Your CV should be split into land value and improvements value (which I believe also includes landscaping, retaining walls, etc). So you can see what the council thinks it's worth.

Inflation has devalued the dollar significantly since 1980. $40k in 1980 had the purchasing power of about $240k now. I would fully expect that the CV would have your improvements at much less than that.

Our previous house was a 4 bedroom 50s house that had been extended multiple times from the original state house, and it was valued at around $700k or something. Of that, the improvements were valued at $80k and the rest was the land value. Replacement cost would have easily been hundreds of thousands.

[–] deadbeef79000 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Improvements are apparently double that according to my rates valuation breakdown. In Auckland.

It's ridiculous.

I did contact the council about it once (the dispute my valuation option) and got nothing but silence.

[–] Dave 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That is odd. Valuations are quite subjective at the best of times, and council valuations are done without seeing the property so they are basically made up. But I am very surprised to find an 80s house saying the improvement value is as much as building it again.

You could probably contact the council outside of that process and ask how to get revalued. But I am not sure that the improvement value vs land value is important as rates are normally based on the overall value. And if any of these land value based policies get implemented you might be happy the council has the split wrong 😋

[–] deadbeef79000 3 points 1 month ago

Admittedly, I didn't mind paying rates. The value for money is good and I'd happily pay a bit more too is it means better services and support for those who can't pay.