CORRESPONDENCE

Grey River Argus, 16 February 1933, Page 8

CORRESPONDENCE

GOVERNMENT VALUATIONS. (To the Editor.) sir, —li, is obvious that strong representations are at present being made to the Government for the repeal of Sections 45 and 50 of the Valuation of Land Act, with a view to taking away the existing right of an owner of freeold pro-pert vto require -(he Government to reduce the value of such property io the figure at which he is prepared to sell to the Government. This right arises only after the objection of the owner to the figure placed on his property by the Valuation Department has been disposed of by an Assessment Court, and if nrnvt/lne n, simple, inex; tensive and perfectly equitable method of aj peal from the decision of the Court. The duty of a Government, Valuer, who is required by the Valuation of Land Act to be a person of reputed local knowledge of land-values, is to decide to the best of his ability the fair selling value of each property \ allied by him at the date on which he is required 1o make his Valuation, It is common knowledge, however, that in the case of valuations made for local authorities no real attempt is made to fix a selling value. What is actually fixed is a fictitious value tor taxation purposes, and great, attention is i slid to what is known in the language of Government Valuers as ‘‘ uniformity, ’’ which may bp interpreted as meaning, “If you value

Smith’s property at 50 per cent, above its real value, be sure that you value P.iown’s at 50 per cent, above its real value also.” I. do not suggest that this interpretation is accepted by the valuers, but 1 tender it after some experience of valuations. Now the property owner, having received a Government valuation, in unifoimity with the rest of the valuations in his city or county, takes his objection before an Assessment Court. In most cases the Court consists of a Magistrate, a representative *f the local authority (which collects the rates) and a repfresentative of the iGoverument (which collects the Land Tax'). If these representatives recollect the respective parties by which they have been appointed they cannot lean too strongly towards the

rj’operty owner. The Assessment Court gives its decision and then the owner of a freehold property under the. present Jaw, ran fuither prosecute his objection without the assistance of the lawyers and unfettered by the forms and rules of the Assessment Court. He writes to the Valuer General and says, in effect. “Tf you will not buy niy property for cash, for so much? then. I require you to reduce the value to the sum. at which I have offered it to you. 1.. s it possible to imagine anything fairer? The offer is binding upon the owner, and immediately upon the gazetting of the necessary Order in Council, the land is vested in the Crown and the price fixed in the offer is payable to the owner. Yet a recent article in the ‘‘Dominion’’ dealing with this p»rovision is headed, ‘‘Owners still take unfair advantage of State. ” I know of no better test of the bona lide of a property owner than his putting his roperty under firm offer at n fixed price. It lias been said that the Govern-in-'iit may not require a particular property for its purposes and for that reason the system is unfair. Well, sir I imagine that the Crown, has a right to sell property, and if its expert valuers advise that, the selling value of a property is in excess of the value at which the. owner offers it, J. see no reason why lhe Crown should not buy and sell at a i[•rolit. in the same manner as an individual. If no one wants the j roperty at the price *of the offer to the Crown then apparently the owner is accepting a value for I taxation purposes in excess of the spiling value. 1 trust that, the proposed repeal of • the statutory provisions relating to the I offering of property will be strenuously opposed by all freeholders. The Chambers of Commerce throughout the country should give a lead in , (his matter and strongly worded re- . solutions should be carried either by the members of those bodies or by > meetings of property owners, and forwarded Io the proper quarter. £f owners allow pressure to be brought upon Ministers of the Crown by local bodies for the restriction of their rights, without raising the strongest protest, they will have only themselves to blame if they wake UP to find those rights practically nullilied, and their properties subject to crashing taxation, both local ami national. 1 am etc., TAMURE.