MIRAMAR HOUSES

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 304, 17 September 1921, Page 8

MIRAMAR HOUSES

HAVE THE OCCUPIERS A GRIEVANCE? THE FACTS OF THE CASE DEPARTMENT DENIES MISLEADING THE APPLICANTS. The occupier of one of the Government houses at Miramar resents a suggestion made in the columns of “The Dominion” that people who do not like their bargains with the Housing Department are free to withdraw from them and see if they can do better elsewhere. He states that the Department told him that he could have the house for a weekly ’payment of 21s. 11d., and that he cannot afford to nay 345. a week. The correspondent's letter is printed below, and is followed by a statement of the facts of the case, gathered by a “Dominion” re-

porter from official sources. "In your issue of September 14,” writes the correspondent, "you commence an illuminating paragraph with the preamble that “it ie difficult to please some people." I candidly confess that when I read the words of wisdom that follow I did not know whether to feel amused, annoyed, or merely sorry, ror misstatement of facts and. misunderetanding of the position it stands unrivalled. Even as a little bit of spec- [ ial pleading for that Gilbert and Sullivan Department of Inefficiency styled the Housing Board, it fails to pass muster though the cloven hoof is strongly evident Still, it is some consolation to know that I have charity enough to recognise that the writer of the paragraph did not attend the indignation meeting, has not seen the remarkable series o”f letters, agreements, notices, etc., that we have been assailed with, nor read the Housing Act, and the original prosneetus issued' by the Department. "You contend we did everything but threaten to leave. No threats were used at the meeting. All the threats are against us. We are threatened with an epidemic because of the sanitary arrangements. Tho Department wrote me in black and white that I could' enter into possession provided that ■ I agreed to pav 21s. lid. per week instalments. Six months after they threaten me with eviction because I try to hold them to their agreement. You hand me some cheap advice as to what to do if I am dissatisfied with my bargain. Who said I was? T claim that at this late hour the Department is dissatisfied with the bargain it made with me. How about paFsinf advice on to them fne some of the old adages their way—about honouring a comnact. keening faith with the public, nnd finally when you recognbo that I hold their letter (the 21s. Ild. one), dub it ' a scran of naper, and air off some of the platitudes you have stored up anent such an important docu"It is obvious that a 'worker’ under the Act is hardly able to average more than _£s a -n-eek. Tdo assert ho can’t afford to pay 345. n week rent, i Do you assert that he can? Would von like to provide food, clothing, fuel, lighting, education. tram fares, etc., for a wife snv, five children (the Housing Board when T got my house ’decided you must have five or stay out) on the balance? Tf you’ve tried the experiment and know how it’s done, please start a night school for such ns !• You coul<l donut© tho fees to the unemployed fund"You mention a rental of <£l Is. lid.—it isn’t rent. The wording is ‘instalments of purchase monev.’ Improvements, upkeep, laying out the ground, rates, insurance, fencing. Atras. etc., ol! have tn b» teokerl '■l. TwenFy-ono shillings and eleven pence means . a worker’s home to w hicli he is tied for 3Gi years, to take an interest in, to* keep in good order and repair—3os. or 31s. is the old rent bogey over again—oome when you like. go. as you please —a boardinghouse if yon like and. bv easy transition, a rented sluni area if you will- When the Housing Bill was’ passed—the scheme was to be self-supporting—did you onposo the measure because it wou’d hiii-J-n Ore taxpayer? Am I not a taxpayer? And if so, is your special interest at this eleventh hour in duch as I (as a fattier of seven I suppose I pay more in taxation, direct or indirect, proportionately rthan vou do) to draw away attention from tho fact that bad buving, bad management. wasteful squandering, nnd almost criminal bungling lies at the root, of the disaster that has befallen this attempt'to solve the housing problem? Knowing as*you do, how- your journal has always stood in the forefront of any movement for the advancement of humanitv. of any attempt to solve our social and domestic problems, of any object which would help to make this city better, cleaner, and happier to live in—('Comfortable Homes for 'Contented Penpie’ as s. star headliner)—it must he very disappointing for you to, ask me to take my 21s. Ild. in my hand, and wander forth among the highways and byways, in order to find out how lamentably you have fnilpd in the mission you undertook, and that, despite your efforts towards enlightenment and education the city is worse off, and lower down, than ever it was." »

