LAND VALUATION.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume VIII, Issue 216, 14 August 1918, Page 2

LAND VALUATION.

AND A PROTEST. We have been asked to publish the undermentioned correspondence that has passed between Mr. Paul Murphy, of Mahora, Hastings, and the Valuer-general of Crown Lands, Mr. F. AV- Flannigan. Mr. Murphy objects to his valuation on the following grounds:— “That the valuation is excessive, and beyond reason, and as this land is now, and in future must be solely used for grazing purposes, and further considering the mutitude of local bodies levying rates in and around Hastings. men on small, farms like this (34a. 2r. 38p.) are. being made to pay not only their own rates, but also the rates of the Li’-ger holdings a little further back, who nn valuation of from £l5 to £2C per acre are getting as much revenue from their farms as the objector.” The Valuer-general replied: — "I have to advise you that your objection to the value of the property assessed at 2/36/30 is incomplete, as you have omitted to fill in your estimate of the correct selling-value on the lower half of the form. 1 enclose another form, cml must ask you to he so good as to fill in the lower half and forward to me by return mail. In the meantime 1 will hold your objection.” To this Mr. Murphy replied:— “The Valuer-general, Welling-

ton. Dear Sir, —I have to acknowledge the receipt of your memorandum dated the st.h inst.,

informing me that my objection to the new valuation was incomplete on the grounds that I did not give, you an estimate of the correct

selling value. This I cannot do as 1 do not know it. It would all depend whether the buyer was a remittance man or a fooj. If the

former he might keep the farm going through his father or trustee having plenty of money to keep him at the Antipodes for the good cf his health. If the latter he would soon be in the hands of the gentlemen who oblige their client.) at. the rate of 40%. This, of course, is contingent on the new valuation being upheld. I myself consider, looking at the matter from a farmer’s point of view, that the old valuation was, and is, quite high enough. You have not, as you state, sent me any form, but it is not necessary to do so as my views on. this matter are fully embodied in this letter.” This brought the following reply from the Valuer-general:— “I have to advise you that your objection to the valuation of land, assessed under No. 2/36/56, has been carefully reviewed, with the result- that 1 cannot see my way to ■ »iake any reduction. Will you please advise me on or before the 9th August, 1918 whether you desire an Assessment Court set up to determine the values.”

The correspondence concluded with the following letter from Air. Murphy:— “F. W. Flanagan, Esq., Valuergeneral, Wellington. Dear Sir, — your memo, of the 31st ult., received. I beg to inform you that 1 on’ going to proceed with my objection ; and 1 should advise, that an officer of your Department oiher than the peisons connected with your office here, be present. It is a bnrlesqpe on common justice that you, no matter how honourable or just you may be. should have the right to nominate the assessors who v.ill have to sit m judgment upon your own officers. I, as the one most deeply intershould have some say in this matter It is untniukable to imagine that you are seriously con •ddcring to continue the present method as earned out here. Take aiy own case; my unimprove J value is assessed at £.’s per acre ; my neighbour with only a sevenwire post and stab fence between us lias been assessed, at an unim- | proved value of £-10 per acre, i When the N.Z. Government put j tho settlers on this land ; they did j so, with a view to allow them tc j make a living off it. Now, your ’ Dipartment has succeeded in makj mg tais land untenable as far as | farming is concerned, and Ido say i that you have nothing to bo proud • i’ in this achievement.”