CITY VALUATIONS.

Evening Star, Issue 3097, 22 January 1873, Page 2

CITY VALUATIONS.

To the Editor,

Sir, — A. good deal pro and con. has been recently said regarding the Corporation leases presently falling in, and the Council’s action in dealing with them has been much criticised, and rery severely (mmecessartly so, I think) by your contemporary', the Da\hj Time*. I propose, with your permission, in as conci c e a manner as 1 can. to give a history of the matter as dealt with by the Corporation from beginning to end, “nothing extenuating nor setting down aught in malice,” and then allow the public to form an opinion for themselves. So far as I individually am concerned, I shall, aft- r this, say no more upon the subject. Some months ago. the majority of the old leases being near extinction by lapse of time, the Council was compelled to consider carefully the question' as to boW they were to be dealt with. I say “ carefully” because it was fully recognised that it was a matter of very great importance to the citizens in regard to the future revenue of the City* and it was felt that any mistake made now might entail a very serious loss, arid that extending over a long period of years, viz., 21. The Council was incited to greater caution from a 1 circumstance which occurred, just previously, with regard to some land leased by Messrs Oliver and Ulph, in Manse street, where, as it was admitted on all bands, a serious loss to the City had accrued through the valuation upon the buildings having been fixed at an absurdly high figure, thus preventing anyone except the lessees bidding for the ground, which was knocked down to them at their first and only bid. In this case, as I have before remarked, the City lost at least L6O per annum, and that, with interest and compound interest added for a period of *U years, would amount to a very considerable sum. I have been thus lengthy in this illustration in order to show that the numbers of the Council had good reason for being cautious before fixing the vacations of the buildings at such a. figure as to deteriorate the value of the'ground. The clause in. the old leases,. referring to valuations, runs as follows “That the incoming tenant at the expiration of this lease of the lands hereby demised will upon (or previously to) entering into possession, and within thirty days after the expiration of this lease pay to the sai^

