THE PUTARURU PRESS. ’Phone 28 – – – P.O. Box 44 Office .... Oxford Place MONDAY, DECEMBER 24, 1928. OTHER PAPERS’ OPINIONS. RENT RESTRICTION.

Putaruru Press, Volume VI, Issue 268, 24 December 1928, Page 4

THE PUTARURU PRESS. ’Phone 28 - - - P.O. Box 44 Office .... Oxford Place MONDAY, DECEMBER 24, 1928. OTHER PAPERS’ OPINIONS. RENT RESTRICTION.

While Mr. Fraser may be congratulated upon the success with which he has pressed for re-enactment of rent restriction we are by no means convinced that Parliament, in assenting to this, has done the greatest good to the greatest number. The legislation is admittedly narrower than the original measure in its application. Also the standard rent is upon a different basis. But these facts do not touch the principle to which Sir Robert Stout alluded in his protest. The responsibility of providing accommodation at a certain rental is placed upon some owners of house property. This is not done according to a general principle applying to other services or commodities. The grocer is not required to charge a set price to certain of his customers, nor is the builder under any legal restraint in the charges he may make for erecting a house. Further, the contribution does not vary, as taxation is supposed to, according to the ability to pay. The poor landlord with one cottage may be touched and the rich man escape completely. The unfairness of the principle alone should lead the Legislature to abandon the restriction, but there is a further reason. Application of- such restrictions inevitably makes the business unpopular. Even people to whom the restriction does not apply are affected. They fear that it may be extended to them or that some person will try to bring them within its scope. So they make haste to get out of the business and into something which is equally profitable and less likely to be troublesome. If this scaring effect were mainly felt by the property owners who are characterised as “sharks” there would be less I objection to it in practice. Actually, j however, .the harsh landlords are i most likely to stick to the business. I They know how to look after themj selves. It is the more reasonable i owners who first beat a retreat. This is not good for the tenants, and the i longer it is continued the worse it j will become. There will be less com- ! petition and fewer houses to let. The increase of owner-occupiers counteracts this to .sonie extent, but ;not wholly. There must always be some people who, for business or other rear sons, find it more convenient^to hire a home than, to own it, and the law should not, directly or indirectly, hinder provision being made for them.—Evening Post.