COUNTY RATING.

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

COUNTY RATING.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —In your paper “Inquirer” deliberately confuses the issue with unimproved rating in boroughs which, 1 have been careful to point out, has nothing to do with the matter. In boroughs farm lands are, through unimproved rating, called on to pay heavily for civic services to the civic centres, and from which they are unable to derive an atom of benefit. In the county there are no such civic services—the services are to the land only. Most dairy farmers in proportion to their improvements will benefit; only larger landowners, and those without improvements will pay higher rates under unimproved values. Mr Ensor deplores the expense of the poll, so do I, but it is the only method possible. Capital value rating was claimed as the reason for the fortunate position of the Hawke’s Bay county. I gave credit where it was due. Does Mr Ensor desire to question it? Obviously I expect to benefit under unimproved rating, but not for that reason am I urging ratepayers to vote for it. Under the lower rating this year my rates come to two per cent, of my unimproved value; others are rated higher. Is that just? Let the Editor know the percentage of unimproved value that your rates come to Mr Ensor, and endeavour to give an adequate justification of it. It is not a question of sheep-farmer, dairy-farmer or orchardist carrying the burden but of each carrying his fair share. A sense of honour and justice is still an inherent trait of the British people and because of it no doubt many of the larger landowners will support unimproved value rating. —I am, etc., T. MUIRHEAD CRAWFORD. Pakowhai, 27/10/32.