CHARGES ON LAND

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 244, 16 July 1928, Page 10

CHARGES ON LAND

Sir,—ln your issue of July 10 there appeared a reply by Mr. P. Thomson, chairman District Law Society, Strutford, to certain remarks made by me in a speech recently delivered in that town. I stated there was an enormous amount of speculation in the farm lands of this Dominion, and that this was adding unbearable burdens upon our farming community. I cited several cases to prove my contention. One instance I quoted was of a block of land which changed hands six times in two years, and beside the huge sum appropriated by the speculators there was added the stun of £lB 10s. per acre (not £-10 per acre, as Mr. Thomson stated I said) for transfer fees alone, without adding one single penny piece to the productive value of the land. ', , , In dealing with the value ot land transferred for a period of five years, 1920-21 inclusive. I stated it was £243,000,000. and that the cost of transfers at 5 per cent, was (using round figures), or a little over £2,000,000 per year—i.e., for land agents, stamp duty, legal expenses, etc. In this statement 1 am pleased to find Mr. Thomson is iu perfect, agreement with me and docs uot dispute the facts, hut actually admits that the legal profession obtain a share iu t.'bc huge, sums levied in land transfer transactions each year. What he does take exception Io evidently is my mentioning this fact. Since when, may I ask, has bis profession become sacrosanct, and why he should refer to my remarks as “a cheap and unjustifiable jibe at the legal profession” is beyond comprehension! While speculation is part and parcel of our land system and uo effort is made by the Government to remedy it, those transfer charges on speculative land deals arc quite legitimate, but Mr. Thomson cannot, dose his eyes to the fact that this means ruination to our farming community. T i I said it was possible for the Lands Transfer Department, to conduct ail land transfers at net cost of trausler, and that in itself would provide a certain amount of relief to the man who ultimately, has to work the land. I claimed that the Public Trust, bt.ile Advances and Insurance Departments were to-day efficiently and successful]' transacting important, business on behalf of the people, then why not a Lauds Transfer Department? . ’f we take Mr.* Thomson s illustration, a ease which be states came under 'his personal notice, is one of the most astounding conceivable, and one you will n-rec Sir, that is utterly indefensible ill ethics. The ease he cited was a i>o- - farm which changed bauds thiee times in six weeks and at the end of the transaction there was an nrldcrt cost of £42 an acre, or a total of £-100. which was taken by the speculator and in trausfer fees. This means an added interest, burden upon tbc man who works that farm at 6| per cent. . £136 10s. ncr rear more than the original occupier'had to pay. ami not one penny is added to the productive value of that fnrm SiireJv. Sir. this proves ray contention that 'it pays better to sell land th l”nwst U confess i did not think it was possible to find anyone who could reasouablv defend such a s.v stem unless tbosi. of course, who benefit by such a system. —I am, etc., BOBERT m c kEEN. Wellington. July IL