ONE SIDED?

NZ Truth, Issue 1175, 7 June 1928, Page 6

ONE SIDED?

No Charity Money For Landlords

(From-"N.Z. Truth's" Auckland Rep.) In his majestic conception of equality, W. Wallace, chairman of the Auckland Hospital Board, an- » nounced a little while ago that the unemployed relief committee would not keep the landlords at the expense of ratepayers. Relief payments, he stated, had only been kept down by the committee's refusal to pay rents. QN the face of it the former statement is somewhat absurd, and the decision regarding the non-payment of rent money is wholly unjust and calculated to have a far-reaching economic effect. , It must Wb assumed that Wallace and. his colleagues have acted with full realization of what .their decision means. Are not landlords ratepayers? Who else but landlords pay the rates? Possibly a percentage of ratepayers are merely tenants, holding a lease ofpremises or homes, but the majority of ratepayers ' must be. regarded as landlords. Therefore with comic ambiguity, Wallace conveyed, per medium of the ! press, a warning to ratepayers that henceforth unemployment relief will not be paid for the purpose of, keeping them, or any of them, at the expense of themselves or a section of themselves. It sounds just about as complicated as Wallace's statement sounds ridiculous. Let it be completely understood that no criticism is intended of the unemployed man who is unable to pay his rent to his landlord. Obviously, he is not to blame. The hospital board has the power to levy on ratepayers for hospital maintenance and charitable aid. The responsibility rests upon the board to see that the unemployed are provided with food, shelter and clothing. For this purpose the board has increased its levy from ,25d. to .30d. m the £ for the current year 1928-29. It maintains, however, that out of the sum of £114,529 which this levy will return, there is no provision for the payment of rents. "N.Z. Truth" holds no brief for the landlords any more than it holds a, brief -for the. grocer, the baker, the butcher or the clothier. "Without touching" on the really vital aspect of the case just for the moment, why should only the landlord be penalized? The answer, naturally, will be that the unemployed must eat and they' must be covered. Quite so, but the unemployed must also be sheltered and more particularly, the women and children. ILLOGICAL / The irony of the unemployed situation, Since the hospital board adopte< this illogical stand, is that uhfortunat< people are being turned out of the}! homes and at the time they are evictee they hold m their possession chits fop food issued by the hospital aid board.} A couple of pounds of meat, vegev tables and other raw food commodities S.re not/much use to people who havt no facilities for cooking them. Tc paraphrase Anatole France it might b< said, "the law forbids the rich as wel as the poor to light fires m the streett and to c6ok food thereon." Why should the grocer be paid anc not the landlord? The latter is a;B much entitled to his rent as the forme* to his profits out of the chits issued bjß the hospital aid boards. The land™ lord's position is not a particularllH happy one. He, as a ratepayer, is firsJ| of all stung for a special rate for hosH pital and charitable aid purposes, theH he must meet his rates and taxes, anH on top of the lot his interest on mortH gages. ■■■''•'■■ Numbered amongst the landlords arH hundreds of struggling ratepayers ' anH many of them widows or aged personal dependent on their few pounds frolH house rents. A goodly percentage sl^M staggering along under mortgages anH they also have obligations to meet ar^fl if they fall into arrears there is tl^H ever present risk of having the prt^B perty or properties, which yield thefl| an income, sold up. These are the individuals who^B are being hit hard by this unjusti-^B fied edict of the hospital board. H| Where rents are the sole source income or,; at anyrate, a fair percentadH of it, what alternative has the landloiH or landlady but to insist on havinH tenants who can and .will pay rent? H This criticism is not intended tfl argue out a case for the graspinH house owner, or the large estates anH syndicates owning house properties f<^H rent. They can, m most cases, affbirH to allow a reasonable amount of arreajH before taking action. In any case the^H people also are entitled to their renf^B Not only does the hospital board ac^B minister a- hefty kick to -the landloi^B by a substantial increase m speci^B levy rate, but it applies the other fo<K with equal enthusiasm m refusing tH pay the rents of the unemployed. ThH unemployed problem cannot be laid aH the door of the hospital board. ThiH goes without saying. What is expecteH of the board under the circumstanceH though, is some prompt action to havH the responsibility for the care of thH unemployed placed on the shoulders oH those who were primarily concerned iS bx-inging this shocking state of affair'H about. H WISER WAY ■ Instead of taking such a drastic st^| as that announced by the chairman wl the board, it would have been wisdHf and more humane, to have increas^H the special levy rate to cover the rent^B aspect, and then to have demandt^H that the Government subsidize all pa^H merits. flfl Gordon Coates and his colleagues a<^fl responsible for the unemployment New Zealand to-day. If a big portkH| of the army of unemployed is not r^H presented by immigrants who we^B induced to come to the Dominion undJH false representation .then it' must coij^B sist of native born who have becflj pushed out of their positions by tl^B wave of eager deluded immigrants. ■■ The sins of the Government afl| visited on the people m the form of iiH| creased taxation and the people of NeBB Zealand deserve all they get m tljH future, if they fail to make a very d<^B finite gesture of their resentment at tl|H coming election. It is unfair to expect the ratepayeU of any municipality to bear the burddH of the unemployment. It is a job f cHB the nation to shoulder, and though means increased taxation, far bettaH this than to have the canker eating itH way into the foundations of our ecdH nomic structure. It rests m the hancjH of the people of New Zealand to takH adequate steps to insure that, after thBH coming elections the unemployeH problem will be tackled m earnest. H