THE GLOBE. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 23, 1882. OUR CITY RATES.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2614, 23 August 1882, Page 2

THE GLOBE. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 23, 1882. OUR CITY RATES.

Councillor Lottisson has done the city good service in affording us some valuable information with regard to our rating burdens. We must confess to having no sympathy whatever with the original proposal contained in the motion, because, as was pointed out by several councillors, it means a loss of revenue to the city without any corresponding saving. But while this is so it cannot be denied that in dissipating by means of a few stern facts and figures the notion so assiduously fostered by Mr. S. Clarkson and others who think with him, the discussion was alike interesting and important. It has been so persistently urged by the party of which Mr. Clarkson is the head and front, that Christchurch ratepayers are the heaviest taxed in the colony that they ha7e really begun to believe it themselves. This statement has been worked out at public meetings in opposition to anything that might be projected for the benefit of the city as a whole, and of course vociferously applauded. But sad to say, the researches made by Councillor Louisson in support of his motion distinctly and moot positively controvert this. So far from being the heaviest rated, Christchurch is amongst the j lightest, numbers of other portions of the •

colony being above it, and only two, the populous and important cities of Eangiora and Onehungs, are below it. In. order, •to fally understand the force of tbia fact our readers must remember that Christchnrch is an exception to cities of its own size and importance in the colony in that we have no endowment. Danedin has been very magnificently provided for in this respect, and bo have others—yet what do we find ? Why, that in Dunedin, with large endowments providing a very ample revenue, the rate is the same as in Christchnrch without hardly a penny of endowment. The same rule applies to "Wellington and Auckland, in both of which cities the people have been wise in their generation, and seized the opportunity while it yet remained in their hands of providing for themselves. The rate for Cbristchurch—that is, city rate pure and timpla—amounts to Is 3d' in the £, one shilling of which is general and threepence special. This is just exactly half what the gentlemen we have already referred to are in the habit of saying has to be paid by the long-suffering ratepayers of Ohristcburch. "Tour rates are now 2s 6d in the £," they cry, " don't vote for anything that will increase this by one halfpenny." And so schemes which we firmly believe would have been greatly to the benefit of the whole community, if carried out, have been relegated to the limbo of rejection purely on this account. Now the ratepayers have the facts and figures before them, and we desire just to call their attention to one or two instances, as cited by Councillor Lonisson. There is Timaru, whose streets, &c, can in no way compare with ours, is rated at 2a; and Oamaru, omitting the spacial water rate of Is, at 2s 9d. Then we have Napier, 2s 61, and Invercargill, 2s. No one will venture for one instant to say that the condition of any of these towns, the provision made by the municipal authorities for the comfort and convenience of the ratepayers, or indeed the general return for the money contributed, is in any way to be compared with what, for nearly 60 per cent, less cost, is given to us here. There may be, and doubtless is, some little confusion in the minds of the general body of Christchurch ratepayers as to the amount paid, because the city rate notice includes the Waimakariri Conservators and Drainage Board rates. These two latter amounts, though collected by the City Council, only pass through the hands of its officials as a matter of convenience. They are expended by totally different bodies from the City Council, and on works whieh are not, as a rule, for the benefit or improvement of the city. It may seem peculiar to have to state what ought to be a well known fact, but it is rendered necessary, because as we have before stated, it has been industriously circulated that 2s 6d is the rate paid by the city ratepayers. It is, we think, matter for regret that long ere this some means have not been adopted by a collection of statistics, such as those quoted by Councillor Lcuisson, to disabuse the minds of people of an

erroneous impression, Had this been done prior to the last poll, one of the greatest arguments used by Mr. Clarkson and his friends would entirely hare failed in its purpose. However, though late, we are glad to welcome the statements of Councillor Louisson, because they put on a right footing a matter concerning which there has been a great deal of misapprehension. The facts given cannot be gainsaid, as thoy aro official, and we only hope that the ratepayers will now once and for all pat away oat of their minds the idea that they are far more heavily taxed than those of the other cities of the colony. There is jast one other point referred to in Councillor Louisson's remarks which is pertinent to the subject we have been discussing. We allude to municipal borrowing. In a former article attention was drawn by us to the fact that Christchurch was the single example in the colony of a city paying for permanent works out of rates. In other words we are foolish enough to tax ourselves for the benefit of posterity. Now, there can be no question as to the absurdity of such a course. In the construction of permanent works we have only a right to charge ourselves with interest and sinking fund. But instead of that what do we find ? Why, that Christchurch has only raised a paltry £35,000, whilst Auckland, Dunham and Wellington have loans respectively of £235,000, £600,000 and £430.000. By this means the cities mentioned are enabled to execute works conducing to the comfort and convenience of their residents, and to embellish and improve the appearance of the places themselves without to any great degree increasing the taxation. But with us how different. Any work that is required to be done must be paid for out of rates, and the consequence is that there is a constant dipping into the ratepayers money which should be expended elsewhere. Let us take for instance the work now proposed to be undertaken—one which is of pressing necessity—the macadamising of the streets. This is to all intents and purposes a permanent work, or if it is not so it is scarcely worth while to begin it Tet some £4OOO or £SOOO of the money extracted direct from the ratepayers pockets will have to be expended on a work which properly should have been done out of loan. This is only one instance out of many we could cite, and it is to be hoped the rate, payers will see their way to alter their 3pinions on this subject.