The Gisborne Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. FRIDAY, JANUARY 27, 1911. A RIVAL RATING SYSTEM.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 3129, 27 January 1911, Page 4

The Gisborne Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. FRIDAY, JANUARY 27, 1911. A RIVAL RATING SYSTEM.

It can hardly be said, we think, that in consequence of the public meeting last night very convincing arguments were set forth in favor of the adoption of the system of rating on unimproved values. This is to he regretted, as it will mean, unless such are brought forward, that, if the poll should happen to be carried, the introduction of the system here will be not- the result of evidence of the likelihood of its successful working, but what may be regarded merely in the nature of an experiment. Why a better case was not made out on its behalf was not due ,o lack of opportunity, for all the speakers, it should be mentioned, were upholders of the system. There was, naturally, disappointment on the part of a section of those present when a ruling was given under which Mr. Withy, a visiting advocate of the principle, and other nonratepayers were not permitted to address the meeting, but in this regard v.'e feel that in the circumstances the chairman perhaps adopted the right course. If it does nothing more, the decision will have proved eminently satisfactory if the calling of another meeting will cause increased interest to be taken in the subject by those who are qualified to record their votes at the forthcoming poll. In Air. Jackson’s remarks there was i e-ally nothing outstanding. Everybody will no doubt hold with him that all rate-s should be levied on as equitable a basis as possible. What those concerned want to know, however, and that is just what be did not make clear—is whether in tlie end the rates by the adoption of rating on unimproved values will fall more fairly all round. As regards liis point that the proposed system will prevent tire holding of large areas of unoccupied land for speculative purposes, much could be said. What guarantee, for instance, is there that if the principle were adopted it would lead to any great proportion of the land at present unoccupied being disposed of for building purposes at- once, or would lead to a decline in values. Is it not more likely that if any block were -cut up and sold to-morrow the largest part of the area would continiue to remain unoccupied for a time, but in the hands of smaller speculators and others including workers whom he claims to specially represent? That all vacant land will be rated much higher under the rating on unimproved values system is' well known, but the.crux of the whole .matter, without going into the big question as to whether land alone should be rated, is whether those who are endeavoring to secure lighter local taxation as far as they are concerned will not find upon a close investigation that in some way they are really being penalised indirectly to the extent which they will escape directly? There can, we think, be no reason for the belief that the adoption of the newer system of rating will lead to the lowering of either land values or. rents. Experience, it will lie acknowledged, lias shown that the best moans of keeping both at a reasonable level is by placing land at a distance within easy reach by a suitable form of tramways. Whilst heartily supporting the principle of rating on unimproved values,' Mr. ToneycKffe pointed o.’ut an important weakness, viz., that it will bear heavily oh those who require a fairly large area of land in connection with their businesses. A reply might be made that it would be better to remove such businesses out of town, but it will probably jic found that for a time this step will not be deemed desirable, and meanwhile it may in some instances lead to a slight increase in prices to the consumer. As regards the,.speech made by Mr. Darton, it is hard to • see how it will carry much weight. FI is view of the present position is that the I'osidents are really discouraged from making .improvements to their properties. But surely ho does not think that the, operations of the existing system or those of any other system of rating would likely to deter anyone from adding to their material comfort if they could afford to do so? All that .need be said further on this point is that if tho person con-

periled preferred to invest his money in rany other way there is no certainty that he would escape taxation of some kind. Regarding the question of rates, Mr. Darton, we think, entirely failed to make his point. For some reason, or another he seems to think that it is bound to follow that the public will benefit if the shopkeepers’ rates do happen to he appreciably reduced under rating oh the unimproved values. His contention is, granting that such would be the ease, that the fact that it was known that they were making larger profits would induce others to enter the line. It should not be necessary, we think, to do more than point out that it is only the prospect of securing a reasonable turn-over at a. fair profit that induces additional competition in any business. It would be well, wo think, if he can do so, for Mr. Darton to say which articles of consumption or manufacture are likely to be reduced in price one iota by the adoption of the new system. Probably what Mr Darton will hold was his strongest point was the contention that every year several additional municipalities became converts to the system, also that with one exception none of the places that have adopted it have gone back on it. But what ar© the real facts in this regard? It will, of course, he admitted that length of trial is the best test of any system. As a rule advocates of the principle make a strong point of the fact that attempts to reverse successful polls have been infrequent. Quite as important, perhaps, is the question as to how the system has been viewed by local authorities where polls have been taken more recently and where the ratepayers have had the advantage of the experience of other- towns. Reference to the Year Book will show that since the beginning of 1907 twenty-four polls have been held, with the following results: — —ln Favor of the System.—

(When the system was adopted the figures were: For the system 202, against 172.) —Recission of the System Lost.— Devonport borough ... 176 415 (When the system ivas adopted the figures were : For"the system 356, against- 109.) Hawera borough ... ... 10S 161 (When, the system was adonted the figures were : For the system 129, against 9.) Invercargill borough ... 219 373 (When the system was adopted the figures were : For the system 356, against 174.) There are other aspects which might, if space would permit, he touched upon, but on leaving the subject for the present, we would again urge that it is desirable that much further consideration should be given to the question before the ratepayers are asked to give their verdict.

Voting on Proposal. District. For. Agst Awhitu road district 23 15 Clyde town district 68 12 Danncvirke borough 308 94 Featherston town board ... 101 14 Hastings borough ... 323 246 (Ratepayers adversely affected got their part of district severed from tho borough) Mackenzie town district ... 14 3 New Brighton borough 133 76 Ngaruawahia town district 16 15 Opoti'ki county 45 37 Piako county 22S 59 AVairoa borough 79 21 AYeber county 78 10 —The System Rejected.— Birkenhead . 193 24S Matamata county ... 156 271 Mataura borough 17 58 St. Ivilda borough 152 223 Taihape ... " ... 30 6S Tomuka 11S 176 AA'anganui East 162 189 —Recission of the System Carri ed.— Castlepoint county 41 19 North-East A T alley 354 185