The Dominion. MONDAY, MAY 7, 1934. THE PARAPET MENACE

Dominion, Volume 27, Issue 187, 7 May 1934, Page 8

The Dominion. MONDAY, MAY 7, 1934. THE PARAPET MENACE

It is disappointing to find the Minister of Employment so emphatically opposed to the use of unemployment moneys for subsidising the wages of unemployed men engaged to remove dangerous parapets and hanging masonry from buildings liable to be affected by earthquake shock. The relevant facts are these: skilled men are out of work; the public is taxed to provide them with relie fwork or with sustenance.payments; the utmost difficulty is being experienced in conjuring up this relief work, and almost all of it is unskilled , the removal from urban buildings in the earthquake belt of inessential parts that constitute a daily danger to people passing beneath them is a work of urgent and vital importance to the people who conti ibute the Unemployment Fund; and in part is skilled work. Why no., then, employ the people’s money, which in any case goes to the unemployed, in employing them to make the streets safe for the public. That seems both practical and sensible. It is easy to be led away by false scents, lhe Unemployment Board sees in the proposal a revival of the building, subsidy, which, having accomplished the aim of reviving a dormant industry, has been discontinued. It is in reality something quite different. Local bodies are allowed, indeed encouraged, to use. relief labour in forming and improving public parks, the purpose of which is to maintain the health of the people. Why should they not be allowed and encouraged to do so for the purpose of safeguarding the lives of the people? fhe objection is made, as by our correspondent Mr. D. McLaughlin this morning, that the proposal is to offer “a gift .from the Unemployment Fund” to the owners of dangerous buildings? That again is invalid. What Mr. McLaughlin apparently means to contend is that the responsibility 'Of making buildings safe is wholly upon their owners, and that a subsidy from any public fund would ease the burden of that responsibility. He, too, is confused by the building subsidy scheme, with which this proposal is not analogous. A new building is an asset to the owners; an old building made safe for pedestrians in the street below does not gfiin in material value, though its owners naturally are easier in conscience. . They are no more safe legally, since a person killed by masonry falling front a building erected in accordance with the law has no claim against-its owners. Earthquakes-are acts of God. The Privy. Council has'overcome this disability in the case of employees coming within the Workers .Compensation Act, but it still operates against the general public. ‘ . Moral responsibility is less easy to fix, or to apportion. In part, of course, it attaches to owners. But only, in part. Some blame must be shouldered by local authorities, for .the buildings now found to be a menace to life .were erected in accordance with their by-laws. And the community which allows an unsafe state of things to continue is also to blame. Surely-a fair apportionment would be to ask local authorities to take the initiative and give the service of their engineers to decide what .buildings are to be “trimmed,” and where; and then to divide the cost, not necessarily equally, between owners and the community. "The community” in this sense would ordinarily be either Government or municipal funds; in the special circumstances of the times it could well be the Unemployment .Fund. Mr. McLaughlins concern for the unemployed is highly praiseworthy, and, unfortunately, necessary. But not in the present connection. Not one penny would be diverted from the unemployed by subsidising this urgent public work. Indeed, they would be helped by an increase of income, as under the building subsidy, but. without any offsetting private advantage. We trust the Wellington City Council, which has given a notable lead-to the country in the matter of earthquake building regulations, will urge upon the Government the more vital necessity for prompt action to shear the death fringes from existing buildings.