RATING SYSTEMS.

Evening Star, Issue 20778, 28 April 1931, Page 3

RATING SYSTEMS.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir.—lu the recent correspondence on tiro rating of unimproved values some of your contributors lay it down as a,, axiom that a man should not bo taxed on his improvements. On that basis they build up a series of arguments that rest on insecure foundation. Why should a man be freed from taxation on improvements? The farmer, who has the means to improve his property by handsome or useful buildings, is naturally assessed at a higher rate than a man who cannot afford to do the same. The former is more wealthy, and his ability to pay greater. Therefore ho takes a larger share of the burden of taxation. Why should not the same principle be applied to the city dweller? A man who can afford to build a house costing £2,000 on a quarter-acre section should certainly pay higher rates than a man who can only afford bo build a house costing £7OO on a section of thj samo size. To rate them equally would bo manifestly unfair. To my mind the present system of assessment of rates is infinitely more just than rating on unimproved values. To suggest that rates will come down if rating on unimproved value bo adopted is pure speculation. There is another point of view which has not been sufficiently stressed. Rating >on unimproved value will inevitably tend to discourage the making of gardens, and e' uirage the crowding of houses on small areas. At present wo are almost free from those sordid rows of tenements with still more sordid back yards about the size of a pocket handkerchief. The endless monotony of our streets in the Homeland is depressing in the extreme. In England and Scotland the same population as wo have in our city would be crammed into a space about one-fifth the size of Dunedin. Here the smallest cottage is usually detached, with plenty of air and space, and in most cases room for a modest garden. The beauty of Dunedin depends largely on its open spaces and numerous gardens, which delight the eye, and are a source of pleasure and interest to others besides the owners. Wellington has suffered greatly because its system of rating on unimproved value has made gardens too expensive except for the wealthy. Let 1 us preserve intact our charm and beauty of our city! Let us hand down to posterity a city beautiful, where future generations can develop with all the advantages of air', light, and space, so necessary to the building up of a virile race.—l am. etc., F, R. Riley. April 27.

TO THE EDITOR.' Sir,—As lamin a quandary as to which way I should vote on the rating system, may I ask Air Silverstone one or two questions bearing on the subject? I will state my own case first. I live in the city in a four-roomed house; on each side of me there are two sections of jaud exactly the same size as mine, but the houses in both cases are much larger, more expensive, and elaborate than mine, and accommodate more people. Shall I have to pay the same rates as these other two people? Now take tho case of a terrace of two-story brick houses (say six or seven) on a fairly'small piece of laud, each house containing two fiats, top and bottom. How is the owner of this property going to fare as far as rates are concerned? If tho question is not too persona], may I ask Mr Silverstone how the change over will effect that gentleman’s rates? Now let us take, for instance, a largo seven-story building, which for argument i sake may bo paying £I,OOO a year in rates at the present time. How ntuch will it pay on tho unimproved value? Finally, as everybody expects his rates to be reduced, where is the inoney coming from to enable the council to carry on? Is it a case of robbing tho rich to pay tho poor? To my way of thinking it will have tho opposite effect, so my advice to the workers is: \\eigh tho matter very seriously before castiiig your vote on May 6, or you may jump out of tho frying pan into tho fire.—l am, etc., Worker. April 27

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —llogarding a letter signed “Executive of the Otago Labour .Representation Committee” which introduced. “ the speculative .bug that lias to bo killed,” is this land so scarce now that every inch‘of it must be grudged us? Not so many years ago our great grandparents built their homes on it. And .we, who have two whole blankets in our home, denying ourselves all but the necessities of life, struggling not to lag behind too fur with the coal, the milk, the bread bills. Wo, having committed the crime of wishing to own a home, must bo “troubled with the speculative bug which the unimproved value system would kill.’’ A homo, you sec, not a house to rent and sell. A home to bo born in and to live in and to die in, where our children can have room to fight disease and run and play and grow in Heaven’s (dr the Government’s) fresh air and sunbhine. And all this tubercula germ needs to help it along wo kno.w —slums. God gave us the land, but we must cultivate it. And the children? Are they not our most sacred trust? And shall wo mothers bring them up to again fight and give their lives for a Government which grudges them what Heaven suppliers free to bring them to full manhood P I must put my children on the streets to play, to lose the cleanliness of soul and body so infinitely precious and so irrecoverable. A few months back a child near our home was killed on the streets, and he had no yard oven to play in, Watcli a- street in your district, and will you not see owners day by day put their dogs put for ono purpose ? Little children roll and tumble-on the grass plot up and down the street where I, in the course of one day, have seen seven or eight dogs come at different times. We are to pay so dearly for our little piece of grass and vegetable plot that we shall have to give it up, and give the Chinese gardener still more customers. Arc wo not warned of the amazing growth of lawlessness in our boys and girls? “Safeguard my little ones, oh God! They have no place to play but in the streets.”—l am, etc., A New Zealand Mother. April 27. 1