UNIMPROVED VALUE IN HUTT COUNTY

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 107, 6 May 1926, Page 8

UNIMPROVED VALUE IN HUTT COUNTY

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—^Will you please allow me space in your widely-read paper to refute certain allegations which are being circulated in part of Hutt County against the proposed change of rating values, which was originated by the Paekakariki Ratepayers' Association. Since the demand was presented to the county chairman, Mr. A. J. MacKay, that gentleman has addressed a meeting of ratepayers at Paraparaumu, and there stated that the proposed change would ruin the small farmer and orchardigt. I take it that by "small farmer" he means the man who is struggling along milking a few cows on under one hundred acres, working perhaps 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, and not the big man who owns anything up to 3000 acres. Now, I put it to Mr. MacKay that his statement at Paraparaumu was misleading as it has been proved over and over again, and especially in the Manawatu County, that unimproved value benefits the whole community. He has only to go to the country round about the Foxton district and ask any "small" farmer if he is willing to revert to the old system of rating, viz., on improved capital value, and he will soon get the answer that the "small" man is perfectly satisfied with unimproved value. A concrete instance which a neighbour of mine can give who had a farm in that district at the time the new system came into force, and who voted against unimproved value at the_ poll, but who is now a firm believer, and in fact an exponent of the benefit to be derived from the system, should be sufficient. This gentleman's rates were reduced, and as his farm was highly improved he benefited from the results of his labour, and rightly so. Under the proposed change the small farmer will not pay extra rates on every little cow bail or hay shed he erects out of his savings, as he does under the one now in force. The same remarks would apply to the orchardist or market gardener. He may cover his 4 or 5 acres in glass houses, if he is so minded and has the capital, but under improved value directly he does so his rates soar mountains high, so high, in fact, that many a man is scared to effect improvements which he would otherwise make if ho were not penalised. For Mr. MacKay'g benefit I should explain that unimproved value was adopted in the Manawatu County on 29th January, 1910, when the voting was 677 for and 103 against, and to date no demand has been presented to revert back to the old order of things. Surely, this is proof that the system benefits the majority which I am sure he will be the first to admit, as Manawatu County is essentially a farming district; not only that, but a district covered now with small flourishing farms and contented farmers. In conclusion, let me stress the fact that all who are in favour of the proposed change should record their .'ote on Wednesday next, 12th May, because it assists progressive citizens and ensures land speculators arid others paying their share in proper ratio of local rates.—l am, etc., HARRY H. SEWELL. Ptiekakariki, 4th May.