THE FEAR OF SLUMS.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 5667, 15 August 1905, Page 2

THE FEAR OF SLUMS.

DISCUSSION- BY THE PETONE COUNCIL. A BY-LAW ATTACKED. There was an interesting discussion at the meeting of the Pebou© Borough Council lost evening on a by-law passed some time ago, and incorporated in the building regulations. During the debate it was stated that in many houses in Petone two families were living together, and in some cases, three. Tho by-law reads: " A building may be erected on a section of not less than 50ft frontage; said building to have exclusive useof aclear space not less than 2000 square feet, free from any erection thereon, with a space of 3ft on both sides from section boundaries; the budding to have a party wall in brick projecting beyond all leans-to; the building to be for tho exclusive use of two families only ** The discussion arose out of a motion by Councillor Macfarlaue to rescind the by-law. Ho said there was plenty of land in Petone. and there was no reason why the Council should assist to perpetuate the very thing Parliament was endeavouring to arrest. It was inserting the thin edge of the wedgo of slum lifo. If the selfish element was eliminated in consideration of the matter, and if people pecuniarily interested were prevented from voting on questions like this, it would bo a good thing. To cut down the legal frontage to 35ft meant giving an increased value to land. It was all very well to say that this sort of proceeding waa in the interests of the working man, but it was patent to anyone who gave the matter a little thoughtful consideration that it was not so. He trusted the Council would not bo the leader in perpetuating a state of things which would Lead to trouble and blemishes on. municipal life. Councillor Nicholson seconded the motion. He instanced Wellington as an illustration of what followed where land was cut up in too small lots. Price* rose rapidly, and the results weighed heavily on the tenant. Ho hoped serious consideration would be given to the matter. It wouia be spoken of outside the Council. Ho firmly believed a verv large majority of residents of the borough were against tho by-law. Councillor McEwan contended that it was increased population that led to increased land values. Councillor Nicholson: Not where there is plenty of land. Councillor McEwan said Councillor MacfarlanUs idea.'} were theoretical “fancy notions/* he called them. lie approved the by-law He believed it would enable the labouring man to build a cheaper house. Councillor Findlay also inveighed heavily against the tc new-fangled laws which had been passed in late years.** No capitalist was going to put up a house in Petouo unless he saw a reasonable probability of a fair icturn. He was iDuilding houses in Petone for which he would get Ms nor week rent. This only recompensed him on a fair basis taking cost of the land and building into '.sideratiou, He maintained that the

working man had to go into old tumbledown .shanties because he could not pet a new house. The new by-law would do away with this. lie knew of many cases where two faniiilies and even throe were living together in one house; that was wli.u the new legislation was bringing about.

Councillor Coles said lie would vote against; the motion. Ue was sorry Councillor -Mnciai-’ane had such a poor opinion of human nature. Jt was a .step in the right direction to have two semidetached villas on a aUfl section. Comic ll >r AVakcham t-aid lie was not speaking as a builder, for ho had spent as much money in Pctone as lie intended to —there were other places where ho could invest his money more profitably. There was no reason why a good building with a brick dividing wall should not provide a good house lor two families. Men who came and invented capital in the boiough, not the workers, made Pet one.

The Mayor pointed out that the provisions of the by-law would give four times as much air space as the minimum stipulated by the Municipal Corporations Act <Usoft). Ue was wnii the majority of the Council on the subject, because ho considered th© Council should do something to prevent two families living in one nouse. Tne working man was deserving of tho consideration of the Council, lie was sorry reference was made to tho connection of some councillors with different aspects of a question like this. He was satisfied that councillors acted disinterestedly in matters of tho kind.

Councillor Alexander also opposed the motion.

Implying. Councillor Macfarlan© said he hoped the people would not submit to the by-law.

Councillor Findlay: They like cheap vents.

Councillor Mncfarlnne; They won’t rrol it under this Bvatcm, More will be heard of the matter outside the Council. The motion was lost, only the mover and seconder and Councillor Hastings voting in its favour. The following notice of motion was handed in by Councillor Findlay.— “That permission be given to erect a two-story building upon a section not less than 40 x 100, having uol Ess than 2000 ft combined air space, same to have a brick party wall; to contain not less Ilian four rooms and scullery, bathroom, and conveniences, to eacn ’ detachment; backyards to bo well covered to the depth of <lin with rotten rock, well rammed and graded to inlet of drain, with a well-tarred surface to the same specifications as tho street footpaths. That a. 6ft dividing fence composed of inch boards, be erected in a substantial manner. to tho satisfaction of the inspector.”