a fair value in money for all buildings left by him or them as aforesaid, at a valuation thereof, to be made by two persons mutually chosen by the said out-going and in-coming tenant: provided, nevertheless, that if there should be no new or in-coming tenant of the said lands at the expiration of this lease, the said shall be entitled to remove from the said lands all buildings then thereon, provided the same be removed within thirty days after the expiration of this lease.” It will be observed, as a point particularly worthy of notice, that whilst the lease provides for the appointment of two persons, to be mutually chosen, it does not provide for the appointment of an umpire, or devise any means of settling any dispute that might arise between the two arbitrators: thus a deadlock might occur, or recourse had to costly litigation. The Committee, in considering this clause, thought there was great objection to it, on the ground above stated, and they further thought that persons were hardly likely to bid fairly for ground which was saddled with an encumbrance, the ext r nt of which they could not discover until after purchase. It is true the Council could have protected themselves against the bad effect of this clause by fixing such an upset price for the ground as would deter parties from bidding, and thus allow the month to pass away, when, there being no incoming tenant, the original lessee would have no recourse but the terms of the lease to remove his building ; hut it was considered the adoption of such a course would be unfair to the tenants, and not interpreting the lease in a liberal manner, and consequently the idea was abandoned, or only thought of as a measure to be had recourse to in a case of great emergency. 'J he consideration of these and many other reasons which do not strike me now, but which came out in committee when discussing the subject, induced the Reserves Committee (which, by the way, comprises a majority of the Council) to recommend to the Council, as the most equitable course for both parties, the appo’ntment of two valuators, one for the ground and one for the bui dings, that a valuation of each should be made, and that when ascertained the tenants should be notified, and if they were satisfied with the price arrived at, and were willing to forego the terms of their lease, the ground should be put up for sale, with the valuation for the buildings attached as a compulsory liability to the purchaser, hut especially reserving to the Couno 1 the right to review the valuations made before submitting tucm to the tenants. This recommendation was unanimously adopted, and a letter drawn up by the Town Clerk, and sent to each tenant, embodying the resolution, and in which the following passage occurs :—“lf this plan is adopted, it will be understood that neither you nor the Council will be bound by any decision such valuators may in their judgment arrive at; but the fact of such a va nation being made may tend to a-sist landlord and tenant in arriving at a satisfacto.y understanding thereon.” I think, sir, this conclusively shows the intention of the Council, and any tenant accepting those terms did so with the full knowledge that the valuation of the valuator might be altered by the Council; and it appears to me to be idle in any c ne, when such alteration is made, to say “ You had no right to alter the valuator's valuation the question appears to be, does the letter sufficiently define the Council's meaning as I interpret if, and did the tenants agree to it? But, sir, there is another phase of the question wjpeh appear? tq be entirely oyerloqked. Tfye Coqnc 1 cjo,es pot force the tepapt to accept tlye valuation. There is no pqmptilsiqn ip the matter; if it floes not please him, all hp IpV 3 to sqy is, I am not Satisfied with your estimate of the value of my property, and therefore I prefer to fall hack on the terms of my lease, and thus the tenant is in prec : sely the same position as he was beforjthe valuation was made. Then, if this is so, where can the wrong bn —where the injury to the individual—that the Times and interested parties talk so glibly of. Volunteers will remember the well known word of command, “As you were,” and this is precisely the position of those tenants who demur to the valuation; none of their rights under the lease have been destroyed or taken away, and they are as well able to exercise those rights under these circumstances as ever. It is, however, urged that wrong has been done in selecting certain properties for pruning and not doing so to others. 1 do not think so, as I think I have already shown upon another occasion, but will endeavor to do so again as briefly as possible I do not doubt it will be admitted that, with regard to wooden buildings, circumstances, such as their position, style, and character, may very materially alter the values whith might, in other cases, be placed upon similar buildings. For instance, take that of Mercer’s, and the small places adjoining. These are situated upon one of the most valuable building sites in the town—a site which it is anticipated will fetch a very considerable price ; and it is quite certain, apart altogether from the stability of the buildings, that the style and character of them render it imperative upon anyone leasing the site to remove them, for the simple reason that the rent they would fealisfe would not 1 pay the purchaser 2 per cent, for his motley. Thus, it is a certainty, they must be pulled clown, and are only valuable to the buyer as old material, and every shilling he has to give above that value, he takes off the price per foot {or the grotlud. And is" it to be concluded for a moment, that the citizens are to lose the chance of profitably letting their property by hampering it with a large price for a tumble-down old shanty. I think, sir, I can show in another way that the price arrived at by the Council for Mercer’s building is a fair one. Mr Mercer says the buildings' Cost, when first put up 10 years ago, LI,OOO. 1 know upon the best authority it cost nothing of the sort. I will, however, be liberal, and fix it at I 801 Now, what would any business man ail'dw for deterioration of wooden buildings ? Would 10 per oi , rit.'*per iinnum be too inngh ? 1 think not, and for the sake of argument will accept that as correct. If it is so, it will be found up >n calculation that, assuming Mr M.’s building cost, 10 years ago, LBOO, its worth now would only be about I 241—the Council allow him L 250. The cry was first got up that Mr Mercer had been specially spotted from mproper motives, but that had to be a andoned when it was found that Mr Bann ityne’s property was the first to be reduced, and that Mr Councillor Mercer, with “ a smile that was bland,” had kindly assisted in the operation. I would like to ask this question, had Mr Mercer ndt been a member of the Council should we have heard anything of this outcry? I opine not, although I' admit bis being so should not in any way prejudice him more than another. There is just one ot:er thing I would like to place before the citizens, and I have done. It is this : the whole of the block \n question, comip racing with andincliuljngKirkpatriek.spreand ending iyith’and including Bing, Harris’s store, in High street, hasj, for the past fourteen years, yielded to the Corporation. the magnificent sura of L 220 Josfi I per annum ; that is, during all the good rimes, when fortunes have been made over ahd over again. Mercer’s corner, out of thin amount, has paid LSO per annum. I do not cite this fact as one which should cause an injustice to be done to the tenants ; but I say, distinctly, it is a reason why they should get no more than justice, fi ot one inch ought to be given, arid, if there is any advantage in the terms of the lease in favor of the Corporation, I say they are bound, in the interests of the City to avail themselves of it,- particularly so, when they are doing no wrong to existing interests. I could say much more; but I feel I liave trespassed upon your space too much already • apt] J will conclude by «ay(ng this, that 4 am certain every memper of the Reserves Com* fiiittee was actuated in this matter solely by feelings of the most impartial kind, I am convinced they have done justice to Mr Mtrccr and others interested, and I trust

that no member of the Council will be induced to alter his previous decision by the thuuderings of your daily contemporary, or the grumblings of interested parties. —I am, &c . H. S. Flsil, Jnn, Dunedin, January 21,