The Hokitika Guardian. THURSDAY. FEB. 15th. 1923. A RATING ISSUE.

Hokitika Guardian, 15 February 1923, Page 2

The Hokitika Guardian. THURSDAY. FEB. 15th. 1923. A RATING ISSUE.

Thk question of t Go system of County rutin" came up at the meeting of the Westland County Council on Tuesday, and there was an interesting discussion on the subject. The matter arose over a proposed step having for its object the introduction of rating on the unimproved value. Hitherto the local system of rating has been on the capital value, which is the gross value of the land, with all buildings and improvements included. Tlie unimproved value is determined as the solo value of the land, without any improvements. For some time there has been an agitation for rating on unimproved value on the principle that the enterprising occupant should not lie penalised as it were for his improvements. Heretofore there was objection to the course, because the actual valuation itself was made on Fne capital system, and there had not been that regard For the apportionment of the unimproved value, which the equities of the ease called for. On the occasion of the last valuation it was suggested more attention should he shown to the equalising of values, and that the valuer should apportion the value,, for improvements, and the unimproved value equitably. On that account there is now a more equitable basis to work upon, There are however. certain

facts about Westland which put severely to the test at times, the general principle affecting the rating on unimproved value. Some of the councillors saw the difficulties and Cr Ward who had a good grip of the question put the doubts and difficulties rather plainly and as a result the Council did not move hurriedly to either a positive or a negative decision on the main question. A report has been asked for, and tlie whole question is to he gone into more leisurely with the object of eliciting all there is to he said affecting any side to the issue. By reason of the County containing mining properties and interior mining townships as against pastoral and agricultural land, the application of the general principle is rendered somewhat complex. 'l'be present movement emanates chiefly from the settlers in the south with the idea that individually they will derive a measure of benefit and relief by the change in the incidence of taxation. This is not altogether clear though no doubt there will be several instances, where relief more or less of moment will be experienced. Hut it is manifest that tile township residents occupying small sections will d< rive a palpable advantage. The difference in that, case will have to be passed on to the larger hold areas constituting the greater amount of unimproved value. Whilo a township section carrying a business building or a, residential property has to pay perhaps pounds in rates on the capital value system, the unimproved value of the small area of land occupied would perhaps involve only shillings in rates. The difference would have to be made up by the holders of the larger areas, further there is the complication of milling property itself, the valuation of which is already based on what is practically unimproved value. An additional burden would he placed on such lands because the rate per pound will be sixty to eighty per cent higher on the unimproved basis. This impost would tend to restrict enterprise very often, and that would react adversely on a district far more seriously than any advantage tu he derived from the actual rating involved. These special conditions which affect- the general principle require pondering over carefully, liecause it is not the personal advantage only which has to ho taken into account, hot the general effect of the applied principle. Actually there are but a limited number of county districts which have adopted rating on onimproved value. There is probably a reason for that, and that might he exceptional circumstances akin to what is suggested here. Where, of course, unimproved values arc uniform throughout a district, the general position leaves very little to object to. for there is the feeling that under equal conditions, a. penalty in rates should not be imposed for improvements. So far as the Council is concerned, the matter is mainly for the ratepayers to determine, for tlie reason that under whatever system is in vogue, tlie Council may levy equal to its statutory requirements. It is for the ratepayers, therefore, to consider what is the fairest position for all. interests within the County, and to seek to mould the rating system to meet the needs of the ease accordingly.