THE WAIMATE ADVERTISER. SATURDAY, SEPT. 24, 1898.

Waimate Daily Advertiser, Issue 18, 24 September 1898, Page 4

THE WAIMATE ADVERTISER. SATURDAY, SEPT. 24, 1898.

Perhaps .the best way of showing that the adoption of the " Rating on Unimproved Value Act, 1896" .would be in the interests of thejpeople will be to call attention more pointedly to the objections to the systems in force in Waimate County and Borough. As we observed, these systems are objectionable, chiefly because , either is largely a tax on itnpro.vements, and that the more labour and money one puts into his holding, the heavier he is taxed. It is no exaggeration to go further and say .that these systems of rating are a •direct encouragement to mere property,owners and speculators to spend as little as possible on their holdings. Observe how rating on annual value operates in Jhe v Borough, in regard to iniprovernenta. „J ohn' Smith, a working man, invests perhaps £20 in a section. While he leaves it unfenced, it may cost him a shilling a year in rates. Bye-and-bye he finds himself with a few pounds and an idle week, and utilises these in fencing his section. Next time the Borough valuator icomes along, the improvement is noted, and John Smith finds that the money he .took out of the bank and spent in fencing material, instead of bringing him interest, is to cost him something for rates. Or .take another case. A man in business finds it necessary to enlarge ids premises. If he puts up a barn-like structure of unr embellished brick, or timber and galvanised iron, hideous to look at, but giving the necessary accommodation, at a cost, say, ci J6300, he will probably be rated at .£lO, and pay 10s extra rates on his " improvements." On .the other hand, if he has .some .enterprise and public spirit, and erects a building giving the same accommodation, but creditable to his own taste, a real improvement to .the town, and .costing him double the money, he will probably be compelled to pay £3 a year extra rates. These may be extreme cases, but they illustratrate.the evils of the System, Everyone who improves his property, if it is only by erecting a verandah or replacing a gorse hedge with one of rnacrocarpa, is liable tQ an lnpi-ease of rates. Then .again, many ,of the Borough .residents occupy rented houses. The owners of <these houses know that if they keep them externally in good order and make them

comfortable for their tenants and ornaments to the town, heavier rates will be levied than if the houses are left unpainted and the premies generally in a disreputable condition. Instances of these latter will suggest themselves to Borough residents. We have, we think, thus made it clear that not only is rating on annual value a discouragement to property improvement both from the useful and ornamental points of view, but it is a direct encouragement to persons whose chief interest in the Borough is the rent they draw from tenants to leave their property in such a •state as to be a discredit to the townWhat has been said in objection to rating on annual value, so far as it applies to the discouragement to improvements applies equally to rating on capital value. As will be evident, our object is to demonstrate the illogical and unfair operation of these systems and to make people dissatisfied with them. It remains to be shown how the adoption of rating on unimproved values will affect individual cases, for of course, unless the majority of the ratepayers are convinced that the new system is to their advantage, no change can be hoped for.