The Waipa Post. PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY AND FRIDAY TUESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1912. UNIMPROVED RATING.

Waipa Post, Volume IV, Issue 158, 29 October 1912, Page 2

The Waipa Post. PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY AND FRIDAY TUESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1912. UNIMPROVED RATING.

- ■ -. OUR leading article of Tuesday last has been the subject of con-

siderable co aim ant, and in s >me quarters it is freely asserted that we have changed our opinions in regard to the question of rating on unimproved value. This is not correct. We have not yet expressed ourselves as being in favour ot or opposed to any particular method of rating, That the article in question should have been read in such a way as to indicate that we opposed the proposal shows that some of our critics are inclined to believe that, unless we uphold their views

in their entirety, we are directly and deliberately opposing them. Rating on unimproved value, when viewed from one standpoint, is a nasty pill to swallow, and while there

is much to commend it these questionable points must be taken into, consideration, if one is to deal fairly with the question. At first sight the individual-ratepay-er is favourably impressed when told that the amount of his ratable property is to be reduced. Maybe it is—and in some cases will be —loaded on to the other fellow, but it must ' not be lost sight of that the total amount collected under the present system will require to be collected under any proposed sys-

tem. Thus if the total ratable value is reduced/ the amount of the rate levied will, of necessity, have to be increased in a like manner. As pointed out in the article for the publication of which we are accused of t wisting, to rate on the unimproved values would exempt £BI,OOO out of a total of £125,000 worth of property from taxation (old valuation) which would mean that,. instead of the

present rate of id in the £ it would be necessary to strike a rate of between 3%d and 4d in the £ to yield the same return. But our object to-day was not to go into the pros and cons of the question, but merely to contradict the statement so freely made by certain critics that we have altered our views. In support of our denial we will go back to August 20th on which date we published a special article from the Official Year Book, 1911. This aiticle explained the principles of rating on the unimproved value, and showed what steps are necessary to bring the system into

force. On August 23rd we quoted from an article which appeared in the Horowhenua Chronicle opposing the system, and concluded our ai tide by jpublishing a letter written to the same journal in strong support of the proposal. Then again, on Tuesday last, we advanced a number of questions relative to the proposal and questions which,

if ratepayers are not too partisan, they must satisfactorily'' answer before voting for or against the proposal. That is a summary of the stand we have taken, and because we do not agree with the advocates of the proposal we are alleged to be twisters. We welcome correspondence on the matter in order that ratepayers may have the fullest opportunity of hearing whatever arguments are to be raised for or against this important proposal. We sincerely hope that our critics more particularly will support their views through our columns.