Objections to Land Valuations In Manawatu County

Manawatu Times, Volume 64, Issue 278, 24 November 1939, Page 3

Objections to Land Valuations In Manawatu County

SITTING OF ASSESSMENT COURT More than the „ usual amount of interest is being taken in the sitting of the Assessment Court in Palmerston North at the present time to deal with objections lodged against land valuations in the Alanawatu County. This has been brought about by the extraordinarily large number of objectors - some 600. Yesterday’s proceedings were devoted to a more or less general survey. Members of the Court are Alessrs. AA. AlcLachlan (Christchurch), who is president, H. E. Leighton (Wellington), who is Government assessor, and H. J Duigan (Wanganui), who is the Alana watu County assessor. Mr. H. R. Cooper (Palmerston North) is appearing for the Valuation Department, while Mr. J. Graham (Feilding] is representing the 600 ratepayers who are objecting to the valuations. Proceedings opened with a general review of the situation by Mr. Graham, who claimed that the true test of value and the correct basis of valuation was the fair selling value, and it was the duty of the valuer to analyse not only sales made but also to consider any factor that might affect future sales. In the main a fair productive value was a fair criterion of the value for the purposes of tho Act and any sales effected at a price higher than a fair productive value must be classed as special; sales and form no criterion of value as contemplated by the Act. Mr. Graham instanced reasons for the paying of higher prices and said that as far as sales with low deposits and a large sum left on second mortgage were concerned they should be considered with care as in numerous cases tney were but a gauge as to the depth of tho purhaser’s pocket. Counsel directed . attention to matters which affected values such as increased costs, diminisned markets and increased rates, giving figures in support. He also directed attention to the fall in prices received for farm produce and tlie burden of labour costs, increased transport charges, noxious weeds and stock diseases. That the position of farmers generally was anything but satisfactory was borne out by the various commissions that had been set up in recent years. In the Alanawatu County there were various types of country. There was the low-lying swamp subject to serious flooding and tlie heavy swamp lands of the lower Alanawatu, light coastal and sandy country iu the centre and clay lands at the northern end. The first witness was Walter E. Barber, chairman of the County Council, who said he had been farming for 53 years in the Foxton district and had had experience of all classes of country. As far as Moutoa district was concerned, in the early days the ouly firm land was at the edge of tne river. Tides liowed over it, which showed much ot the area was below high-water mark. Even as recently as seven years ago a tide went over the floodgates. The first settler was a man named Larkworthy, who started to drain but was so unsuccessful ho had to hand the property over to the Assets Board. The result of the draining was the appearance of much flax, which was burnt and grubbed out. The area was then sown and the draining continued. Later {Stevens, Easton and Austin took over the land and had a sub-divisional sale, whieh was* a failure. Nobody wanted to buy as the country had a reputation. In 1905 witness bought his present piece from Stevens, Easton and Austin. The land near the road was firm but about 230 of 302 acres was in such a condition that his horse sauk in the bog. However, he had got it all dry now but had been impeded in the breaking in of the ground by repeated floodings from the river. The settlers had rated themselves for the construction of large drains with floodgates and had also dug private drains. As the country consolidated, stumps appeared to give further worry and the drains had to be deepened. The country was very hummocky, making ploughing difficult. Then when the grass was eventually established, floods silted the paddocks, necessitating resowing. {Stop-banks were erected along the river and they were effective till other banks were erected higher up the river. Air. Barber detailed tho cost per acre of all this work. John Chrystal, with knowledge of the Moutoa for 38 years—3B years too long, lie added —said he owned 697 acres. He had been a member of the Aloutoa Drainage Board for 20 years (14 years chairman) and considered the flooding danger was greater to-day because of the banking systems in other localities. Those other banks were on an average 2i feet higher than the Moutoa bank*. It was not possible to raise the Aloutoa banks sufficiently high to keep out all floods, but they were of great value in keeping out the smaller floods. Farmers, however, couldn’t crop with any degree of safety. Tho majority of Aloutoa farmers had had to purchase land outside the flood area so that milking would not be dislocated. Some 950 U acres in the centre of the Moutoa basin were entirely unsuitable for the more remunerative types of farming. Air. Chrystal drew r attention to what he described as the gross over-valuation of certain Aloutoa land. Thirty-two ratepayers owned 5055 acres which surrounded 5983 acres owned by one estate on three sides, but whereas the unimproved valuation of the 5055 acres averaged £27 16s an acre (£37 6s capital value) the unimproved value of tho 5953 acres was only £l2 3s (capital value £l4 7s 6d). Such a position was intolerable and what the general body of ratepayers wanted was a reduction.

Frederick Charles Burgess, of Rongotea, said he had been farming and contracting in that area for 5 years. It was principally swamp country and bush. After tho drains were dug one was able to put cattle on for a few months of the summer. The swamp extended from the northern end of the Kopane through Kaimatarau to Rangiotu. With the sinking of the ground under draining, heavy timber came to the surface and the drains had to bo deepened. Ho estimated that it had taken from 20 to 25 years to get tho land into proper order. Henry John Fagan, of Sanson, gave evidence regarding the upper area g£

tho county —the country that lie remembered 50 years ago as carrying scrub, fern and cabbage trees. He laid particular evidence on the cabbage trees. The land was heavy and wet also. The first step was to grub the flaxand scrub and dig out the cabbage trees. Two ploughings had been necessary for the laying of a permanent pasture and if the rushes came up thickly, a third ploughing was necessary. In recent years there had been good results from topdressing but it took several years to build up an increased carrying capacity.

The concluded the general evidence. The next step was an inquiry from Mr. Cooper as to what basis the Court was going to act upon—productive value or sales value. Mr. Graham had emphasised the productive value but the Department worked on the sales value.

The chairman: Surely after the ups and downs of the last few years, productivity is the better basis. Years of sad experience show that a willing purchaser will pay anything—and there are some who will pay anything again. Mr. Cooper said the Department had made its valuations on sale values. If the Court was going to uphold production value, the wliolc system would have to be altered.

The chairman: The Court is not going to single out production value as the only criterion but will write the figure up or down according to extra demands for land, transport facilities, proximity to markets, etc. We are not out of step with the Act by refusing to consider what the willing purchaser is willing to pay because the Act says nothing about it.

Mr. Cooper pointed out that produc ion depended on the farmer as a farm

The chairman: Of course we want to know about the reasonably efficient Mr. Duigan said the Court would not overlook sales provided they had “meat on their skeletons.”

Air. Graham said he only contended that production capacity was a criterion and not the sole condition on which a valuation should be arrived at.

The first individual case called was (hat of J. C. Fagan whoso 114 acres (with 1918 figures iu parentheses) were valued as follows: Capital value £3830 (£3380), unimproved value £2BOO (£2680), improvements £IO3O (£700). Mr. O. Alonrad, iu evidence, said his revaluation was £3113 capital, £1867 unimproved, £1246 improvements. Ho considered ho was justified in revaluing the property below the 1918 figure, in view of the existing economic situation. The Court will resume at 10 a.m s to-day.