ASSESSMENT COURT.

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 2, Issue 100, 10 June 1913, Page 2

ASSESSMENT COURT.

Sitting in Pukekohe.

Some Franklin County Objections.

Ths Assessment Court fat in Puktkohc 0:1 Thursday t-j heir a number of objections to the revised valuation io'ls for Hunua riding, Opaheke, Paparata, Pokeno, Mercer and MaurgataTvhiri load oniric's. Mr F. V. Fraser, S M., was president, and with Mm sat Mr E. Alia- 1 , of Buckhnd, as Government assessor, varicus other asssesors bung appoin'ed from the different districts. Mr Morgan, Government Valuer, defended the assessments.. NO APPEARANCE. Quite a number cf valuations were sustained owing to (he odjectors not putting in en appearance. Amongst theee were:— ' Maunsatawhui Palish. J. Septimus Vinson, if Auckland, certain sections, 29a 3r lflp; capital value £950, u.improved vain: £4OO, value of improvements £550. Thomas G. Prouie, Bombay, 215ac. Or 4p; capital value £4075, unimproved value £2580, improvement! £1495. Maungatawhiii Outlying. Cecil Wright, section 6, Wharekavsa No. 2, 733a;capit>l value £2410, unimproved valua £IB3O, improvements £6lO. District assiEsar: Mr J. McPherson. Hurua Road District, W. L. Smith, part 52 Opaheke district, 12a; capital value £250; unimproved valu? £BO, improvement 3 £l7O. District assessor: Mr J. T. Stembridge. Opaheke Road Dist ict. Alexander Brown, Rama Rama, 112 a lr 2!p; capital value £9BO, unimproved value £BUO, improvements £IBO. John Dinan, Ararimu, section 124, 154 a 2r; capital value £685, unimproved £260, impiovem-:ntH £425, District Assessor: Mr J. T. Stembridge, Paparata Ruad District. Thomas Masetield, Bombay, 60a, Opaheke parish; capital value £I2OO, unimproved value £660, improvements £540. District assessor: Mr W. K. Comlhweite. Mercer Road District. The tssessment values (five assessments) of Cryil D Lincoln and Frances Li.icola were sustained. UNIMPROVED VALUE TOO HIGH. William Dean, senr., Pokeno, lots 180 and others Mau-gatawhiri, and section 637 Pokeno; 323 a 2r 23p; capital value £2400, unimproved £llsO, improvements £1250. Ih3 objetar wished to have the unimproved valua reduced from £llsO to £565. He gave 5s an acre for this land, and three years ago it was valued at £565. Whenever nnything was done in stumping it had to be by gelignite; the land had surk 12 feet. He had lived there 40 years and did not want to sell so he could not say what he would sell for. If he had to buy it now, supposing it were in ita natural condition? He would not take ir. "When," he asked, "was the unimproved value going to stop?'' To Mr Morgan: Tna nlaca was 1J miles from the station. He rmde the road to it himself and now he was taxed fcr it. He knew about the sales that were t;king place; cash was rot being paid, it was nearly all on paper. There might have been a ri:e in land values, but people were speculating because they thought the railway was coming through Pokeno; he did trot think it would come, and the swamp had to sink a lot yet. Mi Morgsn explained how his estimates were arrived at, and mentioned that a very considerable advance had taken r.]ace in land values of late years in the Pokeno district, and by these operations the unimproved values of all land were affected.

Tha Court was of opinion that the unimproved value had not been over-stated. "What Mr Dean contended," said the President, "was that no advance in the selling unimproved valae of land had taken plac? during the past five years."

The valuation was sustained. WHAT UNIMPROVED VALUE IS. The case of James McPherson opened a most interesting question ai to what unimproved value really i*. The lands Rffected comprised certain serious in Maungatawhiri and Koheroa, l?9a 2r 36n; capital value £IOBS, unimproved £SGS, improvements £520.

Mr McPherson saia he did not object to the capital value of £IOBS, what he wanted was that £lB2 shiuld be taken off the unimproved valu?, and be added to the valua of tha improvements. Questioned by Mr Morgan: He would not Ray the place was over-valued; he daresay if he Wonted to sell the place he wojld get more than the valuation for it. Ha did not understand the method of valuing used by the Department. Mr Morgan: Suppose tha duties of the valuer were to value the land arcordinz to the way land is selling; in that case would the land ba order-valued?-If sold in the ordinary way it would possibly not be under-valued.

Do you think it fair for tha place to be under-estimated: and do yuu think it right (o put all the difference en (he improvements?-I object that not sufficient has been allowed for the improvements. Would it be possible for a place to be over-imDroved?—l think not. Da you think it passible to get back all yeu spend on improvements?—ln these times we get more back.

