WORKERS' DWELLINGS.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10247, 25 May 1911, Page 6

WORKERS' DWELLINGS.

ITo The Editor, i Sir, — My letter of Tuesday's issue has -drawn from you a measure of criticism which I have carefully read and considered. In the first place you state that I ihave overlooked the fact that tile life of a wooden building is only thirty years, and that the man who has been paying rent to the Government for that time lias very little which, he can call his own at tlie end of the period. You further state that I omitted to state that rates and taxes as well as the keeping of the dwelling in a habitable condition must be considered. I admit I did not go into minor details. Yet, I ihokl the opinion that the Crown tenant has immensely tlhe advantage. According tto your own showing, the dwelling 'iwust be kept in habitable re- | pair; so it must at the end of >tth© period be worth' something. Then i you veiy carefully made no mention of the land. According to our experience of the past, the land at the end of the term in all probability may comranand ten times the original value. Surely this is something in favour of the Crown, tenant, as against the private tenant, whose interest during a (similar term of tenancy is simply mil. During the same term of tenancy the Grown tenant pays considerably less. I do not remember whether I am correct or not, but I think I am, in stating that it is optional to the tenant what /material the (house may be built of, whether wood, stone, "brick or concrete. If any of the latter, surely the walls of the dwelling would be as good at the end of 100 years as the day it was put up. However, I think I have clearly proved that the Crown tenant has I a clear advantage over the other fellow. Ak for your correspondent, "Tied Up," in yesterday's issue, it is apparently the old story of a disappointed person seeking to prove that the exception is the rule.— I am. etc.,, .JOHN.MACKAY.