"RATING OF FARM LANDS IN BOROUGHS"

Dominion, Volume 23, Issue 34, 4 November 1929, Page 12

"RATING OF FARM LANDS IN BOROUGHS"

Sir, —Tn to-day’s issue of “The Dominion” I noticed that the Local Bills Committee have recommended to the House that the above Bill be not allowed to proceed. I claim that the objections raised are by the commercial interest. For my own part, I am a farmer, and have had experiencee on local bodies. The commercial interests say that they will have to carry the burden of extra rates, as the farmer has been given relief. That is true, but they do not think of this — that on the one hand relief, which is given to each particular farmer, benefits one man only, whilst on the other hand, the extra burden cast on the commercial man is not paid by him alone, but by the community as a whole. I claim that the extra burden the commerce man has to pay by medium of himself alone is very small. I agree with the Minister in this respect that the Bill was not understood by many corporations, who raised objections (by medium of letters to the Minister concerned, and the members of the respective electorates) based on an objection circularised to all municipal bodies by the Feilding Borough Council. That is only too true. Why, then, all this talk now? It is peculiar that the municipal bodies (as a whole) did not see that it was their bounden duty to help the Rating Commission which sat some time ago, nor did they offer suggestions whereby some relief could be given the farmer in the borough. Complaints are raised that the system of rating is reseponsible for the anomalies existing in the rating systems. Many claim that instead of having a Government valuator allowed under the unimproved rating that a local valuator, provided for under the capital valuation system should also apply to the above system. I add one further. If a local valuator is allowed under unimproved valuations, hole-and-cdrner business will operate. I should state that this meas s ure of relief should be operative on rural lands and not on suburban farm lands, where it is thought by many that such lands are held for speculative purposes only. That may be so there, but in rural boroughs, Eketahuna and Otaki, for example, the above opinion does not hold. The Bill should apply to rural boroughs where farm lands provide the major portion of revenue because of the fact that the commercial and residential sections have reaped benefits paid for largely by the suburban farmers. I do not agree with this aspect of the Bill, that relief should be given to bee-keepers and poultry farmers; further, the three-acre basis for the determination of limiting farm lands is over the odds and should be raised to about fifteen in rural boroughs only.—l am, etc. y AGRICOLA.