RURAL PL AN N I N G A N D D E\ E LOP M E NT 117 



ing to 25 per cent, was given in I during the years l'.'lS and 



1916. An effort has been made to permit this relief to be ^i\cn 

 permanently. The assessor is to be ji. IB to whether the lands 



are used for agricultural purposes, and, if bo used, he may, at his dis- 

 cretion, assess them at agricultural value. That an expedient such 

 as this is resorted to shows the extremities to which the present - 

 tern of taxation may had. To give an retion <>f the 



above kind is to open the door f< >r the worst M>rt of abuses. M< 

 over, as soon as the present period of depression is over main- areas 

 which have enjoyed relief will be placed on the market for building 

 purposes in competition with areas which have hail n<> relief. The 

 whole system of assessment needs revision, and any attempts t<> ] olster 

 up the present system by methods such as those refe r red to, will 

 make the remedy worse than the disease, and cause serious injustice. 

 The city assessor of Calgary is reported to have stated that claims 

 would be made to bring no less than 20,000 acres of land under the 

 heading of "lands used for agricultural purposes" in 1917. 



The time has come, 'not only for municipalities in Canada to 

 cease to be bankers for real estate operators, but for the municipali- 

 ties to make it obligatory that the local improvements m 

 provide certain minimum standards of sanitation and convenience of 

 access should be provided before lots are put on the market for build- 

 ing purposes. In Cincinnati and a few other American cities, w 

 most local improvements are made by the real estate men before 

 building takes place, development is stimulated rather than ham- 

 pered by the practice. 



If the temporary speculating owners of real estate were com- 

 pelled to provide their own local improvements in advance of de- 

 velopment, they would contribute, in doing so, more to the public 

 revenue than they would lie likely to contributebya tax on the land, ami 

 would, at the same time, ensure healthy and economic develop- 

 ment. The cost of such preliminary improvements might amount 

 to from $1,000 to $2,500 per acre. It would be paid by the developer, 

 and only a portion of it, based on the demand for the land, would In- 

 recoverable from the purchaser on whom the subsequent t.ixe> tall. 

 If it had to be paid by the developer he would not, as a rule, put 

 land on the market till it was ripe for building, and the public 

 would thus get rid of one of the chief causes of speculation. It is 

 true that some speculators have lost large sums of money a .i reault 01 

 making expensive improvements out of private capital, in order to 

 force land on the market before its time; but for erery speculator 



