RATING ON UNIMPROVED VALUES.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CVII, Issue 12850, 24 June 1902, Page 3

RATING ON UNIMPROVED VALUES.

AT WOOLSTOK MrH. G f Ell, M.H.R., addressed a meet- 1 - ing at! thelWoO'h.to'ii Schoolroom last even-, ing on the question -of Rating ■out. Unimproved . Values. • Mr W. T. Thomas 'Occupied tie chair, and there: were iabout 150' persons present, . including several ladies. . Mr Ell- commenced his ; remarks bysaying that' be was pleased to find by the* large attendance that the people'-of ■Wool--., ston wereshowing ..ai.gr-eat interest'in muni- : cipal politics. He : referred to some eircu-. lars which- had..bc-eh' : sent- ( outj...-and which, he said, did no "credit to.ithose who; were opposing the.change.'■.'He-,.referred to several individual instances'iwhcVey people had been, toldi that their" rates would be-increas-ed,, w'hereas really be reduced. by t'ho change." He proe&eid'ed to give a;, number of examples knowing the -effect cf. the introduction of rating -v/a unimproved values' if introduced into the' borough. He disputed t!he- facts contained in a letter writ-, ten by Mr J. 'CoiMnal to the newspapers, in . which ho claimed thatr'-oertain .sections of the community.'Would be unjustly treated if the systemi w ! ere'broiigbfc in: He. showed that in Mr C'onnal's case there would be a decrease of £4 6s 7d, and in Mr J. H. Hopkins's case of £4 lis 7d, these including the properties on 'which they bad no' improvements. Mr Ell went on to show how 1 'the operation of the system had, improved the district of Spreydon. Mr Hopkins lad stated that tlie' : Roimata settleirs wouldi suffer to .a, great-extent by the change, • and' Mr Ell read a list of the holders with the rates they paid now and those; which they would pay under the rating on'unimproved system, showing that the change would bo very slight. Jn conclusion, Mr Ell said that he hoped that, those who had come to. op-1 pos» the proposal would do so in a fair, spirit, and when tlie contest was over they would still be the best of friends. (Applause.) . , Mr Gimblett said that after tlie light thrown on the matter by. Mr Ell, he was quite prepared to support the introduction of the proposed system. If they carried it at tie poll next day, they would benefit the community at large. (Applause.) . Mr J. Cpnnal said the natural course of filings would be iShab if. the system were adopted, some people's rates would be increased and some would be decreased. In reference to the newspaper correspondence he disclaimed having be«n in any way 'abusive. He claimed that he had as much right to represent his side of the case as had; Air Thomas or Mr Ell. He had acquired his land honestly, and -each person was entitled to as much land;'as he could acquire. He had endeavoured to .show that the effect on market gardeners would be most, unfair, as they could not possibly allow their land to'foe built upon. It had. not yet been proved that the rating on unimproved values was, an improvement, therefore; it could not be 'called a reform, hot merely; a change, the benefit to be derived ironV which was very questionable. With regard' to thehnd he had held in the district, 'lie had expended large sums in'making roads and in cutting up the property, -having sold sections to over 100 people, who had built comfortable homes upon them. He claimed that rates should %e paid on. all property, whether in the shape of land or improvements. He gave illustrations of three quarter-acre sections of equal value side by side. On the first the man with £ll3 per annum- put up a',hou?e valued at £200; the next, with £l5O per annum, a £4OO house;. and the other man, with £4OO per annum, a £7OO house. Was it fair that the man with the small income should pay the same rates as the man with the larger one? He said.that under the Act the struggling small "fanner would be placed at a disadvantage as compared with the more well-to-do farmer on the same sized area. -$t badalways been understood that the wealthy should pay the heaviest taxes, and"' that class had always accepted the responsibility of so doing. 'He did' not think that a; bare majority voto should carry the proposal, and that, at 'least a majority of these on the roll should vote in favour of it to carry it. He opposed the principle of the measure as inequitable. . ■ Mr Owen said that as a Government settler, ho felt that the perpetual leaseholders would be at a disadvantage as compared with the freeholders around them, as they could only 'build the house in which they lived. The Government settlements should havo been exempted from the operations of the Act.,

•Mr J. H. Hopkins &poke strongly against he introduction of the scheme, and .cbn.eaded that "the rates would be much higher inan those quoted by Mr Ell. Although his own rates would be reduced by .over £2 per annum by the change, he felt that rf it were carried it would" be an iniquitoua tiring for the borough of Woolston. * * Mr Ell replied, and the proceedings -' closed. TO THE EDITOB. Sir,—What a moss of correspondence! And the old game repeated: -"Hide the Ksues and confuse the disputants." Figures are put before the public to prove .this or thai. But wbo does not know- that if the devil can quote rciiptui\j 'he can also quota figure? To be of any value they should! , ba verified by-a public "accountant. But wa don't want them. There is no getting away fr:m this : That the expenditure of Wool- - - tton or Christchurch will be the same under > any system, and that by taking rates of? the buildings, the 1 land must pay the lotthat is, valuable buildings which, have beenl erected as an investment and that have proved to be a good investment, escape local You thus give 'a big discount to these-, people who are quite satislied with the present system, and lay the burden on those less able to- bear it'. If (Jhristchurc'h was a sheep-ran, we wouldn't require- a Town Council; but because people congregate together this expense is incurred. The denser the population, the heavier the expense. And how can you measure this density better than by build- - ings? Then why should buildings escape? However, let the ratepayer clearly understand what he is doing in voting for the rating on unimproved values. He .is trans- ',>. ferring taxation from the prospering and woalthy to those less fortunate, and he is.., doing tlris contrary to equity and justice. ! ; Then why should w 1? penalise the holder of vacnt sections? Tho land before it "was ■' cut up was earning something for pasture or cultivation, afterwards nothing. But the , owner has to pay Land Tax and Rates, andi.,,. loses intprest, and 'that compounded mcants up, so that the unearned increment is worm ' away to vanishing point, xlnd sometimes land' goes down; so holding vacant sectiona is " not all beer and skittles." If is because I find so many people have not given a thought to this subject that I must. a»b vou atrain to give me space- tolay.it bcforn them.—lam, etc., JOSHUA LITTLE. ;