Building Industry

Press, Volume CI, Issue 29801, 18 April 1962, Page 8

Building Industry

Sir,—Mr Unwin suggests that lack of finance U a major flaotor in the reduced demand for new houses and a? It time that governments stopped encouraging young people without any reserve resources to buy new houses on terms that are dangerously near to the “no deposit” class? Apparently ail one has to do with some builders is to put one’s family benefit in hock, i.e., mortgage one’s children to the State Advances Conxjration and in you go. Furniture, carpets and all that are no trouble at all—bags of credit in any store. Then everything is lovely—until something goes wrong. The rest of the story is not pretty.—Yours, etc., ON THE SIDELINES. April 17, 1962.

Sir.—How gratiutuous for “D.N.” to say unscrupulous landlords are friends of the

Government. This assertion is as true as a statement that the Labour Party is Communist. The National Government is making quite adequate provision for housing. Young people with one child esn obtain a new house of 1000 square feet for as little as £5O in hand. Older houses can be purchased with a guaranteed loan. If “D.N.” had read the previous letters with any care at all he should have grasped the idea that some decline In the Christchurch area was being discussed, not other areas, as Christchurch has a surplus of houses. If also, as “D.N." suggests, reduced building is reducing purchasing power and living standards, it is no remedy to build more unwanted houses as he suggests. The answer is increased overseas trading returns. It is the National Government’s

policy to promote these.— Yours, etc., FORWARD WITH NATIONAL.

April 17, 1962.