Manawatu Herald. THURSDAY, MAY 29, 1902. Unimproved Value Rating.

Manawatu Herald, 29 May 1902, Page 2

Manawatu Herald. THURSDAY, MAY 29, 1902. Unimproved Value Rating.

A petition has been presented to the Borough to take a poll forthwith as to the introduction of rating on the unimproved value of the property within the Borough. The petitioners are fully within their rights in taking this course and we think that Councillors have been remiss in their duty in not having taken this matter into their consideration long ere this, and determined, from reliable data, what are tht advantages both for and against the proposal, instead of having the matter thus forcibly presented before them. To a man holding property of any value the question of rating is of much moment, but as we have seen, even with a local body of nine Councillors, such a momentous question haa been dallied with until the patience of the general public is exhausted. We very much regret this, as the voice of the people in matters financial is apt to be unconsidered and hasty, and though it may, and probably will be, argued that other towns have adopted the Unimproved Rating Act, yet it must admitted that there are more that have not, showing, as in this borough that circumstances seriously alter cases. We are by no means regretting that the matter should be discussed in all its bearings, and the most regretable step in the present proceedings is that the question must go to the poll without either side necessarily being heard. ' If the Council had listened to the ratepayers month* ago when the first small voice was raised as to rating, they could have acted in a businesslike manner and had prepared a schedule of the present rate, the rental, the capital value and the unimproved value and could then have had a thorough knowledge of both sides of the question and been able, as was their duty, to advise the ratepayers. The dilly-dallying with important matters may possibly result, and we will show further on, to a general change in the whole character and constitution of this borough. The public and proper view of the question is not how the proposed change affects a ratepayer pera nally, but how it affects the enjoyment of the whole. The question is of one of so much importance that it is % matter of the greatest regret the Act forces on a poll so shortly after a petition is lodged. The result will be a lottery, all voters acting without being in a position to thoroughly grasp the question. It is very easy to point out to a number of people that they will have slightly reduced rates to pay, but the advocates for the alteration are not likely to point out to people how much more rates they will have to pay. One thing is quite sure, that whereas the Act empowers the Council to collect an equal revenue to that they were receiving before the altera- 1 tion in the mode of rating was made no total reduction will be secured. As an equal sum in rates will have to be made up it is clear that the rate per se must be an increased one, so that the smaller ratepayers will bo paying perhaps, on a lesser sum in value, yet they may have, all the same to pay as much money as their rates formerly came to. It is likewise clear that those holding country lands will have to pay much more. Why this should be is explained by the present rental value of borough being £544 2s 6d, whilst the capital

value of the borough by the last Land Tax Valuation is £94,176.

The improved value is £52,286, and the improved value is £41,891. If the unimproved value is to be ignored by the valuer, the borough has to raise additional taxation to make good the loss of rating on £52,285. The present, rats is calculated as one shilling and three pence in the pound on the rental value*, and the Act specifies that for purposes of calculation three farthings in the pound on the capital value shall be deemed equivalent to one shilling in the pound on the rental, and according to this basis our present rate is a trifle under one penny on the rating value. Supposing therefore that we accepted the unimproved value, the sum of £41,891 would only give us a rate of £174 10s, no matter who has to pay it, but as the Act permits and rather encourages the local body to keep up their rating, the sum of £869 12s 6d, a little over two-thirds more, would have to be raised. It is evident then that the supposed reduction created by this new manner of rating would not be so decidedly cheaper than the one in use. As one penny in the pound only produces £174 10s it is clear that to bring the new rate up to the present rate three-pance on the unimproved value would have to be raised. How much difference this would make to each individual is one that is not to be discovered off-hand and thus the race to the poll may be one in which any of the ratepayers, except perhaps the smallest, may make a bad mistake, and they will discover that there were better ways of determining, snob an important question than simply asking that a poll be taken upon it off-hand. One thing is beyond dispute and that is the largest holdings in land will be burdened with far too heavy a rate if the ratepayers of the borough believe all past valuations have been fair. That they did so we think is cleiras no general outcry has ever been raised against them. Towns are generally supposed *to possess boundaries within which building operations oould, and would likely be, carried on. It cannot be contended for one moment that Foxfcon possesses such boundaries, and under these, conditions the scheme of rating on unimproved valuation cannot work, that is to say with' such mixed lands. If a portion of the borough cannot see their way to give and take with other portions not so situated it cannot be expected that owners will be quiescent when rated out of all ! proportion as to their needs of communication and conveniences, a smaller portion of the borough desire. It will be their duty to remedy the I defect at the earliest opportunity, | and the means of escape are in their : hands. This being so the smaller | portion of the borough will be left to ! make their own rating and it will : very little matter in what manner as ! then the loss and gain will be pro- ' portioned. We point this out, as the borough would lose importance ■ and rates, and be much less able to advance the prosperity of the district as it now oould if properly conducted. There is a great deal more that could be written on this subject but the argument as to its adoption really includes the subdivision of the borough and the reduction of its income, as what are called the unimproved country lands (though they are improved as far as it is of any value to improve them), could never stand the strain the unimproved rating would make on them. The ratepayers when deciding the matter at the poll will need to consider it from this standpoint and not personally, if they wish well to the borough. To show that this is not simply a cry of wolf we quote a few extracts from the rate-book: —Some farms, one of which is now paying 56s 9d in rates would have to pay 85s 6d ; another paying 50s would have to pay 80s. Rome larger blocks now paying 60s would have to pay 150 s ; now paying £l6 11s would have to pay £80; now paying 37a would have to pay 90s; now paying £3 5s would have to pay £8 19a 6d ; and another pay£9 14s would have to pay 1 £l6 ss. The excess is, as will lie seen, a great deal too much, and farmers have not the need or the advantage of roads which lies amongst a more thickly populated part, but of the cost of which they have been for years contributing to.