THE RATING QUESTION.

Taranaki Daily News, 29 April 1919, Page 6

THE RATING QUESTION.

To the Editor. Sir, —In your lending article this morning you again suggest that the landowners in the suburbs will be ill-affected when the new system of rat'ng on the unimproved value is introduced. For the past fortnight the advocates of unimproved values have been trying to'find out the names of the people or landowners who will be ill-atTected. Who are they? Where is their land? The Motui'oa freezing works: The land I here referred to is the most highly improved in I the borough. It is bordered on the one side :by the railway, 011 the other by a cliff. It has no road frontage whatever. It is part of the 1 suburban laud which you say should be protected. You say: All the other buildings Jn the town, the owners of which are best able to pay the rates because they are turning the buildings to profitable account, will eßcape." This statement has only one fault: It is not true. If it were so it would be good argument for the unimproved values. It is good for New Plymouth to have it 3 land put to profitable use . If the unimproved system of ratlug does not tend to promote building why ; has Gisborne 2304 houses as against New Plymouth's 1700? The populations are much 1 the same. One large block of land has come j down in price since the present controversy started by £4O per acre. Will this .disadvantage the worker ? The average worker' begins to see through tlie 10 per cent. ,down, balance in 5 years, business. He is getting wise—wise enough to hold his money till he can pay and start to build. The present system doubly penalises him I When he has saved his money, or borrowed it at 7 per cent, to build his home he has iu addition to pay increased rates because of his industry. You admit that the industrious houseowner improved his speculaI tlve neighbors' property by his work. Why I Bhould ho have to pay more rates in addition Ito this? He is penalised when he has to pay equal rates; because whilst he improves his neighbor by his toil his neighbor works his IU by neglecting his section. Now what is the position since tho present controversy started? You have stated: That it induces congestion. This was dropped when the condition of Auckland under the present system was cited. You have stated that land will go up in price, and, therefore, housing will cost more. Mr. Hurst Scager, in the course of his address on town-planning, said "workers had beautiful homes for which they paid 18s per week for u-roomcd houses, whilst on the opposite side of the boundary roads where private enterprise held sway the rent was 22s for a very mucli inferior house of similar size, because there the unearned increment went into the pockets of the landlords Instead of the coffers of the community." You appeal to the worker by suggesting that it will benetit the capitalist. The answer to this is that every worker who has an ordinary sized house will pay loss, and that the system of unimproved values taxes neither thn worker nor his work. You said that the worker would not be able to take up two or three acres in the suburbs. This was exploded by proving that a flve-acre section of good land with house at Frankleigh Park would pay less under the new system. No speculation to speak ofl One man owns 42 sections, all shapes and sizes, in every part of the town. Thirty-three persons own 385 sections between them, an average of over 11 each. Yet you suggest that there is no speculation to speak of. The facts, Sir, facts, when understood in ! connection with unimproved values, will carry ! the system at the poll on Wednesday next. You ! may in the meantime switch the people on to Sidetracks, but if they carefully explore each track in turn they will eventually reach where you endeavor to guide them—nowhere. When they get on the Tight track New Plymouth will expand and grow—its future Is assured. It will advance soon or late;'soon, if the people use their intelligence, late if the old conservatism (which bad many virtues) is still allowed to dominate and hinder the progress of Taranakl's capital. Finally, Sir, you suggest that when the poll is carried the land may go up in price. Then why are you defending the large landowners, whose land, you say, will advance in price if the system is carried—l am, etc., , W. NASH.

(Our correspondent Is ingenious, as well as capricious, but his statements will not stand the acid test. His party has stated that the suburban residents will not be affected prejudicially by the proposed change. We have endeavored to show that as the extensive improvements, such as the freezing company works, would be reliered of payment of rates, the suburbs, which contain most of the bare land, would have to Bhoulder the burden. No verbal twisting or ingenuity can get over that fact. The suburban property owners came in to help the borough. Now Mr. Nash and his followers wish to punish them, pr force them out of the borough, the while having to pnj- any tram rate levied. Js that fair or desirable ? It is neither. Our correspondent mentions a case at Frankleigh Park of a home with five acres paying less under the new system than at present. That proves nothing. The land may be poor in quality, and unsuitable for cutting up, or the house may be an extra good one. The main point is that present unimproved values may not remain. In other places where unimproved values form the basis of fating they, have a habit of increasing considerably. Our correspondent's comparison of Glsborne with New Plymouth is unfortunate. The former's population <s not the same" as New Plymouth's, the figures for 1910 being: Gisborue, 12,660 ; New Plymouth (with suburbs), 9795. Unimproved values encourages crowding as many houses as possible on a given area of land; it handicaps the man who wishes to buy and improve a section; it exempts the wealthy concerns which are best able to pay the rates; it prevents a person from acquiring a decent-' sized piece of land in the suburbs. In a widelyflung town like New Plymouth it would be the gravest mistake, and. more important than all its introduction at the present time would be tantamount to committing a gross breach of faith with the suburban residents who helped the town in a time of need.—Ed.)