RATING SYSTEMS

Evening Star, Issue 21820, 8 September 1934, Page 17

RATING SYSTEMS

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —At the Labour Party conference, held earlier in the year, a remit asking for “ full recognition of the community's right to the communitycreated value of laud ” was turned down fiat. Correspondents to your columns have stated that this is the very theory that underlies unimproved value rating. Why is it, then, that when this theory is sought to bo applied to national taxation the Labour Party delegates rejected it because they “ felt that the carrying of such a resolution would deprive the workers who owned their own land of their savings ” ?—I am, etc., Please Explain. September 8.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —In a very forced answer to my letter Mr M. Silverstone shows how ignorant he is on a subject that one would expect a leader to he learned on. I mad© an assertion that my property in Christchurch, valued at £SOO, was rated at over £B, and his answer is; “ This would give a land value of £3OO, leaving £2OO as the value of the house on the land. So much for J.M.M.” Just to show the value of Mr Silverstone’s statements I- will give you the exact figures on a rat© paper I now have before me. Capital value £SOO, unimproved value £l9O, value of buildings £3lO, annual rateable value £3o—■ a difference of £llO between Mr Silverstone and facts. Also on August 29 1 called attention to the way working men would suffer if they had the misfortune to own a property in a neighbourhood of modern houses. In St. Kilda is a three-roomed house on a quarter-acre section; on each side are large modern'houses, which 1 said at the present value were easily worth £I,OOO. After making further inquiries to-day I find one of the houses cost exactly £2,300, and the other would not be very much less. There we have a three-roomed house between the two, each on a quarter-acre section. But the three-roomed house has got to pay just the same amount in rates as the large modern houses—exactly £2O. So if it is an advantage for Labour to bo led by Mr Silverstone I fail to see it.—l am, etc., J.M.M. September 7.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —Can Messrs M'lndoe and company explain the following under the present system of rating:—Before the depression 1 was paying £l2 in rates. Owing to losing my position, trade being slack, I vacated my home in favour of a tenant. My rates were immediately increased to nearly £l4. On complaining at the Town Hall I could get no satisfaction other than that as I was receiving rent I would naturally have to pay more rates. The house is on an eighth-acre section on the hill, with a clay footpath with no channelling. It was built six years ago, and now requires repainting, etc., to preserve it, hut I am afraid to do so because it will he “ improved,” and my rates would naturally he again raised. As I maintain I am being “ stung ” heavily in rates my intention is to vote unimproved value at the poll. I cannot he much worse off than I am at present under the present out-of-date system.—l am, etc., Honest Rating. September 8.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir. —Will the men and women who love their gardens remember Tuesday, September 11, is the day to vote against unimproved value? Firstly, the unimproved system. It means more unemployment. Gardens would he too small to employ a gardener or buy from the seed merchant." Secondly, few families live near children’s playgrounds, consequently they would play in the road in danger of passing motor cars, as few mothers can employ nursemaids. Thirdly, the vegetable and iruit garden must go, and there would he no flowers for hospitals or the various street days—Plunket, Daffdil Day, Y.W.C.A., etc. Fourthly, small houses would be built on every vacant corner, taking away sun and view from householders who came to the suburbs to escape noise and dust of crowded areas. Auckland and Dunedin have been called the most beautiful towns in the dominion, so let us be proud of Dunedin and make it indeed a garden city.—l am, etc., Lover of a Garden. September 7.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —I would very strongly advise “ Widow ” and “ Unemployed ” to visit the Government Valuation Department and find out the correct value placed on their sections. I had my section valued this week, and yesterday I called at the Valuation Department, and found that the Government valuation was more than 300 per cent, less than the valuation I had received earlier in the week. If unimproved rating was introduced my rates would he reduced by 61 per cent.—that is, on the present valuation —and assuming that the rate struck would be lid in the £. If my valuation was increased by 50 per cent, and the rate in the £ increased to Is 4d, I would still pay less in rates than I am doing at present. I have a fiveroomed wooden house, built at least twenty-five years, on sixteen poles, m a desirable part of Parkside. I have always been a supporter of the present system until I visited the Valuation Department yesterday. My figures are correct,, and my address can be had on application to the editor.—l am, etc., Unimproved Convert. September 8.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —I would advise ratepayers before recording their votes on Tuesday next to reflect on the fact that under our present system of annual value wa have built up a city of which wo are all proud. The city of Dunedin possesses assets that are unequalled in any other city in the dominion. It is the owner of its electricity supply, its water, gas, and tramways, and, further, the charges for the use of all these arc the lowest in New Zealand. Are we likely to improve on that position by a. change in the system of rating? 1 think not. —I am, etc., ’ Let Wei-l Alojpj. September %

