The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED DAILY. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1930. THE STATE ADVANCES RUMPUS.

Gisborne Times, Volume LXX, Issue 11128, 11 February 1930, Page 4

The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED DAILY. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1930. THE STATE ADVANCES RUMPUS.

The controversy that has arisen over the. State Advances policy in its relation to claims for financial help to build homes for additional work-

ers gives rise to some points that aro very important. It seems that the Department must have had under consideration the matter of withholding further advances in towns and cities where numbers of homes have been thrown back on its hands

and, presumably, are, to-day. tenantless. At any rate, in reply to an application from the |Queen City for a loan, a reply was sent, which included the following emphatic and unequivocal statement: ‘'ln the circumstances. the members of the State Advances Board do not consider it, advisable or expedient to grant any further loans for the building of more dling-honses just now in Auckland.” To the average reader, such a statement would certainly not appear to present any doubt as to what was intended to he conveyed, But, ns might have been expected, such a ruling was not likely to bo received in a kindly manner in Auckland. with the result that the; Prime Minister felt under the need to endeavour to pacify complainants. In short, Sir Joseph Ward denied that {,lm policy which the Department, required to follow was exactly as stated in the Board’s memorandum. What ho averred—and the statement applies in particular t’o Auckland—was that it is the aim of the Government that as many applicants as possible for’a State advance to build a home should be encouraged to.taka over, instead, a house which has been abandoned to the Department! Unhappily, the number of homos of this character in the Queen City is understood to be very large. It is, indeed, reported that in and around Auckland there are, today, about 1400 empty houses. How many of thorn aro subject to a. State; mortgage is, however, not disclosed. In many cases, an applicant may perhaps own a. section, .and it, must he admitted that the Department’s new ruling would prove most unfair unless, of course, the Department was, prepared, in such circumstances, toftako over the applicant’s section

iff the applicant, agreed to accept, from the Department a. ready-made home. As will have been noted, tho Prime Minister did not support the hew ruling given out by the Advances Board, Ho said, indeed, that tlio statement appearing in tho press to the effect, that such loans were to coaso was' .ridiculous! For all .that, it is patent that, in turn, he has only barely re-opened the State: Advances ’ tloor—to residents of Auckland, at apy rate. • On the part of the 'Department it would, unquestionably, be sound policy to dispose

m.\ securities that have reverted to it, wherever possible and, as it so happens, what applicants in Auckland for fresh loans are informed by Sir Joseph Ward is merely “that, where the circumstances justify the Department in entertaining an application, the matter will he dealt with in the usual manner and, ,as soon as it is#possdblo to do so.” Fresh applicants in Auckland for advances npy,. therefore, please themselves as fflo whether or not they regal’d this 'offer as hopeful. The most important points raised by the controversy are, of course, these: “How comes it that so many homes have reverted to the Department in Auckland alone?” and furthermore. *‘ln how many cases aro the securities to-day nqjr worth as much as has been ndmneed upon them?” Judging by Hoard’s memorandum, the advis'ableness of which was questioned by the Prime Minister, it is plain that it is high time the whole position was carefully reviewed. As far as Gisborne is concerned, empty houses with modern equipment are practialbr unknown, so it is. happily, most ujnlikely that thero will be any dim--grmition in the number of advances 'granted to further applicants hereabouts