RATEPAYERS PENALISED

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1023, 14 July 1930, Page 11

RATEPAYERS PENALISED

GOLF LINKS CAUSE LOSS IN RATES OPENING FOR SPECULATORS Claiming that reductions in rateable value granted to sports clubs under the “Valuation of Lands Act,” penalises the ratepayers of Otahuhu unduly, the Otahuhu Borough Council has petitioned Parliament, praying that section 52 of the Act be amended to provide that the provisions shall not apply to an area of more than 20 acres held by any one person or body of persons in a borough. It is also asked that the section be further amended to provide that, except on a certain specified number of days in each year, of which due notice shall be % given by advertisement, any lands to which the /section applies, shall be open to the public as a light. The petition points out that for many years past, the Auckland Golf Club, incorporated, has owned an area of 137 J acres of land in the borough of Otahuhu, and that, for a number of years, the rateable value of such land has been reduced by the Valuer General to one half the ordinary rateable value, since the land is held for a sport other than horse racing or trotting, and not for profit. The valuation eft the links has been reduced from £20,640 to £10,320, and the rates from £B7O 15s to £435 7s 6d. It Is also pointed out that the club pur chased last year from a private owner a further 30 acres of land, and that the rates have fallen accordingly from £165 11s Od to £B2 15 s lOd. In consequence, a total increase in rates of one farthing in the £ is required over the whole of the borough, and every ratepayer is compelled to contribute indirectly to the funds of the Auckland Golf Club It is claimed that the Auckland Golf Club is a most exclusive body, and. as Otahuhu is almost entirely a workingman’s town, few ratepayers could gain admission to the club or afford to become members*. The petition pointed out that, although the club is not run for profit, it is receiving an indirect profit by means of the increase in value of its lands due to borough Improvement works, and, should its lands ever, be subdivided, it will receive the* benefit of the increased value without having paid its due proportion of the costs. The section of # the Act is deemed to be unjust and inequitable since it makes no provision for the admission of the public to the lands benifiting under the section, and the ratepayers, while contributing indirectly to the upkeep of the grounds, are not admitted to them. It is pointed out that as the area which can be held is not limited by law, and since It is the policy of the Valuer General to reduce the value of such properties by one half, an unscrupulous person or body could hold lands for speculative purposes, paying only half rates, by forming a football or other sports ground.