VALUATION OF LAND.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 19928, 15 May 1930, Page 11

VALUATION OF LAND.

NORTH AND SOUTH I ISLANDS. j j FARMERS ALLEGE INEQUALITY. At the meeting of the General Committee of the Canterbury A. and P. Association yesterday a discussion took place concerning the difference in Government valuations on land in tho North Island, and the valuations on land in the South Island, and it waa decided that a more uniform system of valuing should bo adopted. A letter was received from tho Valu-er-General in answer to one from tho A. and P. Association pointing out the disparity between the North Island and South Island unimproved values, on a sheep-carrying capacity basis, as follows: "Farm lands cannot be valued without considering their earning capacity, but it is obvious that carrying capacity finds expression in capital values to a much greater oxtent than in unimproved values. It is not possible to make useful comparisons without taking into consideration all the attendant circumstances, and I need hardly say that the advantages from the point of view of the farmer are not equally distributed throughout the Dominion. I appreciate your Association's object in bringing this matter forward, and wish to assure you that it will not be overlooked by valuers." Mr B. Hay said there should be uniformity in the values. In the North Island, sheep land was valued at £5 and £6 an acre, while in tho South island land of similar carrying capacity was valued at £S and £0 an aero. That was unfair, and meant that the South Island was paying far more than Its fair share of the land tax, The Association should not allow the matter to remain as at present. Mr James Deans endorsed what Mr Hay had said, and mentioned that he knew of a ease in the North Island where land which is carrying 3 sheep to tho acre is valued, at £7 an acre. Such a state of affairs was obviously unfair to .the South Island; if North Island land waa to be valued in that way the South Island should be similarly treated. There was certainly a need for uniformity and he entirely agreed with what Mr Hay had said. ; Mr W. H. Nicholson said there was some one-sheep country in the North Maud which was valued at £1 10s and £2 6s an acre, white sheep country which carried one sheep to the acre in the South Island was valued at £l3 an acre. There should be some alteration. South Island farmers were at a decided disadvantage in this matter compared with North Island farmers, and there was no justification for suoh a difference as existed in the valuations. Mr J. C. Chamberlain said that he had just received his new valuation, and it showed an 8 per cent, increase. Mr R». T. McMillan said that something should certainly he done to get matters placed on a more equitable Mr W. F. Parkinson referred to the disparity in values between neighbouring farms and said there was a tendency an the part of valuersto assume that because one' farm was valued at, say, £l3 an acre, the neighbouring farm Should be valued oh the same basis, notwithstanding that there was. a great difference in the producing eapaeitv of the two farms. The New JSeatand Farmers' ttaion wrote in reference to land valuation, Btatin« that tho tfnfon desired to co* opefat© with the Sheepowners' Union and the Canterbury A. and P. Association with a view to. .semiring a more uniform and more equitable method of land valuation, and' Asking that the Association should appoint representatives to attend a meeting to consider tho question. -., '.,«_, it was unanimously decid«d to- com* fly with the request of the Farmgrs' rnlon. and Messrs L. E. C. Macfarlano, IS. Kay, and drames Deans, were annotated to represent tho Awpmatiqn at the meeting' whieh is to bo held to disetiss the matter,