Affected by the recent sharp increase in land prices in Ruiru, Kiambu, a few owners sought my advice. Incidentally, I’d been privy to a case where the land rates of a parcel within the periphery of Kiambu town had shot from Sh10,000 to about Sh170,000. This is a huge increment. I suspect that many other proprietors in the county have silently agonised over such disproportionate increments.
Let’s be rational on this matter. Counties have the legal mandate to draw up valuation rolls, based on which they levy land rates for properties within any rateable jurisdictions.
Under the law, Kiambu, which had reportedly reviewed its valuation roll a while back, therefore acted within its mandate. Nairobi has been reviewing its roll too. Other counties may be at different stages on this matter. Land rates are an excellent source of revenue, and counties must optimise it. But guardedly.
First, every county must be aware of the background, mindset and capacity of its people. Governments also must be aware of the philosophy behind levying land rates. An ambitious and unfeeling approach to land rates could turn out counterproductive. Let me explain. Some counties have had valuation rolls upon which they charge land rates. However, they may have taken rather long to review such rates. That, however, isn’t the ratepayer’s problem, but rather that of management and political leadership.
So come the moment of review, the wide change in proper values upon which rates are tied, would imply a commensurate change in land rates, as perhaps happened in the case of Kiambu. However, the disproportionate increment of such statutory payments could be deemed punitive and unaffordable.
Expecting compliance in such circumstances is not pragmatic, and enforcement often meets with public protest, non-compliance or the unjustifiable sale of private property. Several proprietors may not afford it and hence will not pay. Yet, it’d be impractical to put their land on sale en masse. The county and national governments may therefore need to address this disparity more considerately, even if this calls for revisiting the applicable legislation.
We also have many rural counties with a lot of properties derived from the former trust lands. This being ancestral land, proprietors holding such freehold titles have lived thereon freely, without having to pay annual rates. They are, however, unaware that with changes in law and urban boundaries, their properties may now fall within rateable jurisdictions. In such cases, counties must proceed with caution.
Targeted sensitisation would, for instance, help. The rates should also be realistic and affordable. Counties should also appreciate that compliance is motivated by adequate and quality service provision. This includes roads, power, water, drainage, waste disposal and social services to the residents. Good services mollify residents and incentivise payments.
