The Grey River Argus TUESDAY, October 20th, 1936. THE STATE AS HOUSEOWNER.

Grey River Argus, 20 October 1936, Page 4

The Grey River Argus TUESDAY, October 20th, 1936. THE STATE AS HOUSEOWNER.

From the outline by Mr J. A. Lee yesterday, the housing programme of the Government promises to have far-reaching effects. Already four hundred sections have been at Wellington secured, and th 0 plans envisage a methodical development of the scheme on very sound lines. The more immediate effect may b e a great deand for labour, not only that of skilled carpenters, plumbers, and other artizians directly engaged in house .construction, but also tor workers to make preparations, as well as experts to survey the needs of different localities, prepare estimates, and carry out other jobs incidental to the project. Th e demand for timber js bound to be increased, as well as for other building material. Mr Lee has been asked to. see that no labour is imported. It were, however, preferable to import as little material as possible, rather than exclude skilled tradesmen who would come to the country to stay, especially as the scheme contemplates a certain degree of continuity. This is the aspect of the greatest importance. What arc going to be the consequences in the project? Is it to stop short at larger centos? There doubtless ar e slums to b e cleared from the heart of the cities, and this fact gives an indication where the starting point should be. But it certainly does not show whei'c 1 h’ c housing expansion should finish. The Government must recognise that urbanisation is not in itself a solution of the social problem. It must realise that if by providing hemes for tenants In rural areas

or small towns, it can assist in maintaining the most even possible distribution of population, it will be doing what is in the best interests of the Dominion. City Members of Parliament might not be the best judges in this matter. The expenditure on the scheme ought to be distributed as widely as is consistent with the ideal of a. general housing improvement. It is conceivable that the provision of houses for Workers outside the larger towns of a kind as good as the ones to be erected inside those towns would ease the urban pressure and keep many families in an en|vironment in many ways better than that of urban congestion. It is evident that the State is now entering a new sphere, one which hitherto has largely been left to the private landlord, even with the advances for workers’ homes. The innovation must have the effect of gradually lowering rentals for such homes. Mr Lee points out that people react to an improvement in their economic position by moving to better houses, and certainly by leaving houses in which more than one family had been obliged to live. This development is, no doubt, more characteristic of larger centres, creating there the greatest immediate demand lor new homes. The indications are that the scheme is going to grow from the very nature of its object, and thus the State may he destined to have more tenants eventually than all other landlords put together. Such an eventuality would obviously justify the inauguration of such factories as would ensure continuity in the porduction of. requisites for housing construction. Many landlords al present are disposed to feel that their cider prise is not so profitable as it might be, but they must at the same lime acknowledge that from the national viewpoint the important thing about housing is,, not that it shall be a source of revenue, but that it shall be adequate for the people. When it is not, the premium put upon it means a good income for the landlord, but it also means both too high rents for many tenants, and too few houses for many would-be tenants. Landlords’ right cannot be interpreted in such a way as to mean tenants wrong. The Government has here embarked on a new line of public enterprise, and there is every indication that it could not have ‘ chosen a bettor one.