URBAN LANDS

Evening Post, Volume CXIV, Issue 125, 23 November 1932, Page 5

URBAN LANDS

THE EATING PROBLEM

BILL BEFORE HOUSE

Members of the House of Eepresentatives showed little interest in the Urban iFarni-lands Eating Bill yesterday, and the second reading was agreed to in quick time. The committee stages were not proceeded with.

The speech of the Minister of Internal Affairs (the Hon. A. Hamilton), in moving the second reading, was published in "The Post" last evening. Mr. W. H. Field (Government, Otaki) said that no doubt the Bill was framed on the right lilies, and would give relief to people holding small areas on farm lands in boroughs. He considered, however, that there should be a special provision for boroughs which had carried rating on unimproved value. Eating on unimproved value had operated unfairly, and, in fact, it had become confiscation in many boroughs. He criticised the constitution of-, the Assessment Court, and contended that a court- on which a 4and agent was a member was unsatisfactory. Mr. D. G. Sullivan (Labour, Avon) said the weak spot in the Bill was that any concessions that were secured by holders of urban farm-lands would definitely have to be paid for by other people in the boroughs, and that was why he doubted the wisdom of introducing the measure at the present time. The holders of two or three, acres of land were not the poorest section of the community: the poorest section were the relief workers ■ who owned property and had to pay rates on it. It did not seem equitable that the relief workers should be asked to- pay for concessions which it was .proposed to make to holders of small areas. In normal times he would probably support the Bill, but ho doubted ■ffhether it was "wise to go ahead with it at present. There were many ratepayers who needed more relief than those cited under the Bill, and he did not think any one class should get special treats nient at the present time. He considered that the measure be postponed until times got a little better. . .'

Mr. W. Nash (Labour, Hutt) said that the principle of the Bill was long overdue, but at present the relief workers who were unable to meet their rates should also get consideration. It was obvious that, a reduction of rates for any section of a borough meant an increase in the rates for the other sections. Ample safeguards ' should be taken to prevent speculation, because it was quite possible for a person to farm a small area near'the heart of a borough for ■ the purpose of reaping the appreciation 'in values. The Bill should provide that when; a farming area was sold for. building purposes, then something should accrue to the borough... . , ,

_v-. A, Labour' member: The betterment .'_'.'.''■.

;..Mr.. Nash: Yes, a betterment prin'cip'lel ■',■■;.. \ . ' ; -;.

.. Jffr. Nash said that land was worth only what.it returned after all expenses hai been., paid, and a reduction in rites' would- mean, 'that the value of the landappreciable. Eates should he. ' levied in proportion to benefits received and services rendered. The benefits were not always" ascertainable. at. the time. He. would be glad to give relief to anyone using'land productively, but there were otheraspects to be considered at the present time. . .

i Mr. H. G. Dickie (Government, Patea) said if was"-doubtful, whether the Bill would give- the relief it.set out to do, as the farm lands would not be relieved from special: rates, such as lighting and water. He agreed "that x land which' was being held for building purposes should not be entitled to the privileges of the Bill. ;

Mr. H. Atmore (Independent, Nelson) supported the Bill on the ground that a real hardship existed in many small' towns, such as Nelson. The land was not required for building purposes, and it was unfair that it shouia. be subject to the full rating. -He agreed that if there was an improved valiie; on farm lands as the result of the passage of the Bill, part' of this improved, value should be.taken by the borough in the event of-the -land -being, sold ■ ■ .The.Bill wasread a second'time. ■>