LAND MONOPOLY.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 6219, 27 May 1907, Page 5

LAND MONOPOLY.

(To the Editor "N.Z. Times.”) Sir, __ jn your Wednesday's issue you have a leader on Land Monopoly, in which you sought to deduce from the figures used by Mr McNab, at Ilakaia, that large estates were being aggregated. Your argument is based on the tact that the number of estates in 1905 coming under the heads ; of £10,009-£2(),(KK)-.£50,000 in valuation had increased in number since 1902. Will you allow me to draw your attention to the fact that this does not prove that • there has been an aggregation’of land, but only of value? Land has increased throe-fold, and some; times, in cities, four-fold, during that time. I take it, therefore, that these figures only go to show- that estates have grown enormously in value, but not necessarily in area. As an illustration, take one instance of the other day: — ; Your company purchased a property on Lambton quay for £15,000. No doubt this created another property of oyer .£IO,OOO, for I have no doubt the city valuation for 1902 would show a valuation very much under that amount. There is no doubt that in this district, the West Coast, there has been no aggregation of large estates. The large areas with which X was acquainted have nearly all been cut up and sold. Beginning at Wanganui the following occur to my mind: Westmere estate, Imlay, Churton, Foxtou, Arles, Harrison’s, Kuatangata, Ann Bank, Makohau, Heaton Park, York Farm, the Bulls estate, Lethbridge's, Hanson’s, McKelvie’s, Judge Prenderand several others. These are a considerable number to have been subdivided within the last few years between Wanganui and Palmerston, and I believe this process has not been confined to this district.—l am, etc., W. J. BIRCH, Marton, 23rd May.