Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

Evening Post. THUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1929. CRY OF THE BOROUGH COW

Among tKe things that the Ward Government found in the pigeonholes, left behind by its predecessors, were two reports by a Royal Commission on the rating problem in boroughs that include farm land. After I taking evidence concerning the Otaki and the Feilding Boroughs, the Commission hit upon the principle of differential rating upon a triple classification, which may be summed up as: (1) land that is building land and not farm land; (2) land that is farm land and not building land; (3) land more or less on the borderline. Only in xertain boroughs 19 the proportion of farm land great enough to constitute a critical problem. The problem becomes critical when a borough includes too great a proportion of land that is not only, farm land but which looks like remaining farm land for a very long time, perhaps, for all time; the owners of which naturally object tff paying rates for borough services which they do not want, and in some cases do not receive. It may be, indeed, that the pressure of rates is in danger of making- such farms unworkable, or at any rate uneconomic, possibly unsaleable. Such a condition makes the position of the owners of the farm land critical, and, if such owners are many, renders critical the position of all ratepayers' in the borough, because a failure to pay rates in a large portion of a borough must react on the rest of it. When big loan liabilities have been incurred, residential ratepayers cannot view with indifference either the prospective economic failure of the borough farmers nor yet any proposal to leave the farm lands unrated.

As the worst cases are limited in number, the Government proposes to bring in not a general rating measure but a Bill to introduce differential rating in individual boroughs, "if, after due inquiry, it is found desirable to' do so." But, below the critical line, come varying degrees of hardship in respect of farm lands, so that it is not easy to set limits on the range of action that the Bill will have. Quite possibly, there will be a good many applications to set it in motion, including applications from farmers whose land is borderline land, but who may not endorse the views of the borough council as to how near their land, is (or ought to' be) to'the conversion point. And. just here there is room for some very pretty arguments, as the Minister of Internal Affairs no doubt sensed when he^ emphasised that "there is nothing in this forecasted legislation for the benefit of the land speculator." If it is to shut out all attempts by speculative holders to make selfish use of its* provisions, the Bill will have to be a clever,one —cleverer than Bills usually are. One would prefer to hope that the real safety lies not in the parchment but in the wisdom with which the Bill is enforced, for, unless great discretion is shown in the application of it, the principle of differential rating could easily lead to' very doubtful results. It is therefore not so much the machine as the controllers- of it that must be relied on to solve the problem without incurring new evils. Nearly every borough containing unsubdivided land possesses its own peculiar features, and each case should be judged on its own merits.

For its own classification, the Commission departs from the order given above, but the sense is the same. The building land is called Class A, the potential building land" (which we referred to above as border-line land) is called Class B, and "farm land" is called Class C. The Minister points out that building land (A) is "land suitable for building purposes and having a frontage to a road or street," and potential building land (B) is "land having a potential building value and other than the land included in Class A." Within a few miles of the Capital City is land that was subdivided long ago and was given a frontage to a street, but twenty years later the cows were still wandering over the land, also the streets; such land presumably would not be in A, and, although having a frontage, would not re-enter A unless and until it could be said to be "suitable for building purposes." The liquidation of great expectations (unrealised) is generally painful, but in progressive boroughs is a passing incident. Where, however, the great expectations of years ago caused an undue absorption of: farms, where the possibilities of progress are limited or are nil, and where the farms will always be farms, the need of some remedy other than severance-on-petition has been urged. Boroughs in that plight claim that they cannot wait. Quite different is the case of (say) sewerage in a progressive borough where the street that serves ratepayers' subdivided dwellings also runs through acres of unsubdivided cow-paddocks: Only a very few years ago this description could have been applied lo the Wobiirn suburb of Lower Hult;- and there are other borougli farms in the Hutt Valley also awaiting the magician's wand. It is now possible for relief to be given, up to a certain point, by reduction of valuation^. Last year, under Section 3 of the

Municipal Corporations Amendment Act, power was given to borough councils and town boards (with the consent of the Valuer-General) to have farm lands not less than three acres in extent reduced to their farming value. Formerly this power had been given to the Wellington City Council and the Rangiora and Mataura Boroughs. Now it is general, but action can be taken only on the initiative of the local council. Is the prospective legislation to permit differential rating on the same basis or to make it possible without the prior consent of the rating authority? The present law gives some relief, and, as we have already pointed out, if more is to be given the Bill will require careful drafting to guard again abuse and against a demand for similar consideration for borough residential lands which are highly valued and rated because of their potential business value. And when the Act is passed the job will only have begun.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/EP19290604.2.30

Bibliographic details

Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 128, 4 June 1929, Page 8

Word Count
1,043

Evening Post. THUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1929. CRY OF THE BOROUGH COW Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 128, 4 June 1929, Page 8

Evening Post. THUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1929. CRY OF THE BOROUGH COW Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 128, 4 June 1929, Page 8

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert