THE RICHEST CITY.

Putaruru Press, 7 June 1928, Page 5

THE RICHEST CITY.

A story with which we have long Mattered our Poekney vanity relates ifchat Marshal Blucher, having seen [London, was moved to exclaim, “ What a city to sack ! ” But, according to ithe last estimates of ratable value, ithe city of London is not the richest in Great Britain (says the Daily Telegraph). It is not even the richest part of the great area which has been into London county. According to the rate books, Glasgow comes first. St. Mungo’s burgh is now assessed at about £11,500,000. The city of London, in spite of all the Wiaith it wields, is content to be boused in buildings rated at some £8,000,000. This is well ahead of Liverpool and Manchester, which are next with round about £7,000,000 each. But the second place in the kingdom is taken by Westminster. Her ratable value is now nearly $9,500,000. These comparisons are

between cities of different kinds. Glasgow had at last census a population A of more than 1,000,000, the city of London less than 14,000, Westminster less than 142,000. Both Westminster and London have be p, as regards numbers of residents, growing smaller. Since 1901 the population of Westminster has declined by 40,000. Yet an the last half dozen years the ratable value has increased enormously. In 1922 it was about £1,500,000 lefts fehan it is to-day. It has grown by &«p 4 000 in a year or two. The reason is "That large estates in the West End bave recently been developed and rebuilt. The efficiency, the earning power of the new structures are enormously greater than the old. The -change is doubtless fdr the public good, as well as to private advantage. It is generally advantageous that the Utmost possible use should be made 4>f the central areas of London. But -these great increases in the ratable value :of districts of comparatively small population have certain dangers. •The rich boroughs are abused by the of Poplarism in the spirit of Wjßlucher, as a city to sack. Its ratepayer is called on to contribute more and more to expenditure over which or no control.