SLUM CLEARANCE
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.]
am delighted to see so much public interest aroused by my article on " Slum Clearance," which appeared in a
recent issue of the Spectator. I propose to deal with the points raised in the letters from readers, published in your issue of November 16th, in such detail as space allows, under the following headings :-
(1) Two correspondents question the ability of private enterprise to acquire larger areas of property for improve- ment in the open market. I have, of course, carefully con- sidered this matter. The contention that compulsory acquisition is necessary cannot be altogether correct, because I have already purchased in the open market large areas of such property. An additional factor in any such scheme as that outlined in my article would obviously be the pressure
of public opinion. Mr. F. M. Strawson suggests that acquisi- tion might be compulsorily undertaken by Local Authorities, and the estates acquired, handed over to private enterprise for development, against a charge to cover the costs of acquisition. I should not myself have dared to suggest such a controversial method of procedure, but it has not escaped my attention. In connexion with properties acquired in this manner, generally speaking, I should be prepared to take over, by way of mortgage, the amount of purchase consideration or actual cost, and pay a reasonable rate of interest, say 5 per cent., the redemption being spread over a period of years. Unlike Mr. Alfred Savill, however, I am convinced that after a reasonable period of education the .general public will be found willing to subscribe the necessary capital.
(2) Miss Ellaline Macey asks whether the objects of my scheme would not be defeated by the new homes erected under it continuing to be controlled by the Rent Restrictions Act, with the result that I should be compelled to allow the evil of sub-letting to continue unabated, and Mr. J. C. Pidgeon is anxious to know what would happen to displaced sub- tenants if the scheme were successful.
Tenants who are given new accommodation continue under the protection of the Act, unless they specifically ask
to be moved, but it should be remembered that by the erection of six-storey buildings where originally only one or two- storey properties stood it is reasonable to presume that at least two-thirds of the new buildings will be released from the anomalies of the Rent Restrictions Act, and will provide the additional accommodation required for displaced sub- tenants.
(3) Mr. Savill answers his own question as to where tenants would be accommodated during the transition period of rebuilding and reconditioning, the answer being as he suggests, in temporary hutments.
I shall be pleased to answer or discuss any further points that may be raised, upon hearing from anybody interested. —I am, Sir, &c.,
Previous page
