THURSDAY’S POLL.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXIX, Issue 3777, 12 November 1907, Page 2

THURSDAY’S POLL.

To the Editor. Sir, —Referring to your Saturday’s issue anent the above. It maj' be as well to look at the question from more than one point of view. Whether the reason for Rating on Unimproved Value is particularly urgent for Foxton, i.e., the subdivision of property for building purposes, you may be the better judge. Your remarks, “The man it hits up is the speculator,’’ cannot apply here, surely I doubt if you can point to a single “ Speculator” holding land and barring the progress of Foxton. The workers amongst us, and I am one, have had no difficulty in getting sections to build homes upon, or in getting the money to btxild, so what’s all the trouble about ? ; ; Pity it is we haven’t more speculation. I’ll bet if a speculator came along and offered me a speculative price for my bit, he should have it, and I venture to say you would do the same with your bit, and hang the system of rating. No one can honestly grumble at the system here, even if it is old-fashioned. ' Without being an opponent, pref " ferring rather to abide by the opinion of those who have given the subject deep thought, and trying not to think they are faddists, I have talked quietly with owners of property and heard various opinions. In cases where owners are interested in building's, both in the Main-street and elsewhere, they have said, “Oh, I’m going to vote for it, not because I believe its necessary to alter the system, but because it will ease off my rates a bit ” and other owners outside the Main-street who have no buildings, and are not holding their sections for speculative purposes, but for a fad, will not vote for it because they will have to pay a little more for their hobby, which is doing no one any harm, and relieve business institutions occupying the best .possible frontages, and better' able to pay. There are no sections in the Mainstreet held for speculative pur-! poses, but there are which conld be utilised for business purposes which all the systems of rating could not touch. I’m afraid it’s just a matter of “ Oh, hang von, Jack, I’m all right,” and it’s a funny trait in human nature that those who “ have not ’ ’ generally kick up the most dust, and want a cut in at “ those who have.” Don’t you think that portion of your article about distorted statements, ’ ’ applies equally to supporters as to nonsupporters ? You know me, and that it doesn’t matter to me one jot, only that both sides are worthy of consideration. There are tons of other things of much more vital importance to the welfare of Foxton and its workers, than the system of rating. Things Mr Hogg would be in perfect sympathy with, had he been asked to speak of them, and which must sooner or later (very much sooner, perhaps, than is thought) be dealt with by property owners, business men, and workers, if Foxton is to progress, or, indeed, live. —Yours etc., Worker.

[Our correspondent appears to riiiss the crux of the argument. equitable to tax a man’s enterprise ? Brown and Jones buy two sections in Main Street at each. Brown erects a building on his section at a cost of £6OO, gives employment to carpenters, painters, plumbers, etc., and also increases the value of Jones’ section, and when completed he is rated on while gets off with a rate on —and perhaps not that. No, let us be fair and tax all equitably on the value of the land. It is ridiculous to say there are no sections being held for speculative purposes. Let the speculator bear his fair proportion of the rates which he will be compelled to do under the new system of rating, which we hope to see carried on Thursday next. —Ed. H.]