RATING SYSTEMS.

Evening Star, Issue 20780, 30 April 1931, Page 3

RATING SYSTEMS.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —As an interested reader of the ‘ Star ’ will you permit me to waste a few more valuable inches of youi paper? Excuse the sarcasm, but ono cannot help but saying so, when night after night we see columns of your paper being used and wasted by the supporters of unimproved rating. Tho leader of the system, Mr Silverstone, who believes himself to bo the workers' friend, is, in my opinion, doing much more harm than good to tho majority of the workers. If the workers of this city take any notice whatever of Mr Silverstone’s views on the matter and vote unimproved rating, the biggest majority will find they have, as “ Worker,” expresses it, “ jumped out of the frying pan into the lire.” Is it not a fact that the majority ot workers have quite a fair-sized section and a moderately cheap house built thereon? All are not in a position similar to Mr Silverstone (perhaps they wish they were) —a small section and a house worth £1,500 or £I,OOO. ■, A man who can afford to build such a homo as this should not bo classed as a worker in the accepted meaning of the word, and if he does build such a home then lie should bo prepared to pay rates thereon. _ Is it not tho worker who enjoys having a fair piece of land to occupy his time and have a flower and vegetable garden of which he is proud? Mr Silverstone thinks not, because he seemingly is not that way inclined. If two men—ono a man with money and the other a worker — both have the same sized section, and the man with money erects a home worth £3,000, while the worker can only see his way clear to expend tho sum of £BOO, is it in tho interests of the worker to pay the same in rates as the man who has the money to erect the £3,000 home? The idea is ridiculous.

Another question I would like Mr Silverstone to answer before tho coming elections. Docs Mr Silverstone think for ono moment it is tho worker wlio builds a home costing, say, from £1,500 to £2,000 or more? If so, the workers would be pleased if they were shown exactly how this could be done. I am quite sure 90 per cent, of honest workers would sooner have a section they could have a little exercise in and spend no more than £I,OOO on a house (in fact, the majority cannot afford to expend more), and thus be much better off under tho present system of rating. Is it not a recognised fact that the higher-salaried men of this city have quite medium-sized sections and .expensive houses built, such as Mr Silverstone? They have amusements other than a garden to fill in their time, and have the money to spend on these amusements, which tho worker lias not. Another thing. Does Mr Silverstone realise that ho will throw quite a number of workers out of employment? Is unemployment not bad enough in this city now? ho prepared to find employment for these workers who will be affected by this “paradise scheme” of his? Maybe ho has not yet had time to think this over. Is it not a fact that there are quite a number of men in our city who have quite a large area of ground laid down in garden and employ three, four, and five men on their property? Does Mr Silverstone think for ono moment that these men arc going to pay the extra amount of rates which they would have to pay and still keep these men employed? If so he is much mistaken, and there will be quite a largo number added to the unemployment list, as these men will naturally subdivide their property and dispose of their land

Again, Mr Silverstone thinks tho biggest portion of the rates should bo raised from the valuable sections around about the city area, and thus put the biggest burden on the shoulders of the_ landlord. Who does ho think is going to be the loser? If tho rates aro increased rent also will be increased, and wo will find still more men out of work, as at the present time it is taking the majority of business men all their time to carry on under tho present rental. Again tho worker is the loser.

The whole system is against tho majority of tho workers, and it is to be hoped they will think tho matter over carefully before listening to others who expect their own rates to be decreased by tho change over. As tho editor pointed out, he replied fully to Mr Silverstone’s last letter, and it is a pure waste of time and paper to reply to such impertinent remarks as were contained therein. Such remarks should be left to tho public generally to consider, and they can then draw their own conclusions.—l am, etc., Caxxy Dog. April 30. [lt is fair to say that Mr Silverstone stated, in his reply to a question at last night’s meeting, that ho expected his rates to bo increased by a change. —Ed. E.S.]

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —I think tlio letter from Dr Riley a few nights ago, as the boys say, “ takes tJio eakc.” Fancy a man of his standing stating that the farmer wlio elects handsome buildings is assessed at a higher rate. I will ask the doctor to give us his authority for this statement. No New Zealand Government does this, or would attempt it. The reason Mr Forbes dropped the insurance tax provisions of tho Farthquako Bill was because it was a tax on improvements, and Parliament would not tolerate that. Ho also states that rating on unimproved values discourages the making of gardens. Evidently the doctor lias never been to Christchurch, for in that city there are more, better, and larger gardens than here. Tho same remark applies to Timaru and Invercargill, and if ho was to travel in tho North Island ho would find five-sixths of tho boroughs rated on tho unimproved system, and beautiful homes and gardens and open spaces everywhere. Ho also quotes the distressing condition under which tho people live in the Homeland, hut neglects to state that they aro rated under tho same system as in Dunedin. Tho principal cause of tho “ slums ” in tho Old Land is undoubtedly tlio system of rating; all improvements aro discouraged and taxed heavily. Imagine one of our leading medical mdu supporting a system taut puts a premium on old and dilapidated buildings. There aro houses in our city that are a disgrace to us as well as a menace to tho health of those who live in or near them, and you would think our medical men would support anything that helped tho people to get better homos. Dr Riley quotes certain things about Wellington, but there is one thing ho omits which is tho most important of all—ho docs not quote tho death statistics and compare them with our own. Tho latest issue of the Year Book does not give the death statistics, but I gather from the one of two years ago that if tho conditions hero wore as healthy as those in tho northern city there would bo 150 deaths per year, or three per week, loss than at present. Why duos Dr Riley nob draw our attention to this state of a flail’s? In my opinion tho two factors most responsible for tho unhealthy condition of our city arc tho impure atmosphere caused by tho smoke, and the poor housing conditions under which the people have to live, duo to tho continued tax

on improvements. We wish to carry rating on the unimproved value to prevent the conditions here becoming as bad as thoso m the Homeland. Wherever it has been tried this system has revolutionised the conditions under which the people live —more and better homes and the general well-being of the community. As Lord Morley said: “ He who would treat politics and morality apart will never understand the one or the other.’' I commend this quotation to the leaders of our churches, because the rating question is really a moral one. As the housing problem is at the foundation of all decency and morality, anything that will encourage betterment in this respect should have the support of our church leaders as well as of the medical profession.—l am, etc., Procuhss. April 30.