RATEPAYERS’ MEETING.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4386, 10 April 1875, Page 3

RATEPAYERS’ MEETING.

«> A thinly-attended meeting of ratepayers was held last evening in the side-room of the Odd Fellows’ Hall, for the purpose of resuming the discussion upon the proposal to change the system of rating from that of annual value to the respective frontage of each freehold. Mr. Toomath occupied the chair. The Chairman having explained the object of the meeting, read the first resolution as follows : —.“ That in the opinion of this association the principle upon which the rates are levied in the city of ’Wellington is wrong. Mr. Helyek, before the discussion was proceeded with, desired to bo informed how the assessor would act, presuming the frontage system to be adopted, in a case where one man had a piece of laud with a long frontage, and very little depth, and a person next to him owned a long strip of land with very little frontage. Mr. Burns, as the mover of the resolution, said that, of course, there would he difficulties of tho kind pointed out, but that the idea was not by anv means new, as it had been in operation in New York for many years, and was found to meet all requirements, in addition to bciw far more economic than the system iu existence iu Wellington. For tile purpose of illustrating the system, take Lambtonquav. The value of a certain number of sites would first be ascertained, and an average struck. That average, say £2O a week, would form the assessment for the locality, irrespective altogether of what buildings were upon the various sites. The bother was then at an end. Contrast that with tho present system. As tWhgs existed now, the valuator goes round the back yard, examines your house, and if he sees upon it an extra coat of paint or any other improvement he increases the assessment accordingly. Then there was the objection that the assessment was left to a single individual ; and to show what the judgment of a single assessor might be, he need only mention that a short time ago, in looking over the valuator's book iu the City Council office, he found that an extensive draper's shop on Lambtou-quay, with fifty feet frontage and a dwelling-house in the rear, was only paying £4O a year, while he had to pay £SO a year for an ordinary dwelling-house iu Fi pi tea-street. That surely was very unfair. Mr. Worth said it was impossible the first * resolution could be dissented from, and he should therefore support it heartily. . Xhe resolution was then put and earned. The Chairman then put the following resolution to the meeting :—•“ That it is desirable that the frontage system of rating should be adopted in place of the auuual value -’.ou system now iu force.” , Mr. WarbURTON said he felt confident that "*♦ the frontage system would meet with a good deal of opposition. What he would suggest would be, that the Corporation should only increase the assessment for such improvements as were effected at the public expense, such aS kerbing, lighting, &c, and that no increase of rating should bo made because a mau improved his own property. Mr. Jeffs thought Mr. Warburton had misapprehended the meaning of the motion. The object of its mover was, that all property, whether improved by buildings or not, should pay an equal rate. Mr. Cooper objected altogether to the frontage rate, which might answer very well in a large town like New York, or even in some of the populous parts of this city ; but he felt confident it would not meet with the approval of the great body of the ratepayers. He doubted whether any streets could be named in which the property throughout was of equal value, and it would therefore be unjust to some to impose a uniform rate even for a particular street, much less for the whole town. The principle of taking a vacant piece of land at the same rate as a piece upon which an expensive building was erected was entirely opposed to his ideas of taxation. If such a principle were brought into operation, what would become of their ideas of a tax upon property and income, which he supposed they were all agreed was a fair tax. The first result of the frontage system would be that land would fall in value, and sections on the outskirts would become almost valueless. If the City Council collected the rates every six months, and appointed a collector to go round and collect the rates, they would effect a very great improvement. Mr. Trueman spoke strongly in favor of the frontage system, as opposed to the present system, which he regarded as a tax upon improvements. Mr. Worth disapproved of the frontage system as put forward by Mr. Bums. To his mind it did not all follow that because that system was found to answer in New York, therefore, it was likely to meet the requirements of the ratepayers of Wellington. There was no analogy at all in the circumstances of the two places. He supposed he was correct in saying that every inch of Lew York was occupied by massive buildings. Mr. Burks said Mr. Worth was mistaken. Mr. Worth spoke, of course, of that part of New York where the frontage system was adopted. Mr. Burns said that at the time he spoke of there was more vacant ground on Manhattan Island, the island upon which New York was built, than there was in Wellington altogether. It Mr. Worth said that leaving out of sight all consideration as to how the frontage system would affect them individally, he opposed it upon broad principles. His opinion was that occupied property should be rated according to its value, and that there should be a different assessment altogether for unoccupied property. Unoccupied property might be advantageously rated upon the frontage system, because it would make the owner push it into the market, so that the ratepayers generally would possibly be benefited by the erection of buildings which would, of course, pay increased taxes, and assist them to make and improve roads. The case already cited of a long frontage and a narrow frontage showed how unequal the ratin" would be upon the frontage system. He did not mean to say that the present system was a good one ; on the contrary, it was based upon an unfair principle. The best plan he knew of that was adopted in many parts of Australia, and in some parts of New Zealand, namely, first to fix the value of a property, and then to rate it at that value for a term of three or five years, deducting one-third from the amount of the assessment as an allowance for wear and tear and for loss of rent through the property being uulet. That would do away with the very reasonable complaints which were created through raising and lowering the assessment with the rise and fall in the value of property. Then again, the mode of appeals should bo very different to what it was at present. The City Council should have nothing whatever to do with appeals, which should he decided by a court of assessors. It was a mistake, and a great annoyance, to drive the ratepayers to the Itesident Magistrate’s Court, where they were almost sure to get the worst of it, and be saddled with costs into the bargain. As to the present system, it was framed upon a wrong bash), but instead of the councillors making any attempt to improve it, the errors were perpetuated, and those who paid too much years ago still paid too much, while those who formerly paid too little paid too little still,—the guiding rule appearing to be that each property must pay a certain increase year by year, no matter whether it had been paying too much in years past. He would caution the ratepayers to take steps in this. At present they had only the general rate and the water rate to contend with, but before very long they would have a heavy educational rate (which was based upon the Corporation rate-roll), and the night-soil rate. The Chairman considered Mr. Worth had narrowed the question down to a very important point, and would therefore suggest, as the meeting was a very thin one, that the discussion should be adjourned to a future evening, when he would himself be glad to speak to the subject. He hoped Mr. Worth would embody his views in an amendment and propose it at once, so that the discussion should bo gone on without delay at the adjourned meeting. He would remind the meeting that tho action of the Education Board was not final, and that any ratepayers who objected to the rate could attend at the Board_ at the proper time and state their objection.

Any steps to be taken should be taken promptly, iu case any change that mighty be decided'on should involve legislative action. The Provincial Council met on the 30th April, so that there was no time to be lost. _ Mr. Worth then moved-—“ That the frontage system for unoccupied land should be adopted, but that the system of assessment for occupied property ought to be from year to year, upon tho annual value of the said property if leased for five years, after one-third of tho said value has been deducted far wear and tear and improvements.” After a few remarks from Mr. Jeffs and Mr. Worth, the meeting adjourned till that day week.