Municipal Enterprise in Germany

Maoriland Worker, Volume I, Issue 8, 20 April 1911, Page 12

Municipal Enterprise in Germany

Some Tei/ding Figures. An examination of municipal government in Germany shows, as far as municipal undertakings go, almost exactly the same features as are visible in Great Britain. The amount of the indebtedness of German towns per head of the population is slightly though not noticeably less than that of English municipalities (Scots __ authorities are not included). This is apparent from the following table :— 13 English boroughs with more than 200,000 inhabitants, indebtedness per bead £20 0 9 19 English boroughs between 100,000 and 200,000 inhabitants, indebtedness per head 14 0 0 German gemeinde with more than 200,000 inhabitans (except Berlin), indebtedness per head 17 1 4 German gemeinde with between 100,000 and 200,000 inhabitants, indebtedness per bead 14 7 4 No German town seems to come up to Manchester with its municipal investment of £36 per head. But Frankfort-am-Main has a debt of £28 9s per head, which exceeds any English town except Manchester (though Birmingham runs it close); Munich has £25 15s 6d per head, Dusseldorf £26 17s, Charlottenburg £24 5s 2d. These figures ought to offer some comfort to the nervous inhabitant of an English borough who thinks of his city as staggering to ruin beneath the burden of recklessly accumulated debts. Frankfort, Munich, Dusseldorf and Charlottenburg are not usually supposed to be on the verge of bankruptcy. Reproductive Undertakings. When one proceeds to examine the reproductive undertakings of German towns one finds that most of them possess all which are possessed by English municipalities, and some of them possess a good many more. England is ahead in tramways; in electrical undertakings and baths English and German towns are about equal; in water, gas, markets and slaughterhouses municipal enterprise in Germany has considerably outrun municipal enterprise in England. In addition to these undertakings nearly all German towns of any size maintain Labour ex- j changes; nearly all maintain savings banks—both these institutions being in Germany under local not Imperial management ; twenty-seven out of the fifty ' towns in the above list maintain public pawnshops, which are a species of poor man's bank; a considerable number possess municipal theatres; and there are a large number of other undertakings which are found in individual cities but are not sufficiently general to j be noticed in this article. Municipal Landowning. More remarkable perhaps than these undertakings is the extent to which German towns in the twenty, years have become owners of real property. The keystone of the policy of German municipalities in dealing with ihe housing question is that the town authorities should acquire as large a proportion as ''possible of the area on which the town stands, and that they should do so before the value of the land is forced up by the growth of population. The figures show that in 1907 four towns in Germany owned more than half the area within their boundaries, seven owned between one-half and one-third, three between one-thira and one-quarter, five between one-fifth and one-sixth, thirteen between onesixth and one-tenth, and five between one-tenth and one-twentieth. The proportions are constantly changing, for towns buy and sell land pretty frequently, and it may happen that in one year the sales exceed the purchases. However, there seems to have been a steady increase in the area of land which is in public ownership. The importance of this movement from the point of view of housing reformers is obvious. It sets a check to the rise of rents (which are very high in Germany) by preventing land being held from the market until it fetches a famine price ; it enables land to be obtained cheaply when a town or a charitable trust wishes to carry out a housing scheme, and it makes it possible for stipulations to be inserted in contracts between landlord and builder which are designed to guard the public interest. Its financial advantages are less often noticed, but they are equally important. Municipal landowning gives the town a. certain and growing source of revenue, and thus saves the pockets of the ratepayers. Two examples will show what is meant. In the year 1886 the little town of Freiburg, in Baden, owned 11,047 acres ot land, -which were then -worth about £950,000. In 1909 it owned 13,000 acres, which were worth £3,200,000. The result is that at present 70 per cent, of the municipal expenditure is defrayed from the income derived from town property, and that local taxation is lower in Freiburg than it is in any other town in Baden. Ulm teaches a similar lesson. Between 1891 and 1907

it bought 1255 acres for about £356,640, and it sold 388 acres for £395,486. lathe course of sixteen years, therefore, it increased its net holding of land by 867 acres. It made a clear profit of £38,846, and it increased its income from leases by £3213 a year. As it holds 80 per cent, of its site, its future financial position is an exceptionally cheerful one. Does not common sense dictate that our local authorities should obtain powers to pursue the same policy ?