RATING SYSTEMS

Evening Star, Issue 22783, 4 May 1931, Page 8

RATING SYSTEMS

TO THE EDITOK, gi r> —“M.C.” will also be well pleased with his attempt to “ waste a little more valuable space ” which he has admirably succeeded in doing, no doubt to his own utter disgust. He takes too much for granted, as in his letter he quotes figures which were suggested by Mr Silverstone as likely to be adopted if unimproved rating were carried, but he either does not know or does not care to think whether these figures are correct or otherwise—he just takes them for granted because Mr Silverstone says so. Had Mr Silverstone worked his figures at £4 8s 4d on ground value of £IOO, “ M.C.” would naturally take for granted that he would bo better off to the extent of £5 7s 5d per annum. Does he not take into consideration the fact that Mr Silverstone worked out the rate at 6Jd, and then a week or two later at Is Id? Just a trifling 100 per cent, increase! Does it not occur to him that the rate might quite easily be Is 3d,in the £ or more? He also replies to my letter stating I must be well pleased with the result of my “ wasting paper ” efforts because of the fact that Mr Silverstone’s rates' will be incx-eased, merely because the editor said so. “ Think First ” has pointed out that Mr Silverstone referred to his business premises and not to his house, and I still maintain that under the proposed system Mr Silverstone’s rates on his house would be reduced, merely because the value of his property consists in the house much more than in the land, which is not the case with the majority of workers—that is to say, the value of his property lies in the improvements. Obviously in such a case as his the rates will be reduced, and Mr Silverstone is probably among the first to have realised this.

I should have preferred to be wrtiing this letter in answer to Mr Silverstone’s reply to my previous letter, but he has seemingly found it is causing him some mental anxiety to concoct a reply which would be to the benefit of the majority of workers. I quite expected someone such as “ M.C.” to come forward and show how little he knew of the facts. He suggests that Mr Silverstone’s efforts are bearing fruit, but just at the time when his own efforts aro in full bloom tney are severely frosted by *’ Think First.”

“ M.C.” tells us that Mr Silverstone’s advocacy against gardens is not borne out by facts. Certainly not so far as the man who can afford to have a quarter-acre section is concerned, but this is not the class of man Mr Silverstone declares himself as representing. He poses as the workers’ friend, but these are the very ones who could not afford to hold or buy an eighth, let alone a quarter-acre, within two miles of the city area if unimproved rating were carried. If they did, it would, on the suggested figures, be to their detriment. This certainly leads to the conclusion that the worker is not wanted near the city, but would have to get as far away from the city as possible. “ M.C.” fondly believes that his rates are going to bo reduced. Ho has worked out his rates on a section valued for rating purposes at approximately £2OO, basing his calculations once more on Mr Silverstone’s infallible figures. How many sections aro there in Dunedin an eighth of an acre in area, which would be valued at only £200? The majority at that rate would be nearer one-sixteenth, and where is there room in a section of that size for a garden? Night after night we see sections advertised for sale at large figures (such as £4OO and £SOO for an eighth-acre) in Mornington, Iloslyn, and Maori Hill. How would the people who bought at that figure and also the ones in the near vicinity fare under unimproved rating? They would bo rated much higher, and this nroves that the worker who has more than one-six-teenth of an acre within two miles of the city area, with a moderately cheap house upon it, can expect his rates to be higher under the unimproved system than they aro under the present system.

In any event, the unimproved system derives all of its effect from improvements themselves, I can explain this best by use of an example: Take two sections of the same area, one in the heart of Dunedin and the. other, say, on Taieri Island. Without anything further, the rateable value of the two

sections should be the same, also the rates; but this would not be the case, as the property in Dunedin would be given a higher value because of the surrounding improvements. This surely shows that the contentions in favour of the unimproved system are just a little ridiculous.

