THE CITY VALUATION.

Globe, Volume IX, Issue 1246, 5 March 1878, Page 2

THE CITY VALUATION.

The following letter appeared in last evening’s “ Star ” : Sir, — Your leading article of Satnrday last, c mmenting upon the action of the Finance Committee of the City Council, contains statements so contrary to fact that I am reluctantly compelled to ask a small space in your paper for a reply in order that the ratepayers may be placed in a position to form a correct opinion as to the action of their representatives. You state that the Finance Committee discovered the discrepancy between Mr Cuffs valuati n and that of 1877 “some time in the month of January.” This statement is entirely without foundation That the discrepancy should have been discovered in January I admit, but unfortunately it was not found out until Thursday, Feb 14, and thm quite accidentally. Your leader of Jan. 26 escaped my attention, and must also have escaped that of my colleague, Mr Pratt (the Mayor being absent at the time), or we should certainly have brought the matter before the Council much sooner. A s the public must know, we were very much occupied at the time in looking after the collection of the rates and corresponding with the Government re the o st of maintaining the Hospital and taking charge thereof ; and it must also be borne in mind that in previous years the * oil, as received from the Assessor, has always betn adopted by the Council without question. Again, you ask - " If the City Council deem the assessment of 1877 the samvmm bonitin of valuation, is it true, as has been asserted, that that valuation and all other information for guidances was refused to the assessor, and if true, by whom and for what purpose was it so refused ?” This is a very proper question to put, and it is highly important that it should be answered. The assessment roll of 1877 was not denied to Mr Cuff, but was copied by that gentleman’s clerk, with the exception of the money column. Now for the reason why the valuation was withheld. So much dissatisfaction had been expressed with the 1877 roll that the Finance Committee, in drawing up the rough specification upon which to call for tenders for the 1878 valuation, decided not to allow the valuator to see the 1577 roll at all; but, on the suggestion of no other person than Mr Cuff himself, afterwards agreed to let the valuator have the benefit of all the information contained in the roll, except the money column, which he said would be of no use to him. As to the assessment of 1877 being considered by the Council us the snmnium bo.nim of Valuation, I have only to refer you to the fact that in a large majority of cases the Council have agreed with the reductions made by Mr Cuff, especially with regard to household property in the more remote portions of the city. Most of the appeals lodged by the Council' are against reductions below values settled by the Magistrate on appeal last year, the properties affected not being considered by the Council to have depreciated in value, but rather the contrary. The number of objections lodged by the Council ia 593, whereas the number of assessments on the roll is 3280. Therefore, supposing wa had had time, there was no need to object to the roil ac a whole, , Having answered your statements and questions, please allow me to state for the Information of the ratepayers that the difference between Mr Cuff’s valuation and : lhe objections raised by the Council amounts to the sum of £9BOO, representing a revenue, at oo® shilling in tlx® pound, of to w hich

£ for £, to be received from the Government, making a tota difference in the amount available for the works necessary to be done in the city this year of £9BO, supposing the Council’s objections to be sustained in the Assessment Court. That we ought to have found this out sooner I again admit, but late is better than never, and I have no fear but that the good sense and public spirit of the majority of the ratepayers will assert itself by endorsing our action. It is worth while to note that the name of nearly every member of the Council appears in the list of assessments objected to from the Mayor downwards. I am, <tc., CHARLES E. BRIGGS, A member of the Finance Committee of the Christchurch City Council. March 4, 1878.