VALUE OF LAND.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 20106, 9 December 1930, Page 13

VALUE OF LAND.

OBJECT. cases before assessment COURT. APARTMENT'S METHODS CRITICISED. .• ~ +hat tho Government Claiming properties were becaLc thc re - ClteaS 2!m farm products had drop- «• third, three & Canterbury run-holder? apWore the Assessment Court to ask that their valu--ponced. Evidence was » tion l? t0 show that some of the in the land had Zl disappeared, while the own,,hmif;ted values which they eIS 'htTheir runs would bring tofor .«le .» «..,T terms. The Department's method of valuing lands also came in for criticism, Zse 1 for the objectors stating that Tvaluations should be based on hat returns could be expected from Id to-day, not on a comparison of uj other properties in the neighbour- , . J had brought in the market. This, Lsaid, was the method by which the [three objectors wanted their farms T \bV G. L. Hewitt, S.M., presided oT j t the Court. With him were Mr W. (jjujingham, assessor for the Crown, j j£ r H. Wilkinson, assessor for dj Cheviot County. After the first _ j£ r Wilkinson's place was taken bTj[r L. A. Rutherford, assessor for L Waipara County, in whoso terriU the second and third properties rationed are situated. Kr D E, Wanklyn appeared for all fae objestors, while Mr E. Eggleston npruented the Department.

lowiy Peaks Property. - lie fiwt case concerned the valuation of Lowry Peaks, the owner, George b'JUaala Macdonald, contending that it Int over £IO,OOO too high. b.'A comparison of the values is:— f•' ItntJ nim- proveCapital. proved, ments. £ £ £ Dett.'« wluaiio'n .. 41,255 31,500 9,755 Owner 1 * v&lttltion 30,8-10 19,250 11,5G0 Mr Freemin's valuation -• 32,760 22,500 10,280 Mr Freeman was called as a witness h the objectors. Tall in Prices. Mr WanMyn said that, compared irifch 1919, there had been an actual reduction of £3885 in the capital value, about 8 per cent. Through the years, oa neaily all-lines of farm produce, there had been a reduction of from S3 per cent, to 50 per cent., while this year prices bad fallen by about 30 per cent, compared with what they were last year. Tie owner would give evidence to show that big ran carried 3540 sheep, 2650 ot which were ewes, and 200 breedipg cows. £ast year's gross returnn were £3591, while the expenses, disrei Riding personal expenses and interest ! capital, amounted to £2490, leav- ? a profit of £llOl. A Seasonable Return. , Hu Worship had stated, some time s igi), that 8 per cent, was a reasonable iitim for a farmer to expect, but, if jst year's profits were capitalised at ipo cent, they barely exceeded the tfpital Talue. Tho basis of caletila£6 a ewe and £3 a dry tap, 5E present day values—or even lut year's prices—were beyond all reaStL Department' s Methods. "It may be suggested," added Mr Tanilyi, "that it is the sale value determines the value of land acMfSiif to the Act. The returns are ■h tine means by which to determine IsTaJne of a particular property. Neittffisit any use quoting the case of toiler property nearby, which has wld for such and such a price. Wst determines the sale value is not Reprice paid for some similar property, ™ tie actual returns derived from it. Officers of the Department, when "ating valuations, proceed to the |>roPtyaad assess its capital value. They ™ tot up the improvements, which ®nthey deduct from the capital value, JPt the unimproved value, aaWorship: We all know that's the "Mg way. Jk.%Rleston: Mr Wanklyn is wrong; not our method. Our valuers *®M the unimproved value, then estis the value of the improvements, them, together to arrive at the *1 value. I am glad to hear that « the case'. J«Wanklyn went on to say that the had been bought by an uncle 'w present owner in 1903 for £3 5s waa then ring-fenced. The !, 8 prices about that time for fat were from 17s tp 19s 6d, and for ■Saw "^ 8 that time ijV ® e riao was bringing lid to Is fcWkdfhred.Bd to 10Jd. Last ttfinj *' P l "* o6 the owner obtained i'-fc ® * or hogget wool. ®' could not be anything was when the property in 1903. . . A Good Parmer. nj * M J dmitted that Mr Macdonald jjj ] IJI f 0 , ann€T i improved methIncreased the returns. Surface ftjj? breaking in had increased "firnnfl 0m farm from 90 bales while Mr Macdonald had put 5s a head on to 0 °* the ewes and 2s on to the Siu F°P er ty was situated about 12 (* 0 (,-j® Cheviot, and to reach it t- w hich often gave trouble, i •*> coßnfi^ lOSSed " was not one " pjitotot hut a good second-class N It was only by ®anrgement that the land was ~ ' a Produce what it did. the Return. »eat C f° ll * a ev idence, said that ! h Peaks in 1920 aa fithL ' he purchased it from SW'iJES 1 ?' £ 7. an acre. His ''tain ■jL mui ß had been to increase !' ""efeaap t? 01 stock rather than itself frying value of the . Jji "• y this means the returns ■ c J ease d without increasing °. Stoek - .J J?®** hy Mr Eggleston, the i"" that his was very CoUntr y- He had had, j-? o 'diii»» er cen t. of lambs, but, I' IMm "® ne thods of farming he than wou ld have been l*'Oper f, T , °®t 85 per cent. When »tterpfl v- been P ut on last >' ear h ' 8 property to the Gor6oir« 6 which ■ mment's valuation, plus

