RATING ON UNIMPROVED VALUE

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXII, Issue 271, 31 October 1932, Page 9

RATING ON UNIMPROVED VALUE

(To the Editor.) Sir, —There may be some reason for the operation of rating on unimproved value in boroughs in cases where an owner is hindering the progress of the town and benefiting by increased value of his property due to the improvements of others. Also, if all holdings were identical and suitablS for the same use this method of rating might be just; but as things are, in practice, it is a most unjust method. I know of one instance in the Havelock Town Board district in which a farmer pays, even under the amended legislation quoted by your correspondent “Reform,” over £7O on 43 acres of fanning land. Take the illustration of two capitalists. One buys land carrying 75 per cent of improvements, the other comparatively unimproved back country land carrying 20 per cent of improvements. Under rating on unimproved value the former will pay rates on 25 per cent of his capital and the latter will pay rates on 80 per cent of his capital. Is this fair? Yet to-day it is the back country owner who is in greatest need of help and encouragement. The urban and suburban areas get the greater consideration. The further back occupier has to pay taxes for losses on State railways, hydroelectric blunders, surface sealed roads, etc.; also hospital rates, all of which things are of little benefit to him. Should rating on unimproved value be carried his present insupportable burden will be further increased.

I quite see the advantage the owner of a seaside pleasure house, built on a small area of land of no great value, would ga'i. His sealed surface roads and many other requirements would be paid for, with the exception of his trifling rate on a quarter acre or less of land, by the farming lands which derive little if any benefit. The poll on Wednesday is the most important that has been held .in Hawke’s Bay, and no farming ratepayer should fail to remember it and to vote against the change to rating on unimproved values.—l am, etc., JOHN LANE. Havelock North, October 29, 1932. (To the Editor.) Sir, —There are one or two points in the controversy over the forthcoming rating poll which I feel I am called upon to answer. Our opponents seize on the fact that a Wajkari settler, while supporting unimproved rating, complains that commercial forest areas under the present system are given undue preference, to the detriment of the sheep farmers. This gives our opponents the chance to confuse afforestation with the planting of fruit trees. In point of fact, the Waikari settler’s contention in regard to commercial forest areas and our own in regard to orchards do not in the least clash. The point relates to the unimproved value of the afforestation land, not to the improvements thereon. The whole county is at present being revalued and the value of the improvements that the small farmers and other small holders have been making on their properties for the 15 years or so is being added to the capital value. The total will be very large. According to the current year’s Local Authorities Handbook, the capital value of Hawke’s Bay county is £10.836,654 and the unimproved value, £8,068,308, the date of the valuation being given as 1919. A huge amount of improvements have yet to be added to the total value, and if we continue to be rated on capital value it means that the rates will be eased for the big holders, while the small farmers and others, who have spent money improving their places, will receive a staggering blow. I was naturally interested to see how “Leave Well Alone” would answer the case for unimproved rating. He has cunningly taken advantage of every possible point, but the essential arguments in favour of unimproved rating he has been unable to assail. Take, for instance, his careful avoidance of “Accountant’s” analysis of the rates (present and future) of each riding, supplied and vouched for by Mr S. M. Palmer, of Havelock North, who is op posed to unimproved rating. “Leave Well Alone” has a little knack of forgetting anything that does not suit his book. Mr Palmer’s figures, on analysis, told a tale that must have upset “Leave Well Alone” and his friends, for they showed benefits to the smallholders in every riding, if they vote solidly fqr rating on tho unimproved value.—l am. etc.. FREDERICK H. REID. Pakowhai, October 29. 1932. Sir, —“Leave Well Alone” accuses me of saying that some county ratepayers have 33 votes at the forthcoming poll. I said that I hoped none had. He also attacks my statement that the county has to be re-valued immediately after —not immediately before —a successful poll. Section 47 of the Rating Act provides that as soon as conveniently may be after an adopting proposal has been carried in any district, a valuation roll of the rateable property in the district shall for the purpose of rating on the unimproved value be prepared and supplied by the Valuer-General. That is what the law says, and surely it means a revaluation. —I am, etc., F.R. Pakowhai, Oct. 29, 1932. ’Sir, —Mr Chris. Lassen Intends to seal all main roads in his riding because it will mean a reduction in rates, but he won’t do so if rating on unimproved value is carried. That Mr Lassen sponsors capital rating is, with the dairy farmers, the best advertisement, tor unimproved rating. “Leave Well Alone” confuses taxation for general governmental purposes with local body rating. Where possible it. is fundamental to rate or tax where service is given anil this is being more generally recognised. It is difficult to account for Mr H. R. French’s letter. His reference to single tax, which has to do with general governmental taxation and not with county rating, has nothing whatever to .lo with the question. On account of the very high values of closely sei+leci and residential lands in the county, reasonable rates on land values do provide sufficient for county services. £lOOO of unimproved value is the same value whether on 10 acres closely settled or 500 acres wayback

