RATING SYSTEMS

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 13, 6 April 1927, Page 10

RATING SYSTEMS

By THE MAN IN THE STREET. (Written for THE SUN.) As the time approaches for the general election of members of local bodies, the old argument, “Capital value versus unimproved value,” invariably comes forward as a topic of conversation among ratepayers in the growing suburban areas. At present it is of special interest in the Mount Albert and Mount Roskill districts, where population is increasing by leaps and bounds, and where the demand for reading, drainage, water supply and lighting is taxing to the utmost the engineering abilities of officials concerned. A decade or so back both districts were literally “in the country,” but the enormous demand for city extension has brought into closer settlement hundreds of acres of hill and dale. The cost of necessary civic improvements rapidly mounts, and the debt of each local body must of necessity keep pace with it. Here comes the tug-of-war —capital v. unimproved. All along the years rating on capital value has been in vogue in these rural districts and is the system most generally followed in sparsely-settled districts. The system provides that owners of property shall be rated on the value of their land plus the value of any improvements they make by way of buildings, fencing, etc. So long as the district remains a rural or farming district there is not much trouble as to the rating system; but when land-owners begin to sense the demand for building sites and to cut up their holdings into small sections for this purpose, the call for rating on unimproved values, that is, value of the land only, invariably makes its appearance. To a large extent the trouble is caused by Mr. S. (the speculator). When the sections are put on the market some are bought by those needing homes and intending to build at once, or in the near future; others, however, are secured by persons who have - a little spare cash and who, anticipating a big rise when the trams come along in a few years’ time, hope to double their, money. Meanwhile the genuine home-seekers set to work improving their holdings and building homes for their families. As soon as they do this the Government valuer puts up the valuation accordingly. Then the local body sends in the rate demand, rating the homebuilders at from £BOO to £1,200, according to the official figures. Mr. S. also gets the rate demand for each of his dozen sections which are interspersed among the homes. His rates, however, are based on the £2OO or so he paid for his sections. The fun now begins, and the home-builders cry out bitterly against the system that penalises a ratepayer for improving his property. Mr. S. retorts that he is not using the new road, nor the drainage, nor the water supply, and therefore should not pay for them until he builds. His opponents return to the attack with the argument that they have enhanced his values by building and by having the drainage and water supply brought to his gate. So the wrangling goes If districts were so placed geographically that all land could be used at owners’ option for closer settlement, the adopting of a suitable rating system would be a comparatively simple matter, and no one except the speculator himself would object to owners of vacant sections, suitable for homes, being called upon to pay rates as high as the owner who has built a home. Unfortunately, however, our boroughs and road districts are made up of various types of land, some suitable for closer settlement, some quite unsuitable. It is this fact that causes numerous arguments whenever a change is asked for from rating on capital value to rating on unimproved value. Holders of large areas kept for farming purposes in close proximity to closely-settled areas naturally fight against a change unless they consider the time ripe for the cutting-up of their property. Even then they, of course, prefer that the capital system be retained until all the sections are sold. Their opponents argue that the farmer must move back as closer settlement advances. The owner of the rural land insists that he will be most unfairly rated if forced to pay on unimproved value of his farming land, as he will be taxed heavily on, say, the 20 acres from which he makes his living, while 20 acres of closer settlement nearby has the rates divided among perhaps 80 people. The “unimproved” supporter returns once more with the argument that the cases of the two 20-acre blocks in question are not parallel, since the farmer’s 20 acres is probably valued at not more than £IOO per acre, whereas the 20 acres closer in are valued at £2OO per 1-5 acre, or £I,OOO per acre. When all the arguments are boiled down, one realises that the whole matter of paying rates is a prominent part of our business, and consequently the upshot is that each person will favour the system that suits his own pocket. There is no sentiment about rating, and arguments based on sentiment do not carry much weight. When the supporters of the “unimproved” rating system gain sufficient numerical strength they petition the local body for a poll on the question. The borough’s, or the board’s, notification that a poll is to be taken is the signal for mobilisation of forces, and notable exponents of each system take the platform. Despite our vaunted system of practical education, it is astounding to learn that a large percentage of ratepayers have given no thought whatever to the subject, and are entirely ignorant as to how a change in rating system will affect them. This “percentage” is the game that the platform men are after. Given equal effort on the part of each committee of workers, the poll almost invariably results in the carrying of unimproved value if those with homes on small sections are more numerous than owners of farming land and vacant sections. If they are less numerous the “bare majority” is not obtained for the proposal. In other words, it’s “every man for himself.”

Strive your utmost to avoid all the old-fashioned, unhealthy things about a home—-dust-raising brooms and feather-dust-ers, elaborate hangings that catch every bit of fluff and dirt, extra heavy pieces of furniture which are difficult to move. Vacuum cleaners, for instance, are among the best of modern inventions, making housework far cjuicker, easier, and more hygienic, and easily laundered materials have replaced the heavy plushes and velvets of a couple of decades ago. Men may make an encampment, but it is the woman who makes the home.— Chinese proverb. Avoid meal-time monotony. Tempting new dishes, crisp salads in the hot summer days, and little surprises add a zest to the table. And there is a double delight in a meal —whether it be breakfast, luncheon or dinner—on a verandah or garden table. This is not difficult to arrange with cold dishes.

The reproduction is that of a handsome new block of shops just completed in Victoria Road. Devonport, at an approximate cost of £7,000. Finished in Renaissance style the building makes a decided acquisition to this portion of the marine suburb. Four