ISSUE TO BE DECIDED.

Chronicle (Levin), 11 February 1949, Page 3

ISSUE TO BE DECIDED.

As was stated by the Mayor (Mr. Fitzgeraid) , there were two sides to the question an'd he expressed regret that there was not an opposition speaker present at the meeting to put forward the views of the present capital value system. The' following contributed items are published with the view to assisting ratepayers in making their important decision on Saturday:— The ratepayers know for a fact that the owners of the larger areas in the borough will promptly apply for exclusion if unimproved rating is carried. What effect would the exclusion of substantial areas from the borough have on the rates for the rest of the community? If there is farm land in the borough, .especially on the outskirts, and with no likelihoo'd -whatsoever bf being required for subdivisional purposes in the near future, then the Local Government Commission would either exclude it from the borough or it would be placed on the urban farm lands rating system. In either case it can be taken as definite that the disruption on the rest of -the borough will be enormous. The whole of the figures on which the proposed new rating system is base'd fall to the ground immediately. All their calculations are based on the present unimproved valuation, or on what they think will be the new unimproved valua- \

tion. ' By the time some land ..has been excluded or brought .under the Urban Farm Lands Act,* their figures will not mean a thi'ng. fistimating The" Rates Is it possible to give a~n estimate of rates Hmder • the ' unimprove'd system when it is not known ho'w much land the ■ borough will uiti-mate-y 'lose, or how much will be specially r'educed in valuation under the Urban Farm Lands Rating Act? If it is said that it ls the system of rating that creates the demand for sections, how is it explained that Levin, on the capital system, grew and thrived consistently during the past 20 or 30 years until the rating system was fchanged in 1945, while the neighbouring borough of Otaki during the same period on the unimproved system stagnated Tnis is true and it is also significant that since 1945 when the Levin Borough went on to the unimproved rating the population of Otaki has increased even more in percentage than Levin, although Otaki has remained on the unimproved. It is, therefore, not the system that creates the demand. 'Is not the unimproved system mainly designed to compel subdivision and to prevent speculators hoiding back the borough's progress by hoiding on to land? i This, of course, is the position and ratepayers must admit that tha,t is the main ob;ect of the unimproved system. It is a hateful system if . a borough is full up and it is an equally hateful system if a borough is empty and will not fill.up anyway. Supporters of the unimproved system are only speaking of the jgeneraL position. Do they know jthat there is no dearth of- sections in Shannon? If that is so then wny introduce' a system which is designed to bring about a state of .aflairs which is already in existence? The ratepayers will on'y get the disadvantages of the new system without any benefit. Burden On Business Area? Is it not a. fact that the unim--proved system of rating. plaees an undue burden on the business area? It must do this because th'e unimproved value of sections in the business area is very much greater in proportion than the unimpr'oVed value of residential sections. The business people, , therefore,, pay' much more than their fair proportion of the rates, get no more benefit than any one else and have to hand on to the consumer their increased rates or the increased rents that result: from . thoss increased rates, thereby intreasing the cost of living. Under unimproved rating. new houses could be built on a street already surveyed and approvqd by the council of which Shannon has many) , "but - riot served with road, footpaths, water supply, street lighting, ■ etc. This would involve the borough in a large expenditure without any increase in revenue. The only obvious thing to meet this expenditure would be a general increase in rates, Is there anything essentially fair between the aged pensioner with a three-roomed cottage on a rough piece of land having exactly the same rates every year as a doctor living next door on the same area, but with a £3000 house and his land well laid.out in lawris, garden, etc. This is the hnal absurdity of the unimproved system and, of 'course, as is well known the above actually is the position in Levin, where the pensioner and a doctor reside side by side and pay the identical rates. It is only fair to add that the doctor in question himself thinks that the position is silly.