Mr F. Harris Cornered.

Gisborne Times, Volume VI, Issue 148, 4 July 1901, Page 3

Mr F. Harris Cornered.

(To the Editor of the Times.) ! Sin, —lt may be a hopeless task I hav< I undertaken (that is as far as putting: Mi Frank Harris right is concerned), but 1 will have one more try, and as I have not been able (as yet) to get him to see the difference between the principle of rating on capital values and a faulty valuation, I must go to work in some other way. Well, Sir, I accepted Mr Harris's in--1 vitation to inspect the assessment notice he received from the Valuation Department, and I found it was headed “ Whataupoko road district.” This, Sir, was rather strange, to say the least, and as it was evident 10 my mind that a blunder had been made somewhere I carried my inquiries further afield. When inspecting the valuations of this particular property (of which so much lias been said by Mr Harris), I found it actually appeared on the books at .£4lO, instead of £B2 as Mr Harris would have us believe. Sections 84 and 85, corner of Bright street and Childers road, were owned by Mrs Elizabeth Morgan. She paid rates on a capital value of £'4lo. Mrs Morgan's name also appears on the County (Harbor district) as owner of 84 and 85, Whataupoko A, 1 rood, 24 perches, valued at .£lO3. In the Whataupoko rate book just to hand, Mrs Morgan is put down for 84 and 85, Whataupoko A, 13 porches, value £2l. Frank Harris is down for 84 and 85, corner of Bright street and Childers road, 1 rood, 11 perches, valued at £B2, and £2l, making the £lO3 for the Whataupoko property. This is clearly where the error has crept in. In the Borough valuations for Harbor district I find section 85 Childers road, Thos. Hood, ' 2.5 perches, value £300; section 84 Bright j street,Ohas. Smith,2s perches, value £110; , total £4lO. Mr Frank Harris's name does i not appear in the transaction at all, but ! from what he says lie was the agent who I bought them from Mrs Morgan for £4OO | odd and sold them at £OOO, a sharp business transaction, but quite legitimate. Though when he received a notice of valuation of a property in Whataupoko valued at £B2, which was a palpable error on the part of the Valuation Department, why does he rush into print (sec letter of 24th ult.), and try to throw dust in people’s eyes and lead them to believe that the notice he had received of valuation of 84 and 85 of Whataupoko, value £32, referred to 84 and 85, Borough of Gisborne, valued at £410? Instead of blaming the Harbor Board Officials, why did ho not ask to see i the valuations rolls as I have done ? when ho would have found out his mistake. In the two cases I oited the other day I proved clearly enough that what a property sells for, by no means proves its real value. The same thing applies to 84 and 85, corner of Bright street and Childers road, and as to the sections on the beach (Victoria Township). Three years ago they were simply native land, and £2O per acre was top value for them. Since then no valuation has been made ; therefore no blame is attachable to anybody. Air Harris seems unable to grasp the subject he has been handling. There is a great difference in values as far as they affect some parts of the Borough and its suburbs (notably Victoria Township). While there has been substantial progress made, there is no doubt prices have been boomed and land has changed hands at higher prices than it will likely fetch in a few years’ time. In conclusion, Sir, my opinion is that rating on unimproved values would tend to bring land to its real value. Speculators would find it a burden to hold more land than they could profitably use.—l am, etc., Francis Stafford.