THE HOUSING ACT OF 1930
[To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR.]
SIR,—The 'Chairman of The Southwark Housing Association defends the above Act on the ground that its purpose is that a person, whether a millionaire or a working man with small saving's, must no More trade in bad houses than in bad meat.
Few can read this comparison without noticing differences between the two cases. In the first place it is notorious that confiscation of houses without compensation often takes place though the house itself is good enough, because it is situated in an area which the Municipality wish to clear and rebuild ; and often the Municipality is in no hurry to touch it, and its owner-occupier is left occupying, but is compelled to pay rent instead of living rent free. In the second place, if it should be enacted that certain classes of meat, hitherto allowed in trade, shall be prohibited, it is likely that compensation will be offered : but if not, the hardship would be less in the butcher's case ; his business would be interfered with, but he remains in posses- sion of his property.
Till 1930 houses were regarded as the safest investment for the savings made out of small incomes : if a wage-earner saved enough to make an investment, he bought a house ; if he saved some more, he bought two houses. Very likely some owners of condemned houses may be rich people ; but to a much larger number confiscation is a heavy blow.—I am, Sir, &c., yours
Previous page
