THE NON-IMPROVING LANDOWNER

Evening Post, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 52, 29 August 1913, Page 10

THE NON-IMPROVING LANDOWNER

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,— l have read with great interest the debate on the remit in favour of a 10 per cent, local snr-tax on absentee landowners, moved at the Counties' Association Conference by Mr. H. H. S. Ryder, the Castlepoint representative. Mr. Ryder's speech and the debate that followed, make it clear that it is the non-improving landowner, rather than the absentee, that it is desired to surtax. "In his county." said Mr. Ryder, "there were a lot of absentee ratepayers who did not improve their properties to half the same rxtent as resident ratepayers. The result was that the latter were indirectly taxed to make up for the absentee's shortcomings ... in many cases within, a given period their (the absentee's) land increased by only £1 9s per acre, whereas, owing to improvements put in hand, the holdings of local ratepayers rose in value as much as £3 Is per acre. It did not take a very wise man to see how resident (improving) owners were penalised. . . . In the speaker's county there was an absentee holding of 15,700 acres, which had been improved to the value of £1 per acre. Adjoining it was a property, locally held, of 5841 acres on which four settlers had built homesteads and added £3 10s worth of imprivements to each acre of their holding." And, replying on the discussion, Mr. Ryder said that "his county desired only the optional power. They would not penalise the indusfcrous owner, whether he was a stranger io the community or not." Clearly, the remedy for this state of affairs is, as the chairman of the conference suggested rating on the unimproved value. It is true that, Mr. Ryder replied to this suggestion by saying that Castlepoirtt county had tried rating on the unimproved value, and had "dropped it," because "We found that the more we improved our properties the higher rose the (rateable ?) value of our properties." But, if that really was the case, it shows that rating on the unimproved value did not have a fair trial in Castlepoint county ; that, in short, the unimproved value was not fairlj assessed. For, if it had been properly assessed, the unimproved value of the properties would not have risen because of improvements made by the owners. An-, other trUe remedy was not to go back to the old, bad system of rating all improvements, but to insist upon a just assessment of the unimproved value so that all improvements should be exempted from rating. • ' What the people of Castlepoint county ought to do, therefore, is to go back to rating on unimproved values, and demand a fair assessment and see that they get it.— -I am, etc., ARTHUR WITHY. General Secretary N.Z. Land Values League. Goldie's Brae, 23rd August, 1913.