The Times, to the amazement of its readers, recently defended
the proposal of the London County Council to im- pose on the owner of any house benefited by a neighbouring public improvement, a rent-charge equal to the improvement in his rental. On Friday, however, the Times, enlightened by many correspondents, had discovered that the proposal was ill-considered, and that as the new burden was to be perpetual, it would practically change the freeholds affected into lease- holds, the owners only owning as long as they paid the rent- charge. It favours, therefore, the withdrawal of the clause. We do not, as the discussion of the clause will enlighten the Council both as to the character of their proposal and its effect upon opinion, and will also clear the minds of their constituents. There is another consequence of the Bill which has escaped the Councillors, but is pointed out by a financial authority in the Economist. The Council will never get a penny under it. No one, unless forced by a special tribunal, will raise rent on a tenant in order to pay over the amount gained in the shape of a perpetual rent-charge.
Previous page
