Council Cottages

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30064, 23 February 1963, Page 3

Council Cottages

Sir,—l am obliged to th* chairman of the housing committee for explaining th* principles of the housing scheme referred to above, but my main query remains unanswered. Why should old people be asked to pay a substantial capital sum in order to occupy a very small habitation for the remnant of life remaining to them? The interest on £2500 would cbmfortably cover the annual outgoing expense* given inCr. Griffiths’s statement, and atiU leave something over foe the council funds; and the capital sum not only remains intact but it is likely to be augmented by further sales of the property every few year*. A hale and hearty centenarian might benefit by th* scheme, but the ordinary run of elderly folk would surely be better advised to rent an expensive luxury flat, not infrequently available, and keep their capital intact.— Yours, etc.,

February 19, 1963. [Th* chairman of th* housing committee of the Christchurch City Council (Cr. O. D. Griffith*) replie*: “It to emphasised the lump aum 1* to cover all outgoing* and ground maintenance for the duration of the tenancy. A married couple aged 64 eould, on life expectancy tables, expect to be in occupation for nearly 16 year* at the cost of £2500. I don’t know what rental your correspondent ha* in mind for th" Luxury flat, but at an average of £7 a week over a period of 16 years, the couple (or survivor) would pay out £5624. The council considered th* scheme would meet a need but agrees it is up to each couple to obtain advice in assessing the position and desirability of tenancy. Tenancies after the first cycle would probably be at a lesser figure owing interest being calculated on a depreciated capital sum. If your correspondent desire* further figures, I suggest he see* the city treasurer.”]