A WORKER’S VIEW OF UNIMPROVED RATING.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVIII, Issue 203, 10 August 1928, Page 3

A WORKER’S VIEW OF UNIMPROVED RATING.

(To the Editor.)' Sir,—Generally speaking, I admire Mr. French for his endeavours to stir up the pools of indifference to anything except pleasure, or the means of obtaining it. I do not however agree that a different system of rating would be good for Hasnng». At present we pay rates on the value of the actual piece of the borough we own; that value I take it has been fixed (from the valuer’s point of view) on the amount such land would sell for. We can readily see that competition for what we consider the choice positions causes those choice sections to be of higher value than those not so much sought after. The man who wants a dwelling considers the environment as far as his pocket will allow, whilst the man who wants a business section goes for the section where most people would pass his door, also as rar as his menus allow. Now I take it that the man who owns any vacant sections should be prepared to pay rates on these sections, as I suppose generally speaking they are held until he can get what he considers a good price. As far as I can see there is not much land in the borough that would not readily subdivide into building sections directly the demand got brisk, therefore we can hardly call it farm land in the sense that it is permanently farm land. If a concession was made to farm land in a town like this it might easily benefit one who had means of buying big pieces of land for investment, and another who had bought odd sections as he prospered might own an equal area without similar concessions. Now, suppose I, as a working man, had got my section, I could go ahead and build according to my means or borrowing powers and accommodation needs, knowing the amount, 1 would pay in rates, whereas, if this system were altered, the more of my hard-earned savings or borrowings I spent on my house the more I should penalise myself in rates. Would that seem fair, and would it encourage me to get ample and spacious rooms? If my family increased and my wages did not, I should be afraid to enlarge for fear of enlarging my rates. Again, if a man intends building premises for trade purposes, would he be as likely to build imposing premises if he is building up his rates, as he would if he could build as imposing as he liked without addin- to his rates? Then again, vacant sections are more likely to be built on under the present system than they woma be if rates were much lower on bare sections than on build-upon sections. For example, one man might desire to live in a choice locality and at the same time not desire neighbours too close, and so might buy five sections of a quarter-acre, and build a small house on the centre section. If his sections were worth a total of £9OO and his house £7OO he might easily, under an improved value system, payless in rates than a man with a large family on the next section whose house and section together cost £lBOO. And yet his five sections would take five times as much footpath and considerably more sewer and water pipes and a greater share of road maintenance. Now Sir, it is not my intention to trouble you any more with this subiect, but being an average working man I felt I should like to mention some of my views. As regards comparison with other towns, I for one do not care a rap about that so long as we get good value for the rates we pay in Hastings.—Yours etc., PLODDER. Hastings, 10/8/28.