Letters to Editor: Step in the wrong direction

Step in the wrong direction
Last week the HBRC councillors voted to offer another "incentive" to leaseholders to freehold their properties by offering an extra "discount" of up to 17.5 per cent.
While this may seem to be a step in the right direction (at least one leaseholder left the chambers with a look of ecstatic joy on their face), on reflection, I wonder if the opposite may in fact be true.
As a number of HBRC councillors have already noted, most, if not all leaseholders who can afford to freehold, at least under the HBRC's present freeholding policy, have already done so.
A reasonable number of remaining leaseholders, myself included, cannot meet our lease payments (having received a 944 per cent increase), let alone borrow more money to freehold.
At the present time, HBRC's policy for those behind in their payments is to demand payment from the mortgagor (if a mortgage exists), or, if not, to apply to the court to sell the property to recover monies owed.
At this meeting, a number of councillors expressed concern that if owners of leasehold land were deemed to be property speculators, they were to receive less of a discount. Question: Does anyone know of anyone who buys a property who doesn't have at least a hope of sometime in the future, showing a return on that investment?
If, as I believe, most remaining leaseholders will not be able to freehold, more of us will reach mortgagee sale status or similar, forced sales of our properties will take place, speculators will be able to buy the properties at bargain prices (leasehold properties at present are virtually unsaleable), and the next day, go to the HBRC and avail themselves of the discount offered to help leaseholders.
In effect, bringing about what councillors were so concerned about.
The Hawke's Bay Endowment Land Empowering Act 2002 is very clear on Valuation of land for purposes of sale (Section 8).
It states: 8:2: "The land must be valued on the basis of the owner's interest in the land as lessor."
If there is a lessor's (owner's) interest, there must, by definition, be a lessee's interest. At present, the HBRC's methodology shows no consideration of this interest. Question: If there are lessor and lessee interests, how are they determined?
Some historical facts:
In April 2000, the Napier City Council bought a leasehold section in Hastings St, Napier, and paid the lessee $150,000.00. The section was vacant and had a land value of $170,000.00.
In December 1995, Racliffe Plested and Penrose (NCC valuers) valued a property in Ahuriri which stated: Land Value - Lessee's interest therein $13,000. Land Value (freehold) $15,000.
In November 1997, the same valuers valued another property in Ahuriri which stated: Land value, as a leasehold interest $18,000. Land value $20,300. I'll leave the maths (lessee's interest) to those better qualified.
Since these times, the lessee's interest in the land has ceased to appear in relevant documentation and the issue has been allowed to be swept under the table.
With the current entrenched attitudes of councillors and staff, I fear the only resolution to this issue will have to be found in a court of law.
If that is in fact the case, so be it.
Phil Hathaway, Napier
Fighting poverty
Thank you, Bruce Bisset, for your hard hitting article in Monday's HB Today (August 1).
Like you I reel at the continued success of the National government in the polls.
What troubles me most is the future of today's children.
Thousands of them are growing up in grinding poverty, malnourished and poorly educated, dependent on their schools for breakfast.
I understand that KidsCan is now appealing for people to sponsor children, something we are used to seeing for Third World countries.
I beg you, New Zealand, wake up! And vote for parties who will make ending poverty a top priority.
Margaret Gwynn, Napier