RATING SYSTEMS.

Evening Star, Issue 21821, 10 September 1934, Page 6

RATING SYSTEMS.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —As I may be unavoidably detained over Tuesday, polling day, perhaps you will allow me to make comment on the propaganda against rating on the unimproved value. Take the halt-page advertisement in the ‘ Evening Star ’ of last Saturday and look in the left-hand bottom corner. A moan is well staged there. Listen to it: “The struggling dairy farmers who operate around the city would probably be forced out of business if rating on unimproved value was adopted.” We must now contrast this with the screed issued by the eight city councillors, in which attention is drawn to the fact of an Act called the Urban Farms Hating Act. of 1932, and we learn that all farms of three acres or more are released from rating on unimproved value. Workers and the small property owners should beware of a movement that expresses itself in half-page advertisements. It is not one, i feel sure, that works in the interests of the bottom dog. If rating on unimproved value is brought into force as a result of Tuesday’s voting Dunedin will go ahead. One of the handicaps will be removed that at present it suffers under.—l am. etc., John- Gilchrist. September 10. [We find a great many people still against the Act of 1932. The matter is further referred to in the letter of “ Equality of Sacrifice.” —Ed. E.S.] •

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —“ Small .Dairy Farmer ” inquired recently how lie and his I'ellows would fare under a change of rating. The recent legislation referred to certainly has improved their position slightly, but the semi-urban farmer, under unimproved value, has no cause to bo jubilant. One example ’ will explain why. On a certain properly of approximately 140 acres, situated on the outskirts of an unimproved value rating area, the rates originally worked out at £2 4s 6d a week. After advantage was taken of the Urban Farm Lands Hating Act they were still £1 18s lOd a week. Can it possibly he argued that this local authority provides this daily farmer with services worth £2 a week to him?

How can any dairyman, with butterfat at present prices, pay £2 a week in rates, meet the interest on his mortgages, and his ordinary working expenses, and still make a living?—l am, etc., Equality of Sacrifice. September 8.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —“ Even if city ratepayers had to pay a little more on unimproved rating, what about it?” The above question is from a circular issued by the advocates of unimproved rating. At the present time, along with many other ratepayers, 1 am not in a position to pay more either for rates or for the improvements these people say we will be forced to carry out. The alternative is to sell the home and garden, the pride of years, and get out. If unimproved rating is carried I cannot afford to hold on, so must sell in a falling market—a falling market accelerated by increased selling caused by the new rating system. This is not my only worry. Can my firm afford to pay this “ little more on unimproved rating?” Will it be forced to open its works further out of town, thus putting me to time and expense in travelling? Will it put men oil'? Will it close down?—l am, etc., What About it? September 10.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, — It has been said that South Dunedin will save £12.000 by voting against the present system, but no proof has been' given to show that this statement rests on fact. Here are a few examples that do not bear out the platform promises of the advocates for unimproved rating:—

All at cost price since 1925. The unimproved rates are bused on Is in the £. Here are some further examples in various parts of the city:—Large house in High street, on 20 poles, pays at present £208; fourth other houses, one on each side of this house and two across the street, each on 20 poles, are assessed at £7O each. Under the unimproved value the man in the large house would gain and the people in the smaller houses would pay increased rates. Another example:—ln Royal terrace one house at present pays £ll2 in rates against live houses'in the same terrace, on areas that arc slightly larger, paying £SO, £4O, £134, £BO. and £54 —a combined total of £278. Under the unimproved value the man in the large house will have his rates reduced and the rates on the smaller houses will go up. To those who think the rates on the unimproved value will bo based on the old valuations in the Government offices there will be a rude awakening. True valuation must be market price. Ask yourself what is the market value of your section to-day without house or improvements and calculate this at Is in the £ and yon will know what you will pay under the unimproved value rating. Another thing to remember is that, as land values go up, so would

