CITY ASSESSMENTS

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2259, 19 September 1914, Page 4

CITY ASSESSMENTS

OBJECTORS HEARD OFFICIAL VALUES CRITICISED. CITY BUSINESS SECTIONS. Unusual interest was manifested in yesterday's sitting of tho Assessment Court, when objectors to the recent city valuations attended in large numbers to protest against tho values put upon their properties. The upper room of the Magistrate's Court was crowded when the sittings opened at 10 a.m. Mr. W. G. lliddell, S.M., presided, and sitting with him as assessors were Messrs. H. E. Leighton (for tho Valuation Department) and T. Dwan (for the City Council). Several property owners announced their intention of .availing themselves of the provisions of Section 31 of the Valuation Act, allowing the Crown to take over the land at the Department's valuation or reduce tho valuation. When the list had been called over it was decided to first deal with the objections raised in the case of 55 sections in tho business area of the city, between the Town. Hall block and Ballance Street. ' Mr. C. P. Skerrett,_ K.C., stated that, with Mr. L. 0. H. Tripp, he was appearing for a large number of objectors. They were of two classes. The first class comprised lessees of corporation sections who were interested in n definition of unimproved valuo, while the second class comprised freeholders who had valuable buildings on their land, and wore therefore necessarily precluded from availing themselves of the provisions of Section 31 of .the Act, Hβ proposed to submit an amount of general evidence and then to ask the Court to deal with the objections street by street. Tho City Solicitor (Mr. -J. O'Shea) asked leave to appear in the case on behalf of the corporation as oiyners of the properties. ■ ' Mr. Skorratt objected to a triangular argument of the case. Ho contended that the corporatioh had no standing in the matter.*. / Mr. M. Myors, who appeared for the Valuation Department, offered no bbjec> tion. The Court held that the City Solicitor could not appear in the rase, seeing that, the corporation had not lodged any objections. Any evidence to be offered by the corporation could be brought out by the Crown. The decision on tho point was subject to correction by the •Supreme Court, if it was desired to'test it. ■•■■■•"■ Mr. Skerrett said that tho cases, in which ho was concerned,'differed from the ordinary cases, first because his clients could not offer the land to the Crown, and secondly because there wore substantial leaseholds dependent oil tho capital value of tho land. The question for the Court would bo what was the unimproved value, whether freohold or leasehold, and what was tho valuo of the improvements. An important point was involved in tho proceedings: Was , there now being mado an attempt (o place the capital value of land in tho city off Wellington at a value far beyond its productive or retriuneratire vulue'.'and far beyond what it would reach-in the open market? Tho last valuation had been mado in 1906, a. year of boom, when prices stood high, speculation w,as keen, and when land readily changed hands. Ho would show that since tho boom died away.

liiero had baon little or no change in ■city land, and:yet it was proposed to increase the values from 20 to 50 per cent, It was notorious,'lie said, that private .loaders .would never advance money on three Government valuations and that even tho great lending Departments of the State, themselves often got a-separate valuation before advancing money. •' Mr. Myers hoped his friend would pvove these'statements because the Government officers would dispute them. Air. Skerrett'e reply was that ho would ask a few questions of .the Government officers when they got into the box. He went on to remark that the great principle of the st-atuto was that the Court must fix a value at which the land would sell readily in the open market. The tost of market value was the price a reasonable man could afford to give for the land, so that it would yield him a fair interest, on his expenditure. But it. was a vicious system, which took advantage of an isolated sale for the purposo' of raising the value of the whole of the lnnd in. tho street where the sale occurred. He knew these sales would be trotted out, but he would show by evidence that, between 1906 and tho present day, rents had fallen ant a groat many properties which had been purchased or leased were not now paying, while turoiighout this period-the cost of building had increased,enormously. Ifc would l>s'shown, further, that certain sains were exceptional sales, that the land had Doen told to a'class of customer, extremely limited in number, and consequently incapable of making a market. He would call his witnesses without going into, further details. Charles James Stanton Harcourt, a member of the firm of Harcourt and Company gave it as his opinion that Sl . n «> j«°P sections in the business area ot Wellington had not increased in saleable value except in exceptional cases. Un the, other hand, the cost of building had increased at least 20 per cent Die run power had shown a most decided decrease. Tin's was because since 1908 there had been much building, and the accommodation was now tar m excess, of the demand. Mr. Myers asked if these remarks a PP "fid to shops or offices, or to both. Iho witness said he was-referring to the general .productivity of the land. Ihe present rent—return on City buildjr.gs—was on an average 20 per cent! less than the return in 1906. Ho gave it as hie opinion that tho present socalled freehold vahio of land was in excess -f tho real value upon which interest could bo earned, and quoted a number of oasos to prove how poorly the rents worked out in regard to value or building and property. ■ Cross-examined by Mr. Myers, the witness said that Mr. Morison had purchasod a property in Feathoraton Street lor £15,000. There were old buildings on it, and it returned a rental value of £.1000. Jn witness's opinion there would not be a greater return evon if the buildings on tho section were worth'£] 5,000. The property had been for salo for £30.000, but had sinco been reduced to £25,000, and witness did not consider it worth, this latter price. It was true that Mrs. Rhodos had refused £250 per foot for . the vacant scotion near Mason's Steps, but slia arid tho trustees had afterwards regretted it. He believed that Mr. Kirkciildie had declined to sell a vacant section noxt to iho Public Trust Office for £200 per foot, but ho believed that ho. also regrotted doing so. Witnoss did not know, that AVhitcombe and Tombs, had offered £425 per foot for a section in Lanlliton Quay opposite their business 'premises, but tho special circumstances of their business would no doubt justify them in doing so.' He personally knew of a Tonplo of instances (mortgagees' sales) in which sales had been recorded at loss than tho Government valuation. He had properties in hnnd now for sale at less than Government valuation. Mr..Myers: When valuing for mortgage purposes do you place values as low as you placed them to-day ?. ' Witness replied, in tho negative, but explained that he always mentioned the exact price at which ho would: recom-. mend, anvpne to lend money on the pro-' Mr!'Myers i Is it not a faot that tie

land in tho business area of Wellington is well and strongly held? Witness replied that it was strongly held in a way, but he could probably show counsel many properties for sale if ho had his books to refer to. He repeated that rents generally had fallen, but admitted that tho rent of the Burlington Tea Booms had recently risen from £12 to £10 per week. The cross-examination had not concluded at 5 p.m., when the Court adjourned until this morning.