TO ME EDITOR. Sir, —The advocates for the change' over to rating on unimproved values have definitely stated amongst other things that the change would be the means of increasing building permits. In Christchurch, where they have rating on unimproved values in force, the figures in connection with that city’s building permits when contrasted with permits granted in Dunedin do not bear out the contentious of Messrs Cox and others. For instance, during the four months ended July 31 last Dunedin showed an increase of £37,042 in building permits over those issued during the same period last year. Christchurch, on the other hand, showed an increase of only £31,589. If we take the month of July last alone we find that Dunedin showed an increase of £5,358, whereas Christchurch, ‘ the city of unimproved rating values, actually showed a decrease of £2,331. These figures surely disprove the contentions of the advocates, of the change to unimproved rating. The change-over was made in Christchurch some years ago, and there seems to be no questioning the fact that it was brought into force simply on account of the apathy of ratepayers. Only 1,100 ratepayers cast their votes, and of this number 596 voted for the change and 512 voted against it. Consequently we get the ridiculous result of the unimproved rating system being thrust upon a city of over 100,000 people by only 596 ratepayers. Surely this is a warning to our Dunedin ratepayers to cast their votes, and thereby see that no unsuitable and undesirable rating schemes are allowed to be foisted upon us by extremists by reason of our own apathy. Let us therefore make a point of attending the poll in such numbers as to make such a change impossible.—l am, etc., Make Sube. September 8.

TO TUB EDITOR. Sir, —I must really offer my congratulations to Cr M. Silverstone. He is 'the only propagandist for rating on unimproved values to date who has been bold enough to show how he arrives at estimates of rates. His letter contains a typical example of the incorrect use of perfectly correct figures. He shows how statistics may be used to arrive at an entirely erroneous result. His method of arriving at the annual value of St. Kilda is to take 5 per cent, of the capital value according to the Year Book and then, by division, he gets os 4d in the £ as the rate that would require to be struck under annual value, to produce the same revenue. Cr Silverstone should know that the Government valuation of capital value has nothing to do with the city or borough where rating on annual value obtains. Its own valuation officers compile the roll, not the Government department. Let me apply his method of arriving at the annual value of St. Kilda, to Dunedin. Government capital value, 1933, £17,106,487. Five per cent, of this is £855,324. Reference to his own city handbook will show him that the capital value of the city in 1933 for rating purposes was £1,110,283, or £254,949 more. A small error of nearly 30 per cent, may not worry my friend Cr Silverstone, but it is .just as well that the public should know it.—l am, etc., September 8. John L. M'lndoe.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir —The appended letter from the Town Clerk of Auckland shows that the largest city in New Zealand has always rated on annual value. Surely Dunedin should remain under the same system of rating. Government valuations will, when made, b*e approximately market value, so any ratepayer relying upon the old valuations will receive a rude shock when the city valuations are brought up to date—Tainui especially as the valuations were made when that district was practically a swamp. Take the present value of a section in Tainui take Is in the £, and that is what the rate will be if the present system is changed.—l am, etc., 11. S. Black. September 8. [Enclosure.] I have to acknowledge receipt of your letter regarding the matter of rating on unimproved value, and in reply thereto I have to inform you that a poll was taken in the City of Auckland on the 7th Avgust, 1901, which resulted as follows: For unimproved ... . 750 Against 1.697 The City of Auckland has always been rated on annual value. In the year 1921 a petition was suE mitted which failed to contain the required number of signatures required by the Act. So far as I am able to judge, the present system of rating is acceptable to the ratepayers in this city.—l am, J. S. Brigham, Town Clerk. Auckland, September 4.

TO THE EDITOR. * Sir, —Mr Silverstone and his associates in their zeal tor their beliefs would make a complete and radical change m the system without endeavouring to see whether any anomalies of the system m vogue could be rectified. The latter would seem to me to be a reasonable procedure. Surely these gentlemen do riot believe that their system is perfect. The object of my earlier letter was a reminder that serious anomalies and injustices have been experienced under both systems. From the platform one has been told that “ ability to pay” should form one of the guiding principles of rating-—Mr Cox at Mornington. .Surely ability to pay ” cannot be gauged from the amount of land one holds. I should say the land plus the improvemeiits thereon would give a sounder indication of “ ability to pay.” Messrs Silverstone and Co.' say “ these people in thp centra of the town must pay more,” or something of similar effect, and so relieve the people in the suburbs. Certainly, many people in our neighbouring suburb, St. Kilda, require relief, and quickly, too. . By increasing the rates of city residents one would likely see many central properties selling cheaply. These people would then migrate to the suburbs and build their expensive homes. What would happen after some years? Why, Messrs Silverstone and Co. would get busy and say: “Here, come out °f that—hiding in the suburbs to ease your rates when you are able to pay more.’ And on would go the rates, even with the so-called unimproved value system. Will Mr Silverstone please explain through your columns why the anomalies of the present system could not be remedied? . , , . Mr Silverstone, to my mind, has always been an enthusiastic and ardent worker for a cause in which he wholeheartedly believes, and in which many other people also sincerely believe; and I would never out of hand or without examination condemn what he or any other man stated, especially when the other follow is in a position to know what he is talking about. AVheii I quoted two “ splendidly built ” houses in St. Kilda, 1 meant what I said. I have seen the houses, and know them well. I know that the excessive rate burden has adversely affected their attraction from ihe huyeria standpoint..

