RATING SYSTEMS.

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

RATING SYSTEMS.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—At. the meeting in the South Dunedin Town Hall last evening the mayor stated that tffe unimproved value of the city was five millions and a-half, and that a rate of lid in the £ would meet the city’s requirements. Apparently he docs'not know that included in the city is a good deal of farm land—that is, land that lies round the. outer portion of the city and is used for various farming purposes. As the Jaw stands at present the owners of these farming lauds have the right to apply for exclusion or partial exclusion from the operations of rating on unimproved values. The law was amended specially to give easement to the owners of these farm lands, and has been largely availed of in districts where unimproved rating has been tried. Instead of the city’s unimproved value being five millions and a-half it will, because of the exemption of these close-lying farm lands, be very much less. What reliance, therefore, can be placed upon the mayor’s statement that the rate will be lid in the £? The mayor also invited all ratepayers to call at the Government Valuation Office and ask what the unimproved value of their properties would be. I notice that at least one ratepayer has done so, and,, to his surprise and chagrin, finds that instead of his present rates, which amount to £94 17s lid, he wdl, if this absurd proposal is carried, have to pay £156 17s 4d instead. This ratepayer is a resident of South Dunedin, and he 'suggests that his fellow-ratepayers will have the same experience if they do as he did. Mr O’Regan’s address makes fair reading viewed from the academic viewpoint, but looked at from, the point of view of practical politics it gets us nowhere. I believe it is a fact that a number of business firms have already felt it necessary to warn some at least of their employees that a shortening of hands may become necessary if overhead expenses are increased by additional rates. Under their leases the groat majority of both large and small shopkeepers have to pay rates in addition to rent, and, having been already badly hit by depressed times, they are going to be hit still further if this change in our system of rating is made. Neither the mayor nor anyone else knows what the effect of this proposed change will be, and, therefore, this is undoubtedly a most unfavourable and inopportune time to fiddle about with uew rating schemes. The mayor’s statements that m the past the suburbs have been carrying the burden of the expense is erroneous, as I am reliably informed that the city carries more than 50 per cent, of the total rates. The whore proposal is a great gamble, and ratepayers should rely upon the sane ’ opinions expressed bv our town clerk and the bulk of our city councillors in preference to trying out the fads and theories of inexperienced men.—l am, etc., Contented. September 6.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, P. J. O’Regan contends that ’Dunedin would gain by adopting the unimproved value system of rating, [t would certainly be of interest to Dunedin citizens if he would, at one of his addresses, comment on the following report drawn up by the Wellington City Council treasurer and solicitor on the effects of the system on his own city before asking us to take a plunge in'the dark. “ Looking at the results of unimproved value rating m this city,” states the report, “ it must bo said’that, whatever merit there may be in the system, it has wrought injury to the city. The crowding, of dwellings, tlie unsatisfactory class of dwellings-put up by the ‘ jerry-builder,’ the lack of open spaces, the absence of private gardens to beautify the city, the small sections to the homes, causing children to make a playground of the streets, must be charged against the system of rating on unimproved values. . . . The introduction of unimproved value rating did not have the effect expected of forcing land into the market. . . ■ The rating on unimproved values is in many cases quite inequitable. Before the system was in force people had built houses of good size, all of one story, which occupied a large amount of land; in many cases the house would be placed in the middle of the holding. Unless the holder sold the land immediately adjoining his house he was treated where he had, say, a 60ft frontage as if he had disposal sections of, say, 20fb each without a building.”—l am, etc., Equality of Sacrifice. September 7.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —Your correspondent “ Elizabeth M.” presumes to refute four specific cases of hardship mentioned in my previous letter, which would result from the adoption of unimproved value rating principles. The cases were chosen with due deliberation, as they represent at one stage or another of his life practically every citizen who aspires to make a permanent home. Old campaigners wisely refrained from challenging my four points, it remains to “ Elizabeth M.” to rush in and butt her fragile skull against this foursquare brick wall of realism. At the outset she adopts that discredited method of mis-quotation common to certain controversialists. (1) “ Elizabeth M.” seeks to dispose of this by stating that the young man who buys a section with a view tobuilding and marriage has practically ceased to exist. In this she shows herself strangely out of touch with youthful aspirations. That young man, like the poor, is always with us. At this time he has, admittedly, a hard row to hoe. “ Elizabeth M.” would make it wellnigh impossible. (2) The ease of the elderly man with modest home who finds that owing to a change to unimproved rating the amount due from him has greatly increased. Here your correspondent affects an ingenuousness hard to understand when she says, “ Could the increase on ground rates really make his rates higher than those _ charged on house and ground? ” certainly it could, and very naturally, too, under the unimproved system the land must bear all the costs of all the services whether it supports cottage or mansion, and the cottager must pay pound for pound with the mansion-owner according to the valuation of the ground occupied. , (3) “ Elizabeth M.” professes entire ignorance of the existence of the city