The Daily News. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21, 1915. LAND VALUATION.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVII, Issue 267, 21 April 1915, Page 4

The Daily News. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21, 1915. LAND VALUATION.

A summary of the report of the Valuation of Land Commission, which was comprised of Messrs F. F. Martin, Even A. Campbell and J. G. Rutherford, has just been made public, and should be read with interest by all property-own-era. There is no doubt that the method of valuing property which at present exists is open to serious complaints. It ia, of course, impossible to please every property-owner, or even to devise any scheme that will be free from the inevitable grumble which is inherent in every Britisher, but it is within the bounds of practicability to bring into operation a system that will on the whole be just and equitable, and it is evident that the Commissioners have been animated with that worthy desire. If they have not altogether succeeded tliey have at least officially condemned the present modus operandi of making valuations, and have recommended alterations that will be a framework for legislation, though their scheme will need amendment in several particulars. In the course of their investigations they found that much dissatisfaction existed with the Assessment Court as at present constituted, and they met with many complaints that the 'Assessment Courts and district valuers placed too high a price on "unimproved" value, also that the valuers did not sufficiently inspect properties when valuing them. Moreover, they also found that there was a regrettable want of confidence in the Courts owing to the feeling prevalent that the majority of the Court, namely, the members appointed by tlie Government and the local authority, were "subconsciously influenced" in sustaining valuations made by the Departmental officers, it being the interest of both those assessors to keep values high, in the one case for land tax and the other for rates. That being tlie case, it was only logical that propertyowners frequently abstained from appearing in Court to support their objections, deeming such a course useless." Tlie report rightly lays stress on the fact that it is of the first degree of importance that the constitution of the Assessment Court—and all other tribunals—should command the confidence of all persons having business therewith. The remedy proposed by the Commissioners, unfortunately, does not remove the chief ground of objection to the present system. It is suggested in the report that the Assessment Court should consist of a permanent president for the whole Dominion (who shall be a member of the legal profession), an assessor appointed by the Government, either for tlie whole Domiiiion or for each provincial district, and an assessor appointed by tlie ratepayers of the local governing district, or in default of such appointment being made by the ratepayers, then the local authority to make it. In this scheme the president for the Dominion replaces the Stipendiary Magistrate, and is probably intended to have the statu'! of a judge, much the same ar, in the Arbitration Court. This is unquestionably a move in the right direction, inasmuch as it would tend to

inspire conftdonco on the part of the pro-perty-owners, and it should, in timcj ef- 1 feet that much-desired uniformity of , procedure which is so essential. The main duty of the president should be to see that justice is done to all parties concerned, and to that end ho would he expected to obtain from the witnesses material evidence bearing on each ease, and to sift as well as to carefully weigh the testimony, discounting all bias and arriving as nearly as possiblo at the true facts. It is in relation to the assessor to be appointed by the Government that probably adverse opinion will be directed. The point to bear in mind is that the valuations are made by Government officials, and on them should rest the- | onus of justifying their figures without having recourse to a partisan assessor. The same objection might, of course, be taken to an assessor appointed by the ratepayers, but with the important difference that lie, although presumably a partisan, would bo solely interested in seeing that property-owners were fairly treated as to the valuations of their property. It is quite possiblo that a way out of the difficulty could be maxle by the appointment in each district of an assessor of acknowledged ability possessing the necessary special qualifications for the position, such appointment to bo made by the president and ratepayers' representative much in the same way as an umpire is appointed in an ordinary arbitration case. An assessor who has actual knowledge of varying land values in a district would be a source of great strength to the Court, whilst a Government nominee would only maintain the present objectionable system. There are a number of admirable suggestions in the report tending to safeguard the interests of pro-perty-owners. Amongst these is a provision for making allowances to lessees in respect to the detrimental value of restrictions in the lease, with the right of appeal to the Supreme Court; that an owner who objects to a decision of the Assessment Court shall state his estimate of the unimproved value, and his value of the improvements, the Government to have the right of purchase at the owner's unimproved value, leaving the improvements to be ascertained by arbitration; that re-valuations made at an owner's request shall be made by a valuer other than the one who made the original valuation, and that a refusal to sell at the value assessed shall not be taken as an admission of the fairness of a valuation. There are many details that will require attention when framing legislation on this report, but the Commissioners have evidently devoted much thought, care and attention to the matter in hand, and they are t(j be commended for their work.