CORRESPONDENCE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2594, 31 August 1909, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

[C'o/resi>c>mluntib on public matters is welcomed at sill times; but it must bo distinctly understood that this ,journal is in no way. associated with the opinions of its .correspondents. All letters must be legibly written and inscribed on one side of the paper only, otherwise they will- not bo published. “An asterisk at'the. foot of a letter indicates that some portion lias been excised.]

VALUATIONS.

[To The Editor.] The Assessment Court being composted of judicial and also experienced far-' iners has shown with no light hand that in their opinion the Government valuations were beyond all reason. It is a pity that all those who objected in the first instance, instead of settling their valuations by accepting a compromise from the Valuer, did not allow their cases to go before the Court, and get a judicial opinion on the matter. It is also to be deplored that one- half of the people did not object, because they-thought it too much trouble or that they would not. have a chance because some sales at a ridiculously high figure had taken place in their vicinity and in other cases allowed themselves to be valued above the reql commercial value because- it enhanced, a s they believed, the value o-f their holdings for sale purposes- The 'basis on which the Government Valuer makes his valuation is against the spirit of the Act, which says a valuation shall bo the value of what a property would realise if offered at public auction with fair and reasonable terms and fair competition. Every one knows what fair and reasonable terms are, and every one what fair competition means. A Valuer should he conversant with the value of the situation, the accessibility and the -commercial value of the land or section of each individual holder as well as the value of the improvements. He .should then assess the whole at what in his opinion (if he is an expert) the property would realise in the market if offered on the above terms. lVe have only to look at Mr Wright’s valuation and ask could the Court, composed of sensible men as it Is, give any other decision than it has? Mr Wrights’ property, it was shown in evidence, is of no more value than his neighbors, and yet it is valued at more than double the value. We have also evidence in other cases as glaring in their excessive valuation, that the owners have not objected to or have withdrawn . objections for reasons. We have only to look again at Mr McGowan’s case. A section in Customs Street nvas valued at £3320, reduced by fhe Court to £750 below that amount, and even this was too much, and is only in line with a section purchased by a large wholesale house for wholesale purposes. I would pertinently ask ’ how many sections in the same locality would bring anything near the figure quoted for business purposes. We have only room in Gisborne for a certain number of wholesale houses and I think by all appearances we have all we require for many years to come. If so what is to make the adjoining sections anything like the value paid by one firm for a section for a particular purpose? Are all the sections in the immediate- vicinity to be raised to the same value ? Is there any likelihood of the other sections realising anything near the same value either for wholesale or retail purposes? If not then they are at present and for many years to come only worth what they would realise for private residence sites and at that figure they are not worth half what they are assessed at, and the valuations are, of a necessity, fictitious and unreliable, morejespec:ally if we only look at the valuations made on the opposite side of the road, which are equally as well situated for commercial purposes, but are only valued at half what Mr McGowan’s section was valued at but are held bv a trustee. These cases are isolated ones. How many others of the same sort have never come to light? I therefore maintain that the present system of valuation is pernicious and only tend to boom the place for speculation purposes and. I trust you will take, this matter up and that you will use'the position your paper holes in ‘the district to have at least in the Borough of Gisborne values of properties put on a fair commercial basis.—l am, etc., “A RATEPAYER.”

TASMANIAN POTATOES

[To The Editor.] Sir, —All potato growers in New Zealand will have been much, interested in the statements that have appeared in the daily papers lately about the outbreak of Irish blight in Tasmania and various parts of Australia. To us, who have had five years’ experience of the ravages of the blight, it Booms useless that the quarantining of tfn infected district should he. suggested as a means of preventing the spread of the blight. Of course, if Australia were clean, and only Tasmania were infected there* would he some sense in the suggested step, hut when diseased potatoes have- been shipped to various parts -of the Commonwealth it is of nouse taking any such step now, for it is well 'known here that the blight does not travel only in the seed, but has. chiefly been'-distributed through the Dominion by the spores being carried by the wind. Naturally the Tasmanian growers are the hardest hit, for they have made a speciality of potato g-row-for many years, and since the outbreak of the blight in_ New Zealand and the consequent closing of the Australian markets to our growers they have had a run of good prices. They are- making a big fuss now about the shutting out of sound potatoes from Australia, but they were the first, when New Zealand was affected, to issue regulations barring everything from New Zealand that could possibly <*3.rry the blight. There is another disease, if it can be called such, in connection with Tasmanian potatoes that has been a great trouble this year, viz., the eel worm, which I believe is a much harder pest to combat than the blight. I think in fairness to New Zealand growers the Minister .of Agriculture should long ago have prohibited the importation of Tasmanian

potatoes. He was reported lately as having said in Christchurch that he did not wish to offend Tasmania if- lie could help it ,bv prohibiting their potatoes. A lot Tasmania troubled when wo got the blight, and they shut out our potatoes, whether we w-er-e offended or not. We didn’t blame them. Every •community lias to consider its own interests first. I am cure the Hon. T. McKenzie should have no feelings in the matter when it is a. question of keeping out a pest for which there seems no adequate remedy. I am. etc., “A GROWER."