STATE HOUSES

Press, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22201, 18 September 1937, Page 20

STATE HOUSES

to THE EDITOR OE THE PRESS. Sir, —It has just been announced that tenders have been accepted for an additional 220 State houses, 207 of which are to be in the North Island, with 13 only in our own little settlement at Spreydon. Well, we ought perhaps to congratulate ourselves that the northerners are getting so many and we so few. Complaints are often heard that the North Island always gets the best of everything, but we of the South are certainly getting some of the pull in this instance. Seriously, something ought to be done about these State houses. If his words are any guide, even the Prime Minister does not seem to be entirely satisfied that all is well, for here are some extracts from a statement made by him about a fortnight ago (see “The Press,” September 6): "The people want their own homes. . . . We are doing our best to meet the difficulty by building houses for renting , . . but that does not* overcome the trouble. ... I want to see homes for the people in my lifetime, and it seems to me that people who want to build for themselves . . ; should receive some consideration. ... It is better that peopje should own their own homes than that they should rent them from the Govern ment. . . Other things have been said both before and since which do not hear out these sentiments very well, but that does not matter, for it is much better that the wiser things should be remembered and the others forgotten. If the people want their own homes, and it is better that they should own them, it seemg reasonable to ask why the Government should continue with its extravagant and unsatisfactory policy of building to rent. It also seems reasonable to suggest that there must be some limit to the resources of this small country, and that those resources should be used in such a way that the whole of the citizens will receive the greatest possible benefit from them. No reasonable and unbiased person cun possibly say that this is being done in the case of the Government’s housing scheme. In my judgment, the right course would be for the Government to concern itself solely with the financial arrangements, which may be regarded as its proper function. The choice of locality and sections and thdf building should be the business of the prospective owners, by arrangement with the regular builders, who are for the most part thoroughly practical men who understand every detail of the business, and are thus able to give the best possible value for every pound spent. Many fairly obvious reasons could be given why this would be the better way, but I want at present to deal in particular with one—the question of cost. Every house built by the State costs about £IOOO for the building only. It is difficult to obtain the exact figure, and I am told on good authority that the actual average cost is more like £1100; but we will suppose it to be £ 1000, in order to be bn the safe side. Now. a house quite as good and quite as well built (to say the least of it), containing five goodsized rooms and all conveniences, can be constructed in the usual way today for about £750. Two years ago this same house could have been built for £6OO or even less. One of the most notable achievements of our beneficent Labour Government, in us efforts to improve the lives of the people, has therefore been to place an additional burden of £l5O on to the shoulders of every family desiring to provide itself with a good home, which is, of course, an absolute essential for a full and healthy life. However, that cannot be helped, and we have to take things as they are, and not as wo should like them to be. Whichever method of building is adopted, at least £2OO must be added for the section, fences, and footpaths, and any outbuildings which may be required, making the total cost if built •by the State £I2OO, and if privately built £950. Here is a direct saving of £250 on every home. On the face of it it looks as though that should be worth thinking about, and I feel quite sure that any Independent, competent authority would agree that u is a moderate statement of the position. Supposing that representations were made to the board of directors of any progressive manufacturing company showing how a similar saving could be made in its costs, while at the same time the output of its products would be increased and their quality greatly improved. It is certain that thG sug* gestions would be eagerly and carefully investigated, and * t h «y *0“? the test, would be speedily adopted in the interests of the shareholders ox the company. The Government is in the position of the board of directors of that very large company, which

includes every man, woman, and child in New Zealand, and it should act in the same businesslike way in their interests, for it was elected to do just that. —Yours, etc., GEORGE INGRAM. September 17, 1937.