View report page

110
question whether any increased value has actuallv arisen to
any particular premises at all has to be determined; then to
what extent the value has been increased directly by the
improvement, and not by other causes; then the benefit
derived by the actual occupier from such increased value,
and the proportion of the increased value derived by the
lessee and freeholder. In the majority of cases, not one of
these questions could be settled by being submitted to the
only true test, the open market, but would have to be decided
upon hypothetical valuations by professional men. How
greatly valuers even with the largest experience differ in their
estimates may be seen by reference to any procceedings in
which the compulsory sale of property is involved.
In the next place, objection might be taken to the arbitrary
fixing of an area of "betterment." It is difficult, for
instance, to say why the east side of a street should be
subject to the charge and not the west side of the same
street. Another objection may be taken to a perpetual rent
charge being adopted as the basis, instead of a capital sum.
For instance, under existing circumstances a building may,
from the nature of the business carried on or from other
causes, derive considerable present benefit from the improvement,
and so be rendered liable to a heavy rent charge in
perpetuity, while, a few years hence, the property may, for
reasons wholly beyond the control of the owner, altogether
alter in character and be then of less annual value than
another block of property which is subject to a small rent
charge or none at all, because the present occupier or owner
derives no immediate advantage from the improvement.
From a ratepayers' point of view, the assumed benefit is
altogether illusory, and may result in a heavy charge on the
rates. It cannot be supposed, for example, that Parliament