Yesterday a Dominion reporter made inquiries concerning tho points raised in this letter. There appears to have been a great deal of misunderstanding among the occupiers of the Miramar- houses, and most of it probably could bo removed by quiet examination of the facts of the case. In the first place, the highest rent that any occupier of a Government house at Miramar is being asked to pay is 30s. per week. This is less than private landlords are asking and obtaining for houses of similar type and size. In the second place, it has been clearly explained to the.occupiers that the rental of 30s. weekly ifc a temporary arrangement, pending legislation 'this year, and that presently the houses will be handed over to the occupiers for purchase, on the instalment system. The weekly payment by the occupier is expected then to be roughly 275. per week, and the Housing Department will give credit for any sum paid in excess of the weekly instalment during thq periol of tenancy. The first batch of houses built by tho Government at Miramar were estimated to have cost .£936 each, and they were sold by the Housing Department on that basis. The occupiers paid a deposit of £lO (or more if they pleased), and are paying off the balance by instalments which cover principal and interest. • The weekly payment is in the neighbourhood of 215., and the occupiers admittedly are on a good wicket. Tho price of materials and of labour was rising while the GoveNjment was building these houses, and the second batch cost just upon .£lOOO each. The weekly instalment on a house costing .£lOOO is 21s. lid. This fact was stated by the officers of tho Housing Department. to applicants, and appears to have been the basis of the claim now made that the instalments on all houses should not exceed 21s. lid. per week. But the cost of building was still increasing, and a revised estimate placed the cost of additional houses at nearly £llOO. These prices include the section in all cases. Now the Act provided that the maximum liability to be assumed by the State in the provision of a house should be .£lOOO. Tho Department could have got over tho difficulty by selling these more expensive houses to people who were able to pay a deposit large enough to cover the amount by which

the cost exceeded the legal limit. Many such people were eager to get the houses, and were qualified as workers to take them. But the Department desired to give preference io the people whose need was greatest, that was, io the parents who had large families of children and w.ho could not afford io pay large deposits. Tho Government undertook to ask Parliament to extend the legal limit to £ll5O during the session that is to open next week. But the Department could not complete purchase agreements until tho amendment had actually been made, and in the meantime the people were clamouring to get into the houses. The tenancy system that has caused so much friction was the outcome of this difficulty. The JTVpurtinent allowed the successful applicants to enter the houses as tenants pending t he amendment of the ]aw. Tho rent was fixed originally at 345. per week-, but was reduct’d after protest by Ihe tenants to 30s. a week. Tho tenants have been asked to sign an agreement to purchase, since the Department, has no intention of maintaining tho tenancy system any longer than is necessary. , \

The houses now held 'under tfiis system are’-.estimated to cost £1125 each, and the occupier will pay' about 275. « week, With an initial instalment of only £lO. If the occupier has been paying 30s. a week during a period of tenancy and the instalment under the purchase Bpheme is 275., he will receive credit for the 3s. a week paid in excess of the instalment. The terms of purchase are exceptionally easy, and the Housing Department is seeking to make it quite clear that if the occupiers will not buy they must make way for others who will buy. Comparisons have shown that the Department is selling the' houses below the market price, and no private salesman would think of offering such- easy terms of payment. The reason that people have been allowed to occupy those houses before the cost is known precisely and before the necessary amendment has been made in tho law is to be found, of course, in the acute housing shortage from which Wellington has been suffering. The applicants were eager to get into the houses at the earliest possible moment, and the Housing Department was anxious to assist them.

The officers of tho Department deny that there has been any breach of faith, and they are. quite sure that hundreds of other applicants would gladly, take tho houses on the conditions that are being offered to those already in occupation.