The Daily News. THURSDAY, JUNE 9, 1904. LAND VALUATION.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVI, Issue 134, 9 June 1904, Page 2

The Daily News. THURSDAY, JUNE 9, 1904. LAND VALUATION.

Very great interest attaches to the sitting of the Valuation Court at Opunako to-day, and at Kahotu on Saturday, the settlers on the coast having lodged some eighty or ninety objections to the values placed upon their properties by the Government Valuer. The matter in dispute, to far as we understand it, is that the Valuer has allowed certain improve- | men.ts which the lessees have made or become responsible for, to be credited to the owners of the land, whereas the lessees contend that the improvements rightly belong to themselves, and not to the owners. From a common sense point of view they are absolutely correct In their opinion, and their contention is entirely just. The question is how does the- law stand upon the point in ■dispute ? Unfortunately so many changes are made in every conceivable thing in New Zealand, legislation included, that it takes a smart man to know exactly where he is if he has anything to do with the taxgatherer, cither from the humble road board, the more lordly county council, or the Government top sawyer. Comparatively few of the country settlers aro really acquainted with the intricacies of the law regarding tho valuation of the properties they hold from tho Government and its various ramifications, and so the "Government Valuation of Land Act" passed last session has not yet penetrated their understanding to the extent that it probably will in the course of a year or bo. For the tho information of the objectors "down tho coast" we may quote a few clauses from tho Act referred to. Clause 2 says :—"Where land is subject to a lease and there are more interests therein and more owners than one, the united capital values, values of improvements, and improved values respectively of the interests of all th/ owners shall not be estimated at less than the capital value, value of improvements, and improved value of such tand would be estimated at if held by a single owner in fee-simplo without limitation of estate or power, and free from any lease or encumbrance, any thing to the contrary in the principal Act notwithstanding. (2) For the purposes of this section (a) The interest of a lessor is Vive present value of tho net rent under the lease for the unexpired term, plus the present value of the reversion lo which ho is entitled. (I>) The interest of a lessee is the present value of the excess (if any) of live per centum per annum upon tho capital valuo of tho leased land over and abovo the aforesaid net rent for the unexpired term, plus tho present value of any right to compensation or of purchase or other valua'Dle consideration to which ho is entitled under the lease, and minus the interest (if any) of a sub-lessee, (c) Tho interest of a sub-lcsseo shall be computed in tho same manner us thut of a lessee, and so on for any Interest inferior to that of a sublessee, (d) All apportionments of the interests' of lessors, lessees, and sub-lessees in respect of improvements shall be made in the proportion the capital value of the land bears to the value of the improvements thereon, and to the unimproved value thereof respectively, sulvject pro tanlo to uny provisions of the lease whereby the lessee or sublessee has a special interest in tho improvements, or in the land exclusive of improvements, as tho case may he. (©) All computations of present values shall be made on a Ihe per centum per annum compound interest basis, (f) ' Lease ' includes agreement to lease, license, and any other written document, for the tenancy or occupancy of land ; ' rent ' includes premium, line, royalty, and any other consideration for the tenancy or occupancy of land." It will therefore be seen from the above that in making lias valuations the Valuer is tied down to a very strict line, and although the course he has taken may not be, und indeed is not, we think, just or fair to the lessees, it appears to be the only one open to him. It is the Act that is at fault. It, is monstrously unfair to tho lessees that they should make roads, erect buildings, und pay for the same, thus giving an increased value to the land, and then to see tho owners credited with the improvements. That is the legal position, however, so far as we can make out, and wo do not think the Assessment Court can do anything in the way of alfording relief by sustaining the objections lodged by the settlers. Nevertheless the widespread feeling of dissatisfaction, as evidenced by the large number of objectors, should induce some amendment of the law in the direction of enabling thoso who pay the piper to have a say in the choice of the tune.