LAND VALUATIONS

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 81, 2 October 1929, Page 6

LAND VALUATIONS

EFFECT ON RATES

CASE OF WELLINGTON

NEED FOR UNIFORMITY

The increase ia the valuations of residential properties in Wellington City, and the consequent increase in rates, was referred to by Mr. E. A. Wright (Eeform, WeUington Suburbs) when the Valuation Department Estimates were b'efpre the- House of Kepreseutatives yesterday.

Mr. Wright asked what policy was being followed in the fixing of the valuations. WeUington City had been revalued, and the valuations of some properties had increased enormously, whereas others had jiot. He knew that a valuer had to rely on his jVagment and experience to a certain extent, but he thought it should be the object of the Valuation Department to see that land was not unduly inflated. He did not suggest there was any object on the part of the Government to inflate land unduly in order to get more by way of land tax, tut the fact remained that in Wellington the value of a man's house and section had been very largely increased in many cases and that meant that land tax went up if a man was already paying land tax. As a result of the recent revaluation of 'Wellington properties a number of people who had never paid land tax before would have to pay it now, because their land had been increased above £500 .in value. Nothing in the way of fancy valuations .should obtain. It was no use telling a man that his home had been increased by _ 100.or £150 iv value as he was not a land speculator and did not want to sell; he wanted to live in the home all his life. Increases in valuations meant that rates went up. He did not think that because a man had Bold a property at a good price, that- the values of other properties in the same street should be increased aa a consequence. Mr. K. S. Williams (Beform, Bay of Plenty) said that in various districts harbour boards and hospital boards had the right to levy a rate; but because there was a variation-in the method of fixing: values there was a risk of causing hardship, . REMABKABLB DIFFEBENCE. ■Mr. W. h< Martin supported Mr. Wright, and. said there was often a remarkable difference between valuations for rating purposes and valuations for loan purposes. He tho.ught, howevor, that there was a tendency to reduce valuations, especially in connection with applications for loans. A system should be adopted to make valuations uniform. Mr. E. W. Hawke (United, Kaiapoi) said that in his district the tendency was to increase the yaluatiohs. Productive value should govern the valuation of. agricultural lands- Land tax was •being paid by many farmers in excess of what they ought to pay, simply because the valuations had been made too high. ■■••., ' : ' Mr. J. T. Hogan (Independent, Eangitikei) agreed that, as far as possible, a.uniform system should be brought about. It \va3 difficuH; to fix a valuation, which waa largely a matter of guesswork, but in some cases the valuations were too high.! In other cases, •however, the- valuations were too low when it came to a matter of considering applications for loans.

Mr. IJ. M'Kecn (Labour, Wellington South) suggested that when an-appli-cant for a State Advance' had his application declined after a valuation was made he should be given a, copy of the report. It had been said that some valuers valued properties while passing them in a motor-car. Builders were dissatisfied with the methods pursued by the Valuation Department. For a fraction less than the prices submitted by. a dozen builders, one man could get the job of putting up all the buildings for which those twelvo men had tendered. ;

Mr. P. Langstono . (Labour, Waimarino) 'also drew attention to. the wide disparity in systems of valuing.

i^r. D. Jones (Reform, .Mid-Canter-bury) said farmers could not got a reduction ftr improvements which they effected. It was all moonshine to-say that farmers' improvements wcro exomptcd.

Mr. J. A. Young (Bofonn, Hamilton) said thero was ofton. an unduly high unimproved valuo in relation to tho value of improvements duo to the lack of a standard system of making valuations. TJio tendency was to inflate the unimproved valuo at the expense of improvements; There should bo a uniform. system of valuation for rating and loan purposes. CONFERENCE TO BE CALLED. The Minister in Ghargo of the Valuation Department (the Hon.. G. W. Forbes) said tho subject was on.o on which. there was a considerable dif<foresee of opinion. It was a most difficult one to deal with in the endeavour to give satisfaction to everyone. Tho question of uniformity wao important, and when orio observed the difference in valuations between part of New Zealand and another, it was apparent that the incidence of taxation in different parts of the Dominion would be different. A burden was placed on those who were affected by high valuations out of all proportion to the interest they had in the laud. He intended to call a conference of officers .of the Valuation Department to see if a*more uniform system of making valuations could not bo evolved. He- quite recognised that a system that might have, been workable in the early days would, not work out equitably, or bo workable as far as taxation was concerned when the land became more settled. The time had come when the'whole question of valuations should be gone into in order to ascertain how the system of taxation worked out in; different parts of the country. The Hon. W. Downie Stewart (Dunedln West): <(Do it before the' Tax Bill cemes on again." Tho Minister replied that Mr. Stewart wpu]d recognise that the investigations to be made would take some time. If a, scheme could be devised that was an improvement on that at present pr.evailing it would make it'easier for the taxpayers. He had been assured by the Valuation Department that there were1 no two different dates on which valuations were made. The State Advances .Department always,.requirod the latest valuation possible The Department had had a very busy time in connection with the revaluation of Christchurch and Wellington, a.task. on' which skilled men had'been engaged. 'Taken as a whole, ho thought that the valuations we're-.reasonably. Satisfactory, but they were by no means perfect. He had beeji assured that it hadiiot been'the practice to raise the valuations in a single street because ono property had been sold at a good price. An average over a number of. years -was .taken. The valuers did the best- they.':cbuld. Mr. Forbes said.that^he.Tvouldjgo into the matters raised by Mr. M'Keen. "CRUCIFIXION." Mr. W. H. Field (Reform, Otaki) said that in some cases the valuations amounted not only to victimisation, but crucifixion. He said he could point out instances'jn his electorate whero the unimproved valuation was the equivalent of £22 per sheep. Mr. J. A. Young (Beform, Hamilton): "A- poor compliment to the sheep." Mr, TV." J» Poison (Independent, Strat-

fora) saia that the selling value of land was, and could be, no criterion of the real value, which rose or fell'according to conditions. He was satisfied that an improvement was necessary" in the valuation system, ana he suggested that a selected practical farmer iv each aistrict should accompany the local valuer. This would result in the removal of many anomalies.

The necessity for some examination of valuers was stressed by Mr. A. M. Samuel (Reform, Thames), who pointed' to widely differing' valuations in adjoining districts. Many valuations were made in too haphazard a manner. The Valuation Department was becoming increasingly important as the yoars went on, said Mr. A. Hamilton (Reform, Wallace). In the last twenty years the unimproved value of New Zealand had increased by £.200,000,000. He suggested a uniform valuation should be made throughout New Zealand. ■

Mr. A. F. Ansell (Reform, Chalmers) thought there was good cause for complaint in regard to the methods adbptod by valuera. He suggested owners of land should have the. right to see the report of the valuers. DIFFICULT TO GIVE SATISFACTION. The Minister said the position in regard to applicants for State Advances loans receiving copies of the valuer's report was that the valuers were employ, ed by the State Advances Department, whose property the report became. Tho question was' pne for tho Minister of Finance, and he would see that the re-« presentations reached the right quarter. The valuation of land was a matter of judgment and experience, and it was always possible that valuers might differ. The aim and object of the Department had been to secure the best possible men for the position, but if members knew of any valuer whose work was-subject to complaint, he wonld be pleased tohave the matter looked into. It was a difficult matter to give satisfaction to. everybody.