RATING SYSTEMS.

Evening Star, Issue 21710, 3 May 1934, Page 3

RATING SYSTEMS.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —“ Check Facts,” in, his personal allusion, says that he purchased two city sections in Christchurch, the unimproved value of which ran out at about £5,000, and that he built premises costing £12,000. “ Check Facts,” it would seem, is like a good many other advocates of unimproved value—not a person to whom even a slight increase in rates would make all the difference between hanging on to the home or giving up the struggle. When Wellington changed over to unimproved value it was openly stated — and never contradicted —that £3,000 was spent by one wealthy company in “ educating the public,” and from the company’s point of view it has certainly been money well spent. Seeing that the same total of rates has to be collected under either system, when people who can talk lightly of spending a mere £17,000 advocate a change, it is surely enough to teach genuine workers to be cautious. Your correspondent’s explanation or the fact that m Christchurch there are 752 building tradesmen unemployed, as against 211 in Dunedin, is somewhat unconvincing when one considers that unemployment among building tradesmen is proportionately greater in Wellington, with unimproved value, than in Auckland, which rates on the same system as we do. His talked about Dunedin slumbering while men and hoys, employed and unemployed, trade, commerce, and manufactures forsake us on account of our rating system is shown to be mere empty rhetoric by the fact that the largest city in New Zealand has the same rating system as we have. Finally, seeing that your . correspondent knows Christchurch -so well, he will be fully alive to the frequent complaints that appear in the correspondence columns of the Christchurch papers about the injustices suffered by owners of small homes in that city.— I am, etc.. Small Home. May 3, ■