THE HATING QUESTION.

Taranaki Daily News, 30 April 1919, Page 6

THE HATING QUESTION.

I To the Editor. Sir,—Your statement w'th regard to the Glsi borne comparison makes It necessary to reply to your footnote re unimproved values in this morning's News. The following is an extract from the New Zealand Government's Municipal Handbook for 1917. "Table showing capital : value of the land with improvements (and distinguishing the unimproved value of land) for all lands and for rateable properties in each borough in New Zealand, as at the Ist of April, 1017, with the area, population, number i of assessments on valuation roll, and the year l in wlrch the values were last revised." Under this heading appears: Area in acres: Gisborne, 2310; New Ply* mouth, 4088. Population at 1910 census: Gisborne, 9174; J New Plymouth, 8704. I Number of assessments on valuation roll: I Gisborne, 2250; New Plymouth, 3170. r i Gross capital value, hind and improvements:] | Gisborne, £ 2,829,453; New Plymouth, £2,233,-; ! 943. Gross unimproved value of land: Gisborne, £1,424,821; New Plymouth, £1,833,046. Rateable value (capital) : Gisborne, £2,616,* 638 ; New Plymouth. £2,029,900. Rateable value (unimproved) : Gisborne, £l,302,814 ; New Plymouth, £1,193,976. Values last revised: Gisborne, 1912; New Plymouth, 1914. Rating system: Gisborne, unimproved; New Plymouth, annual. With regard to the suburban land which will be benefited by the change. If you refer again to my letter you will see that I said "good" land. It is probably the best five acres at Frankleigh Park. Here are one or two more instances, and if you will allow us the space we could supply dozens of others: Unimproved Area Present Rates Rates 14% Acres £lB 0 0 £l4 11 8 5% Acres £l3 5 6 £ll 0 10 6 Acres £8 4 6 £7 5 10 2% Acres £22 10 0 £lB 6 8 4% Acres £ll 9 6 £9 7 6 Your desire to make the wealthy man pay, and concern for the worker, can well be left U the judgment of the people.—l am, etc., W. NASH. (We took our figures from the Government Official Year Book, 1917, page 57, which states, under suburban areas: Population of Gisborne and suburbs, 12,660; population of New Plymouth and suburbs, 9795. Our figures 'were, therefore, correct. How the Municipal Hand Book comes to give the figures 31r. Nash quotes we cannot understand. There should be no such discrepancy in official works of reference. Mr. Nash's point is that Gisborne has inore bouses under unimproved values rating than! New Plymouth ha? under annual values rating. If the Municipal Hand Book figures are cor-1 rect, and the Year Book figures are incorrect,, how does he explain that rents in New Ply-, mouth are cheaper than in Gisborne? If the 1 populations are about equal—as he maintains, and which the Year Book says is not the case —the rents should be lower in Gisborne, seeing that there are so many more houses in Gisborne than in New Plymouth. But the Government statistic returns for January, 1919, show the following comparison:—New Plymouth: 4roomed house, lis Id; 5-roomed, 15s 8d; 6roomed, 19s; 7-roomed, 21s Bd. Gisborne: 4roorned, 13s 3d; 5-roomed, 16s 6d; 6-roomed, 20s; 7-roomed, 21s 9d. Our correspondent gives comparisons of suburban properties under tht present and proposed systems. They are not conclusive. Let us quote others (they are actual cases, taken from official sources): No. 1, present rate £B, unimproved values rate £l4; No. 2, £44 5s 6d and £lO4 3s 4d; No.'3, £8 0s 5d and £25; No. 4, £23 and £37; No. 5, £4 16s 3d and £l2 Is Bd. This is not all—and we would particularly stress this fact; were the poll to be carried, a new Government valuation of unimproved values would at once bo instituted, and, following precedent, increases would be made. The suburban people have a right to be studied. They came in to assist the borough with the trams, and should not be penalised, or forced out of the borough, as assuredly will he the case with some of the owners of the lands who simply could not afford to remain in under a system of rating that hit them so hard. This Is a retrogressive move which no one with the interests of the place at heart can view with equanimity. Now let us take some of the town properties, the places that are using the roads and the borough facilities most, and therefore are in the best position to pay rates, and are not complaining at all regarding the rates from which Mr Nash and his fr'ends would relievo them. No. 1, pays £l7l 19s 7d, under unimproved values only £26 5s 2d; No. 2, is paying £ll4 16s Bd, under unimproved values he will escape with £ <0 16s 8d; No. 3 pays £53 8s lOd, and will have to find only £3B 10s lOd; and so on These places will be let off and the outside places will have to bear the burden. If they don't, who will? We have seen the operation S »t Byatem ' elsewhere, and, candidly, dont like it, and have no hesitation in advising ratepayers to-day to throw it out end leave well alone.—Ed.)