STATE HOUSES

Evening Post, Volume CXXIV, Issue 70, 20 September 1937, Page 8

STATE HOUSES

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—l would be pleased if you could spare the space to point out what I consider some defects in the otherwise splendidly equipped houses built by the Government at Miramar and whether it would be possible for you to enlighten would-be tenants of the points raised. I understand that the Government provided in the contracts for lawns to be laid down on all frontages of the houses, but it does not intend to surround them with any protection, fencing of a wire nature being provided at the rear of each dwelling only. This would, if true, be a serious defect, as tenants, apart from privacy, would be unable to protect the unfenced space and the absence of a surround would not be an incentive to the tenant. A wire surround at the rear, when one is aware of the severe winds in Miramar locality, would, practically, deter the occupant from planting shrubs or attempting any garden work which could not exist after any wind.

It is also understood that, oilier than a small space for coal and wood, situ-

ated under the main roof, no provision is made for storage of garden tools or "bther quite necessary outdoor articles, in the way of a small shed. This will certainly tend to make sections untidy and be rather unfair to the tenants. I am sure all tenants would be willing to pay a little more weekly until tne cost of such a shelter was defrayed.— I am, etc.,

ANXIOUS,

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —Members of the Labour Party are priding themselves on their State housing operations, and seem to be quite unconscious of the fact that they are responsible for the necessity of State action. The Government passes legislation which practically says to the private builder: "You build houses to let at your peril," for besides his land and income tax, unemployment tax, rates, insurance, etc., he is further subject" to 33 1-3. per cent, surtax on account of his income being allegedly unearned, and on top of this he is saddled with the hardship of his tenant. Then the Government, after driving the speculating builder out of business, says: "Private enterprise has failed, we must build houses for the working man." I challenge the Prime Minister even at this late hour to remove all restrictions on the letting of houses. The Government will still have the advantage in competition with the private man. They are getting their money as they say from some source and.do not pay any taxation, nor 33 1-3 per cent, penalty, but in spite of these advantages, I will back the private builder if the Government will untie his hands from behind his back. At present the only work offering to the private builders, apart from business premises, is building for those who are wanting a better-class home.

Much is made of the number, of applications for the new houses. I happen to know that many of these are comfortably and quite adequately housed at reasonable rentals. Houses should be allotted in accordance with the greatest need of. the applicant after fullest investigation of each case. Let the Government remove all restrictions between landlord ami tenant, and there will soon be houses for all, and at lower rents, too.—l am, etc.,

BUILDER.