RENTS

Auckland Star, Volume LXXIV, Issue 35, 11 February 1943, Page 4

RENTS

All fair-minded people will agree with "Landlord" that "To condemn the Rair Rents Act wholly would be foolish." What a pity it is indeed that the constructive element which makes criticism worthwhile is lacking in so many of the vehement outbursts by critics of the Fair Rents Act. The Fair Rents Act exists to prevent , hardship. Both landlord and tenant need its protection. Tenants are now living in greater security and the vast majority of landlords seem to have survived the ordeal. It is alleged that there are cases of hardship among landlords. There is no reason why they should not be provided for in the Act- (if such is not the case now). State houses are protected against bad tenants. New laws, being man made, are not always perfect, but when, as in the case of this undoubtedly humane Act, it is in force in the interests of ensuring the greatest good for the greatest number, the clamour should be—not for its total condemnation and abolition—but for amendments, that all might be included in its benefits. UNBIASED.

To "Honesty," N. Johnson and others I return thanks, although six months before my marriage my tenant was asked to vacate, and although in the first years of my married life I, womanlike, shunned the hostility and coldness my appeals for my own home evoked and like "Fed Up" also felt that way. Yet to-day, with my second child born I would mother if I continue to shirk fighting for my babies' own home. I don't intend to annoy tenants of flats and boarding houses with my babies. Do our own legislators (and they have no young children) act up to the law they impose upon helpless mothers and their children? Do the framers of this Act give up their own homes to provide homes for those who have not provided homes for their own families? Even in trams, gentlemen, unasked, vacate their seats to a lady with-a babe, but I have never heard of any man who would not vacate his seat when appealed to by a woman with two babies. DO YOU.