The Waikato Times With which is Incorporated The Waikato Argus. SATURDAY, JUNE 29, 1929. RATES AND MUDDLE.

Waikato Times, Volume 105, Issue 17750, 29 June 1929, Page 6

The Waikato Times With which is Incorporated The Waikato Argus. SATURDAY, JUNE 29, 1929. RATES AND MUDDLE.

The heavy burden of local taxation on farmers in town areas has been recognised by the Ward Government as well as its predecessor. It is very difficult, and often Impossible, to make farming pay on land valued at £2OO an acre or more and heavily rated for town conveniences. Relief is certainly needed, but the legislation on the subject promised by the Minister of Internal Affairs, Mr de la Perrelle, seems more likely to lead 'to confusion than to any real benefit. It is proposed to permit boroughs, if they so choose, to classify their lands into three divisions—building land, potential building land and farm land—and “to make the incidence of rating as far as possible proportionate to the benefits which the lands receive from the borough services or would receive if such lands were put to their proper use-” Possibly the details of the Bill will give a different impression, but the outline offered by the Minister hardly promises a final solution of the problem. Where is the farm land in any borough that is not potential building land, and how is it possible to draw a line between potential building land and actual building laud? In some boroughs there are areas of 15 or 20 acres used for farming. One block may be held by a genuine farmer, whose only concern is to go on with his work of milking a few cows, rearing pigs or growing ciops for the market. Another may be held by a rich man deliberately for the speculative value, but he, of course, sees that it is farmed so as to return him some revenue in the time of waiting. How is it possible to draw a line between the two “farmers” ? The proposal to make the Incidence of rating "proportionate to the benefits which the lands receive from the borough services” seems more reasonable, but surely It is on this basis to a very large extent that valuations are assessed at present. The best that can be said for the proposal—unless it takes a different form in the actual Bill—is that boroughs are safeguarded by the promise that they may accept it or reject it, as they choose. It is hardly possible to imagine that boroughs will commit themselves to the muddlemenl of such a scheme.

However, it is very desirable that relief should be afforied to the farmers on the outskirts of our towns, and, if the discussion on the subject in Parliament gives an Indication of some practicable scheme, it will be very welcome. The farmers are most seriously affected in places where the rating is on the unimproved value. It should be noted that, though the Government’s proposed Bill refers only to borough lands, farmers in suburban areas that are under county control are in just as bad a position. They also have to pay rates on assessments based bn the building value rather than the farming value of their holdings. Statesmen ought to be able to devise legislation that will apply equally to all who need relief. What then is to be done? It would hardly be possible for a Government to repeal the Rating on Unimproved Value Act, and it does not seem likely that the steady progress towards the general acceptance of that plan will give place to a movement in the opposite direction. Each locality that has accepted this method of rating has done so of its own choice. More than half the. people of . the Dominion now live under the regime of

rating on unimproved values. Of the boroughs (including the cities) 62 per cent, (with G6A per cent, of the borough population) have chosen this plan. Assuming that no general reversion to rating on capital or annual values is is it not still possible to afford relief to struggling suburban farmers? Two feasible plans suggest themselves. The local authority could be empowered to defer payment of a part of the rates (n these suburban farms until they are actually subdivided for building purposes; thus the farmer would be relieved, whilst the speculator would not be enriched at the cost of the community. Also, power might be given to local bodies to acquire (by means of bond issues) any lands whose owners regarded the rates as excessive. Valuations are now' automatically reduced to the price at which an owner is willing to sell to the State; but this provision is of little value in checking town and suburban valuations, as the State land-buying department has no desire for any but large farm properties. An owner can therefore practically bluff, the Government into very heavy reductions. The fact that very few do so seems to indicate that holders have a keen sense of future as well as present values. However, it is certainly to the advantage of the community that vacant lands on the outskirts of our towns should be farmed, and rating adjustments for the purpose of encouraging farming are highly desirable. If Parliament offers a practicable scheme, the local authorities will not be slow to use it.