Letters to the editor
RENTS
SIR,—In your leading article last week, you say, re Rent Control, " However subtle the measure to increase rents, however elaborate the checks to ensure that nobody makes a penny profit out of it, it is bound to cause an uproar." •
Why should an uproar be suggested by a measure of justice and fair play ? And why should landlords (hateful and sinister word) not be given fair play and recouped, in even a small degree, for the heavy financial losses sustained over a wearisome period of years, during which numbers of owners have been irretrievably ruined and others have been grievously worried and embarrassed in the vain endeavour to make ends meet ?
The Rent Restrictions Acts were instituted at the beginning of the war as a safeguard against the inroads of so-called rapacious landlords of letting property who would other- wise have held so-called innocent tenants at their mercy. The Acts were regarded purely as a war measure, but since the conflict was ended, a number of years ago, they have found sanctuary as peace measures as well. The fact is that owners of certain property have been systematically robbed by Statute, and tenants have benefited in the same propor- tion, and are still benefiting. Moreover it can be truthfully said that most tenants whose rent is as immovable as the Pyramids have enjoyed increased salaries and emoluments commensurate with the increased cost of living.
The price of repairing and keeping in order house property has risen by 300 to 400 per cent. Coal, coke, electric light, wages of necessary employees and amenities of life generally have grown enormously and are still' growing while rents remain static. Fur- ther, it is to be noted with envy that municipal owners of the same type of property appear to be immune from restriction and can raise rents at their own sweet will.—Yours faithfully, London, W.2 LANDLORD
Previous page