and there is very little variation in the eost of county services in the £ of unimproved values over all the county. —I am, etc., T. MUIRHWAD CRAWFORD. Pakowhai, Oct. 31, 1932. (To the Editor.) Sir, —I have not been able to find the small dictionary, which, Mr Crawford says, shows the meaning of the word “premium’’ to be “penalty,” and can only think that this is another mistaken opinion held by Mr Crawford, like, for instance, his opinion that rating on the unimproved value will be of benefit to ratepayers in the Hawke’s Bay county, or that the meat works employees pay the hospital rates, through the properties they occupy. Many of those employees do not occupy property: some of them live in Hastings, and they w-ill contribute, as they do at present. Those who occupy houses in the county will not pay anything if rating on the unimproved value is carried. I have some experience of rating on the unimproved value in the Poraugahau riding of the Patangata county. The rate struck for this year is only a few hundreds of pounds more than the unpaid rates, i.e., not paid for last year. The HaWke’s Bay county is not quite the same as the other counties, as there are a number of retired people living on fine properties in the county, besides factories, schools, and hotels. Those ratepayers are well-to-do, and should pay their share, particularly of hospital expenditure. If rating on the unimproved value is carried those ratepayers will escape a very large sum, probably six to seven thousand pounds a year. This will have to be made up by the farmers, and, as some of the larger ones wiM not be able to pay, those who can pay will have much more to provide than they are doing. Half the rates collected by the county are for hospital and charitable purposes. The Hospital Board levy, £13,183 on the county and £8,726 on the towns. Mr Morse in his figures published in the “Tribune” shows that admissions from January to June, 1932, to be town districts 658, county 324, says two town to one county. Each patient at the hospital from the towns costs £133, from the county £399, or three times as much. If the county collects the Hospital Board’s levy, very well but if it does not it has to pay the levy out of its own funds. And if it has no ’funds the Government will deduct the amount due from any subsidy that may be due to the county, and pay the money direct to the hospital Board. I am certain that if rating on the unimproved value is carried on Wednesday that 90 per cent, of the farmers who are ratepayers will regret it. I have seen about eight anonymous letters in the “Tribune’’ advocating rating on unimproved value, but none of them produce any sound reason for the change, and are so similar that they may all be written by the same ; scribe. In thanking you, Mr Editor, for publishing this letter I must apologise for its length, but hold that it is the duty of every citizen who sees a blind man standing on the edge of a precipice to prevent him from falling over it. —Yours etc.. JOHN BANKER. Waimarama, 31/10/32. (To the Editor). Sir, —In a letter to the papers Mr. Lassen says I have been asked by ratepayers to give my opinion on rating on unimproved value but he has gone beyond that and I shall have more to say in connection with his letter later. Mr. Lassen, seeing you are so interested, I should like you to answer a few questions, because I think you must have forgotten to place the letter “f” after the letter “I” which you have made good use of. In regard to tar sealing the roads you mention Ellwood road. About 1J miles of that road contains one farm house and three cottages. It is used daily by about one dozen vehicles. A portion of the road is used by sheep carrying lorries during killing season, and also used for three days a year for the Show. Is the tar seal for the benefit of small farmers or for the A. and P. Society? St. George’s road. There are far more settlers on this road. Is the tar seal for the settlers’ benefit or just to please a couple of big wigs? Evendon Road: A blind road serving a good few small settlers. Fernhill Road: Tar seal for this job was turned down just recently by the Highways Board. You say you are ready to tar seal this road. It does seem strange there are more big wigs, plus a handle, who travel that road. Seeing that you are such a powerful man, why not repair that tar seal road at Stortford Lodge which carries far more traffic than all the other roads put together? Now Mr. Lassen, when the right time comes for these roads ta be tarsealed the job will be done, whether we have rating on unimproved value or not, and no matter what you may say or do. Mr. Lassen admits it is unjust to tax the fruitgrower on his trees. What have you done about it to assist the fruitgrowers in the HCretaunga Riding? For every fruitgrower who would benefit by unimproved rating, six others would also benefit. Just one more question, Mr. Lassen. Take two 20-acre dairy farms in Heretaunga Riding each with a four-roomed cottage and necessary sheds and owned by a family of six. At the end of twelve months the profit of each farm is approximately £3OO. Farmer No. 1 enlarges the cottage and sheds for the comfort of his family, and he improves the sanitary arrangements as a safeguard to the health of the public who purchase his produce. Farmer No. 2 is fond of the pictures, and races, and spends a good deal of his time in a corner house. He plasters a few pounds on the wall behind the corner house, works in mud, allows his stock to wander onto neighbours' property, nor does he do any improvements to the farm. What happens? The next twelve months’ rate demand for farmer No. 1 is increased by about £5 a year, or 2/per week for his improvements, and his insurance and maintenance costs also increase. Farmer No. 2, rate demand the same as the first twelve months. Yes, this is just what happens at present under rating on capital value. Mr. Lassen, is this system fair to farmer No. 1? yet both have the same returns from farm. —Yours, etc., H. M. THOMPSON.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —It seems strange that most of your correspondents advocating the continuance of the present system of rating are apparently owners and supporters of laf ge holdings. If such is the case, then l-*m afraid that the “back

to the land” policy by way of small holdings will not solve our present problems. Instead of taxing improvements, both Canada and Australia actually give the freehold title to the settler on condition that he improves his holding, which is just the reverse of our present system, which says; “Yes, Mr Smallholder you have been very enterprising and industrious in creating work and making all those improve, merits, you must have added at least £5OO value by those additional rooms, sheds, trees, etc., therefore you will have to pay a very much heavier tax as a reward for your sblf-denial and thrift.” With so much distress due to unemployment anyone who improves his section, be it small or large, is to be heartily commended and not taxed as at present.—Yours, etc., GIVE THE LITTLE ONE A CHANCE. Hastings, '3l/10/32. (To the Editor). Sir,—A bare majority of the votes recorded at the poll on Wednesday will decide the basis upon which rates will in future be struck. It is therefore the duty of all ratepayers as good citizens to exercise their rights and record their votes upon one of the most important questions which they have . ever been called to answer.—Yours, F. B. LOGAN. Kereru, 31/10/32.