admitted that £3,300 had been paid for the property. He said, however, that a property had to bo obtained at short notice, and that the price was therefore hardly a fair market value. Tho Government valuation was £2,300. He said that the corporation was always ready to base its rateable value on a high price obtained for a property, but that where the value was a low one the corporation would not accept it Thomas Scott, auctioneer and valuer, said he knew the property. In 1913 the place was sold for £1,400. The owner put in a garage at a cost of £IOO, and in 1916 sold it for £1,550. The new owner putin a balcony at a cost of £IOO. and in 1917 or 1918 the place was again sold for £1,650. Tho last sale was made from this owner (Mrs Ainge) to Dr Allen’s trustees. Witness would say that tho outside value of tho place to-day was £2,300 or £2,400. Ho would expect that a rental of £llO or £l2O a year would be obtained for the place. To Mr Ramsay: In 1917 or 1918 there w;is not the life in tho house market that there was to-day. There had been a largo increase in the values of properties since then. He considered that £BOO or £9OO too much had been paid for the property. There was a further demand for property in St. Clair, St. Kilda,_ or Musselburgh than there was in Maori Hill. To the Court: He thought the Government valuations were fairly uniform and concrete —that was, for this year. He would not say that valuations were much below their actual value. Mr Ramsay admitted that tho corporation had no option. It could not charge less than 5 par cent, at the value of the fee simple, and ho submitted, that the fee simple price in this instance was the value at which tho property was sold. The Magistrate quoted a case whore a man had to pay an exorbitant price for a Roslvn property, on which there was an old house, in order to secure tho landlie would not hold that in such a case tho price paid was tho reasonable market value. He went on to say that they could not get over tho fart that Land agents had sold this property in the open market for £3,500. They knew that tho Government valuations did not always represent tho true values. His remarks applied more particularly to the suburbs. Mr Allen said tho Government valuers were now keeping very close to the actual values. Tho trustees know that paying an excessive price for the Maori Hill property. Tho Magistrate said it was right to assume that the trustees were very careful when they purchased tho property. The decision would bo given after tho nest case had been heard.. INSPECTION TO BE MADE. Mr Russell Smith appealed against tho rateable value of £l3O placed on tho property of Elizabeth M £ Kay, in Bell ward. Mr 'Smith said that, - as a ratepayer, he also wanted to introduce, tho valuation of tho adjoining properties of Dr Frank Fitchett (£l26)'and Mr A. C. Hanlon £99). Ho maintained that Mrs M‘Kay’s was valued too high and Messrs Fitchctt’s and Hanlon’s too low.

donathan Rhodes said Dr Fitchctfs property would not to-day bo built under £3,500, Olio, whole of (ho properly would, in his opinion, easily bring £4,000. He should sav £2.200 would l>o a fair value for Mrs M‘Kay’s house. The rent he would expect to get for the house would bo £IOO a. year. .Mr Hanlon’s home was verv much newer, and should ho worth about £2.750 for the bouse und land. After Mr Duncan, city vainer, had oiven eyidenco, Mr Smith said the whole city should be revalued on a uniform basis. Ho. contended this had not been done in. the present ease. The Magistrate said that uniformity was the only principle the valuer should work npon. At tho GUjrgestion of 3vFr Smith the magistrate said ho would inspect the properties. The Magistrate said ho would fix a date Later on so that the owners of tho other properties which were affected might be notified. SLIGHT REDUCTION MADE. Mr A. S. Cookson appealed against tho rateable value of £ll6 placed on the office property of the Employers’ Association. Appellant said he had to pay £l2O a year rout, which had remained stationery daring tho past six years. The’ Magistrate made a reduction to £ll2.