SIFTING THE VALUE OF LAND

Manawatu Times, Volume 64, Issue 279, 25 November 1939, Page 8

SIFTING THE VALUE OF LAND

Manawatu County Objections

The Manawatu County Assessment Court continued its sitting in Palmerston North yesterday, further individual objections to land valuations being dealt with. While there are some 600 farmers who havo protested against the recent Government re-valuations, only 15 objections have been set down for hearing, these being selected as test cases.

The Court consists of Mr. A. A. MeLachlan (Christchurch), who is president, Mr. H. E. Leighton (Wellington), Government nominee, and Mr. H. J. Duigan (Wanganui), who is Manawatu County nominee.

Mr. J. Graham (Feilding) is appearing for the objectors and Mr. H. R. Cooper (Palmerston North) for the department.

Continuing the case of J. C. Fagan (Sanson), whose capital value is set down at £3830, unimproved value at £2BOO and improvements at £IO3O, Mr. B. Hirst, land valuer, of Wanganui, said his valuations were: £3078 capital value, £1824 unimproved value, £1254 improvements. Hirst said he had had 14 years’ experience as a land valuer and last year was employed by the department to revalue the Patea County. At the previous day’s hearing, Oscar Monrad, also a land valuer of years of experience, assessed the capital value of Fagan’s 114 acres at £3113, unimproved value £1867 and improvements £1246. The Government valuations in 1918 were: Capital £3380, unimproved value £2680, improvements £7OO.

The witness Hirst said he arrived at his figures before working out a budget as to what the property could carry and produce, adding that he had found difficulty in making the budgetary figure reach his estimate of the property’s value.

H. J. Fagau, in reply to Mr. Cooper, said the slogan of the objectors when they went as a deputation to tne Minister was “Back to 1918 valuations," but as an individual he was not prepared at the moment to accept the 1918 valuations as not enough had been allowed for improvements.

Mr. Cooper: But Mr. Mackie offered to leave the unimproved value at the 1918 figure (£2680), increase the improvements to the 1939 figure (£1030) and so make the capital value the sum of those two figures. Will you accept? Mr. Fagan: He did not offer us that. Mr. Cooper: We offer It now. WL you accept it? Mr. Fagan: No. The chairman observed that when one was in a team one was expected to play with the team.

This concluded the case for the objector.

Called by the department, R. G. Wall, of Kuku, a valuer of 11 years’ experience and farmer by profession, gave his estimate of the value of Fagan’s 114 acres as £3785 capital value (£35 5s per acre), £2680 unimproved value, £llOs improvements. In detailing the various items allowed for in the improvements, Witness said the practice of the department was to allow 30s per acre for breaking in light ground and 50s per acre for heavy country. Nothing was allowed for consolidation processes and the like, because the farmer generally was able to get some return off the land during the years of breaking in. Further, in the intervening years nature came to the help of the farmer especially in the matter of stumping, and no benefits given by nature were allowed the farmer.

Mr. Duigan: Under that policy you would not give a man any benefit for an orchard which had come into profit because nature had helped him? Witness thought the two circumstances not parallel. Mr. McLachlan intimated that it was as well the Court had been advised of the practice of the department. It seemed that even if the breaking-in had cost £5 an acre, all the department allowed was £2 10s.

Mr. Wall detailed sales in the Sanson area of recent years, as follow: —Forty acres at £32, 167 acres at £36, 108 acres at £44 16s, 41 acres at £43, 37 acres at £4l, 267 acres at £29. Answering Mr. McLachlan, witness said he could not give details of the conditions of the sales.

The chairman: And to the Court the conditions of sales are most important in determining whether tho prices paid were reasonable. For instance, if the man next door is the purchaser, he would be prepared to pay a higner price than an outsider. Then again the reasonable price might be lowered for cash. Answering Air. Graham, Mr. Wall said he thought Mr. Fagan’s estimate of £4 an acre for breaking in the property from its virgin state, was a little excessive because Air. Fagan had not allowed for returns received during the process. As regards the sales of land he had referred to, he had not made any inquiries as to their carrying capacity. M. A. Reid, in evidence, said it was he who valued Fagan’s property on behalf of the department in August, 1937. He went on to the farm fortified with previous valuation figures and all he did was to revise the improvements and add them on to the unimproved value which had already been given him. Tho chairman: Which was not a revision at all. Mr. Graham: You were pinned to the unimproved value? Witness: I did not feel justified in pitting my knowledge, as a junior officer, against those who had superior knowledge. Mr. Graham: Is there any instruction by the department that the unimproved figure must remain? Witness: No. I could have altered it if I had thought it necessary. N. H. Alackie, district valuer, described the steps taken when a county was re-valued. The valuers were taken to the various parts of the district and the unimproved values were fixed for the particular classes of land. Those figures were a basis but valuers were instructed to increase or decrease them according to tho effects of situation, quality of land, etc. The differences in the capital valuations were then reflect-

ed in the improvements. If, as a result the capital valuations exceeded prices given at sales, it was an indication that the unimproved valuations were too high. Witness described the steps that were taken to acquaint property owners of the new valuations before they were actually confirmed, by the calling of district meetings and discussions with local bodies interested. Every effort was made to acquaint tne owners with all the information at the disposal of the department and they were also invited to discuss the new figures. The chairman: But your hiring of hall and giving tho farmers all the information you can, does not prove these figures are scientifically correct.

Air. Mackie: But after consultation with farmers who are supposed to know their business, surely we can reckon on having arrived at some sort of finality.

Air. Mackie said he believed the sales of land quoted by Air. Hall were without special conditions. He agreed that one could not take sales by and large, for comparative purposes. For instance, it would not do to quote a sale where only a small deposit had been accepted. To Air. Graham: The unimproved values were fixed as the result of inspections. Two other valuers had been on the property. Counsel: Are you bringing them as witnesses?

Mr. Mackie: No. We are prepared to let our case rest on the present evidence. The chairman: Why are not they being called? We still have not heard from a valuer who has gone over the property and got down to hard facts and figures. Are the two valuers available?

Mr. Alackie: Yes, but it is a question of calling the evidence the department sees fit to call.

The chairman: At present there are only clerical figures on the unimproved value before the Court and by declining to call the best evidence, you are leaving the Court high and dry. At present we have only the diplomatic methods of arriving at valuations and little that is scientific.

Mr. Cooper produced the valuations of Alessrs Wilson and Gifford. The former’s figures were: Capital value £3597, unimproved value £2394, improvements £1203. The latter’s figures were: Capital value £3648, unimproved value £2400, improvements £1248. The chairman thanked Air. Cooper for making the figures available, adding that, from the Court’s point of view, they had been arrived at impartially, scientifically and independently. The Court resumes on Tuesday.