about & 10,000 for improvements. At that time he considered that it would bo preferable to sell rather than to pay the tax. Though Lowry Peaks was his home, and though he had spent ten of the best years of his life there, he believed he would be wise in accepting his value of £30,000 for it to-day. Mr Eggleston's Defence. Keferring to the method of valuation Mr Eggleston pointed out that, in the years of rising prices, the farmer said that the true value of his land could be assessed only on returns taken over a period of years; new, apparently, he wanted it assessed on present-day prices. Valuers' Evidence. Mr Albert Freeman, called by Mr Wankiyn to give his valuation, said

that he did not believe that his figures were justified by present-day prices. For example, in his estimate, lie had taken the price of wool at lOd per lb, but could anyone «ay Mr Macdonald was going to average that this year? • Mr Eggleston asked Mr Freeman if he would be interested to hear what two other properties in the neighbourhood wore valued at. "No," said Mr Freeman. Mr Eggleston: Do you know that the Land Act compels valuation on the selling price? Mr Freeman: Then I am sorry for the Act. Mr Eggleston held that a fair valuation based on valuations for other properties and years of experience had been made. The valuer who made the valuation, E. A. Kennedy, said he had inspected

the property in company with the owner and had estimated its value block by block, making the total unimproved estimate £.30,705. His Worship: Why these particular prices and not others? That's the question we want to get at. In reply to Mr Wanklyn, Mr Kennedy jaid he had made no estimate of what the conditions would be in the future. He had valued on the past, taking the average prices ruling over the last six years; he could not assess the future. Mr Wanklyn held that it was very important that a valuer should do this. The buyer wanted to know what he was going to get off the land. That was what governed the sale value of any property. This value was the amount that the buyer going on to the land today and inspecting it would be prepared to give.

Second Objection. The second objector was Derrick William Gould, owner of Mt. Cass, of 1400 acres. The three different values placed on the land were:— lmU ii i in - proveGapitj.L proved, merits. £ £ Dept.'s valuation .. 14,220 9,7)0 4,520 Owner's valuation 10,440 5,040 5,440 Mr Freeman's valuation .. 9,810 i,XSO 5,360 Mr Wanklyn said that Mr Gould had bought the property a little over three years ago for £.13 an acre and before the beginning of this year he had instructed hia book-keeper to write off £SOOO, for he realised that that had gone. He now believed that the value of the place was as much as £BOOO below that paid for it.

Carrying Capacity. The objector, in evidence, said that the place carried 1100 ewes, 400 hoggets, and 80 head of cattle. ' Last year his gross returns were £ISBB, while his working expenses, including interest on mortgage, were over £.1500. His wool averaged lid to Is pe* lb, and his lambs 17s 9d a head. He considered he would be lucky if he got 14s a head for lambs this year. Replying to !Mr Eggleston, he said that the property was bought by auction. To-day it was not for sale, but he was confident that the selling price would be lower than his valuation. Ernest Smedley Taylor, formerly owner of the property, who had known it in ISB9, said that on present-day costs, the land as it was then might not be worth £ 3 nn acre.

Third Objector. jyArcy Carrington Gardiner, owning a property nearby of 1392 acres, also appealed against what- he considered an exeessively high valuation. The different valuations were: — ImUnim- proveCapita), proved, ments. £ £ £ lu-pt.'a valuation .. 13,285 9,270 4,015 Ov"'fier's valuation 11,250 6,250 5,000 He went there in 1922, he said, paying £l3 an acre but he realised that a fair amount of the capital he put into it had now gone. The place carried 1150 ewes, 480 hoggets, and 50 cattle. The situation of his run was a little better than that of Mr Gould's property, but be could not make .more than a bare living out of it. Apart from interest, the receipts would about equal the expenditure. The Court, adjourned till this morning.