“FOR SALE”

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 638, 15 April 1929, Page 11

“FOR SALE”

Are Land Agents’ Notices Unsightly? OPINIONS OF AUCKLAND MEN liySuuU uscms disfigure the city ? This question m»s been raised by the Christcnurch Lund Agents’ abolishing these notices. Man v of the Southern men state that the boards arc'not'& good advertisement tor the city- At present any stranger coming in might think that the whole ot Christchurcn was for sale. This, they assert, creates a wrong imopinions of several of the Auckland land agents on tfic subject was gained by .1 oun representative this All ot tin m agreed that it w ould be a bad pom v to do away w ith the notices altogether, but they also agreed that there should be some restriction to the number ol notices displayed on each property. Ont or two notices did not disfigure the city to any great extent. Disfigurement came when six and seven boards were put on one property. It is preposterous to do this. ' remarked one land agent. Mr. T. D. Allen, of t . F. Bennett Ltd. flunks that it would be all light if people confined themselves to one notice board on each property, several boards ware unsightly and defeated the purpose for which they were in tended, lie does not subscribe to tfi« idea, of doing away with them gether as they indicate to casual pass-ers-by that the property is lor sale. This also applied to notices ol "ot - fices to let” in many of the city bmfilings. irequently windows wjir pLustervil with several. noth.*, riy men who allowed tlija to be done dal not know anything about business prinU Mr 11. E. Vailc. of Samuel Valle and Co., said that the placing ot ** 0» Sale” notices on vacant properties waeucli aii old custom that it would h* undesirable, and almost impossible, abolish them. The fault lay in having half a do%ev or more notices displayed on one pro perty. This looked ridiculous. an<* suggested that the owner was in the last gasp of bankruptcy. If the selling public was discree . there would be no need to have a property or building plastered with notice-. The man who wished to sell his property should have sense enough to set a limit of only one notice. “SILENT SALESMEN” Air. K. M. Rutherford, of Rutherford. Robinson, and Austin, considers that the boards act as 'silent salesmen, and tor this reason they are of great, benefit to the agents. He agrees that one or two boards are necessary, but that it is absurd to j see one property completely decorated with notices. • He would not advise i doing away with the notices allcj gether. as agents do too much business through them. I Mr. J- >l. Jackson, of T. Mandeno Jackson, agreed that the (ward? d d I disfigure tlie city to some extent, but ; the other side of the picture must bo : looked at. If a man wanted to sTI in* ; property, he was quite entitled to nave lu. notice board erected on it. Women did not like the notices, and ;if they would agree to have them (erected Mr. Jackson said that the numI her would probably be increased to [ ten times as many as were seen at present. The “For Sale’" notices were ot great assistance to the agents, who by this means could send n prospective client straight to tlie house or property. Mr. T\ Parkes, of Palethorpe and Farkes, said that agents obtained good results! from the boards. Peoplo motoring round the city noticed that certain properties were for sale*, and made inquiries on the spot. It was the only way of bringing vacant sections under the notices of passers-by. Mr. Parkes thought that any movement to abolish the boards in Auckland would meet with strong opposition from the association here. It was quite reasonable that the number displayed on each property should be limited—say to one or two. It was ridiculous to have five and six notices displayed on one property.