Low rent accommodation for those on low incomes

Press, 13 November 1981, Page 12

Low rent accommodation for those on low incomes

By

ELSIE LOCKE

The turn towards living in the city and inner suburbs is gaining momentum in Christchurch. It is stimulated by changes in Housing Corporation policy, by the petrol crisis and by the re-discovery of how much these neighbourhoods have to offer. From a civic point of view the trend is welcome. Although too late in some streets, in others it comes in time to save the character set by the old style houses. It makes good economic sense to conserve housing stock, which is often made of irreplaceable native timbers; to reduce the transport load; and to make full use of existing services rather than spread new ones over good farming land. It makes good social sense to have people living handy to the amenities of the city for culture, recreation and mixing. Urban renewal is a gain for people and not merely for business and buildings. But there are losers in the process. They are the displaced persons living in run-down accommodation due to be rehabilitated or replaced. Low-in-come tenants who cannot pay high-standard rents include students, the unemployed, and recent arrivals from the Pacific Islands and elsewhere. When the . rents rise beyond

their reach, where are they to go? If Auckland is the pattern, they will either take to overcrowding or move to the less expensive suburbs on the city fringe and to caravan parks. Remote locations will compound the difficulties of getting to their studies or prospective employment. The problem needs to be tackled before it gets out of hand. The dispossessed can neither reverse the general trend nor provide for themselves. The “private sector” will always demand an economic return at market rates. A lift in student or unemployed incomes cannot match the steep rise in building costs. Can Christchurch face up to this need, and break new ground, as we did long ago with housing for the elderly? Could our local authorities take up pieces of land not in great demand, or possibly already in' public ownership, and put up the kind of unpretentious accommodation for which transitory tenants could afford to pay? Or perhaps undertake the conversion of disused commercial buildings? Location is important for accessibility to study and work places. The appropriate organisations could be consulted as to what they consider essential

and what is dispensable. Possibly there are “pre-fabs” around to be transferred and altered, as military huts were used for transit housing after the war ended. Building standards cannot be lowered as regards health and safety, but designs can be simple, with no costly frills. So who is to pay? Local councils do not have this sort , of money. However, the Government already pays out extensively for job creation programmes and what better project than emergency housing? There’s no avoiding the cost of land, building materials and skilled expertise, but if the maximum of unskilled labour is brought in from the Labour Department registers, there must he a big reduction in cost. All of us take a greater interest in anything we helped to create. Workers who look forward to becoming tenants have a double incentive, to do a good job and to look after the place. There is nothing very original in this suggestion. It’s a matter of perceiving the need. Our society is fairly wide awake to the needs of the elderly who are now numerous and vocal enough to make a sizeable pressure group. Young people with greater needs may not be so easily recognised.