CITY VALUATIONS.

Evening Star, Issue 3099, 24 January 1873, Page 2

CITY VALUATIONS.

To the Editor.

Sir, —I have read the letter appearing in this evening’s Star, on the City valuations, from Mr H. S. Fish, Mayor. With a seeming candor, Mr Fish pretends to give a “ history of the matter as dealt with by the Corporation, from beginning to end.” As, however, the history ho has furnished contains viry partial views, I will, with your permission, make a fe v remarks 'xx reference to the points raised in bis lett r. After quoting the valuation clause, Mr Fish points out that the clause contains no provision for the appointment of an umpire in the event of the valuators failing to agree, and infers from this a possible “ dead-lock, or a recourse to costly litigation.” How, I would ask Mr Fish, what earthly business would this be of his, or the Corporation V It would be purely a matter for the consideration of the tenants themselves, and they would see to it, that neither a “dead-lock” nor “costly litigation” took place, by themselves appointing an umpire. Although the leases say not a word about an umpire, it would be quite open to the tenants to appoint one, if they thought fit. But the next point in Mr Fish’s letter is characteristic of that gentleman, and is put forward in such a manner as would impose upon careless readers, and cause them to jump to the conclusion that nothing could be fairer than the terms offered by the Corporation. He says that “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 aw ay, when, there being no in-coming tenant, the original lessee would have no recourse but the of the lease to remove his building.” »Theh he goes on to state the terms offered by the Corporation to the tenants ; the' Corporation would appoint a valuator, and his valuation would be made a compulsory liability to the purchaser; but the valuator’s va’uation would be subject to reduction, if thought necessary. If that syere not considered satisfactory, “the Council,” says Mr Fish, “ does nob force the tenant to accept the valuation.” “There is no compulsion in the matter ; if it does not please him all he has to say is, 1 am not satisfied with yoir estimate of the value of my property, and therefoie I prefer to fall back oa the terms of my lease, and thus the tenant is in precisely the same position as he was before the valuation was made”—so writes M r Fish. Now, sir, if this were really the intention and views of the Council, why bother themselves at all about the valuations which, by the meaning of the leases, were to be arrauged by the incoming and outgoing tenants, through their valuators ? Fir FiVtt knows perfectly well that if the meaning he intends to convey was the true one,' not one of the tenants would agree to the terms offered, Suppose a tenant to refuse the Corporation’s terms—what then ? “He would be in the same position as he was before the valuation was made”—would he ? Or, rather, would the Council not protect themselves by fixing such an upset pries on the ground 48 would deter parties from .bidding, the consequence being that he, the tenWjMroidd k® compelled to quit, And remove his buildings off the ground? “Then,” with an assumption of innocence whiphis sickening, “if this is so, where can the wrong be, where the injury to the xndm. dull J” At far that p#rtoftoitoto wbw|

he gives Mr Mercer the lie, and designates his premises a tumble-down shantjq such language from Mr Fish is not surprising, only characteristic. One point in the leases seems to be quite overlooked by the Council. I do nob believe that there is a syllable in the deeds of lease about the right of the Corporation fixing an upset price. There is a clause which states that the ground shall be put up for auction ; and even from a legal view, I very much question whether the Council possess the right to fix an upset price, and allow tho month to pass away without putting the ground up for auction. If, during the month, one of the present leaseholders was to make an offer for the ground, he would be in tho position of an incoming tenant, and, in spite of any figure the Council chose to fix as an upset price, it might be a very debateable question as to whether they could refuse the offer—that is taking the literal m aning expressed in the deeds of lease. Apart from that view of the matter, however, whether the Corporation are legally justified or not, there can be no doubt that they are not acting according to the intended meaning and spirit of the deeds. On (he faith of these deeds of lease, the present lessees were led to erect buildings on the ground, expecting to receive fair valuation at the expiry of their leases ; now they find that they are to receive only such valuations as the Corporation choose toeivo them, or else quit and remove their buildings. Mr Fish and thos»i gentlemen who are acting with him make a great talk qhout their “motives;” they, of course, are acting for the interests of the citizens. Well, all I can say is, that these same citizens are a very ungrati ful lot; for they do not appreciate, neither do they countenance, the attempt which is, apparently, being made to “ bleed” a few persons for the sake of saving a .few pounds annually to the City ; not only that, but a great many of them assign many diffeient “ motives ” from those put forward as actuatiijg his Worship and colleagues. One thing Mr Fish may thoroughly rely upon, that, although th;re are a few persons in Dunedin, as there are every where else, who admire “sharp practice,” the great bulk of the community most hj. artily despise such practice, and admire, instead, honesty and straightforward dealing. Trusting you will not refuse this letter insertion.—i am, Ac,,