your rates under the unimproved system. The term “ unimproved value ” is a misnomer. With improved amenities the value of land increases. The price of a section in any part of Dunedin, particularly in the suburbs, was very much lower twenty years ago than it is to-day, and in years to come will naturally be higher still and, logically, so would the rating on unimproved value. Further, the sports bodies would be badly hit under the proposed changed system of rating. All clubs would have to increase their subscriptions. This burden would fall mostly on the shoulders of the young people, debarring many from participating in sport of any kind. We should all vote against the proposed change of rating until a better system is offered.—-I am. etc., i XL S. Black.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —It is rumoured in Morningtoii that, if rating on the unimproved value is carried, there will he a reduction in rates here. 1 have had an estimate of my property made by a competent man, and my rates will be increased from under £l4 to about £SO. As 1 cannot subdivide, the only thing left for me to do if this proposal is carried will be to hand my property over to the mortgagee and go out into the street. Being only an average wage earner I shall have a great difficulty in paying my rates this year, but if Mr Cox and his colleagues have their way I shall not be able to meet my obligations at all. Morningtoii ratepayers should put their thinking caps on and go to the poll on Tuesday determined to keep their [froperties and vote for the present system of rating to be retained. In conclusion, 1 would like an imported orator to know that I do not want to grow cabbage in Princes street, but 1 certainly am going to vote for the right to grow flowers and beautify a homo in Mornington.—l am, etc., Morningtox Ratepayer. September 11.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —With reference to the manifesto on rating signed by eight members of the City Council, 1 have this day received wires from Mr J. W. Munro, M.P., and Mr F. Jones, M.P., advising me that they are both strong supporters of rating on unimproved value.—l am. etc., E. T. Cox. Sepl ember 8.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —1 have been a ratepayer lor the last fourteen years. 1 own a house and section in the suburbs. The area of section is 50ft frontage by 100 ft depth. Possessing my rate demand for 1922, 1 decided to try to arrive at what 1 would have had ■ to pay for that‘year under the unimproved system, supposing that to have been in operation. This was the year following the Government valuation, so that the Government unimproved value was a test of what the rates would have been. Under the present system my rates for 1922 were £7 4s, plus lavatory 10s; total, £7 14s (rate notice enclosed). To arrive at the unimproved charge 1 first obtained from the Government •Valuation Department the unimproved value of my section, which was £65. From the Press 1 obtained the total unimproved value of Dunedin area—-

namely, £5,538,085 in 1922—which amount I assume is correct, as I have not seen its accuracy questioned. I obtained from the Town Hall the amount of rates levied in 1922, which was as follows:—Rateable value, £840,000; rate in £, 4s 6d, which represents £IBO,OOO received by direct rate. Having the amount required by the corporation, for this year (£189,00Q) and the total unimproved value of area (£5.538,085), it was a simple matter to find out what the rate in the £ to produce the same amount would be under the unimproved system—namely, 8.19 d. This would have made xiiy total rate, including 10s for. lavatory, £2 14s 4d, as against £7 14s actually paid under annual values. I would ask you to state if my figures are wrong, as I can hardly credit that my rates would have been so considerably less.—l am, etc., . Undecided. September 8. [The figures apparently are correct, though the case, with a section valued as low as £65, is obviously an abnormal one. And what applied to 1922 would not necessarily have applied to succeeding years, as the basic rate, with increase of city services, would have been increased. Increase of the basic rate is much rarer under the annual values system, because the extra rates from new buildings and improvements take the place of additions to the general impost.—Ed. <E.S.]

Cost price. Present land value. Present 8 i Rales on unimproved value. £. £. £ s. cl. £ s. cl. Helena st. ... 750 350 8 10 0 17 10 0 Fox st 500 250 6 7 8 12 10 0 Wesley st. ... 675 300 7 13 0 15 0 0 Gotten sir. ... 595 275 6 12 6 13 15 0 Cargill vd. ...1,025 550 11 17 6 27 10 0 Wavcrley st. 250 200 3 6 0 10 0 0