WORKERS' HOMES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LI, Issue 15769, 18 November 1914, Page 10

WORKERS' HOMES.

Sir, —In your issue of this date I notice that the City Council propose to raise loans to erect workers' dwellings in Auckland. It is surely time that a stop was put to the endless freak schemes that are foisted on the ratepayers. Outworthy Mayor has about gone the limit in securing parks for the people, and the, unfortunate ratepayers will in time have all their incomes from properties absorbed by way of rates unless the council moderate their Socialistic tendencies. There is no necessity whatever for this outlay, as any decent man with a £10 note can, secure a home under the Government workers' scheme, arid if the council have any reason or demand for these homes then the alternative is to offer the land to the Government at a fair valuation for the purpose of erecting workers' cottages. This scheme is on a par with the socalled .social legislation of the past 20 years, which has tended merely in the direction of doubling tlio cost of living for all concerned without giving any real benefit. There is no call for workers' homes at present, for the land agents will inform you that they have dozens of splendid houses to let at reasonable rentsIf the idea is persisted in, it means that the majority of tenants will have to pay increased rents through the enhanced rates, and if this is not feasible, then it comes to the breaking point when, private owners can no longer afford to own houses, as the interest earned by the investments will in time be absorbed by rates. It would be a good plan if the council were to sell a number of the properties they have on their hands and apply the proceeds to the maintenance of roads. In fact, if thev were to think on these lines they would have quite enough to attend to without indulging in fanciful theories. L. W. D. Andrews.

November 13.

Sir,—As a citv ratepayer I would like to ask what necessity there is for the City Council to embark in the risky enter- j prise of building workers' bouses. Why, j there are scores of empty houses in the city and suburbs at the present time—• ' even in Richmond and other places where ; the council talk of erecting bouses. Let j anyone who questions this statement look j at the "to let" columns of the daily J papers, where they will see plenty of j houses of all sizes advertised at reasonable j rentals. The " fact of the whole matter 1 is thisthere is more misrepresentation | as to the profits made out of building j and letting houses than there is about. ! any other investment. It is not true that property-owners reap such a harvest from their outlay. On the average. I am certain they do not make more than 5 per cent., for the cost of building materials, land, labour, and deeds, also j the high valuations and rates, to say | nothing of repairs, bad tenants, etc.. make ! it impossible for the house-owner to get ' more. Whenever the City Council has this . question before it, as it did when Mr. , Myers was Mayor, the members always j find that it is impossible to build cottages j and let them cheaper than the ruling j rents. Mr. Parr himself was loud in his j protests against the proposal when it was I brought forward by Mr. Myers. I remem- i ber the discussion quite well as reported ! in your paper. Mr. Parr then stated that 1 it was not right to experiment with ratepayers' money in this matter; if it was anybody's duty, it was the Government's. No only so, but he said he doubted very i much whether the council could erect j houses and let them at anything less than ! private people were doing. This is equally true at the present time. If there was | any union or association of property- | owners to keep up rents, it would De a j different matter; but there is no such union, houses being let in open market, • and the rents are ruled by supply and demand. At present the tendency is for I rents to come down a little, although , nearly everything else, such as the real j necessaries of life, etc., is going up. If i Mr. Parr wants to benefit the people ! generally, let him tackle the question of combines, cliques, and trusts with regard to foodstuffs, coal, building materials, etc. i There is more reason why the council ; should deal with these matters than there j is for them to talk of using ratepayers' j money to compete with them. After all, . the council depends upon the rates to .carry on the city, and if the council suc- ! ceeded in lowering rents they would ! simply reduce the valuations generally ! and therefore lessen their own income in proportion. It appears to me that as ; the Arbitration Court now flies good 1 wages and hours in mast of the workers' : trades, the workers themselves should be left to male provision for their homes, just as very many of us did in years gone by. before wages were so fixed and when they were lower. What the council ought to do, without any question, is to lease on reasonable terms the land they have now got vacant., and let the lessees build houses to their own requirei ments. The council would thus get- more I revenue and run no risk. Depend upon ! it, the mere fact that the Government and i the council are taking up this matter of building so-called workers' homes, will certainly correspondingly retard private people from investing their savings in the speculation. This must stand patent to any reasonable being. Why doesn't the council start food shops, coalyards, chemists' shops, flourmills. and even a brswery? There is quite as much reason j for their doing this as for building houses. Ratepayer. j houses. P-ATEPAtm.