LAND VALUATIONS

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20107, 29 November 1939, Page 10

LAND VALUATIONS

DETERMINING FACTORS DIFFERENCE OF OPINION COURT AND DEPARTMENT SALES AND PRODUCTIVITY (According to opinions expressed at a sitting of the Assessment Court in Palmerston North, the Valuation Department places greater reliance on recent sales of properly in determining the capital value of farm lands, but the view of the president of ihe court, Mr. A. A. McL'achlan. of Christchurch, is that the main determining factor should be productivity.

More than the usual amount of interest is being taken in the sitting, in that there are over 000 objectors to the recent revaluation of the Manawatu County by the Government. All these cases will not come before the court, however, agreement having been reached to consider 15 of them as test cases. These 15 are distributed throughout the county and are typical of the areas in which they are located. The Better Basis The president expressed the opinion that after the ups and downs of the last few years productivity was a better basis for valuations. Years of sad experience showed that a willing purchaser would pay anything, 'but the court would not single out production as the only criterion. It would have to take into consideration as well such things as the extra demand for land in a particular locality, transport facilities, proximity to markets, etc.

The court would not be out of step ' with the Act by refusing to consider what a willing purchaser was agreeable to pay, 'because the Act said nothing about it.

The methods adopted -by valuers also came in for a little criticism from the chairman. One witness in that category stated that in making a revaluation he went fortified with previous figures in respect of the unimproved value, and all he did was to revise the improvements. Hard Facts and Figures The chairman commented that such was not a' revision at all. ' Witness explained that as a junior officer he did not feel like putting his knowledge against those who were his superiors, but he admitted that lie could have altered the unimproved value had he thought it necessary.

When it was admitted by a departmental witness that in addition to the valuers who had given evidence two other valuers had 'been over a certain farm to revise the figures, but were not .being called, the chairman desired to know why. He added that as yet the court had not heard from a valuer who had got down to hard facts and figures. By declining to call the 'best evidence the department was leaving the court high and dry. “At present we have only diplomatic methods of arriving at valuations and little that is scientific,” Mr. McLachlan added. Figures prepared by other valuers were submitted.