REVALUATION AT RICCARTON AROUSES PROTEST.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18208, 15 July 1927, Page 11

REVALUATION AT RICCARTON AROUSES PROTEST.

RATEPAYERS CONSIDER ASSESSMENTS TOO HIGH

“ The Council got us into this mess and they should get us out of it. The value placed on our land is far beyond its selling value.’* This statement was made at a meeting last evening convened by the Ricearton Citizens’ Association to protest against the recent assessment of property values in the borough by the Government Valuation Department.

Mr John Wood, president of the association, was in the chair, and he stated that there was a very general dissatisfaction throughout the borough with the assessment. Some seventy objections had been lodged, but that was only a small proportion. Quot* ing his own case, he said that on the new values he would have to pay £7 2s this year for drainage, and the rural drainage rate of £1 6s. Under the old assessment his rate would have been £o odd. The amount paid in borough rates would probably not be increased, but the Hospital Board rate and the Waimakariri River Trust rate would be increased, as these were on the capital value. It might be possible, by combined action, to have some amelioration made, as had resulted in the Marshland district lately. Mr Brighting: May I ask why the re-valuation was effected, and who instigated it? The Mayor (Mr H. Manhire) said that the Borough Council had asked for the re-valuation. There had been many anomalies, many properties being ridiculously under-valued. But the council had had no idea that the re-valuation would be on present lines. The Department had gone too far in its increases. He (Mr Manhire) had not found, however, any propertyowner prepared to sell at the Government valuation. Four property-owners: I will. One of the interjectors said that he was valued above the figure he had paid for the property “ in the boom time " four years ago. Mr C. Richardson moved that a protest be made to the Valuer-General. Mr T. M. Ford seconded. Mr Richardson raised the point that the Drainage Board had struck its rate on the old valuation. The president said this was not so. Anyhow, if the board collected too much this year it would be repaid next year. (“No fear,” and laughter.) Mr Rankin thought it a good idea [to ask that the valuations be not acted on until the time came for strik ing the rate next year'. Mr Brighting said that he had ascertained that the drainage rate would return more than required next j-ear, but in that case there would be a slight reduction next year. He had been informed at the Valuation Office that Riccarton’s last valuation was in 1918; Christchurch city in >1921; Spreydon just before amalgama- } tion with the city; and Waimairi quite recently. He had also gathered J that no protest now would be of any I avail, as the time for objections haci passed. Mr Richardson further suggested i that the Borough Council might take , some action by way of a protest, ana the president said the good offices oi Mr 11. S. S. Kyle, M.P., would probably prove of value. Mr Brighting said that evidently one or two wise councillors, wishing to correct one or two anomalies, haa got this re-valuation, but they hadn't looked far enough ahead.

Mr Peters: The re-valuation wa bound to come sooner or later.

Mr R. Hepburn thought that the Valuer-General would probably take no notice, unless the individual owners were prepared to sustain individual objections.

Mr W. M’Crostie said that it waf unfair, when valuing for rating purposes, to value right up to trie mu.. Air Fleming: The council got us into this mess, and they should get us out of it. lie added that the value placed on his land was far beyond its selling value.

Mr R. H. Rankin had built a house “ at the. peak,” and this valuation had added £4OO to its capital value.

Mr Richardson’s motion was then put: That this meeting emphatically protest to the Valuer-General against the recent re-valuation of the Riccar ton Borough by the Valuation De partment, believing it to be excessive, and that the Valuer-General be requested to visit the district for an inspection; and that a committee be set up to further the aims of this meeting.

Mr Whatman said he considered his property had been under-valued. Ilis suggestion was that. the resolution should go to Mr Kyle, M.P., backed up by a resolution from the Borough Council. Unfortunately the valuer had been guided by fancy prices paid for certain sections which purchasers were very anxious to buy.

Mr M’Crostie said that was tin doubtcdly the case. The valuer had instanced the prices paid for Deans Estate and the Royds subdivision. A further point was made that the unimproved values had also been heavily increased, and several complaints were made that the time allowed for objections was far too short.

An instance was given where the value of a house, twenty years old, had been increased from £605 to £970.

The motion of protest was carried, and it was decided, on the motion of Messrs 11 iJ 1 and Fleming, to ask the Borough Council to endorse the action of the meeting, also to protest against the insufficient time allowed to protest.