Seeing that he has read my letter very carefully, especially the editor’s footnote, perhaps it might _ be in the interests of the workers if “ M.C.” would read my previous letter again, and lift the responsibility from Mr Silverstone’s shoulders by replying fully in Tuesday night’s ‘ Star ’ to the numerous fallacies in the suggested unimproved rating system enumerated in that letter. It is conceivable, though very unlikely, that he will be able to do this in a way which can induce the majority of workers to fall in with his way of thinking. Again I must impress upon the worker to think the matter over carefully before casting his vote on Wednesday next.—l am, etc., Canny Dog. May 4. TO THE EDITOK. Sir,—The debate on the different rating systems was very interesting, but it only confirmed what I contended in my previous letters on rating systems i.e., that under any rating system you will get anomalies. But I was surprised that the advocate for unimproved rating missed one of the strongest arguments in its favour. When you get your Government valuation you know just exactly what amount you will bo rated on, and the council will not have the advantage of a rise in rates one year and a rise in valuations the next. Any increased finance required can only be got by an actual rise in rates* By this means a council will be very careful restrict expenditure, so that a rise in rates will not be necessary. Had the unimproved rating been in vogue for the last six years there is no doubt that the abnormal expenditure would have been reduced by half, for the reason that the councillors would not have jeopardised their seat by voting for a straight-out increase of rates. Having the camoiiT flage of increased valuations, it was easy to get away with, _ As long as the valuator is a corporation employee so long will improved rating bo a failure. Were it possible to have an outside valuation, say, every seven years, then capital value rating would be the better system. For that reason alone a change to unimproved rating is desirable. All the nonsense about slums and loss of gardens can be disregarded by the general public. It is only advocated by those interested. Anyway, private gardens are not open to the public. One time the fashion was medium house with large gardens. This changed to large house and small section. With the advent of the motor car the fashion , is small house and small section, just a place to sleep in when at home. Again, building regulations place a limit on the size of section to be built on, and the public health is well safeguarded. The public does not object to paying a fair rate, but it likes to know on what basis it is paying, and when every_ two years your valuation increases, despite a falling market, then the public becomes discontented and demands a change. When you know your valuation is made by an uninterested expert you feel satisfied you are getting a fair spin. The City Council Fas its own self to blame for the desire for a change of rating systems, and my advice to the ratepayers is, give it a trial. If not successful, then when the time comes they can change back. At any rate, under the unimproved system, the valuation is made by a Government official and generally stands for at least seven years, so for that fixed period you know your valuation.—l am; etc., Thos. Miller. South Dunedin, May 4. [Our correspondent is incorrect when he snvs that under the unimproved rating “'any increased finance required can only be got by an actual rise in rates.” The complaints from Christchurch, which we have quoted, contradict him. Valuations are not raised so often (except for individual _ subdivisions), but when they are raised, after five or seven years, the increase can make up for delay, and the council is not compelled to reduce its rate on account of larger increased valuations._ We direct attention to the following items in today’s news from Wellington‘ One of the most important inquiries in recent years is to bo made by the commission soon to be set up to investigate the incidence of local body taxa-

tion and the possibility of effecting economies in the expenditure of all local authorities, including the hospital and charitable aid boards. The Government is now considering the membership of this commission.” —Ed. E.S.] TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—“ One Who Paid the Piper ” has abandoned his position—l did not misread his letter. He stated that “ taxing thrift and industry was a scandal and an abomination.” I pointed out that men and women who practise these virtues are the only existing source of public revenues. If he still wishes to argue that there are other sources will he be good enough to point them out? The executive of the Otago Labour Representation Committee apparently shares his view, and proposes to gather figs from thistles; as it states that the unimproved value _ system of rating penalises waste and idleness. Waste and idleness produce nothing, so they cannot be fined or taxed. The executive is guilty of muddled thinking, and attributes to laud the vices and virtues of animate beings, and speaks of land paying taxes, which is an absurdity. For purposes of argument it assumes that owners of vacant land are idlers. There may be idlers in the town, but if they could be sorted out land owners would not be well represented in the collection. What a blot upon the city the town belt must seem to these enthusiasts! Six hundred odd acres, absolutely unimproved, paying no rates, increasing in value, and not even owned by the city, a monument to the wastefulness and idleness of its owners.

I did not state that the distress in New South Wales and in New Zealand was caused by any rating system. Your correspondents quote ninety mayors and aldermen in New South Wales as claiming that rating on unimproved value had brought prosperity to these towns. My claim is that there are no prosperous towns in New South Wales, and your correspondents admit this, but say the reason for this is international. Quite so, but they cannot have it both ways. They wish us to believe that if a town prospers the rating system is the underlying reason of the prosperity, but if it is depressed other causes must be looked for. This style of argument is too innocent to require comment. The executive’s invitation to the ratepayers to try the new system and then in a few years to change back again if they do not like it, shows an utter lack of responsibility. It is like inviting a man to sit down on a spiked harrow, assuring him that he can get up again if he does not find it comfortable. He may or may not be able to do so, but will be considerably damaged in the process.—l am, etc., James Beco. May 4.