VALUATIONS FOR STATE ADVANCES

Dominion, Volume 22, Issue 184, 2 May 1929, Page 13

VALUATIONS FOR STATE ADVANCES

Sir, —I shall be glad if you will allow me the use of your columns for a short criticism of the methods employed in the administration of the Department of Government Valuator and the State Advance Office. The present procedure is for an applicant to fill in the required form, with a cheque to cover the stated fee. After a lapse of some days an official receipt for the remittance is forthcoming. The office of the Valuator-General is then asked to furnish a valuation of the property offered as a security. The Deputy-Valua-tor of the district in which the applicant resides duly visits the applicant, makes bis valuation, and reports to head office. So far, the procedure may have covered a period of two months. It is chiefly the method of valuation that one is tempted to criticise. Can a single opinion on a property do justice to the applicant, and at the same time protect the interest of the State Advance Office? I think not. In my humble opinion, at a slight additional cost, the applicant and the State Advances Office should both be represented at a valuation. I do not think that any practical farmer of local standing would object to give his opinion of the value of the land and its possibilities, the latter to cover the consideration of its nearness to markets and the main roads or railways, and a builder in the district to put a practical value on the buildings, taking into consideration the present cost of erection in labour and material, and cost of transport of material from railhead. The Deputy-Valuator can make an independent report, and then it should not be difficult for the heads of what the Minister of Lands recently described as a “strictly business institution” to arrive at an equable valuation. It is quite possible for one man to be biased by his own opinions as to how a farm should be run, and that would undoubtedly affect his valuation of a property. Further, I think that the Minister of Lands should not have to raise a further fund to meet applications of the nature mentioned in his refusal to a Hamilton resident of assistance to get on the land, but that it should be done through the State Advances Office by altering its constitution so as to allow greater elasticity in its working.—l am, etc., “EQUITY.” April 29.