Unimproved Land Values

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 208, 30 May 1936, Page 13

Unimproved Land Values

Sir, —Mr. A. D, McLeod, a former Minister of Lands, brings out millions of acres of deserted and deteriorated lands in order to bolster up his propaganda about farm land having no unimproved value. Mr. McLeod is afraid that the collection by the Government of the unimproved rental value of land will ruin the farmers, all the while it is the opposite that is ruqjiug them, namely the collection of these cumulative unimproved rental values (interest on by private persons, and the- taxation of the farmers by the State. Obviously, where there is no unimproved rental value there would be no rent payable, neither should there be taxation laid on ISe products of such land. On the other hand, where land has a rental value, such should be collected by the State as that value is purely a community one and not in any way made by the .individual farmer or city landowner. Instances; There are farms in the Martiuborough district leased on the I.L.P. tenure for the sum of 3/- to 6/- per acre per annum, yet they have been sold for the same sum plus £25 "goodwill” per acre. A farm in the Waikato known to the writer, was taken up iu 1967 on the I.L.P. tenure at 1/9 per acre, and sold in 1922 for £B4 per acre. Another, bough; iu 191 S for £34 per acre, was valued as £l4OO for improvements and £2680 for the bare land, was valued in 1922 by the previous owner who offered, to take it back again for £62 per acre. Will Mr. McLeod tell your readers whether these values were the outcome of the individual farmer’s industry or from the activity of the community iu general and the spending of public money? For Mr. A. D. McLeod’s information, wherever land has a rental value, it can be valued, not only to the nearest pound, but the shillings and pence as well. Where it has great value, one foot of it, and even one inch is fought over in the law courts. In England and Scotland the values are not only assessed on the visible improvements, but even on the manure remaining iu the land at the time of changing hands. Will Mr. McLeod still say that it is impossible to closely value the unimproved apart from the improved value? I ask Mr. McLeod to look round hie own district and inquire what gives the value of £lO per acre, or 10/- per annum to clay hills around Martinborough. Then fling his mind to the other side of the world and inquire what gives an acre in the centre of London the value of £6,500,000 or an annual rental value of £325,000. What gives that land its value, Mr. McLeod?—l am, etc., E. M. NICOLAUS. Wellington, May 28.