THE RATING QUESTION

New Zealand Times, Volume LIII, Issue 12559, 23 September 1926, Page 9

THE RATING QUESTION

WHICH SYSTEM IS BEST? STRONG OBJECTION TO COUNCIL’S DECISION SUGGESTED COMMISSION REFUSED Two much-debated issues came up before the City Council at a special meeting yesterday afternoon, and both were defeated. Tfye first was a notice of motion which has stood in the name of Councillor 1 G. H. Troup for some time past: "That in view of the lack of organisation disclosed by the Commission on .the Northland tunnel, this council obtains the services of an expert or experts to inquire into and report on the methods and organisation of the various council departments, and to suggest how the same can be improved/' The second dealt with the rating question, arid followed upon a motion brought forward by Councillor M. F. Luckie and adopted advocating a change in the rating. system. It read as follows: — "That the resolution passed on Tuesday, May 25th, 1926, whereby this council pledged itself to promote a deiriand with a view to having the system of rating on unimproved values abolished in the City of Wellingt6n .be, and the same is hereby, rescinded on the grounds: (1) that the .matter is one in which the initiative belongs to the ratepayers alone, and (2) that the expenditure of public money by this council in the promotion of a poll, until a demand has been presented in the prescribed form, would be illegal/' BECAUSE OF REVELATIONS. Councillor Troun tabled his motion because of the revelations made especially by the Commission of Inquiry which sat upon the Northland tunnel and gave bis opinion that the council should put this right. Councillor J. Aston seconded. The other point of view, as voiced by the Mayor <Mr C. J. B. Norwood) and Councillors Semple and McKeen, was that as the council had now appointed two very competent senior officers, who would be arriving in the city in the course of the next few weeks, it would not be wise to interfere with -the organisation before their arrival, and that it was too late to appoint the commission proposed by Councillor Troup. It would appear that the council wanting in confidence in their new‘servants and would be most unbusinesslike to hamper them with such action, and the reorganisation should be left to the men themselves. . _ - There was little discussion, the motion' being lost on the voices. "NO LEGAL AUTHORITY.” Councillor Semple, in moving his resolution, stated that the council had no legal authority to pay the cost of presenting a petition to the ratepayers to change the system of rating. The system entirely belonged to the people, and any money spent in the manner that he had stated would be illegally spent. The system of rating on the annual value was a reactionary system, it was a tax'on enterprise, it encouraged the building of hovels and put a levy on the building of decent houses and encouraged absentee landlordism. He did not intend to cover the ground gone over at the last # meeting of the council because a petition would be presented to ihe council in the course of the next few weeks. This petition would pray for a plebiscite to be taken seeking •'the authority of the people to levy all rates-on the. unimproved lvalue. , At the present time thiß was not done. The water rate, for instance, was not levied on the unimproved value. This petir tion would be ready in a short time, and those in favour of the system of rating on the annual value would then have the opportunity to air their opinions. The proposal to revert to rating on the annual value was unpopular, not only in Wellington, but throughout the country, declared Councillor Semple. And he was not going to waste the time of the council upon the resolution. His resolution would have the desired effect and Councillor Luckie's motion would be dead already *lt could not be brought into operation, and b p was not going to waste time flogging a dead dog. -COUNCILLOR CHALLENGED. However, he would do this: He would challenge Councillor Luckie to resign ¥ir seat and would do likewise. himself. , Then they could contest the before the public. , _ . Councillor R. McKeen, who seconded, stated that he also did not mean to Waste the council’s time over the matter. It was obvious that they had made up their minds and the . question would shortly come before the people. However, he warned them that if they attempted to spend any money illegally in connection with the matter an injunction would be sought by the ratepayers. Councillor Luckie quoted figures to show that the system of rating which he had proposed was the best. The system further helped to keep the rates steady, he said, and did not possess the flaws of the method of rating on annual value. When the issue went to a vote tion was.defeated by 8 votes to 4. Councillors Aston, Glover, McKeen and Semple voted for the issue: Councillors H. 6. Bennett, W. H. Bennett, Luckie, Manton, MeadoWcroft. Thomson, Troup and Wright and the Mayor were against it. Three councillors—Huggins, Burns and Burn—were absent.