LAND VALUATION

Otago Witness, Issue 3168, 2 December 1914, Page 57

LAND VALUATION

FIRST SITTING OF COMMISSION. SCOPE OF THE INQUIRY. WELLINGTON, November 24. The first sitting of the commission—consisting of ?dr Thomas F. Martin, barrister, Wellington (chairman); Mr Even A. Campbell, farmer, Wanganui; and Mr James G. Rutherford, farmer, Aucklandappointed by the Government to inquire into and report upon certain matters relating to the valuation of land in .New Zealand was held to-day. Only formal business was transacted. The commission is directed (1) to inquire into such cases of alleged excessive values as • may be brought under notice, and report as to whether those values were assigned in accordance with the definitions “Unimproved value” and “Value of improvements,’’ in “ The Valuation Hand Amendment Act, 1912”; (2) to consider whether the Assessment Court under the Valuation Land Act is so constituted as to ensure equitable consideration of the objections, and to recommend, if considered necessary or expedient, an alternative which will improve the composition of the court while at the same time preserving its judicial character; (3) to consider and report whether section 31 of “ The Valuation Land Act, 1908,” affords an owner who is not satisfied with the value of his land as fixed by the Assessment Court an equitable alternative; (4) to report upon the methods of the Valuation Department in making valuations; and generally _to make inquiry into any other matters which may come under the notice of the commission in the course of its inquiries. The commission is to report by December 21. November -25. Sittings of the Valuation of Land Commission are now being held in Wellington. At to-day’s sitting Mr L. 0. 11. Tripp appeared on behalf of certain leaseholders and freeholders who had recently been before the Assessment Court. He dealt first with the constitution of the court, and said objectors could not expect to get justice unless they had a representative on an arbitrating body. In the cases to which he referred he did not suggest that the gentlemen who acted as assessors were in any way dishonest; but they were appointed by a body whose interest it was to keep up values, and their natural bias was against objectors to him. The court was un-English. Objectors had no chance. Before they went there they knew that, and therefore very few objections had been made recently. Another point which objectors wished inquired .into was the method of arriving at the valuation. They thought productivity should be the consideration. Mr Tripp quoted one case in which £2OO a foot was paid for what he valued at £l2O The sale was made because the purchasers, a wealthy firm, wanted freehold laud in that particular place. The sales did not indicate the value. The real test was productivity. A good deal of further argument was heard, and the commission adjourned.