BATING ON UNIMPROVED VALUE.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXII, Issue 270, 29 October 1932, Page 9

BATING ON UNIMPROVED VALUE.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —There are some aspects of this question that so far do not appear to have been given any prominence in the letters which our various newspapers have published. “Leave Well Alone’ 1 (alias Taihoa) has been well dissected by some of your recent correspondents. Lt is men of the “Leave Welt Alone” type that have caused the nation to lag behind in many ways—who say that what was good enough for their grandfathers should therefore suffice now. But kt us meet “L.W.A.” on his own ground. I am a ratepayer in one of the ridings which has recently been revalued and, in consequence of certain improvements carried out since last valuation, the basis for my rating has been increased by almost 120 per cent., notwithstanding that the value of my land has been reduced. I should have been content to “feave well alone” but the County Council secured this revaluation, and in every instance the smallholder who, in the interim, has improved his property, has been penalised, while the man with his thousand acres or more (with very full representation in the H.B.' County Council) enjoys a reduction in his fates. Let me remind the smalfmolders in those ridings which have not so far been revalued that when the new valuations are made, they will have to face increases in rates corresponding with their industry during the past years, unless they combine to repllaoe the present system by the one we are advocating. There- is one more point I wish to make. At the present time there is a strong movement afoot aiming to place men on small holdings in the immediate neighbourhood of industrial centres such as freezing works etc. The movement is a most commendable one since it is becoming more and more evident that the prosperity of this and every district is dependent, not upon enormous holdings, but upon closer and closer settlement. The Heretaunga Plains, which comprise by far the larger portion of the county, are admirably suited to such intensive farming. But is all this to be spoiled by the new settler being penalised for every improvement he manages to pllace upon his section, or are we going to offer him a system of rating under which he may reap the full reward of his industry.—l am, etc., A.L.B. Hastings, 29/10/32. (To the Editor.) Sir, —The letter of your correspondent “Accountant” will surely give food for thought to the general body of county ratepayers. lie has shown on Mr Palmer’s own figures that there is only one thing for the small farmers to do, if we wish to get seme relief from our present rating burden—and that is to vote for rating on the unimproved value. 1 have asked myself how it is that the large landowners are opposed to unimproved rating, and, after studying Mr Palmer’s figures, it seems to me the obvious answer is that they wish to leave the burden on the shoulders of the small fanners and small settlers generally.—Yours etc., EYES OPENED. Havelock North, 29/10/32. (To the Editor.) Sir, —Your correspondent “Accountant” has absolutely cut the ground from under the feet of those who would keep the small farmer shadkled to the present obsolete, unscientific, unsound and grossly unfair method, of rating on the capital value. To stress the fact that the freezing works will gain under unimproved rating is an obvious attempt to alarm and stampede the small fanner. No matter what the rate is, the freezing works will have to pay it, the same as anybody else, and if, as is admitted, they will benefit as a result of their improvements, it foltows that the small farmer as a result of his improvements will benefit to a greater extent proportionately. —I am, etc., FOR THE NEW SYSTEM. Havelock North,’ 28/10/32.