Hokitika Guardian & Evening Star TUESDAY, JUNE 15th, 1920, THE VALUE LEASEHOLD.

Hokitika Guardian, 15 June 1920, Page 2

Hokitika Guardian & Evening Star TUESDAY, JUNE 15th, 1920, THE VALUE LEASEHOLD.

Yesterday wo quoted Mr Anstey cx, M.P., on the subject of land tenures. Mr Anstey is a firm believer in the virtues of the leasehold for the advancement of settlement. The course f events in this country j n recent years should be helpful in arresting public opinion on the vital question of land tenures and for this reason we would like to-day to quote Mr Anstey further and reprint the views he has formed as a result of practical experience in regard to settlement. He goes on to deal with an aspect of the freehold tenure which applies specially to Westland where there is so much pastoral .couintry. He says;,— I do not think that the freehold is a particularly suitable tenure for oastoral country. This country must he held in fairly large areas; it is remote rough and subject to severe climatic conditions; mortgage, , if obtainable, would require a very Wide margin, so that the occupier would require largo means; hence it would bo hold by investors or speculators, probably absentees, rather than by working resident sheep-farmers. But if held on leasehold in moderate areas, a working sheep-farmer of modest means, if accompanied by experience and industry, could easily finance the stock and.othir working expenses of such a holding. But what does all this cry of freehold versus leasehold amount to? Strictly I speaking we have almost no freeholds in this country, nor shall we ever have. It is true that there has been, a consi lerable increase in the number of freeholds under recent legislation, but there has been a still greater increase in tlie amount of the mortgage. If we take the total unimproved value of ali the freehold land in New Zealand, it is of less value than the amount of the mortgages; in other words the freeholders own less than the value of their improvements. How does this differ materially from the, leasehold? In fact, in no country, nor in any ?go, so far as my researches go, does the occupier of the land really own the

land he occupies, nor will he ever do so under present economic conditions. A man that actually owns a fair-sized farm auu capital to work it lias sufficient wealth to live in comfort on the interest of his capital without the bother and rik osf working a farm and generally adopt the course of handing his farm over to someone without thg. means to buy but under the necessity of working to live on some terms of hire either as rent <r

interest ■ and this is the ultimate des- , tiny of all our lands—viz., that lbo j occupier will hold his land on terms of hire from the real owner, be no | private freeholder, mortagee, ihe Clown, or other leasing authority. , Why, then this cry for the freehold ? 1 The answer is simple: If land can be | acquired at low initial value, and disposed of later at a high price, there Is clearly a profit in this trade outside the return from occupation. The right to- acquire, the freehold at tlie original value of a lease in perpetuity or a renewable lease is of no value to the occupier while he remains in occupation, but if he wants to sell, it enables aim to pocket any increase in value in adai- < tion to his return from occupation. While strictly speaking wo have n.. freehold, neither can it be said that we have any real leaseholds or secure leaseholds. The lease in perpetuity may fairly ,l>e described as possessing all the advantage of the freehold with none of its obligations. It can betraded with. It does not involve the sinking of money in the capital value. It pays no Land Tax. The renewable lease, owing to its length of lease, has nearly the same advantages. The only drawback to the occupier in these tenures is nearly as bad as the trading m free holds. Most of the tenures granted by educational, church and pub’ic bodies arc insecure, and are a great bar to settlement, production and development.. I believe that all our Crown endowment and publicly owned land should be retained under a 'leasehold tenure under Government administration. The lease should be an interminable one, but subject to revision of ground rent only, at much shorter periods, say 10 years or even less. This wou'ld largely kill this trading in goodwills and would largely meet the objection that values of im-

provements • are uniascertainable. through lapse of time. We all seem to he impressed with the idea that land will always rise in value in the future as it has done in,the past, • nd a shorter period for revaluation may he of advantage to the occupier, jn any case, occupation would be secured to him for all time so long as he desired it at a fair rent. His improvements would be secured to him while he occupied and paid for at full value if from any cause he desired to give up possession of his holding. As population increase and access and conveniences incease, areas not too large *"0day will have to he closer settled and provision for s.ub-division must be made ; but rights of sub-division must always carry with them the light of the occupier to retain undisturbed one sufficient sized sub-division .and full payment for any improvements he i- ay have made on the surrendered porportiou. I believe that under such a system improvement would go on ..list as well as under the freehold. We must not forget that this buying, of land to sell again does not mean real settlement. Improvements- are ' n. t always made from a production point of view, .but sometimes just to sell, and there is always a loss of time and production during the periods of exchanging owners. Many farms have changed, hands- several times lately, leaving the final occupier saddled with an incubus of debt that must increase the cost of production and keep him poor all his life, while the lucky trader in these lands walks off with his profits, perhaps invested in tax-free securities ; he can then live in idleness on the toll extracted from his speculation iiv' public land.