been! the Grosvenor Estate has lately raised from one third to one half the property.
of me total value
I cannot discover that there is any fixed proportion in Hongkong, which the rent is made to bear to the full annual value. Leases granted during the last few years seem to have been sometimes made at nearly a rack-rent: sometimes at a rent less than a quarter of the full annual value. I presume the Surveyor General fixes the rent in each case according to his discretion.
This is virtually the practice as Gibraltar, where the amount exacted for rebuilding (= the Premium), and consequently the annual rental, varies in each case.
The proper principle is, I presume, to divide the full annual value between rent and premium in such a way as (1) to secure the highest profit to the Govt, (2) Ensure the best kind of tenant. In whatever proportion this should be it ought, I suggest, to be normally the same for all grants (subject to special exceptions for special reasons).
I think the Gov. & Mr. Heming are probably right in thinking that the rents should be raised & the premiums lowered. The larger the revenue permanently reserved the better.
But there appears no advantage in first fixing a low rent, getting a high premium, and then letting three-quarters of that premium be commuted for an annual payment of 5% on it. It would be simpler to charge higher rent at first, & so get a lower premium at first. The proper course would seem to be to fix a proportion of the estimated annual value to be asked as rent - say one half, as on the Grosvenor Estate here - And then take the rest as premium.
The G.A.G's opinion? Ask Secretary on this.
5521.5.90
We may formally...