RATING ON UNIMPROVED VALUE.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXII, Issue 272, 1 November 1932, Page 11

RATING ON UNIMPROVED VALUE.

(To the Editor). Sir, —Most of the correspondence which has appeared on the above subject has dealt with the amounts which ratepayers would be called upon to pay in rates under the present system of rating on capital value, as compared with the amount which would be paid if rating was on the unimproved value, instead of the capital value, but little has been said about the justice of either system to cover all the facilities or privileges for which rating is required. It seems to me that any or all forms of rating should have a direct bearing on the privilege for which the rates are levied.

One can, therefore, understand the equity of rating on the unimproved value for providing such facilities as reading and road maintenance, which are of direct benefit to property as providing access and means of transporting stock, or produce. But when rating has to be done for the provision of such facilities as only people require, it should be on the basis of the benefits derived or likely to be derived by people, and not on land values. It is ridiculous to assume that ten people living on 2000 acres are more likely to require hospital treatment than ten people on ten acres. But it is easy to sec that freezing works, employing a large number of hands, engaged in occupations iu which the risk of accident is greater than in the average household, should be required to pay a fairly heavy rate for hospital maintenance. And if rating was required for a water supply, sewerage syst.em, fire prevention, upkeep of recreation grounds or parks; lighting, tramways, theatre, etc., rating on unimproved value is certainly the most equitable, as the land, or the produce of the land, is not benefited by the expenditure on these facilities, which are required only by people. When the matter is fully analysed it may be found that if rating were carried out on a basis of the value of the facilities provided there would be little difference between what ratepayers arc now paying in the Hawke’s Bay county and what they would be culled upon to pay, but if only a change over from one system to the other is made, without any differentiation with respect to special rates, an injustice will be done, and some people will pay rather more than they should do, while others, the freezing edmpanies for instance, will pay a great deal less than they are justly entitled to pay. Hoping the matter will be very carefully considered by all ratepayers before they go to the poll.—l am, etc., FIAT JUBTITIA. Napier, October 31, 1932. (To the Editor). Sir,—l have read with interest the correspondence for and against unimproved and capital rating. After a long experience of local body work and having made up many rate books in the past 20 years, I know that it would be foolish for the ratepayers of the Hawke's Bay county to change over from capital to unimproved value for rating purposes.

On the surface it would appear there is an advantage under unimprovement, but my long experience gives that experience which knows and unhesitatingly recommends rating under capital value as the most equitable and fairest system. I agree absolutely with your correspondent “Leave Well Alone.”— I am, etc., “ONE WHO KNOWS.” Napier, October 31, 1932. (To the Editor.) Sir,—Mr H. M. Thompson seems to have got into such a fury, over my letter that it hardly calls for. a reply. Perhaps why he is so annoyed is because I have spoilt Jiis chances of hoodwinking the small dairy farmer into voting for rating on unimproved values. Before replying to his letter let me state to the dairy farmers in the Heretaunga riding that I have taken out what increase in rates they would have paid this year if rated on unimproved values, and it works out at 35 per cent, increase in the same proportion whether large or small. In regard to tar-sealing main riding roads, my object ;s to decrease the rates. This can only be done by permanent works, which cannot be done if the money is not available. Ellwood road: It is proposed to do this from the main road to the railway line, and a grant has been asked from the A. and P. Society towards the cost. It will all depend on this grant whether the work will be done, and as this road carries a large amount of the Pakowhai fruitgrowers’ fruit during the Beason, it will be a benefit to them. St. George’s road: if Mr Thompson travels one mile to the south of the Havelock road on this road he will see it serves a great many fruitgrowers and will not be sealed for the “big wigs.”

Fernhill road: Mr Thompson makes such inaccurate statements about this road, that when a daily tally was taken it showed an average of 169.2 for motor lorries under five tons and 11 for over five tons. And as this tally was taken in the fruit season, it shows once again that my consideration, in trying to seal! this road, is for the fruitgrower, and no “big wigs.” In regard to repairing the tar-sealed road at Stortford Lodge, I refer Mr Thompson to my remarks at the last county meeting as published. From the above Mr Thompson will see what I am doing for the fruitgrower. But I also expect him to bear his fair share of the cost, and as Mr Thompson states, that to every one fruitgrower that benefits under unimproved rating, six others would also benefit. Well, all I have to say to that is that the other six won’t be farmers. Now about Mr Thompson’s “two dairy farmers with 20 acres each and because one improves his farm his rate will increase 5/- per acre.” This is the biggest joke of the lot for it is an absolute impossibility. If he said 6d per acre he would be nearer the mark. But is it not far fairer to ask the dairy farmer who improved his farm to pay a little more, than ask the same dairy farmer to pay under the unimproved rating twice as much in rates as a fruitgrower with 10 acres whose income is twice as large as the dairy farmer’s? Mr Crawford’s reply to my letter states that I will not seal main roads under unimproved rating. This is quite true, because it will mean an increased rate to the farmers, and residential ratepayers should carry a

fair share in the cost of sealing these roads, when a lot of them use the roads more than the farmers do. I have noticed that in several counties where rating on the unimproved value is in force, special! rating areas are created. This in itself is far worse than rating on the capital values, because it becomes far heavier on those so affected.-—I am ,etc., CHIUS. LASSEN. Hastings, 1/11/32. RATING. (To The Editor.) i Sir,— Why all this worry about the so-called value of land and buildings? The 3rd of February dearly demonstrated what man-made buildings ate worth, a perishable article that can be destroyed in one minute—so there is no taxable value in improvements. Then comes the question of the prairie value of land, which is also non-existent unless it is brought into a productive state by the hand of min.. So it will easily be seen that taxation in any shape is a tax on the industry of the man on the land, and therefore a direct swindle, and it is only perpetrated for the benefit of those who are having a gay time on the rates collected, and who have a little laugh to themselves at the expense of the mugs on the lend out of which they are feeding. Local body ratbs are an imposition at all times, and it is quite time that all owners and occupiers of property interested themselves in the proposals of the Co-operative Union of New Zealand, which will immediately provide an average price of one shilling per lb for wool and butter-' fat and do away with all local body rates. —Yours etc., NAT BEAMISH. ' Hastings, 31/10/32.