TOPICS OF THE DAY

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 48, 26 February 1927, Page 8

TOPICS OF THE DAY

With a protected home market embracing more than a hundred millions of people, and with big oversea markets much closer to his eastern export ports, the American farmer capitalises, his' land well below New Zealand figures. That is the gist of a statement made by v an American member of the Franconia party—one who is evidently sur-. prised at New Zealand rural land values. His remarks (reported in "The Post ,) raise, the suggestion that rural inflation undermines the value of the collateral security of, ttie loans. raised by the New Zealand Government. Farm lands, however, are much more than a collateral security for Government bor-ro-.ving. They are the immediate-se-curity on which is based much Government lending; also private. lending. If the .American visitor' s anxiety is warranted so far as the investor in New Zealand Government loan stocks is concerned, it would seem to be doubly warranted in the case of advances on farm lands; but what he has overlooked is the fact that actual mortgage com-, mitments bear no relation to his fanciful' £100 an acre price-level, while the margin of expansion in. rural production, through better methods, is much greater .than a .casual glance would suggest. Liabilities, if not: altogether crippling, compel better farming. Any generalisation based upon the assumption of a hundred-pounds-an-acre inflation has no practical application. ■-..■-.. * .*' ■■' *'■ '•'■■■ As glimpsed, somewhat indistinctly between the lines of Ms circular; Mr. E. B. Hammond's 40-feet eul de sac streets are interesting and challenge thought. We are not sure that we gather his meaning, but we will assume that someone subdivides a block into twentj sections each with SO feet frontage by 200 feet depth. These sections are back to back; that is to say, ten face one street, ten face another street. In that- case, the two streets would be 400 feet apart. Under a 40-feet minimum frontage bylaw, each section could be split into two 40-feet frontage sections, and the 200-feet depth would then become still more disproportionate to,4he width. One suggested remedy is to again bisect the sections* not by frontage but by depth, the bisection setting free the rear 100 feet of each row of sections, or 200 feet of total depth. If the Town-planning Director's 40-feet street was then driven laterally into the flank of the block, it would open up on each side of it new sections of 80 feet depth (200 feet, minus 40 feet, and divided by two). The hypothesis just stated illustrates approximately things that have actually happened in the older Wellington through original subdivision into overlarge sections, or sections that, through intensive residence, became over-deep. Possibly Mr. Hammond's 40-feet streets are intended to be preventive of this kind., of thing, but must they necessarily have the cul da sac chaiacter that Wellington city, in its experience of secondary subdivision, has learned to dread? Judgment of'the merits of Mr. Hammond's principle depends mainly on the circumstances of its application. . * * * Biver protection work is often regarded as necessary but costly, and more productive of liabilities than assets. The Hutt River Board is, how-

over, building up some very fine assets, and assets of a producing character. Reference to a report of the Board's finances in yesterday's issue, and to another review published some weeks ago, will show that the river is yielding a revenue (shingle royalties, rents, etc.) the expansion of which is rapidly diminishing the relative demand on the rates; and as a sinking ,fund will in a very few years extinguish the principal loan, the ratepayers should in the future be asked for very little—unless, of coui-se, new projects require new loans, a contingency apparently • not within the Board's present outlook. The revenue that has come to the rescue of the rates is provided first and foremost by royalty on the river shingle, which is much in demand, and secondly by rents of land reclaimed from flooding and leased. So much reclamation is proceeding that this rents item, now modest, should in time be substantial. Generally speaking, the Board's financial record seems almost too good to be true. If ripariaQ protection can be.carried on so effectively and with relative cheapness, why not include the upper valley of 'the Hutt instead of merely the river seaward of Silverstream railway bridge?

Not having proved a vote-winner, the Labour Party's usehoia land policy is likely to go into the crucible at the next conference. What will emerge none can say. The Auckland women's bran-eh, with the family sense that might be expected from a women's branch, emphasises that any Labour land policy should make it clear that a property r,.ay pass from generation to generation, provided, that it is lived on or used by the owner; subject, however, -tt- no right of sale except at the State's valuation. The purpose of that reservation is "to . prevent land speculation." By such an inhibition, the State miglit prevent landed property from appreciating, but could the btate prevent it from depreciating? If current values of land were stabilised to-morrow, they would, presumabiy, represent what the land would bring in a free, market. If, however, the free market were replaced by State valuation, and if increment were prohibited, how many people would want to buy? Would a section in a locality that passed from farm land to urban subdivision always be'worth £10, and would a section in a gold-mining town, after the gold was finished, always be worth £100? If not, whose the increment and whose the loss?