WORKERS' HOMES.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13863, 28 March 1907, Page 2

WORKERS' HOMES.

A MUNICIPAL SCHEME. DISCUSSION RY~AUCELA.NI> CITY COUNCIL. {From Our Own Cohbesponot.bt.) AUCKLAND, March 26. Interesting side-lights on a serious problem facing the municipalities in the big centres of Ihe colony were contained in tho debate last • evening bv the Auckland City Council on a proposal by tho Mayor to establish workcis' homes in the city. He proposed to start with'4o houses at a. cost of £20,000, (ho houses to be' let at.los to Us per week. Tho houses were to bo built as brisk terraces, each house with 16ft frontage. The Mayor said that some scheme for preventing overcrowding wm an absolute necessity in nil growing cities. Anyone who was not satisfied as to the demand for email houses in Auckland had only to consult any house Agent, or to jmt an advertisement in the papers offering a cottago to let to have his doubts removed. There was no doubt a considerable claes who wero driven to livo in houses unfit for habitation through poverty., sometimes due totheir own improvidence or vice, but there was also another class of respectable- working people in l'cceipt of regular wages wiio could not get decent houses at moderate rents simply because there was,, not enough of such bouses in existence to accommodate them all. It had oven .been contended tnat those who live in-slums do so from choice, but, though unfortunately there were sgmo people who would be thriftless and untidy and dirty under any circumstances, there were'many more who wero made eo by their surroundings. One of the chief evjls of slums, • which it was the design of this scheme to obviate, was effect they had on the characters of those who lived in them. The objection most strongly urged, however,.was that the ecliemc would not pay. Ho pointed out'that it was not introduced with the object of making any direct pecuniary profit. What the proposals aimed at was to. meet a serious danger which undoubtedly existed, and if left alone would yearly grow greater and more difficult to deal with. It bad to bo remembered that if there was no .prospect 'oE much profit, there was as little of any heavy loss, and indirectly it would pay a great deal bettor to incur somo little expenditure in this way than to allow 6ltmis to establish themselves.

Mr C. J. Parr opposed the scheme. Tho Government had recognised that this was peculiarly its function by attempting to provide homes for workers in the suburbs, and hud mado a lamentable failure. It had mado homes not for workers but for well-to-do artisans, who paid rents wbich no worker could };av. It seemed to him that they should ask Hie Government to undertake the work out of the Consolidated Revenue. The scheme was inadequate. It proposed to 40 workers at a cost of £20,000. That was merely .touching the fringe <rf the question. To adequately assist in tho housing of the workers of Auckland would cost .a quarter of a million. The rent of the cottages would bo 11s or 12s a week.. The people wlio lived in flume could not pay that, and so far aa tho scheme- was concerned it would not affect tho slums in the- slightest degree". The main objection to tho scheme was that it did not ailcmpf. to provide for those most requiring assistance. He believed that the solution of the difficulty lay in cheap land with cheap transit. Mr Entrican said that if there . was a necessity for the building of such ■ houses by other than private enterprise, he maintained that the Government, and .not the municipality, should undertake the work. Admitting that the workers wore paying too much of their wages in rent, be contended tho best remedy was the freehold.— (" Hear, hear.") Every worker should aim at having his own home, and it was possible ct ritiiuninent. The building societies wero doing a great deal in this direction. Tho. Government was ako lending; money at low rates of interest to workers in tho towns with the same object. The strongest argument against the scheme was the present financial obligations of the city. The indebtedness was fairly large, and when the drainage was completed would amount to over.£l,ooo,ooo. It was quite plain that anything tending to reduce rentals would reduce rates, and. to get the samp amount of revenue, from., rates would inevitably mean an increase of rating. Mr 11. M. Smceton did not see his .way to support tho motion. If they could find land nt a reasonable price and within a. reasonable distance it might bo the function of the council to provide cheap transit and enable the tenants to (rot the freehold.

Mr R. Tadoliopc believed that there was no need for such a. scheme in Auckland. If there wore a monopoly, if the landlords were ablo to make a corner in house?, he believed that the municipality should step in, but no such monopoly was possible. It was impossible lo erect houses on" city land for workers, nnd it. was madness for the council to go into competition with Ihoso on whom their income depended. There wore no slums in Auckland. There were places which might become slums, but he found that attempts elsewhere to sweep away slums had always caused lom. The proposal did not reach the peoplo who should be catered for, and it was not the function of the council to erect homes for people who could pay 10s or 11s a week. Mr/P.agnall advocated n scheme which would provide money at a low rate o! interest to do something toward the building of the house. Regarding: the class unable to pay full rent, ho said that the Charitable Aid Board was paying £600 a. year within the city-and £300 outside for these. If anything was to bo done tc provide houses at to the community it should be for the indigent class. Landlords were, getting as mucli as 7:i 6d per room, three people occupying the same room at 2s 6d each. The Mayor said he had noted tho various objections, and. like the councillors, ho felt his responsibility too much to ombark cn any enterprise that might embarrass the raiepaycrs. It would be impossible to build houses to rant at 5s to 7s a. week. What Mr Bagnall had said really brought up the question of tenement house;. It was his (Mr Myers's) desire to bring this mutter-in, as he saw there wore even in this city a number of people who occupied simply- a. room, but he thought if his scheme had embraced the tenement house it might net have anpealod to a majority of people as he had hoped, and still honed, it woukl- There was only one solution for indigent class difficulty, anil that was tho tenement house. He believed the time would vci-y shortly come when it would bo the dutv of. possibly, tho municipality to go on to that mieslion, and the figures mentioned ■ only showed that the. city was already contributing heavily to the housing of the indigent section, paying nearly half of the contributions lo the lxiard. This ii!«o included provision for a- large number who were indigent because of ill-health and in view of the surroundings and localities; in which these pconle lived it was not surprising to learn that tho contribution was so large, He believed, by the solving of Ihe housing difficulty a great portion of the contribution to the hoard would lie saved. While there might be no actual .slums, there was the danger of thorn, and therefore ho considered the time was opportune. He would let them into a secret. He was a freeholder—("Hear, hear")..—he believed the freehold was tho best tenure possible in any community— I Hear, hear"),—but Ihcro would always be a. section of the people unable to put down a, deposit; and as this was a seaport town this section would always bo

pner-cnt. He lintl too great a respect fqi the.opinions of tho councillors to press his own .views, and would take tho suggestion that the matter was so important that it would bo desirable to refer to it at a. later period. He therefore moved—" That tho scheme bo adjourned for consideration .for n period of six months. ,. This was carried unanimously.