URBAN FARM LANDS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20833, 27 September 1929, Page 14

URBAN FARM LANDS.

THE RATING ACT. At a special meeting of the Mosgiel Borough Council, over which the Mayor (Mr W. E. M'Lean) presided, the Urban Farm Lands Rating Act was considered. The Mayor explained that th,- member for the district _ (Mr A. E. Ansell) had forwarded to him a copy of the Bill, which was now before Parliament. After having perused. it. he desired to place before the council the following minute: — Urban farm lands is defined as “lands that are principally used for agricultral, horticultural, or pastoral purposes, or for the keeping of bees or of poultry, or of other .live stocks . . Tkio, in my opinion, is most drastic, and should not be agreed to. No area is specified, and under the clause as drafted a ratepayer with a quarter-acre section used as an orchard or for keeping a few fowls, or having a stable and grazing two or three horses, would be entitled to a reduction in rates. It appears to me to be an extraordinary proposal that, because a person is the owner of, say, two quarter/ acre sections, one of which may be-used for -any of the above-named purposes, there should be .a differetnial rate on such sections, and it will bo news to most people to learn that such an area is a '■ farm.” It is difficult to imagine that this is the intention-of tl Government, but that would appear to be the effect of the definition of “ urban farm lands.”. No person, other than an incompetent, takes up farm land within a borough without having previously, made full investigations as to the rates' levied or likely to be' levied on such land, and having made such investigations, and satisfied himself he can make money out of the proposition, it . cannot reasonably be considered a hardship if he fails to make good. At any rate he, would go into it with his eyes open, and instead of the rates being called burdensome, it would be as reasonable to say that he paid too much for the . laud or that., the rent is too high. To' carry it-, further, ’it would be competent for ; a shopkeeper to say that the rates were too high as an excuse for ilia failure to make good in his business; Section 4 (2) provides that a petition may bo signed by one or more occupiers of land. . , . All other provisions that

come to my mind in respect to petitions that may be presented to a local body invariably provide that a specified percentage of ratepayers shall sign such petition, and no departure from this prim' cipal should be made in this Bill. Even if only one person -in the district of a local bodv suffers an undue -hardship there will surely be a sufficient number of ratepayers in that district who will realise the injustice, and be prepared, to sign a petition in favour of affording him' relief; The cost of a commission to classify all the land in a borough will be heavy, and it is not. a fair proposition that one .person should have the right to impose such a cost on the Government. Therefore, it should be provided that the petition be signed by at least 10 per cent, or 15 per cent, of the ratepayers of the district.

Section 7 (3), The time allowed for lodging objections to a classification of land is too indefinite. It would be better to provide that appeals be lodged within, say, 14 days after the expiration of the 21 days during which the list is open for inspection.

Section 8. This provides that all appeals shall be decided by the commission that made the classification. This appears to me to be wrong, just as it would be wrong in our court of law for a. magistrate or judge to hear an appeal against one of his own decisions. I suggest that all appeals be heard by a magistrate sitting with two assessors, one to be appointed by the Minister of Internal Affairs and one to be appointed by the local body concerned. Section ; 12 (2) provides that if an alteration. in the system of rating takes place the classification is determined This clause is decidedly weak. Parliament in its wisdom may enact that farm lands in ■ boroughs may have relief from rates, but if a majority of ratepayers in the district is of the opinion that a minorrity shall not have that' relief, then the majority can impose its will on the minority just as is done in any other form of government, local or general. A classification may be made to-day, and next day, so to .speak, a majority of the ratepayers can change the system of rating and so wipe out the classification. In due course the same majority can revert to the system of rating favoured. And since those in occupation of farm lands, in boroughs will always be in a minority, then the. modus operand! can be repeated' by the majority just as often as a classification is made.

Any system of rating—capital value, annual value, or unimproved valuedwill impose a hardship on individuals just as any general legislation will do. The Bill in its present form is a weak attempt to legislate for the individual, and we should. I think, ask our members (Mr Ansell, M.P.) to endeavour to have it amended in the direction I have indicated or vote against it in toto. I would also suggest that a copy of this report be forwarded to all members of the Lands Committee of the House of Representatives, to which committee the Bill has been referred for consideration. _ I am of the opinion that a definite minimum area—say, 10 acres—should be fixed, that the land should be land used for agricultural purposes only, and that the owner or occupier should bo substantially earning bis living from the produce of the area.

borne considerable time was spent by the council on the 'matter, and at the close of the discussion it was resolved to support the minute as tabled by the Mayor.