HOUSES FOR WORKERS

Evening Post, Volume CXVIII, Issue 51, 29 August 1934, Page 8

HOUSES FOR WORKERS

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —Concerning- the proposal put forward by Mr. Bead of tho Trades and Labour Council fov a housing scheme on Wellington City Council property, I should like to submit an alternative plan to meet the necessity. As it is only the poor and the very poor who arc forced to live in crowded and unhealthy conditions, it must be borne iv mind by all who would cure the evil that not only do these families require decent homes, but also all the appendages thereto, and, above all ... a stable means of: providing themselves with the.essentials of life. Supposing for a moment that all the necessary homes (six to the acre) as proposed by Mr. Bead were built and poor families occupied them at an average rent of 15si per w/Sek. This Tent represents from three-sevenths to three-quarters of the total amount received by sustenance men at present, and these enormous deductions from an already insufficient income will mean that the poor will just simply have secured a better.house Without the means to live. • At the present moment the Unemployment Board offers a 12 per cent, subsidy for house-building, and simultaneously, tells us that its income 1 precludes the possibility of appreciably increasing the sustenance scale. All the city housing schemes must face the same issue . . .

by what means shall the poor earn thoir dally bread? Obviously, not on sustenance. The problem of housing the unemployed and that of unemployment itself are inextricably linked. .The solution must embrace' both, and the tendency to thrust the problem on to city ratepayers is manifestly unjust, and, moreover, palpably uneconomic. Cities must assist, but the remedy must bo national, and the National Government alone has the power to apply the necessary measures. - Some of New Zealand's 19,000,000 acres of grasslands must bo acquired, and utilised for the sustenance of the surplus population in our various cities. Tho cost in money tokens of planning, building, and settling unemployed families . . . some peasant-farmers, others industrial and professional craftsmen, in self-sustaining groups of approximately 3000, could be provided by an issue of scrip by the Eeserve Bank, to be redeemed by capitalisation of the Unemployment Fund. No other solution, wherein decent home life and permanent supply of the means of existence are ever present^ is possible. The present economic systoin, dependent upon a surplus labour market, has collapsed because the enormous number in the market has caused an unforeseen, issue to rise, i.e., a. reduction in consumption which causes a corresponding roduction in profit production. — I am, etc., D. MCLAUGHLIN, Secretary, National Union of . Unemployed. (To the Editor.) Sir, —Mr. J. Bead, president of the Wellington Trades and Labour Council, in, his letter of August 27, evidently has failed to face facts and rebut statements by logical process. . Mr. Tucker has no need so much to "pray to be delivered from such, friends" as I, as Mr. Bead and others will sincerely need to pray to be delivered from inconsistencies. Mr. Read was not president when he opposed the unemployed workers 1' home scheme. When honoured with the position and power' of president of tho council ho began to movo' for a scheme to build homes for workers, and though against using the funds of tho Unemployment Board previously, he now sets it down as part of what ho calls a "scheme." Mr. Bead has carefully avoided any reforence to so sudden and complete a change of mind and action, which was my sole object in taking the matter up. If a fpw months ago the Unemployment Funds were not fitted Xor this purpose, j

the empty houses so numerous and lowrented, present holders of house property, evon. workers, .. were liable to loss of equity, and if the value of house-building could not be reduced to provide rents less than 21s per wee);, why does Mr. Read now suggest the use of Unemployment Funds, and in fact why does ho move at a)li

Mr. Bead has misconstrued the meaning of the opening part of my previous letter. My statement, was '' any credit due to tho council" not to Mr. Tucker for any housing scheme, but Mr. Bead conveniently converts the whole matter to appear as if the cxprcsident was to be credited with proposals, put forward by-, his council. Mr. Bead still sticks to the.idea'that he has evolved a scheme, and that. in spite of tho definition given of what a scheme is. lie tells us that a "definite piece of city land should bo used." This equals informing us that one currant makes a cake, or one cog- makes a machine. The powers vested in the City Council did not necessitate Mr. Eead or his council pointing out a plot of public land good for building schemes. Tho council wants the scheme before it can apply the machinery of administration. The only part of tho scheme submitted.is a piece of land pointed out, so says Mr. Eead .himself. My personal friendship with Tucker has no bearing upon this "controversy, and my love of justice and fair play to all impels my actions.—l am, etc., CHARLES WILLIAMS, j 10 Webb Street, Wellington, August 28. j [These letters havo been abridged.— Ed.]