PLEA FOR MORE HOMES

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 72, Issue 6241, 12 June 1946, Page 10

PLEA FOR MORE HOMES

RURAL AREA SHORTAGE PRESENT COSTS TOO HIGH From every angle, it ig eminently desirable to increase the number of houses throughout New Zealand’s countryside. Primarily, it would be better for our farming to have married labour settled on the land, and this is to be desired from a national standpoint. Country life is ideal for the upbringing of the coming generation; fresh air, open spaces and ample and good food are al there available. Yet largely are the rural areas starved of manpower, because there are insufficient homes, writes “H.A.5.,” in the Dominion.

This subject was raised at the Manawatu ward conference of the Dairy Board by Mr W. E. Scott. Speaking of dairy factory housing, he declared it to be essential to have a minimum \of 50 per cent, of married labour, and especially for cheese manufacture. It was remarked that from 1934 to 1945 the cost of housing and the price of butterfat had risen equally. That I regard as an unsound comparison, if it suggests that it is as easy to finance houses to-day as formerly. After all, to-day’s butterfat price is very little above a 20-year average taken from 1910 to 1930—that cannot be said of housing. To take 1934 as a base is improper, as that was a very low point for butterfat. The fact was quoted that a reasonable rent on a factory residence erected now would be about double the rent payable on a State house in town, and it was asked why, if the State could finance urban housing from the Reserve Bank at 11 per cent., factory housing could not be so financed. The interest rate is the same as that paid by the Marketing Department on dairy produce financing. Here, a wider issue is raised. If dairy factory housing, why could not the houses on the farms be so financed : though I do not approve of any financing by the Reserve Bank at a rate below 3 per cent, which the State has to pay for the people’s savings genuinely borrowed by way of loan. £lO/10/- an Acre. So much for the particular angle of factory housing. I have recently inspected buildings on various farms. On a fat lamb farm of 330 acres, there is a home almost 60 years old. It is not over-large for the farmer, his wife, children and an occasional guest. Within a few years this home will have to be replaced. On the present cost of 35s a square foot, this will mean that £3500 has to be found—£lo 10s an acre. A few years ago this farm was valued at £33 an acre. The home alone now represents almost a third of its value. An even worse case was found on a 180-acre dairy farm, where the home was erected 50 years ago for approximately the same piece of land. It did not then cost the £2700 it would mean to-day—£ls an acre. The burden of replacing homes will be a headache for thousands of farmers within the next few years. Failing this, they will be faced with the costly upkeep of outworn buildings. On another farm I saw a cottage built about 1936 for £620. I measured up this modest but most convenientlydesigned residence. It comprised an oblong main portion of three rooms, each 10ft. 6in. by 12ft., with an Bft. by 14ft. porch at the back. There was l also a washhouse, 9ft. by Bft., and a scullery and a bathroom. These extended 6ft. out on a lean-to across the back of two rooms. The grand total floor space of 728 ft. would to-day cost £1274. If the farmer wished to build this cottage to-day on a 150-acre, and, at 7 per cent, annual charge (the Rent Act says 8 per cent.), the cost would be £B9 annually—34s 4d weekly. This price is not for a house; but just for a cottage! Yes, New Zealand should have thousands more houses to the countryside, but what hope is there of realising that ideal with costs at their present level? The policy of Reserve Bank credit would appear to offer little hope for genuine achievement. Reduction of housing cost is an essential first step, and should be supplemented by a special taxation remission on all monies invested in housing by farmers or other employers.