THE HOUSING QUESTION.
(TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."J
Sia,—Your arguments (Spectator, March 8th) in favour of private enterprise in building houses are unanswerable, and the failure at the present time to multiply houses as the population increases is one of the most extraordinary of phenomena. In. London and many large towns there seems to be no doubt that, partly from scarcity of land and partly from dearness of labour, reasonable house accommodation cannot be provided to pay. Why is it that in some towns the difficulty is not felt P In Leeds, for instance, land is still so low that rents are not half those in London, and the private builder has gone so fast that at the first check to prosperity, such as the war has brought, hundreds of houses stand empty. I believe that one reason is to be found in the absence of building leases. Practically the whole town is freehold, and the competition amongst small owners provides plenty of cheap land within a mile of the most crowded parts of the town. But are not rents, like all other prices, mere questions of supply and demand P The authorities, borough or rural, have one paramount duty, to prevent unrighteous rents caused either by overcrowding or by the occupation of unfit houses. Surely it is for the employers of labour to pay sufficient wages to enable their men to get proper housing accommodation, and not for the ratepayers as a whole to enter upon the ruinous plan of giving houses at less than cost; in other words, of subsidising wages by paying part of the rents.—I am, Sir, &c.,
LICODIENSTAL
Previous page
