LANDOWNERS' BURDENS

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVIII, Issue 17844, 27 July 1921, Page 9

LANDOWNERS' BURDENS

HAMPERING REGULATIONS. ENTERPRISE CHECKED. SUBDIVISION TOO COSTLY. The faot that many obstacles are thrown in the way of sub-division of suburban lands by local bodies and the Government was commented lipon yesterday by Mr. H. E. Vaile. He stated that not. everyone was aware of the difficulties faced by the landowner, and as closer settlement was the very life bk>od of progress, this interference made a great difference. In the first place, said Mr. Vaile, the local bodies imposed such drastic regulations in connection with the formation of roads that the cost of making them might in some cases exceed the value of the land. The local bodies did not take into account the fact that, by the subdivision of land, the rates were imj mediately multiplied ten times, at a moderate estimate, the making of the roads arid the building of the houses adding to the capital value. Another factor that was worse stiil was that the local bodies had a habit now of compelling an owner who wanted to cut up a block of land to first niiuke all the roads on it, before he could sell anj part of the block. Therefore, 1 the owner of an area with a long road j frontage was not allowed to sell sections ] thereon and use the money for making I the roads on the 6ther portion of the property, but was compelled to lay, out thousands of pounds in making all* the roads on the estate, although it might be years before they wpuld be used, and in the meantime they might grow up in weeds and be destroyed. This was no benefit to the community, or to the local body itself, and was a detriment to the private owner. Areas taken by Government. After ''the landowner had wrestled with the local body, the Government seized 5 per cent, of the area of his land without compensation. For this seizure there was no excuse, nor any reason that anybody knew. What the Government was going to do with the areas thus seized was a mystery. It had in its possession bits of land all over the suburbs acquired in this way. It bad never sold them, and what its policy was—whether it intended to sell them or keep them for rubbish tips—was not known. The Government did not stop at that, continued Mr. Vaile. Supposing a man bought six acres of land at Epsom at £1000 pier acre for sub-division purposes, the area having a frontage of six chains to a street and being ten chains deep. Before he could sell any of the land he had to make the roads to comply with the 'local body's regulations. Then the Government took its 5 per cent, of the area (rather oyer acre) after which it took at least two more allotments, one on each side of the new road, and each -of these allotments must be 66 feet wide. The excuse for this second seizure was that the adjoining owner might require to sub-divide at some -future date. Mr. Vaile's suggestion was that if Such were the case the adjoining owner should pay for the land, .or that the Government should do so. If it w'ere desired to make a better sub-division by taking a road through the next man's land, even if an offer of compensation were made to the neighbour the Government would not render the slightest assistance toward carrying the road through the oluher 'man's property. It would, however, seize the land of the first man on the pretext that it might be required, by thej adjoining owner. Taxation on Profit. . It thus came about that the man with' the six acres at Epsom, in order to cut up his block, had to give away, without any compensation, almost an acre, or close upon £1000 worth of the land. Then the Government levied income taxe upon the owner. If a man. bought a farm and evaded payment of income tax by putting j all he could into permanent improveI ments, paying no tax at all, and then sold at a large profit, he was described as the backbone of the country. But if the man with the Epsom land wanted to sub-divide it, he had the local body to deal with first, and by the time it had finished with him, and .the Government had. taken about £1000 worth of the land from him, he made to pay income tax. If he held the land for three years without making any sales, of course, he paid no income tax, hut, if in. the fourth year he sold enough land io show a profit cf £6000 the Government took 8s 9d in the £ on that profit. If he complained that he had made a considerable loss because he had held the land so long and stood out of his money fche Cmmissioner of Taxes merely said he couM not help that, the man had made £6000 in that particular year. Complaint Regarding Assessment. The Government assessed profit in its own way. It would not take it aa a business man would assess it on his own balance-sheet. It refused to allow interest and many other expenses to be taken into account at all. It would not allow the landowner to reckon any interest whatever for himself in any circumstances, so he really paid income tax largely on an imaginary profit. He was standing out of his money foreland, roads, costs, etc.,' and, in assessing ' his profit the Government did not take these into account. All these factors, Mr. Vaile declared, had an important bearing on the housing question, and there would be no relief in that matter until the Government withdrew all the existing ridiculous war regulations, and until the people were encouraged to sub-divide land instead of having every possible obstacle thrown in their way.