COUNTY RATING

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXII, Issue 269, 28 October 1932, Page 8

COUNTY RATING

(To the Editor.) Sir, —As one of the movers to have the rating system altered I would like to put the case for rating on unimproved values in your valuable paper. (1.) It can be laid down as fundamentally right that liability for rates should be according to service received. Any other method of liability is inequitable. (2.) It is possible to apply this principle to county rating which must not be confused with unimproved rating in boroughs. This is an entirely different matter. (3.) The services the County Council supplies are mainly roads and bridges, which services are to the land independent of any improvements on the land. The other main service is on account of the hospital'. It is actually the land—that is by the working of it—that is the source of revenue and it is the land atone that should pay rates. “Unimproved value” is merely a name for land value and if I increase my improvements for my own con venience, that is no concern of the county which has no increased liability and no moral right to increase my rates. But that is what happens at present. If land is in small holdings, or if it is increased in productiveness, the tend value increases and is reasonably liable to a higher rate. It is not possible to justify the hospital rate on capital value. Probably the fairest rate would be on a population basis and this could quite easily be brought about by rating on a residential valuation. If it is held that those who can should pay for those who can’t, that means an income basis and the unimproved value is the nearest means of assessing income in the county. It has been said “why change after 50 years ?’ ’ 1 say because the present system is unjust and is putting a big burden on those with a large proportion of improvements. The favourable position of Hawke’s Bay County to-day compared with other counties is due not to any rating system but to the wise and unselfish service of its chairmen and councillors. There is no justice in levying on large institutions such as meat works, etc., extortionate rates for which they get no commensurate service.

There has been a great outcry for a larger rural population, but there can be little doubt that the present inequitable rating militates against it. A residential property in Pakowhai, for instance, at present pays up to three times the rate a similar property would pay just within the Hastings borough. ' It must be borne in mind that the laud values of small holdings, particularly of residential holdings, are comparatively higher and quite rightly pay higher rates on that account, while for special services in a locality the county can and does levy special rates. Rating on capital values in a county is putting a penalty tax on improvements, is, in fact, a capital tax, which is fundamentally wrong. . The principle laid down at the beginning of this tetter is the only equitable one and because of the inherent love of honour and justice of the British people will no doubt be regarded so by many large landholders as well as by-the smaller ones, and it is to be hoped all ratepayers will take advantage of their privilege on November 2nd., to vote out the present injustice. I am, etc. — T. MUIRHEAD CRAWFORD. Pakowhai, October 26th., 1932.