VALUATIONS AT HAWERA

Taranaki Daily News, 8 June 1932, Page 8

VALUATIONS AT HAWERA

BOROUGH ROLL FIGURES

NUMEROUS ANOMALIES OCCUR.

AGITATION FOR REVISION MADE.

For some time there has been able dissatisfaction with the borough valuations, which aie out-of-date and to represent values. A strong body of considers that a revaluation is a '1 Daily New, reporter w. that the valuations fa vak s in 1922, when deflation fiom boo toe’ transactions had These figures are used foi tl p P of rate collection and land taxation. As far as rating is concerned.the flated values placed on piopei ty not matter greatly were it not foi the anomalies. It is contended by some that it does not matter what the are because the borough has to iauea fixed annual revenue from rates ai rate in the pound is struck, on the existing valuations, so that if t e amended the rate would have tobe increased. This view would be quite i order if every ratepayer was on the same footing, but unfortunately for some ratepayers this is not the case. The Hawera borough levies its general rate on unimproved values but the water rate on the capital value and the hospital rate on the annual value, it an rates were levied on the .ynimproved basis, stated a prominent citizen, there would be no need for revaluation in the case of a new building. As it is, however, directly a new building is erected a fresh valuation is made. This leads to the anomalies mentioned. A valuer gave as an instance two people owning adjoining sections of similar size. A, whose house were erected in say, 1920, had his property valued for rating purposes in 1922. Values were then at their peak. B erected a house in 1931. As soon as this was done the Government valuer came upon the scene and made an assessment of the value for rating purposes. If both buddings were of somewhat similar size and construction the result was A was paying rates on boom values while B with a similar property was paying rates on present day values. A very substantial difference appeared between the two valuations, and in consequence A was actually paying more rates than he should while B was possibly paying less because if all valuations were up-to-date, then it might be found necessary Ito increase the rate in the pound to produce the necessary annual income to the borough. What ho had quoted, he said, did not represent isolated eases but applied to the whole of the borough except where valuations had been made during recent years. Some glaring cases of inconsistencies in valuations had been noted, and a perusal of the valuation rolls would be illuminating to those with a knowledge of values. During the past two or three years many revaluations had been asked for (and paid for) and reductions of as much as 50 per cent, had been made. Property could in .many cases be purchased at prices considerably under Government valuations, which were no longer any criterion as to values ana in fact would mislead unwary investors. “It is' understood,” stated this valuer, “that the borough council had had the question of a new valuation before it I (in committee), but for some reason it was not considered necessary to have the new valuation made. Possibly this decision was arrived at by reason of the expense involved. If this was so then the interests of the ratepayers has not been considered. The time for a revaluation of the borough is overdue and it is surprising considering the many anomalies existing that ratepayei s hhye not urged a re-vajuation before this,” They had been told that any rate- | payer who considered his valuation too high might apply to the Valuer-General for a re-valuation. That was so, but this simple procedure cost the ratepayer the sum of £3 3s, which went into the coffers of the Valuer-General. It might well be asked why should property owners have a £3 3s penalty, inflicted upon them in order to put right something which it should be the duty of the local authority to do. Lastly, but not least, there was the property owner who paid land tax. Everyone owning land with an unimproved value of £5OO or oyer, had to send in returns to the Commissioner ot Taxes, The values in such returns could not be shown at less than the Government valuations, the result being that the property owner was paying much more than he justly should.