As far as I read the Clause, it would limit the whole thing to five years from April, 1922.
SECTION 9 (FORMERLY SECTION 7).
It crystallises the old valuation of the premises which was in existence on the 1st April, 1922, for five years, and prevents the new building being revalued as a new and more valuable building until the year that begins after the 31st March, 1927.
We are now at 1924, and we have got well into 1924, and that provision gives precious little time. If you look at the existing state of affairs almost from the day the house is built it will come into the full valuation and rating ; and it seems to me that we ought to look at that and give a bit more time. The Committee should consider how many years it ought to be from the 1st April, 1922, and I think it ought to be a greater number of years than five ; it ought to be seven or eight years.
Possibly the building will not begin until next Spring, and there ought to be a little extension.
They have great advantages under the Bill.
They will have to pay rates once the building is up, but they won't have to pay them on the higher valuation.
The effect of the passing of this Bill will be to deteriorate the value of some property in the neighbourhood of the new building, but they will be paying the rates on the old valuation.
I propose that they get until March, 1930.
Leave that over and discuss it with the Commissioners of the Corporation.
The Corporation will try to stick to this. If I was a member of the Corporation I would object to this, because it is giving the citizens the right to a certain remission of rates for a reasonable time. The man may not have got into his business, and if he has to pay full rates on a valuation of a grand new house with shops and everything connected with it from the day that he opens his doors, it is very hard on him.
If you rebuild your premises, from the day you rebuild have you not to pay ?
But I have made arrangements to carry on my business. I do that off my own bat. This man didn't burn down his premises himself, and other people got his business while he was sitting outside.
Several of these people will never rebuild, and some other people will come in and get the benefit.
If you put this amendment into the Bill, the man who is buying will probably have to give more money to the man who goes out. We are going to give certain advantages, and in any sale of the premises it would mean that the man who buys will have to pay the owner so that the original owner who has been burned out will undoubtedly get the benefit of what you are now going to do.
Why should he get that ? Why should he get that if he is not going to rebuild ? Under the old Bill, in the other portion of O'Connell Street which was destroyed fifty per cent. of the people who rebuilt were not the original owners. Why should they get the benefit of something that the ordinary citizen will not get the benefit of if he rebuilds ?
It helps the man while getting his business going in the new premises.
The original owner gets the benefit, because the new owner has to pay him.
Why should he get the benefit of a thing that he is not entitled to ?
Because he was knocked out of his business.
You are not to consider the Corporation at all in this business, but you are to consider the citizens of Dublin. The Corporation required a certain amount to carry on the civic business, and if A does not pay his proper proportion, B C and D have to pay more than they should pay. The Corporation strike a rate that will bring them in a certain amount of money, and every ratepayer has to bear his proper share in proportion to the property he holds. If A B and C get out of their liabilities, then the other people have to pay more than they should pay in order to produce the money that is required. That is why I object to people getting special facilities. It is putting special burdens on the remainder of the citizens.
You have not been burned out.
It is a pity for me I was not.
You were not burned out, and you go on paying the rates that were in existence in 1922. Another man who was burned out builds brand new premises, and they will be valued at a higher valuation than yours, which had not been interfered with. The other man is going to pay a far higher rate than if he was never burned out, and all we ask is that he should not be asked to bear the higher rate until he is in a position to get the benefit of the new buildings. He has to pay his rates just the same as if he was never burned out once his house is up.
In the majority of the cases in the destroyed area after 1916 fifty per cent of those who rebuilt new premises were not the original owners. Most of the new buildings are let as offices, for which they charge exorbitant rents. Why should such men get the benefit ? Take practically the whole of that street which has been rebuilt, and you will find that at least fifty per cent of the houses are let in offices for which they are charged exorbitant rents.
In connection with the 1916 Bill, the premises which were rebuilt were free of rates altogether for one year.
We are not giving them that.
It is proposed by Senator Jameson that the figures " 1927 " in line 19 be deleted, and the figures " 1930 " be inserted in lieu thereof.
This is a matter for the Seanad, and I would prefer this should come directly from you.
It is better for the Committee to give a decision. The Corporation will be up against it, and if they have anything to say it can be worked out afterwards.
Amendment put and carried, Senator Farren voting against it.