LAND VALUATION.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXX, Issue 15041, 8 July 1909, Page 10

LAND VALUATION.

TO Tire EDITOR. Sir,— Kindly give mo space in your ooltinins to further comment on the notion of ti'.o \ ablation Department, although I n» afraid you .are JiKe a parent ol iv spoilt child, d will oi- impossible to convince you thai your Jonunic could mL-behave. Tho iuerontie in valuation is on the improvement*, which consists of 11 dwelluigltonse. fences, grass, etc. The onus ol proving that the valuation is excessive is thrown unon the owner. Now, as no improvement* have been made, on my property since the jast valuation, I wish to' know on what the increase- has been made, whether biiikhngs.or fences, or both. II I bring expert evidence to prove the value or the buildings, il may be only to find that no increase lias been made there, or it 1 bring someone having a knowledge ol the value of grass etc.. the increase may be on something eke. Acting upon vour suggestion, I again wrote to the Department on Juno 2U, requesting to be supplied with-this information, and have received a reply from the officer in charge informing me that 'it is contrary to our practice to afford information of thib kind by letter. Our valuers are at all times prepared to discuss tho valuations with owners and had vou eo wished you could have done ho w'itli Sir Kelly in the. present instance." Now, 1 asked Mr Kelly this question—-which he denier-:—and he answered: "The Department can tell you if they choose, but "---how very condescending " 1 don't mind telling you the total value/' So much lor Air Kelly's denial. Why should they refuse to give this information? If Mr Kelly could give me, this information why cannot the Department? 1 am further informed that they have thousands ol assessments to deal with, and, inferenthat it would take too much of their time to reply, but a letter onequarter the length of the one I have received would give me all the information 1 required. In conclusion, I consider the depreciation in value of the buildings since last valuation, is more than the rise in material, and the proposal now to increase tho valuation by £4O instead of £l7O appears to be more to save the face of. the Department than through anv rise in value. — 1 am, etc., * RICHD. B. DALLEY. East Oxford, July <>, 1900. (We can see no good reason why the Department should withhold the information our correspondent requires. Ed. "L.T.")