FAIR RENTS BILL

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 223, 17 June 1936, Page 7

FAIR RENTS BILL

Chamber of Commerce Criticism

Criticism of the Fair Rents Bill as being unfair to landlords and a discouragement to house building was expressed last night at a meeting of the Wellington Chamber of Commerce, when a letter asking for opinions on the measure was received from the Associated Chambers of Commerce. Mr. M. G. C. McCaul said that all the chamber could do was to draw attention to experience of the past decade that all Acts restricting the operations of landlords and tenants restricted building. Anything which restricted production put up prices, and dearer rents to-day were directly due to the restriction on house-building over recent years. “Let the law of supply and demand operate,” he said. If rents became high house-building would be accelerated, and the man who built houses was the greatest friend the community had in keeping rents down. Mr. 11. 11. Niinmo said that legislation to protect tenants from victimisation was commendable, but tins legislation was unfair to the landlords, who had not been consulted before the law was passed. It hit hardest the landlord who was fairest. May 1 was fixed as the date on which was to be calculated the basic rent. He was credibly Informed that many landlords had reduced their rents over the depression, in some cases by as much as half. The law Wok no account of the position of landlords who had been specially fair to tenants. In having a fair rent fixed, the only step open to a landlord was to ap peal to a magistrate. He thought tnosc decent landlords would rather not do that, but would prefer to negotiate with their tenants.

The spirit of the law was the antitheses of its title. It was grossly unfair to landlords, especially those who had been fair to their tenants. Very few landlords were grasping, but the legislation classified them all as ‘‘a bunch of Shylocks.” It was decided to embody the views of members in a report to the associated chambers.