RATING ON UNIMPROVED VALUES.

Evening Post, Volume LXI, Issue 85, 12 April 1901, Page 4

RATING ON UNIMPROVED VALUES.

, A question which is receiving much attention in the colony at the present time is that of rating on unimproved values. In certain boroughs the new system has ajready been adopted, and from the outset it is evident that it encourages enterprise and discourages holding land purely for speculative purposes. Under the present system the owner who does not improve his property but waits for the unearned increment, is let off very easily, and the chief burden falls upon the possessors of improved property. In boroughs or districts where there is much land lying idle, the change is unquestionably for the good. Suppose two men hold adjacent sections of equal value in a borough* and one of them builds a good house upon his. lot while the other leaves his vacant, preferring to hold it for the rise that follows upon settlement. The unimproved property is increased to a certain extent in vajlue by the fact that the next section is improved, and yet the owner of the vacant section pays under/ the old system a smaller rate than the man who has put capital and labour into his land, and so helped to raise the value of the borough property generally. The owner of the improved land is rated upon his improvements an well as upon his unira proved fection, whereas the owner of tlir* vacant lot only pays upon the land. Is

not such a system calculated to encourage speculation, and to retard genuine settlement? Under the new system the two men instanced above would pay the same amount of rates. The improver would thus reap the, full benefit of his improvements, while the speca* lator would, be forced to reconsider his position, , and in all probability to become an improver himself or at least to give place to an improver. In partially settled districts rating on unimproved values is obvious.ly fairer than the existing system, and it is also an inducement to progress. In a country such as this, it is the. genuine settler we shcouu. aid, and not the mere speculator who fattens upon the proceeds of other men's labour and capital. When we come to a more settled district, such as the City of Wellington, the question becomes rather more complicated, and it is not so easy to see what would be the precise effects of a change in the method of rating. Some might argue that muking the unimproved value the basis would relieve the owners of large buildings at the expense of those who had small shops or houses upon similar areas of land, while others would point to the danger of ovei'crowding from overbuilding upbn small ''lots of land.- The second objection is easily met by a rigid enforcement of eelightened building by-laws and up-to-date regulations for the number of people to be allowed to a fixed amount df air-space." The first objection is not to bo met so directly. It is quite true that the Owner of a stately building would pay no more rates than th 6 owner of a tumble-down shanty, provided that the unimproved value of the lots on which they were respectively built "were the same. But, surely, it is to the general interest of the community that ■ we -should, have everywhere in tho city -the best buildings that can be. built on the land. Here in Wellington, as .much as in Palmerston North, or at Seatoun, we must all wish to encourage improvements. Still, the problem does assume a somewhat more complicated shape in, a confined and in places a congested city, and the people need a clear explanation of the practical differences jvhich would result from a change of system. We are glad to observe that the Trades Council has in a public- spirited manner taken the matter up and requested <-tho City Council to furnish the ratepayers with information, s-pwing what tneir rating would be on , unimproved values as compared with the | present system. We quite agree with j the Council that if full knowledge of | the practical bearings of ,the subject were widely disseminated there would be an > overwhelming consensus .of opinion iv i favour of tho new method. The City Council, we observe at last night's meeting, decided to pass the request on to the Government. Why, we are at a loss to understand, since it could surely have obtained any information it needed from the Government. The question is municipal rather than national, and the Council's action bears the appearance of shirking trouble or responsibility. . The Trades Council has also a'jied the two candidates for the Mayoralty whfether they approve of rating on unimproved values, and it is very significant that >both have pronounced in its favour. We trust that the statistics asked by tho Council will be furnished a3 early as possible, for the people of Wellington shouiu now face the question aquarelv, and come to an intelligent decision upon it.