LAND VALUATION

Dominion, Volume 20, Issue 56, 30 November 1926, Page 13

LAND VALUATION

POLICY OF DEPARTMENT DISCREPANCIES UNAVOIDABLE In view of the discussion at the annual conference of Associated Chambers of Commerce last week concerning the advisability of revaluing the rural lands of the Dominion, some interest may be attached to a reply from the Minister of Lands (Hon. A. D. McLeod) to a request from the Farmers’ Union, “That the valuation of the Valuation Department and Of the Lands Department) be brought into line.” “I am not quite sure as to what is meant' by this remit.” says the Minister. “Values are not constant and no two set., of valuations made in complete harmony can be kept so if one is subject to periodical revision while the other is not. Your valuation, being a condition o f contract between the Crown and lessees or purchasers of Crown lands, cai.not be altered except by special legislation somewhat similar to the rev, luation provisions of the Discharged Soldiers Settlement Act, but I do not think that the Farmers’ Union could have intended its remit to be interpfeted as supporting such a proposal. Our values are subject to periodical revision tr meet the altering Conditions. I have had. as ydu know, a good deal to do with the valuers ih both Departments, and I believe thej’ are all working on the s:.me principles.” Replying to another remit, “That the Government be urged to make a general revaluation of all farm lands, and especially Native-owned lands,” the Minister says: “It is the policy of this Department to undertake a certain amount 6i revision every year, and a selection is made of those districts that appear, to be in tnost need of-revision. A simultaneous valuation of ail the farm lands of the Dominion is a work of such magnitude as to be quite impossible to accomplish. We are always pleased to give consideration to the representations of a •_ county council that may consider a revision of its district an urgent mat-