I can quote .several others also—not all in the same location; Mr Silverstone’s heady analysis of the price without seeing the properties just about sums up the value of the definite promises of him and his party who foster a change into the unknown. 1 suggest that these houses are, on external appearance, about o® a par with what our worthy mayor lives in; the one as it stands, and the other, il it were papered and painted. St. Hilda has been much quoted as regards rates. One must not forget that a very large number of St. Hilda sections measure only 40ft by 100 ft or thereabouts—about 14.7 poles—really insufficient for a family of four or fiva children after allowing for a garden. At least half as much again is necessary, unless parents allow their children on the streets for more room to play.The area then would be just a shade over an eighth-acre. Now, had the total area of these small sections been cut into eighth-acre allotments, St. Hilda’s population, would have fallen far short of what it is to-day, with the undoubted result that the amount of rates per allotment in respect of this area of land would have been approximately 36 per cent, greater than it is to-day. Mr Silverstone, near the close of his letter, quotes two cases, of property values and rates thereon; improvements in one case valued at £1,300, the other £I,OOO. There are comparatively few dwelling house properties in the "whole of St. Hilda to-day where the building is worth £1,300, so I suggest that Mr Silverstone is quoting a truly rare case of benefit which is out of accord with his “ ability to pay ” policy. Referring to the land values of these properties, I would like to ask Mr Silverstone if he does not honestly thing a rate of £l3 2s 6d on a £2OO section (£6 11s 3d per £100) positively ridiculous. One thing one can say for the unimproved value system is that there is no chance of the rates being increased where a tenant goes into possession, but against that one can see serious results of the working of that system, for the population of our neighbouring borough does not all live in £1,500 or even £1,200 houses. Neither do I.—l am, etc., L. J. leeeaxd. September 8.

TO THI EDITOR. • Sir,—As a former relief worker, I would like to warn all workers, whether unemployed or not, against the folly of listening to the outbursts of, indiscretion given vent to by Mayor Cox and his imported agitator. We all know how miserably this dog-collared would-be failed to keep his last promises, and how he is trying to take us in again. Let us not fall for his silky-tongued schemes this time. I have a quarter-acre section and would, like hundreds of others if this absurd unimproved scheme was carried, have to sell my garden in order to pay my rates, and it is the presence of these many gardens that makes Dunedin a beautiful city. The cramped and huddled appearance of St. Kilda, where the unimproved rating is in force, tells its own story only too well. Finally, there is no doubt whatever that rating on unimproved values would, in 'the long run, make for a considerable increase in unemployment, so that those who advqcate or vote tor unimproved value rating are actually, striving to increase the number of unemployed, and are a public danger.—l am, etc., Ex-Relief Worker.,

TO THIS EDITOR. Sir, —In the issue of your paper last night there was a letter from Cr MTndoe on the above subject. lor the last month His Worship the Mayor has been, stating that, under unimproved value, Caversham and South Dunedin would have their rates reduced by £12,000 per year.. The only person who publicly expressed any doubt as to the accuracy of this statement was Cr J. L. MTndoe. A week ago I issued a challenge to him that, if he' could prove that, if rating on unimproved value had been in force here last year, Caversham and South Dunedin would not have had their rates reduced by £12,000, I would give £SO to the mayor’s fund, the town clerk of Invercargill to be the judge. This challenge was issued over a week ago, and there has been no reply until now, when he rushes into print just on the eve of the poll.He says-he accepts my challenge, but shows most appalling ignorance on the whole subject. He wishes to know how I arrived at these figures. .With your permission, I will tell him. Any person of ordinary intelligence, who looks at the City Council Year Book and the Municipal Authorities Handbook can see at once that the statement I made is absolutely according to fact, I cannot understand tbe attitude or the city councillors on the rating question. Apparently, they do not recognise their duty to the ratepayers, and the attitude of most of the councillors is a. very biased one. All we, who support the change, desire is the truth, and that the facts should be placed before the ratepayers.. We do not fear the results. There have been numerous letters in the papers comparing the rate paid in St. Kilda with those, in Dunedin. The inference, of course, to be drawn from them, was that if unimproved rating was carried our rates would be Is 4d in the £, the same as St.. Kilda. All the members of the City Council should know that this statement is untrue and that our rates, would only be lid in the £, and yet they allow a misstatement like this to get abroad- and probably deceive some of the ratepayers, and none of out city councills had the courage or common honesty to deny it. Now we have a letter signed by eight members of the City Council opposing the change of -the rating sstem. The trouble with the gentlemen who signed that letter is that they Lave no sense of humour, because the last sentence is a gem, and I advise the ratepayers to read it and put it iri their scrap hooks because it may coma in handy at the next municipal elections. Some time ago I spoke to two of the gentlemen 'who signed this manifesto. They both admitted they knew absolutely nothing of the question. The first one I spoke to said he would play “ follow the leader ” and do what another councillor would do. The second one wished me to act as instructor to him and impart soma information to him on the subject.As far as a challenge to Cr MTndoe is concerned, I will allow him to nominate any person lie wishes to be the judge as to the accuracy of, my statement, but he must he a man of ordinary intelligence and common honesty, and not a member of tha City Council.—l am, etc., P. W. Shacki-ock. September 8.