WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1919. WORKERS' HOMES LEGISLATION

Taihape Daily Times, Volume XI, Issue 3340, 19 November 1919, Page 4

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1919. WORKERS' HOMES LEGISLATION

There is 'a depressing aspect about the new provisions for erecting workers’ homes, and for the purchase of homes by workers that are already erected. While the Housing bill was before Parlianient newspaper and Hansard reports of the discussions thereon in the House made it -appear that if any workingman [was 'wi‘-hout a home after the passing of the‘Aet, it was his -own fault. That is not the actual case, however, and it is doubtful whether; workers will not find the acquisition of a home under the new law more difficult that it has been in the past. The Labour Department has, for the present, the administration of the ~Housing Bill, and. has issued a pa.mphlet which bears ground plans and elevations of houses the Department is authorised to build for those who can fill -the conditions requisite to have a house built for them. The Department announced that two hundred houses were aiithorised, but since then there"seenls to have occurretl some hitch in Itheiproceedings, for beyond indefinite ardpiorts of what is taking place in cities, nothing more has been made public. Some llfllf-B.‘ dozen houses, it was said, were to be erected in Taihape, and why nothing further has eventuated nobody seems to know, onllyithat. rumour says the cost of land and building is so great that the rent, or payments, would be beyond the workers’ power to pay. That part of the Act pmvirling for the erection of homes for workers must, therefore, be looked upon as a dead letter at present in so far as its’application to- relieving the insanitary overcrowding in Taihape during the contagious disease season that is only new just commencing. There was always some doubt"about. the proposed Government provision for workers’ homes owing to cost. It is only reasonable to assume that when building houses is not romuncrative to private individuals, it will be less profitable to the Government, unless means are used which are not available -to private builders. Government will not make use of those Special means as they shrink :, from interfering with private enterprise, and private enterprise will n-ot build because rents are not high enough -to recompense for the outlay’; what happens is, of course, workers have to -go without houses. The position is, Government went, and private individuals cannot, and the consequence is arhouseless people. The amount that can be borrowed by workers under the old Loans to Workers provisions has been increased from £350 to £750, but there has been no easement of terms. The worker can only borrow three-fourths of the value fixed by the Government Valuer of -the property sought to be purchased, ‘therefore to get £750 the worker mus-t give a property security worth £IOOO according 'SO the Valuers’ opinion. This means, of course, that 3! worker must pl‘oVidO the other £250 himself, or by whatever means -that present thepr Selveg to him FYOIII the magnanimhus at'fitude assumed by the introducers of the measure in the House. much easier terms were hoped for, and great is th-e

disappointment felt and expressed inl quarters where something better was‘ reasonably expected from the tone of the debate in its passage on to the Statute ‘Book. ‘A’ house in Taihapc’ large enough for 3. man with a fami-lyl of four, and with those conveniences! which are essential to health, such as‘ a,Govelnment Valuer would secure an ‘advance of £750 on,,cannot be pur-, chased for £IOOO. If is were otherwise the Weekly pzryments, with; out I’a»teS, anti» insurances, Wouldi total 27/6 per week. No ordinary working man could afl'ord to pay tliaf sum and properly keep his family, and lay aside something in case of sickness, and his own possible breakdown of health. Nevertheless, the old Loans) to .W“orkers has been of considerable benefit to many in acquiring homes,“ but it was hoped that after all the recent trumpeting about further assist- l ing to overcome the present disgrace-i ful house shortage, a. broadening of‘ provisions would have enabled a much l larger number of workers to secure homes wherein to raise their familiesl in common tlecency. A 1