RATING ON UNIMPROVED VALUES.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 12084, 13 August 1917, Page 6

RATING ON UNIMPROVED VALUES.

- —<• —— MR H. G. ELI/3 ADDRESS AT LYTTELTON. Mr 11. 0. Ell, M.P., at the invitation of the Lyttolton Citizens' Association, addressed ratepayers in the Excelsior Hall, Lyttolton, on Saturday evening, on the" system of rating on unimproved values. There was a fair attendance. -Mr F. \Y. Anderson presided. The speaker said that he had given much time and attention to this particular system of rating. He would not say 'it was a perfect system, but it was.the most fair, and would help tinsmall property owner. The system had been adopted in Christehureh in 1901. Woolston had adopted it, and though two attempts had been made to go back to the old system these had failed. Sumner, Sc\v Brighton, Sproydon, Linwood, Sydenham and Riccarton had also adopted the system, and had not gone back. Forty boroughs had rating on unimproved values in vogue and retained it. Only in live cases in the whole of the Dominion had the system been reversed.

The present system was a cruel one. The valuer would go round from street to street to inquire the rental values of properties, from which he would deduct 10 per cent, and this fixed the annual value of rating. A property might bo valued at £35 rental value per annum, and an adjoining property of the same size, on which an old house stood, might be valued at only £ls per annum. The owner of the latter property therefore would be called on to pay a much cheaper rate. This gave no encouragement to the man who took a prido in his property. If he should add improvements to his property his rates under the present system would bo increased. That was unfair as the people who contributed most largely to the support of tho borough most heavily rated. It might be asked if it was not a fact that the man owning a fourteen-roomed house would benefit to a greater extent than the owner of a five-roomed house? or " How would the system affect an owner who could not afford to improve his property,'''' Tho speaker was of the opinion that the fairest system of rating was that which best suited the majority. It was more equitable to rate on values that AvolTld increase than on values that would decrease. I'nder normal conditions tho tendency of land values was to increase while improvements depreciated ■'-in value. Taxing tho improvements meant taxing labour, material, etc.. which had created the value of the homo. lit the case of an owner having a section valued at £l5O and a house valued at £450 under the present system the. owner is required to pay rates on £OOO value, Avhereas nuclei- the unimproved system of rating he would pay on the value of the section only, which proved that the small holder would benefit even if the rate was double or treble. A special clause provided for a lower rate on land useii lor agi "'cultural or dairying purposes. But on the other hand il an owner refused to fake, for instance, £7O or £BO for his .section if subdivided he should not expect to derive the benefit of ibis clause.

Mr Ell asked those present to give the system ;i trial for a term, and promisor! to help ratepayers in every possible way if tliev so decided. At the eonoliision of the address numerous questions were asked the speaker. A hearty vote of thanks was aeeorded to Mr Ell for his interesting address.