CORRESPONDENCE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume L, Issue 3921, 21 March 1929, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE.

(To the Editor). Sir, —A statement mlade by Cr. Thompson at the last Council meeting, “that his rates are about one pound per acre,” has, to my mind, raised another aspect in regard to his endeavour to have his burden lightened. For instance the average person who possesses a quarter ae?e section pays on the average £3 per year. It produces nothing, just a home,for the owner. Cr. Thompson’s farm land produces say £lO per acre per year, yet on his okvn word's he gets off with a rate of £.l per year per acre, home included, so on that score he has a decided advantage over the smaller owner in the matter of rates. For instance why should I pay in the vicinity of £3 10s per year for a highly improved quarter acre while lie pays £1 per acre per year, on .unimproved land? Another question I would like to have some information on is this, when the borough ci Foxton, or any .borough is laid out, would I be right in saying, that no provision is made.for farm areas within the borough? In other words is it not a fact that in laying out a borough, the object is to cut the lands up into sjmall sections, for residental purposes, no large areas suitable for fawns being incorporated in the laying out of a .borough, further, may I ask is Cr. Thompson’s farm lands one single block of land, or is his farm made up of a number of small sections? -If so, how comes the rates on his land so !o\v, seeing that we pay on the unimproved value. Take one 'acre, comprising 4 quarter acre sections, each with a house upon it, rated on the unimproved value would say, on an average, he saddled with rates about £l3 per year. Cr. Thompson’s own admissions of his rates are £1 per acre per year unimproved state. Now,' Sir, wha.t is the logical outcome oif a revaluation? Supposing each owner of a section objects to his present rates and lodges a protest against the present rates he pays, and secures a reduction in rating value of his unimproved land, what will the position be as regards the reduction in revenue from rates as it would effect that income. This seems to me a question that has been lo'st sight of. Are the ibig landholders to dictate the tune to those who struggle to get a Small section and having got one build upon it a home, and then be rated twelve times heavier than he Who as above owns large areias. Another Way I fancy the big landholder is looking at the question, is purely the matter of advancement the town has made, such as Water and drainage, etc. Simply because lie Was not those conveniences, he objects to being rated for the loans, vet he gets off with £1 per year per acre, while the quarter! acre section owner pays, as I said before, twelve times what he pays for his unimproved acres. I agree that a revaluation is needed,/for Why should he whose section produces,, no thing pay so much more than he who admits his rates are so low, yet derives ineojnie from his large farm areas. Thanking you, Sir, E. G. MARTIN.