Your unimproved value is £565, Supposing the place was unimproved, vour particular place, with only its natural growth upon it: do you think it would hring £G an acre?—PoHsihly it would. Ido not think it would fce worth £6; I would not care to give that for it. Is the estimate oil! the improvementl' a fair one?—lt is not overestimated.

Don't you think it fair to iind first what the land would be worth ut.impioved and then add a reasonable amount for the improvements? -I don't look at it in that way. The land now is improved and therefore you cannot eay what it would be

but if Mr McPherson's estimated improvements were added the unimproved value would be more than Mr McPherson had tow arrived Bt. The President said that if the objector's figures were taken and added to £s3l', which Mr McPherson admitted to bs the u- improved value of the br.d, the c?pitel value would be over £I2OO.

Mr Morgan, in explanation, said that the vaher's practke was first to take the valu 1 of the hnd. The intrinMo value ui the improvements muht te far more thai tha whele farm could be bought for. First thy to'ls the unimproved value of the land and then added the value of the improvements es they stood then.

The President said it was clear how the unimproved vaiue was arrived at, Its fair selling value, supposing it to be unirr.provar', was first d;t:rmiiud, tiki::g in!o consi'eiaricn tfiat ether phces about were improved. Then tha value ot all unexhausted improvements was added to the first amount, in this casa the or ly way to increase the value of the improvement* would te by adding (o the capital value.

Tte valuation wps sustained. WHAT FORCES PRICES UP. - H. U, McKenzie, Maungatawhiti, 125 a lr 6p Koheroa parish; eppital value £2685, unimproved value £1635, improvements £IOSO. Objector said that >six years ago this land was valusd, unimproved, at £7 par acre; now it was put down at £l3. He field that the railway facilities were worse now tban before, as they could only git go ds three days a wesk now. No land in the district had been s Id at the pr ica he was valued at. The highest price he knew of that had besn paid wa3 £l6 aa acre t'er Mr Pope's place: 18 months ago. This «va3 the top price that land had ever bcci sold for ia that district. Jn his district tli?y got about Id per lb les3 for buitsr-fat than did Aka Aka and Otaua. The price of fat in his district was practically the same as it was fiv3 years ago; the home separation competition was now a disturbing factor. He wouli se'i his land to tbe Government plus their 10 per cent, Mr Morgan: There is r;o 10 per cent.

Mr McKerzie said it be were selling he would take £22 en acre provided he got 6 per cent, on any balance unpaid. The trouble wa.i that land went up in value because sellers did not ask current rates of interest for balance unpaid. He thought William Keith's land would be wcrth 80s an acre mora than bis, urimproved values; Jim Keith's would be £1 mora; Charles Pope's would be about the same; Mrs Moiion's would be pet haps £5 more; Fawn's £3 less. Other comparisons were given.

Mr Morgan deposed that he thought £22 a fair valuation, but he put it a little less than that. Although Mr McKer.zie suggested all sorts of disabilities in the district, Btill he would admit there had been a general rise inland values, lo take comparative valurs. He put Mr McKenzie's unimproved land val;e down Rt £i3 per acre. Objector Eiaid J. Keitii's land was worth £1 an acre mors than his o*n; tha speaker valued Ktith's at £l3 10s. Objector said W. Keith's was worth 30s more; he pat the value down at £l4 ss. Objctor said Pope's was worth 30s more; he put it down at £l4. Objector said Motion's was worth £4 or £5 mora; hs put it down at £l7. Objector said fwining'tt wa3 worth £4 10s more; he put it chwn at £l7 10s, Objector said Lyons' was wenh £1 more; te put it down at £l4. Ooje:tor said Fagan's was worth £3 less; he jut it down at £lO. "So that for purposes of corrpirison," said Mr Morgan, "there wa3 no cause of difference between them." Mr McKenzie said altnough he agreed with the differences, he did not agree that Mr Morgan's values were right; they were'too h'gh. Continuing, Mr Morgan said as far as the value ct the land was cinccrced hs still thought thit (his piece of pioperty, situated ai it was, was valued at a fair and reasonable price.

Mr MeKeczle quoted thi values uf 1899, and submitted figures designed to show that the unimproved value of his placa had teen jut down unduly high. "It all c.mss to this," taid the objector," "that you don't allow for the improvements." With which statement Mr Morgan very quietly and very firmly disagreed. Aft;r consultation Mr Fias:r said the Court wa« not unanimous, hut as a compromise they had agreed to remit the value en five acres at £l3 per acre, which land was said to te "waste." This would make the capital value £2620, unimproved value £1570, improvements £IOSO.