SEASIDE COTTAGES

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 83, Issue 43, 21 February 1939, Page 9

SEASIDE COTTAGES

HARBOUR BOARD DESIRES POSSESSION UNSIGHTLY DWELLINGS By six votes to three the Wanganui Harbour Board decided yesterday to obtain possession of three cottages at Castlecliff situated on board property. These buildings, from which meagre or no rent has been received latterly, are deemed unfit for habitation except one, which is worthy of repair. It is proposed to offer that to public tender, a condition being that the incoming tenant effect repairs. Notice is to be given to tenants now in the cottages that the board desires possession by March 31 next.

Moving that action be taken to obtain possession, the chairman of the board, Mr. N. G. Armstrong, explained that on July 18 last the board decided that certain cottages should be demolished, but the tenants were to be given reasonable notice. If notice was given now that the board desired the buildings to be vacated by March 31, the tenants would have had eight months’ notice. The question was whether that length of time was reasonable. Three cottages had been vacated when the board first gave notice, and two had been demolished. Of the others one was in occupation illegally. Mr. Armstrong detailed the rent position. In the first the tenant, who was asked for a rent of 7s 6d a week had paid an average of 2s 4d since May last. Latterly he had been paying ss. The second was leased at 8s a week, and the tenant had offered to pay 2s a week off arrears. In June last the arrears amounted to £4l 12s, and on February 17 to £4O. The third cottage was leased at 4s a week and the arrears at June 30 were £6 7s, and at February 17 £ll 7s. The tenant had made no payments during the past four months. There was a fourth cottage which had nothing to do with the present motion on which not one penny of rent had been paid since October. It was hardly fair to the tenants who had vacated other cottages in the nrst place that those now being considered should not do likewise.

Messrs. R. Farley, J. Millward, T. Mitchell, W. Morrison, and D. Ross were in favour of cleaning the whole matter up right away. Messrs. W. J. Rogers, J. J. Scott, and J. Robertson favoured referring one case to a special committee, and not taking steps to force the tenants out of the buildings. Mr. Rogers referred to the acute housing shortage in Wanganui and expressed a fear that if the action proposed was carried out it would lead to an eviction or evictions. “And we do not want that in our city,” Mr. Rogers added. He was in accord with the chairman in a desire to to all possible to make the city beautiful, but feared t’ i t evictions was not the right way. * Mr. Scott’s opinion was that the board would lose its dignity, in that, if the motion as proposed by the chairman was carried, there would be nothing left but to call the aid of the courts, the baliff, and the police. “It is either hold off for a time and see whether these people can get another place, or carry this motion and then climb down,” he said. “If we put these people out, where are they to

Mr. Robertson made a special pica to deal separately with one case. He said he would not show too much mercy to those who did not pay rents, as people, if they thought they could get by without paying, were inclined to make that a habit.

Mr. Armstrong, replying, said that the housing position in Wanganui was no more acute than it was 10 years ago. He was of opinion that the Maoris who lived in the board's houses should move inland to be in more congenial Maori surroundings. So far as the dignity of the board was concerned it would suffer more by allowing such unsightly and unfavourable buildings to remain standing than by taking action. An amendment by Mr. Robertson to the effect that one particular case be referred to a special committee was lost by six votes to three and an amendment by Mr. Scott, to the effect that the board, although giving notice to the tenants to quit by March 31 would not, “failing their compliance therewith take the necessary steps to obtain possession,” was also lost. The margin and voting in both cases was the same—for the motion to obtain possession by March 3, Messrs. Armstrong, Millward, Ross, Farley, Mitchell and Morrison. For tne two amendments, Messrs. Rogers, Robertson and Scott.