Hamilton - a 10% rates rise in the 1930s
Today debates over Hamilton rates have assumed headline-grabbing proportions, our handsomely remunerated local body politicians and their significantly better paid top end staff looking to inflict unprecedented pain on those who elected and/or endure them.
In July of 1937 the Hamilton Borough Council by contrast patted itself on the back for what it saw as a low and reasonable rates increase of 10%, levied on 75% of the capital value of property.
Councillor J.E. Tidd, noting increases in the hospital and fire board levies and acknowledging an increase in staff wages and a reduction in their hours, stated that “ratepayers will not find fault” with the rise.
He additionally claimed that the HBC was receiving 70,000 pounds less than it did in 1928 and that the Hamilton population had increased significantly in the nine years since.
Deputy Mayor H.D. Caro pointed out that the HBC had only “three small loans” and that the vast majority of council activity was funded out of local revenue.
Councillor C. Lafferty strongly criticised what he saw as a disproportionately expensive engineering department. Lafferty was of the opinion that rates should be reduced. He found a partial ally in Councillor A.M. Bisley, who bemoaned “the luxury” of a Labour Government, whom he blamed for rising wages and costs.
Offsetting the rate rise was a reduction in the cost of electricity, then administered by the HBC, also by a figure of 10%.
Two months later, Caro signalled a further rate rise would be necessary. Like Bisley, he put the blame on central government, whose new legislation would require engineering staff to be employed and paid for a 40-hour week, requiring the HBC to find an additional 5,728 pounds, a 15% increase in their wage and salary bill.
However, Labour Government policies were also beneficial in the long run.
Earlier in 1937 the HBC announced its intention to sell Hayes Paddock to the Savage administration, to be developed for state housing.
As Tidd stated at the time, the projected rates from these new properties would “swell the coffers of the council”. They continue to do so to this day.