RATING ON UNIMPROVED VALUES.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CVI, Issue 12589, 26 August 1901, Page 2

RATING ON UNIMPROVED VALUES.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—l did not, of course, expect, whan writing you previously on this subject, that the" one or tw<> horrid: examples ” Shewing the inequalities of the system, which I was able to quote, would shake your faith in the principle. All I hoped to do was to quote a few examples to show the injustice of the proposals in at least one district, as an argument that in deciding .the matter, the special circumstances of each separate rating district should 1 be taken on its merits.

You passed over my Illustration of bow on twenty-two ratepayers in one street alone, the local body "would; get £B2 Is lOd instead of £l6l 13s 9d, and! olid not join issue -with me dn my contention as to who was to make up this loss. I repeat again, tb&t owing to the absence of unimproved! lands tho shortage cannot be got from that source, and that it must come out of the pockets of the small man with hiis 4 or 5-roomedl dwefiinghouse. Accepting as a basis that tho revenue raised at present must bo maintained, the ratio of contribution under the present annual value system, as between the labourer witb his 4 or 5-roomed cottage and the big building man, is as one to twenty-six. Under the proposed alteration the ratio becomes as one is to twenty, an increase on the shoulders of the small man to allow some of the burden to be taken off the publican, the banks, and; the owners cf big stores, etc., whose business is returning handsome profits. • Where is the equality of sacrifice in this case?

In dealing with my second illustration l — of the dairy farmer and the publican, each, with unimproved' land worth £IOOO, the former earning £2OO a year, the latter £IOOO to £llOO a year out of their respective businesses—you apply the stock arguments, and end) by inducing the farmer to cut his land up “into town sections and sell them at an immense advance upon their pastoral value.” But I told you in my former letter that almost the only unimproved lands were on the hill tops 1 , and whether my illustration was or was not “ cunningly devised,” I can assure you that it is no suppositious case, but a genuine example which exists in my district. I can further assure you that even if the aforesaid dairy farmer is compelled, by an unjust system of local taxation or otherwise, to relinquish his occupation to the advantage of the Swiss milkmaid brand, his land can never be “cut up and sold as town sections at an immense advance on their pastoral value.” So theory and practice won’t always square. But " are we not drifting? The present objection l is not so much to the principle, which I admitted in my former letter had much to justify it and was under certain conditions an ideal system. The principle ire already have in the Act of 1896. and my original objection was against the Premier’s proposal to force its compulsory adoption. I contend that such a course is directly opposed to the tendencies of present-day legislation, and' maintain that you would be only logical in supporting a proposal to make prohibition compulsory, instead of, as at present, permissive. * You" hint .that the' local franchise is not satisfactory. Perhaps net, bub recently it has been greatly extended, and if tire Premier wished it he could further extend it to-morrow. It is no argument against tho suggestion cf trusting the people to replace the present optional method by a compulsory system simply because the franchise. is" nob wide enough. That is getting from bad to worse. I can't see" why rating 'on unimproved' values should not be placed in the same category as the two other systems at present infuse. Under the Rating Act, 1894, a local body may take either the annual or capital value system. It can’t adopt the unimproved value without a poll, at which only ratepayers and land-owners may vote. Why not place nil three systems 0® the same footing, leaving Councils to select either one? Councils are elected on the extended Iran chive, and what could be easier now that we have the general election, 'than to get an election decided on this’ important issue alone? That surely would bo a forward movement, and as the svstem extended, the Government would'have time to reorganise), its Land Valuation Department, which at the present time contains much that is fatal to the proposed compulsory extension of the system of taxing only unimproved values. Anolosrieing for the length cf my let-ter.-I am. etc., LOCAL OPTION. August 24, 1801.