EXTENSION OF BOROUGH.

Gisborne Times, Volume VI, Issue 169, 29 July 1901, Page 4

EXTENSION OF BOROUGH.

(To the Editor of the Times.)

Sir, —On the main question of amalgamation lam open to conviction. For this reason I was awaiting with some eagerness the outcome of the conference, so that the various arguments, pro and con, could bo fully discussed ; but 1 understand that the committee which was to gather the facts and figures and place them before us, have decided to take things for granted and promote petitions in its favor. Personally, my own feeling at the present time is that as we have already one of the largest boroughs in the colony, with some of the longest and widest of streets, we should devote our time in placing that borough on a sound basis before we think of enlarging our responsibilities. For the purpose of health I certainly approve of a large area with an independent body, composed of representatives from every part, dealing solely with sanitai-y matters. But so far as roads and other matters are concerned, I think wo owe it to the present burgesses to put every road and footpath in the present borough in repair before we take on greater responsibilities. The upper end of the town, the side streets, and Victoria, all portions of our present borough, require a duty from us. Wo find it difficult to fulfil that duty now, but how much harder it will bo when we have to take in the more thickly populated portions of Whataupoko and Kaiti, and what is likely to bo the result to the already neglected parts of the borough '? Still, if there is a general desire that an amalgamation or extension should take place, I for one would not allow my personal feoli ing to stand in the way, and I only discuss the matter in tho hope of getting moro light thrown upon it. I am quite aware that there is a strong feeling that wo should appear as largo as we can to outsiders, but tho same feeling in the individual often leads him into bankruptcy, and it will bo wise to study tho figures a ttlo.

Mr Lysnar on Saturday was good enough to hand mo a copy of certain figures on which ho said the amalgamated proposals were based. I understood from him they had' boon published and had gone unchallenged. It was the first time I had seen them. Portion of them were published on the saino evening. Those figures are all based on a fallacy. Mr Lysnar has taken for granted that the statutory provision for adjusting rates is arithmetically correct. Formerly rates wore wholly based on annual values. Now they are mostly based on capital value, as being much fairer and more equitable, as will appear presently from Mr Lysnur’s own examples. If annual values wore based on a six per cent, basis on the capital value, then the statutory adjustment would work out pretty correct. Brit as a matter of fact, the annual value is based on the actual rental, less certain - deductions. According to Mr Lysnar’s figures, which I .presume ho has taken out correctly, the capital value of the Borough is £003,000, while the annual value is £33,109, or over 10 per cent, on the capital value. To show how it works in practice anyone can reckon what a three-farthing rate on £303,000 will be. Assume that I am correct in setting it down at about £946, while the annual value at Is in tho £ would produce about £1650, making the tidy little difference of over £7OO. Or if you would prefer to judge it from the suburbs point of view, Mr Lysnar takes .£180,600 as tho capital value of the portions to be amalgamated. Now on that at a threc-farthings rate tho ratepayers would only pay £4OB, while taking Mr Lysnar’s estimate of tho annual value at £14,600, unless I am very much mistaken, the same ratepayers at one shilling in tho £ would have to pay £730 or nearly £3OO more ! Practically another halfpenny in the £. Naturally, the basis being wrong, all his examples arc. First, if we take the average annual value at 10 per cent., then his examples of present ratoability should read:—

Borough Kaiti Whataupoko £IOO £1 £0 IS 9 £0 16 8 £SOO 5 4 18 9 4 3 4 £IOOO 10 9 7 6 8 6 8 Beckoning the Kaiti rate as equal to os on the annual value, and the basis as the average 10 per cent., and the £IOOO property would pay £ls if it wero in the the borough. Mr Lysnar further takes three examples in town property. If he takes the trouble to work those out, ho will find that, except in Mr Chrisp’s case, they pay more rates on the annual value than they would on the capital. But then, the three properties he takes have a total capital value of £2,500 and an annual value of £165, or only 5A- per cent, on the capital value. It is not fair to take these isolated illustrations, unless they eomo up to the average, but they conclusively prove two things ; first, that the annual value system presses more heavily on the smaller property holder ; secondly, if some people are lucky enough not to .have to pay up to a ten per cent, annual value, then other poor unfortunates must bo paying considerably over the average. As a final example of the fallacy of tile figures. Take the ease of Hollywood’s (£430) and Mrs Good (£400). I presume Hollywood’s is worth at least as much as Mrs Good’s, which runs about 11s 6d per week. Mr Lysnar’s contention is that in paying 2jd Hollywood’s placo is paying equal to 3s in the £. Now, the rates on Mrs Good’s place at that rato would amount to £4 10s, still the actual paid on Hollywood’s is £4 0s 7d, and that with £3O more on his capital^value.—I am, etc., B. N. Jones.