RATING SYSTEMS

Press, Volume LXXI, Issue 21417, 8 March 1935, Page 10

RATING SYSTEMS

The Taking of Polls PRESENT REGULATIONS CRITICISED Support for an endeavour to change the regulations governing the taking of polls to determine whether an area should be rated on unimproved or rental value was sought from the Canterbury Chamber of Commerce by the Dunedin chamber in a letter received last evening. The Canterbury chamber decided that there was no need for a change in the direction suggested. The Dunedin chamber stated that at present such polls could be held every three years on the requisition of 15 per cent, of the ratepayers. The chamber considered that too frequent polls were detrimental to business, and suggested that the regulations be altered to provide that a poll should be held only on the requisition of 25 per cent, of the ratepayers, and every seven years, to prevent irresponsible persons from causing frequent polls to be held.

Mr John Mac Gibbon said that such polls seemed to be taken very rarely. He could not remember any. Mr A. F. Wright said he would be sorry to see the chamber approve the Dunedin proposal. Christchurch was rated on unimproved value, which he considered placed a disadvantage on large sections and open spaces. It was mainly by this system of rating that the extension of Christchurch to the sea had been retarded. There was no chance of changing the system without a petition signed bi' 15 per cent, of the ratepayers, and this was difficult to obtain.

In 1916 there was the Christchurch District Rating Enabling Act, enabling districts coming in to retain rating on capital value. This did not work out as expected and the result was a reluctance on the part of outside bodies to come into Christchurch. So, rather than see it made more difficult to change the system of valuation, he would prefer that it should be made easier. Mr W. H. Nicholson said that there were reasons other than the system of rating preventing outside boroughs from coming into the city. One of these was the costs. In his case it represented an increase of 100 per cent. No action was taken.