MORE ABOUT RURAL HOLDINGS

Manawatu Times, Volume LIII, Issue 6666, 20 July 1928, Page 3

MORE ABOUT RURAL HOLDINGS

In Feilding and Palmerston North

Further -evidence was heard by the Commission of Enquiry into the rating of rural lands in boroughs, sitting in Feilding yesterday, when witnesses from Feilding, Palmerston North, and Woodville gave evidence. It is likely that the taking of evidence in Feilding will conclude on Saturday.

Cecil V. Guy, farmer, residing in South. Street Feilding, said he owned, 24J acres of land on the banks of the Oroua River adjacent to Johnston Part, If ever the question of the further exclusion of lands in Feilding were raised his property could not bo affected as the' river bounded his property and it would not bo possible to pht the land in the Oroua County. The. lower level of’.the, section was liable to flooding ; and was not- therefore suitable for building purposes. Ho purchased the land in 1924 from his father for £2200. The rates then were £23 I6s 4d and now- £39 8s lOd. The property did not have the benefit of the sewerage. He had done -quite well by dairying on the property. As the land' would never be required for building it should be considered as an area deserving relief from high rates. . To Mr. Pagan: He had the benefits of' the - borough water supply and he' understood that the sewerage was likely to be connected to his property, so he did have the benefits of the borough services for the , reason that people came to him for milk and he bad no delivery; he sold his milk ; Id per quart cheaper. He .had no overhead delivery chkrges. He would not; say he was gettingi full value for his rates, although he agreed that there • were properties in. the borough, not within the category ; of rural land, worse off than his. f ■■■: ■; . v . Mr. Pagan: Pont you thing you get pretty full value for your rates when you consider that Dr. Salmond'-pays £59 per annum' for his little section in the centre of the town?—l admit that in one way it is so. ; Continuing, witness said ho .carried 20 milking cows which returned Him last year £3O to £3l each. He leased one or two other paddocks to enable him to do this and his wife worked as hard as any man. To Mr. Strand: He supposed that in the case of dairymen who delivered milk the cost of delivery, was about equal tb the cost of milking. He sold his milk at 5d a quart as against the vendors’ Gd a quart, so that ho really gained 2d by reason of the close provimity of residences to his farm. He would bo satisfied if the low lying land were placed under a system of rate classification. The other sections he leased would bring the total area ho was farming between 3o and 40 acres which reduced his return per acre. ; To Mr. Taylor: 'He did not think it would cost him more than- Id per quart to deliver the milk which would be round about, £BO per year. ' Leonard Daniel Legg, farmer of Shorwill Street, said that the rates on his 40-acro farm were in 1923 _£39 15s. The unimproved value was £1590 in that year and as a result of a protest i't‘ was reduced to £930 based on. an average of. 29 acres. The rates then fell to £24 4s 5d but gradually rose again in this year to £39 Is lid. Ho contended that what was expended in 'rates from which ho derived no benefit, should be spent on river protection, gorse clearing and top-dressing to increase production; He had been- pay* ing too long for something he never received and would not require.

To Mr. Pagan: His liouse section was 15 chains from Makino Eoad hut he got no benefit from that road. To Mr. Nash: The sale of metal t« the local bodies was not an advantage as it was likely to intefero with the course of the river to the detriment of his land. To Mr. Strand: He paid £62 10s per acre in 1923 and was inclined to think: he had paid too much for it. Mayor of WoodviUe Gives Evidence. Evidence was given by the Mayor of WoodviUe, E. L. Horne. In regard to the matter of rating on the farming lands in the borough of _ WoodviUe witness said that the particular lano_ was brought into the borough at the request of the ratepayers concerned. Further, most of those complaining bought their land at boom prices and they were well aware of the fact that the lands were charged for rates. Loans for works outside the borough, such as Gorge road bridges had been raised by the borough and these accounted for the high special rates. Eegardingtno «as account, witness said that since the advent of hydro-electricity receipts from gas sales had gone down and the rate struck was only sufficient to meet the anticipated deficit of »200 j It was a fact that a loan of £7OOO had been renewed and this had affected the rate position by reason of the fact that the period of the loan was short. The borough had had no option in the matter of several of its loans. . To Mr. Pagan: Witness paid £oo a year rates- on a building ho owned in "the main street of WoodviUe. The Gorge bridge and electricity loans had put up the rates considerably during the past five or six years. . , Mr. Pagan:. Do you think that the values of the business sections have gone up in proportion to the rates! No, I do not. Have you found with the advent, of motor traffic to Palmerston North and possibly Dannevirko, that the value of town sections have not increased in value!—l think you’ll find that tlic values have not increased. I think the

