Correspondence

Progress, Volume XIII, Issue 10, 1 June 1918, Page 233

Correspondence

The Editor, “Progress,” Wellington. Deal' Sir, — The article in the April number of “Progress” by Air. George Fowlds on Town Planning is most interesting and to the point, and one cannot but, agree with most of what he has written. Mr. Fowlds, however, makes a great point about the necessity of adopting the system of voting upon “unimproved values.” This system, may or may not be the best, but it certainly should not be adopted unless stringent regulations as to the number of houses per acre, width of frontage, etc., are parts of the system. This form of rating tends to make owners fill up their land to the greatest possible extent, and results in congestion, which cannot be regarded as ideal. Even if regulations are passed such as mentioned, it usually means an end of large gardens, or even moderate sized ones, which help so much to make the suburbs of our towns healthy and beautiful. Paling on “unimproved values” also comes very hard on privately-owned golf links, tennis courts, etc., which although not available for the public at large, yet fulfil a most important function in creating and maintaining open spaces, which act as “lungs” to the cities, add greatly to the amenities of the district, and (in the case of golf links) provide most pleasant opportunities for the public to ramble about in open fields. No doubt Mr. Fowlds has considered all these points and can answer any objections satisfactorily,

but to my mind his paper was hardly complete, without those answers. I am, etc., BASIL HOOPER, A.R.1.8.A., Joint Hon. Sec. Dunedin Town Planning Society. [Note.—We referred the above letter to Mr. Geo. Powlds, junr., whose reply follows.—Ed.]