CITY RATING

Evening Star, Issue 20150, 15 April 1929, Page 13

CITY RATING

ro Trie editos. Sir, — In your issue of the 4th Cf Clayk is'reported to .have said tnut tnc system of rating adopted in Dunedin was a disgrace to the progressive dominion of New Zealand, and it "'as recognised that it wits a greater handicap on ’ industry than taxation. Some persons who do not take too deep an interest in municipal affairs may have thought that (Jr Clark had discovered something now. .With your permission I. would likfe to place before the city electors in as btief a form as possible some of the information that has been given to city, councillors during the last ten years.. They will, .1 believe, then see that either Or Clark was playing to the gallery or had been a Kip Van Winkle. At the same time .1 wish to give honour where houohr is due —that is, to.our. town clqrk (Mr Lewin), who placed before the City Council the best available .knowledge of man on onr rating system, and it is on the, backs of onr present councillors that the blame must rest for what is to all persons interested in the city's welfare a disgrace. Jn submitting Ids annual report in the year 1919-20 the town clerk says: ‘‘Ju New Zealand local authorities are restricted in rating jKiwers to. a rate based on ‘rental value,’ -‘capital value,'’ or so-called ‘nniplproved land value.' I t has been said of that method —rating on rental value—that no method of local taxation in the world is so simple as the English system of rating entirely on rental value, and none is so unjust. Many of the large cities in England rate np to 11s, 12s, or 13s in the £ of rental value. As the demands of taxing authorities increase in response to the cry for better service, together with the growing cost due to the diminishing value ot the sovereign, the inequitable method ol raising all our local taxation in this indiscrindnating way is brought into prominence, and prompts an inquiry into other systems, some of which have been designed on. the avowed principle of 1 saddling tlic horse with the broadest back.’ The remedy, in my opinion, lies in a revision of the whole incidence of local taxation whereby the increasing harden would be more widely distributed.” It will be seen lhat the town clerk placed the injustice of the present method of rating in front .of the council as far hack as ten years ago. C'r dark apparent!' - has just awakened. Jn 11)23-21 'Mr Lewin submitted to flic council a report on rating on unimproved vaules, and in Which he gave a scries of examples of thirty-six specific eases in the city. For the benefit of your readers I will give some ol the cases and allow (hem to judgt- for themselves. 1 believe they will agree that it was the duty of the council to have dealt with tin;' matter of rating before this juncture. It is obvious that the great difference between what persons pay under one system compared with the other demanded a lull inquiry into the system of rating E.xemple 1. Hoarding house and shops in central part of city on quarter-acre of land pay on present system £SBO 15s 7d in rates. On unimproved value they would pay £I.OOO J3s (id. 2. Largo building (offices and rooms) approaching sk\scraper type ol building standing on 20.5 pules pays £<sl is 3d, and would pay under unimproved value £3lO 17s 2d. 3. Picture theater standing on qnar-ter-aerc pays £2(30 -Is 3d under present system, ami would pay £O4 4s. 4. Dwelling, lour rooms, on 18 poles, pays £5 0s 3d under present system, and would pay £l2 ISs 3d under unimproved value system. 5. Dwelling, live rooms, on 21.5 poles, pays £l2 15s. and would pay £2O 13s 3d under unimproved value. G. Dwellings, tenements or Hats, standing on 20 poles, pay £7O 2s Gd under present system (£25 10s 7d). The above examples, given in sequence as in Mr Lewin's report, will prove, that there is a vast difference in effect for the ratepayer between the two methods of rating. The difference between the revenue and expenditure mi any given property or industry fixes the exchange value, or what is called the commercial value. It is obvious (lint persons now henclitting by the present system have a big advantage over the other section. As industry and progress depend greatly on stabilised prices, it will he seen that any system that allows great opportunity for speculation in gambling is not in the best interest of the community. The great difference between what a person pay- on the rental system of fating ami what he would pay under a system of rating on unimproved values more nr less is due to speculation brought about by the war. in which properties, mostly working class dwellings. changed hands frequently at advanced rates, bringing in their train high rent and high rates for this class of property. It Is not the writer’s intention to argue as to what is the best system of rating, beyond saying that whatever system is adopted, whether it he rating or rental, capital, or unimproved value, there should, if the system is properly administered, lie very little difference in the effect on the individual person. As the administration is in the control of the council, it must take the blame for its bad results.

Mr Lcwir; says in liis report to tlie council : 11 On the annual value system let it be made clear tlie improvements are subject to tax. while on the land value system they are wholly excluded.” It is further claimed for the system of land value taxation that the community would recover the value created by its own activities ami expenditure, and not hy any action or expenditure on the part of the owner; that it will stimulate'building and improvements, and that it will bring more land into the market and thereby cheapen its price. Headers will see that the council has during the last ten rears had valuable data placed in front of it hv our (own clerk, and it should, if it had the welfare of the city at. heart, have dealt with the rating system. In conclusion, may f say that wo are suffering in our city to-day greatly hy the incomneteney or ana thy of our present council in not dealing with our rating system, and it behoves all ratepayers to closely scrutinise tlie names of candidates standing for municipal and public honours, and not, to he misled hy tiekets or names, always rcmeirihcrimr that a genius and gentleman may he clothed in rags and anything hut a gentleman in silk. — f am, etc., ,C. M. Moss. April 9.