HOUSE RENT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5564, 28 January 1879, Page 3

HOUSE RENT.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE NEW ZEALAND TIMES. Sin, Again cetrain statements are made in a local print regarding what the writer calls “high rents,” but this time he endeavors to show that they are entirely owing to “ the fictitious value at which land has arrived.” On a former occasion the high price of butchers’ meat was hinted at as the cause, and a short time ago we were told that the “ high price” realised for the land upon which the Supreme Court buildings stand, viz,, £156 per foot, was only a proof of the thorough genuine prosperity of the city and of land transactions, and the name of the purchaser and of the other persons who bid at the sale were riven as a proof that not only was a genuine sale effected but that the price of the land was to be regarded as a proof of the stability of_ the city. About the same time also the price of certain land iu Melbourne was quoted, and the public were duly informed that this was only the day ot small things, and that ere long we should have tho same extraordinary prices ruling here. But a change has come o’er the spirit of the writer's dream. He has now woke up, only to find that his delightful vision is rudely dispelled. What was three or four months ago really sound and genuine is now discovered to be “ fictitious,” and we are solemnly told that the “fictitious” value of the land is bearing fruit. The metaphor halts. A tree planted in the land might bear fruit ; a “ fictitious value” would not do so. He asks, “Is that its real value ?” after quoting the price I stated. I answer that neither this writer nor anyone else is likely to obtain possession of it for less. , It is misleading to bint that the value of tho land four or five years ago would not permit i the present rent to be charged. Suppose we j go back four or five years, as he wishes, and , see what such land was worth, and then compare his statements with the facts. I need not j repeat what I stated in my former letter, for , the most casual observer will see at a glance ( that his statements are “fallacious indeed.” , The laud in question four or five years ago was j worth, and could easily have been sold for cash, and not on “wind bills” and “long terms,” of ( which he has such a horror, for £450. Tho • building of the house would cost about the . same as it did three years ago, viz,, £450, the ( total being £9OO ; and as I stated in my former letter, when rates, interest, commis- . sion, insurance, wear and tear, are taken into consideration, tho profit on the outlay, even ; admitting that the land has increased in value ■ to the extent of £IOO, will not be 7 per cent. ; In his last article he has profited by a hint , that I gave him respecting wear and tear and natural decay, and says, “ We might mention allowance for deterioration yet, in reality, ] he does not make any, but tries to show that a great profit is made, not by “ exorbitant rents,” ns lie previously stated, but by the advance iu the value of laud, which he now condemns as being “ fictitious,” and therefore . not a reality; so that if bis last article on this i subject mean anything it is this, that rents 1 are not so “exorbitant” ns he thought they ( were, but the profit is great owing to the S advance in the price of land, and this advance i he uses every argument to prove is “ fictitious.” ( Then, verily, the profits of house proprietors j are fictitious indeed. I am told first that a i rent is “exorbitant,” and it is hinted that j “the higli price of butcher’s meat” is the cause, next it is stated that the scarcity of ( houses is a reason, and lastly, I am informed that it is in the “ fictitious value” of the land, and the writer in question asserts that my ' letter proves it, and at the same time doubting if the contents of my letter be true. Once more I offer him a little advice gratis ; lawyers sell the article. Mr. Journalist, do have respect for the newspaper for which you write, and I would further suggest, do not again make it the medium for manifesting ignorance to the world.—l am, &c., Landlord. Wellington, January 27.