L.I.P. FREEHOLD

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume I, Issue 275, 9 November 1911, Page 4

L.I.P. FREEHOLD

TO IIIE imiTOR.

Sir,—Amidst the labyrinth of selflaudatjry figures which constitutes Ihe major part of tlie Prime Ministir's policy speech at. Winton, as i< pot ted in the Press Association, report, appear seme hearing on the question cf the conversion of leaseholds -in-perpetuity into freeholds. Sir J ,sqph Ward, as reported, does not nevi, as he himself did on a previous occasion and as one of cutown local candidates did in a recent address, g,, - , far as to say directly that in permitting the holders of bases in perpetuity to acquire the freehold on the original valuations (.■ii which their rentals were based, the Government would be “making ;t present” to them of the difference between those values and the values at the present, day. Still, by quoting tnid contrasting the two sets cf figures and belittling the suggested Opposition modification that these leaseholders should have the option of buying out the freehold at. the original valuation with an addition cf me per cent per annum (to bring the lent already paid up to the same rate as that paid by ether Grown tenants) Sir Joseph plainly indicates th.-tl. for p.-licy purposes at any rate, he is “of the same opinion r.till." We do not- know what ■>ur own candidate':- qualification’s for dealing with matters mathematical may be, but we may certainly assume that Sir Joseph Ward, of all men in his party, is capable of seeing both sides of a simple sum. We would theiif i-e a:-k him. not what is the H-eehold worth to the tenant, lint what is it worth to the Grown when subject t:> a len.-e for close on a thousand years ai a uniform rental throughout lliat term. Taking a eincrite example, wlial weald Sir Joseph himself give to acquire the rights of Hie Crown in a piece of land subject, to a lease in perpetuity r< serving an annua] rental of, say, £lOO ’ Would he trouble about the present value of the land beyond, perhaps, assuring hims(J.f that it was sufficient to preclude the possibility <f the tenant abandi nitig his lease in case a tiiyse cf adversity should come ! His course would be to go to an actuary and sav. "I am offered a well secured perpetual annuity 7 of .£lOO. I take money to be worth, say. 3’ per cent per annum. What capital sum should I pay for this annuity i" The answer given by the actuary weald be the true value of the freehold as it now stands in the hands of the ('town. The present capital value of the land as a whole has no bearing whatever on the question as to what is an equitable price to be paid by a tenant for the freehold. The question hinges entirely on the value of money- at the mcme-nt. There may bo. in the eyes cf the tenant, some little extra value based either on a sentimental de; ire for or even on a recognition o' tl c practical convenience of a freehold title, and for this the Government may censider itself justified in extracting some further payment. But beyond this there is nothing. Ou the ocher hand, the Government admittedly wants money to continue, its close settlement policy, and here is a chance of setting a stagnant asset at something considerably above par. instead- of borrowing on the London market at a substantial discount. It remains to be seen whether the Ministry, if continued in office, will persist in maintaining its pre-ent attitude, which merely affords a false standpoint from which to trumpet forth its unalterable determination to conserve the rights of that marvellous “gull,” the People.- I am, etc., EQUITABLE PRICE.