The Parapet Menace

Dominion, Volume 27, Issue 187, 7 May 1934, Page 11

The Parapet Menace

Sir, —Under the above title in your issue of May 4 you publish the views of some owners of premises in Wellington who endorse the suggestion put forward by “The Dominion” that the necessary work of removing unsafe farapets and ounaitfental work on their buildings should be subsidised from the Unemployment Fund. Reduced to simple language; Mr. Jones owns a building which is a menace to public safety. His obvious duty is to make it safe as far as is reasonably possible, and to,coax him to perform this duty a gift from the Unemployment Fund should be offered to him. He approves of this plan, of course, having within himself that selfishness which is common to most of us. which blinds him to the common good, and instead of curbing it he agrees with any suggestion which panders to it. One property owner naively states: “I would like to see the City Council compel owners of dangerous buildings to take action, provided, of course, some heln was forthcoming from the Govcrnnient. This gentleman says in extenuation of this selfish viewpoint that his firm “are only just emeaging from the depression.' How fortunate this firm js! There are approximately <5OOO families in Wellington immutably fixed in the depths of the depression, thousands of these existing on the extraordinary amounts of from one penny to twopence per meal; let such selfish business mon as the above reflect upon thin appalling fact, and say to themselves that until these families receive a reasonable share of food, clothing. warmth, and the other means of decent human existence they, as honourable Christian gentlemen, shall refuse to accept any sum from the fund, which is totally inadequate for the provision of life’s essentials to the families dependent upon it. I defy any logician to defend upon ethical or economic grounds the application of uneninloyment funds to any other purpose than curing the noverty of the unemployed citizens of Now Zealand .Owners of property have consistently supported the subsidy schemes. Why? Because they helnod the pnor? Certainly not. Simply because they aid them in I heir aims of personal perfection, irrespective of whether the common good of the nation'. l families suffered as a result or not. There is nothing admirable in carrying out or advocating such conduct •>s this, and its inevitiililo effect is the further impoverishment of the poor.—l am. etc.. D. MCLAUGHLIN. National Secretary. National Union of Unemployed. Wellington. May 4.