RATING POLL

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 38, 7 May 1927, Page 16

RATING POLL

MOUNT ROSKILL PROPOSAL ADDRESS BY MR. FOWLDS The Hon. George P'owlds last evening addressed a fairly large meeting of ratepayers in the Methodists' Hall, Greenwood’s Corner, upon the subject of rating upon unimproved values. Mr. I*. J. Sefton presided.

Mr. Fowlds said he had been advocating rating on unimproved values for over 40 years, and 20 years ago, when a poll was taken at Mount Albert upon the question, his neighbours were ready to crucify him. Yet only a few days previously Mount Albert had carried a similar proposal by a two to one majority, and did not even call upon him to speak a word in its advocacy. (Laughter and applause.) Replying to arguments from the opposition that unimproved rating had proved disastrous to small householders. with im opposite effect upon the large house of the wealthy man, Mr. I'o wlds submitted quite a pile of statistics and cited numerous instances c oncerning leading, towns and boroughs in the Dominion, in refutation of such a contention. There was a great outcry against the shortage of houses, but could it be wondered at, when they adhered to a system which compelled men to abstain from building houses? They knew well the history of the window tax in England, where owners of great castles and mansions had most of the original windows bricked up rather than agree to such an imposition. But to-day, in New Zealand, an attempt was being made, not only to tax windows but doors, walls, and almost everything connected with the house. To attain the ideals of taxation, they would have to tax in accordance with the benefits received, and such taxation must be so arranged as to encourage extension of building homes. In this Dominions dogs and Chinamen weer taxed simply because too many of them were not wanted; but upon the point of securing more houses, the desire and aims were exactly directly opposite. NOT ROUND FOREVER

It should be clearly understood that if the district adopted the new system and found it was not the success prophesied, they could arrange anothei poll after three years, and if necessary revert to the old system. But for man> years past only 20 districts had taker advantage of the provision, and ol that number only in five cases had they reverted to the old system. Somebody had remarked to him that the vote at Mount Albert was largely of a selfish nature: but he considered that the selfishness was on the part of those who had opposed the system. The taxation of improvements that have been secured by the expenditure of capital and labour was nothing better than pure robbery. A certain number of persons would have to pay a bit more under the new system, but that extra payment would be justifiable. Twenty years ago, when trying to secure the new system at Mount Albert, his opponents made great capital out of the fact that he (the speaker) would be securing a benefit of about ISs to £1 per annum. To-day the adoption of the system would increase Ja is rating by £100; but why grouse? (Applause.) The general effect of the new system had been to make continuous progress, with the approximation of justice, and without imposing any serious burden. Everybody could not benefit by the new system of rating; but it had been proved in careful calculation of the position in Auckland. at least, that six out of every eight ratepayers would secure a benefit. After making comparative statements concerning the position of neighbouring boroughs. Mr. Fowlds said there were, no doubt, hundreds of residents of Mount Roskill who were paying more rates than they should do simplv because others were not paying their fair share. If they desired to foster industry in homebuilding. every vote-holder must fully illustrate his sincerity at the approaching poll. One gentleman complained of the irregularities of rating in Mount Roskill, but was of opinion that the decision of the future rating system should be postponed until the district was instituted as a borough. Mr. Fowlds protested against any delay whatever, contending that it would be a mistake and quite unfair to make any man pay, further, on his rates of £lO or £ls per year, when fee should be paying only £2 or £3.