RATING VALUATIONS.

Evening Star, Issue 23500, 14 February 1940, Page 14

RATING VALUATIONS.

i TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —Regarding the latest rating valuations, one would naturally think that with all the Government and municipal houses that have been erected on what were vacant sections the extra valuation from those houses would mean enough extra rates to meet any requirements. If I may give a few illustrations to show the absurdity of the valuation methods, the house 1 am living in was bought just before the last municipal elections. The valuation was assessed, and it is in excess of tlmt paid by the previous owner occupier. Before he sold it he had cut four sections off it and sold three, upon which houses were erected under the municipal housing scheme. One would think the City Council would bo satisfied with the extra rates it received for the four sections. It is obvious that a house with four sections less on it should be of less value than it was when the former occupier had it. Opposite to where I live was a vacant section on which the owner paid rates on the rental value, which depended then on what someone was prepared to pay to run cows on it. It was cut up into six sections, three in Gilmore street and three in Pennant street, on which houses have been erected. This illustrates how one can travel from there nearly up to the Passmore Estate and notice where two years ago cattle grazed houses have been erected that have added both to the valuation and to the city rates. That is in one suburb, but in all suburbs many houses have been erected. I hope that at the public meeting which will be held in _ the Town Hall next Thursday resolutions will be carried protesting against the increase in rates and the increase in valuation. I also hope that steps will soon be taken to remove fluctuating values 'and initiate a stabilised system of valuation which does not increase valuations as property deteriorates or punish a person for impressing his personality on his property by improving it. The rental system of valuation penalises a man with the big family and suits only the speculator. Whatever may have justifiably been said for it when there was no demand for those suburban sections cannot now be said when in addition to private enterprise both the Government and the municipality compete for these vacant sections on which to build houses. One of the issues the Citizens’ Party placed before the electors at the municipal elections was that the council property depreciated, and such depreciation should be written off. Yet the more some ratepayers’ property depreciates the higher is the valuation and the «*ore the rates are increased.—l am, etc., J. E. MacMantjs. February 12. [Our correspondent apparently objects to the community sharing in the com-munity-created value, which we had thought was a Labour principle. Valuations are not a matter of municipal party, but of values, and a portion of this letter traversing past history on party lines is omitted as irrelevant on that account.—Ed. E.S.]

TO THIS EDITOR. Sir, —Ratepayers desiring to do any real good at the present juncture must each lodge an objection to their valuation at the Assessment Court, care of Magistrate’s Court, not later_ than 4 p.m. on February 15.. The semi-printed forms can bo obtained gratis at the Town Hall, and perhaps also at the Courthouse, A copy of the objection must bo left at the Town Hall within the next week or so. Five or six hundred objections should be made if much result is to be attained. The numerous letters in your columns, meetings of ratepayers, and most of their interviews protesting to the city valuers, will be useless unless backed up by a legal objection. The valuers need to take real notice of nothing else. Meetings of ratepayers will do good only if they organise steps for concerted legal action. Further, where buildings of any kind are rented it is quite futile for the owners or occupiers to waste the time of meetings stating how their rateable values have been raised. The law allows the valuers to fix the rateable value at the amount of rent paid, less 20 per cent. The valuers practically never exceed that limit. The only objection which will have any effect is where the owner occupies his own house or shop. In countless cases of that kind objection to the valuation will bring substantial reductions. From what I‘have heard lately 1 know that many, glaring anomalies exist. For instance, a property valued at £65 rateable value is no better, if as good, as another close by valued at £52, and so on. Also, when the rateable value of a rented property is £CS because of the temporary extreme rents, it does not follow by any means that a similar place nearby, occupied by the owner, should be valued at nearly such high figure. I would suggest the following steps by all concerned:—Lodge a large number of objections at the Assessment Court at once, so as to be in time; do not leave this duty to other owners. Attend the ratepayers’ meeting in the Town Hall on Thursday evening, but do not waste the all-too-short time by speaking of matters which cannot be helped at present. Resolve to fight the iniquitous valuations in the court, and form a good committee to carry the matter through, including the engaging of solicitors. Send the committee full written particulars as soon as possible of your own or anyone else’s valuation, to enable the facts to be assembled and brought before the Assessment Court later on—l am, etc., February 13. Justice.