SLUMS!

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3123, 29 June 1917, Page 4

SLUMS!

IS THERE DANGER IN 'WEI' LIKGTON?

The Bv-laws Committee of the Citj Council "reported to the council last evening that they had received the following resolution from the Greater Wellington Municipal Electors' AssociaEon with reference to the prevention of slums:-"That the City Council be urged to immediately amend the city bylaws to provide a minimum frontage of forty feet on residential building .allotments in all areas outside the city proper. Suoh minimum to apply m au cases where the topography, of the land offers no difficulties and in all other cases and having full regard to the above standard the minimum to be insisted upon and decided by a special committee of the City Council. The committee recommended that the association be informed that after careful consideration the council are of opinion that the present by-law is a greater means of preventing.slums than, the one suggested by the association. Councillor R. A. Wright said tho only way to prevent slums was to insist on sections having a frontage of forty feet and a depth of 100 feet. There was a lot of laud about Wellington yet to be opened up, and- it seemed a thousand pities if speculators we allowed to continue the system which had done eo much harm in the past. Councillor M. F. Lucjcie said the fronts a«e cure was fallacious. The air spaco (3000 feet) was tha best regulation, because it permitted the configuration of the land to be considered. There -was no fear of slums growing m the suburbs; it was in the city where the trouble lay. Councillor I. MTvenrio said somo of the best residences in tho city had small frontages, but ample air spaces. If a minimum frontage was insisted on. many people with email means would be un- * Councillor J. E.'Fitzgerald favoured tho Barber said if a minimum frontage was insisted on many people would find their sections (held for future building) useless. The committee's recommendation was adopted.