rates are high considering the value of the properties. To Mr. Nash: The loan raised for the Gorge added about £6 to his rates. The sewerage- loan for which tho farm lands-were pledged was at first raised on a special area but the borough. could not get the money until tho whole borough was pledged. Improvements to the Gorge road had the tendency to take, trade from Woodville. Mr. Nash:—Then the fact is that you are contributing to an improvement which is in reality harmful to the welfare of the town.—That is so. To Mr. Strand: There was no doubt that in the early days the land subject to exclusion was originally cut up for speculative purposes in anticipation of the settlement taking place adjacent to the railway station.. When the railway was first proposed the intention was to take it through the town but influences were brought to-bear to remove it. In the witness’s opinion it was not so much a matter. of high rates but the' high prices,paid for the land. , .. Do you think as a matter of equity that lands should be rated for a service which they cannot get? -The -service (sewerage) was forced on the borough and the borough only wanted to rate the lands which would be served, but the State Advances would not advance the money ■ unless tho whole area wat pledged. Tho borough wantcd to create a special rating area Within -the borough. Mr. Nash: Then that small area would have had to pay higher rates —Yes, as they would have the service. Witness agreed that those lands that did not get the benefit of, say, sewerage should be relieved of paying special rates on that account, but he would not go fiS far as to say that they should, bo freed from Jail municipal services, because indirectly they received benefits from such- services. To Mr, Strand: The sewerage loan was raised by poll. There had certainly been progress in Woodville during the past few years. Soule' system of classification would be acceptable. Mr. Nash: Even though it would mean one section of the borough paying a higher rate than tho other? Witness—Oh no!—Th,at would not bo solving the injustice of the present system. To Mr. Strand: -He agreed that it would be equitable to rate those receiving tho full benefits •of the services higher than those who wore only receiving part benefits, but ho could not suggest a workable method that would give 'general satisfaction under such a proposal. Mr. Nash; If the scheme of the Valuer-General of classifying, borough lands into building lands, potential building lands and rural lands, was brought into operation, do you think it woulfi work and give satisfaction?— t believe it would work. Mr!. Strand: Wo arc looking for any weaknesses in the scheme of the Valu* er-General —I cannot see any weaknesses in it at present.

A Hokowhitu Fanner. A. W. Sutton, on a 10-acre farm situated at Hokowhitu wished to register his protest against the excessive rates charged. In 1918 his rates wore £l2 Is lid, and this year were £33 9s 3d which with the River Board rate of £2 16s 6d made a‘total of £36 5s 9d or a charge of £3 10s per acre. No part of his farm received any benefit from the borough services. He was refused a gas connection and proceeded to read l from a letter he received from the Town clerk, Palmerston'JTorth Borough, wherein was expressed the belief that the Hokowhitu area whs not likely to develop for years to come. That letter was written in 1923 and since then two houses had been built in his street, one last year and the other this year.- The speaker proceeded to quote the rates paid on two residences in the centre of the borough which were receiving the benefits of every municipal service the borough provided, The rates- on one ■ property were £l7 and on the other (the Mayor’s) £l9 14s 2d, as against £33 9s 3d paid on witness’s property which had practically none of the borough services. Since the borough services servo the dwelling and not the land he considered it obviously unfair that such lands as his should be so highly taxed. Frank Cresswell, conducting a mixed farm in Manawatu Street, Hokowhitu, also gave evidence as to the" rating on rural lands in Palmerston North Borlough. He farmed 18 acres and the rates amounted to £56 Is Id with an additional River Board rate of £6. The Court adjourned until 9.30 this morning.