THE CITY VALUATIONS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 24221, 13 February 1940, Page 16

THE CITY VALUATIONS

TO THE EDITOR Sir, —In your leader column of Saturday an article on the city valuations refers to my letter on the same subject and published on the same date in your correspondence column. You accuse me of “prejudice and partisanship.” May I ask to what in my letter do these expressions refer and why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but perceivest not the berm that is in thine own eye? Editorial comment too readily imputes political partisanship and prejudice to honest, law-abiding citizens v/ho dissent from editorial opinion on local affairs. Thus do editors but convict themselves of the sin of which they so hastily accuse their fellow-men. Your statement that “ neither the Government, nor the council, nor the valuer himself for that matter is to be held responsible for the present cause of irritation to the ratepayers ” is remarkable. You also afnrm “ that the upward revision that has now been made was a natural and inevitable procsss of correction.” Are we, then, to understand that the raising of city valuations for rating purposes was one of those mysterious acts of God over which men have no control? The Citizens’ Association has lost a wonderful opportunity of showing genuine and practical concern in the interests of all ratepayers. Had it possessed the confidence of the public the meetings of protest held in various districts would have been unnecessary. “ Mischievous and ill-informed, prejudice and partisanship,” you write. Sorry. Sir, but those stock phrases have been trotted out so often for our edification that they have little meaning—just words. —I am, etc., Pravda VitezL TO THE EDITOR Sir, —Having read your sub-leader in Saturday’s issue upon the above subject and” very proper castigation of one signing himself “ Pravda Vitezi ” which article I would recommend all interested to read —I feel that little more need be said. Nevertheless, there may be many who, like this correspondent, either through ignorance or wilful perversity of spirit, seek to and do misrepresent the facts. May I, therefore, as an interested observer and property owner in a neighbouring town, rated upon the same system, with the view of pouring oil upon the troubled waters, offer a few lines to suggest that people should not think themselves aggrieved and cry out before they are hurt in their pocket and shout “ thief.” “Achille’s Heel ” in Friday’s issue writes: “ I have a small property of which the capital value

is £625. On it a valuation (rental) was placed at £26. This has now been raised to £52. I received 25s for the property and have received that for the past two years and a-half. “Achille’s Heel” asks why this 100 per cent, increase? Well, at £52, “Achilles Heel ” is now being rated at his correct figure and although it is 100 per cent, over £26, his former rate upon his own admission he should have been rated at £52. the same as now. During the past two years and a-half the “rent” has been for this period 25s per week cr £65 per year. The valuer in assessing the rate then takes the ratepayers’ own figures and allows a reduction of 20 per cent, off £65, which leaves £52. Instead of an actual 100 per cent, increase “Achille’s Heel” has been enjoying the benefit of a mistake for the past two years and a-half amounting in rental value to £65. On this amount if the rate struck was 5s in the pound he has received a present of £l6 5s over the period, and therefore has nothing to complain of now that this mistake of £26 has been rectified. “Achille’s Heel ” complains about ill-kept channels in a side street. This has nothing to do with the rental of 25s per week paid by his tenant unless it be to show that he is charging too high a rent. Regarding the house in which he is living, the capital valuation is £650. It is a fair assumption that the “ rental value ” is higher than' the capital valuation. Upon an equal value, his rental valuation should be £52, but he is assessed at £36. This seems to me prima fscie evidence that the rent of 25s is too high. Let everyone take careful thought before he is led into an act of changing his system for one that may prove worse.—l am. etc., W. Skinner. Oamaru. February TO.