least money. Rooms are squeezed, piazzas lopped off, and rigid economy practiced until it comes to the aesthetics of the situation. There are no real concessions here. Economical, durable, practical flat roofs are forgotten in favor of more expensive and even leaky pitched roofs and dormers. The pitched roof with low hanging eaves is the symbol of protection and shelter. It stands. The small pane wins its place for the window sash. The front doorway must have its bit of decoration, too. Great care is taken and much study and expense are lavished on the problem of securing beautiful proportions for the houses and in developing
attractive, interesting groupings on the streets.
Do the mechanics who are to be housed appreciate this? Do they demand it? Is it a prime essential of successful housing? Does the crow collect bright bits of broken china ? Does the vain peacock strut in vain? Did Orpheus charm all nature? Do the peasants of France resent the destruction of Rheims ? Has anyone disputed Keats ?
“Beauty is truth, truth beauty,
That is all we know and all we need to know.”
So I enclose a poor practical dissertation upon the use of Government money in housing.
Wm. Roger Greeley.
A
GLANCE at the brief history of State ex
perimentation in house building discovers the use of three methods of governmental encouragement: (i) Special taxation, (2) direct financial aid, and (3) aid through improved land policies.
Under the first head comes the remission of customs duties on materials intended for use on wageearners’ houses. This method has been tried in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Cuba, Austria, Belgium, France, and Spain. It testifies to their interest in the problem of housing their people, but is not a careful or scientific way of meeting this problem. It gives some encouragement to build, to a limited class, partly at the expense of the state.
A better device has been practiced in New Zealand, Northwest Canada, and in some of the German states—the taxation of unimproved land at a higher rate than improvements. Speculation in land is thereby discouraged and legitimate development promoted. One of the immediate effects is the more intensive occupation of land. People paying a high tax on land and a low tax on improvements naturally try to get along with a minimum of land and to develop a maximum of buildings thereon. Crowding results in the centers, but outside the land falls in value, and the owners, in order to market it, are forced to develop it more attractively with open spaces and other advantages over the crowded land in the centers. So a balance is eventually struck. It can be argued that a lack of individual initiative would quickly throw the outside land of falling value into the hands of the Government for taxes. Government ownership of agricultural and forest lands has proven not only a safe but very profitable investment to the communities that have tried it.
Direct financial aid (2) has been exercised through the medium of co-operative building and credit organizations, cheap money, easy terms, etc. It has usually been the local authority rather than
the state that has employed and practiced this method. The London County Council is a notable example.
Land reforms (3) have been tried extensively in New Zealand. Twenty-five years ago laws were passed providing for the breaking up of large estates, for their purchase and subdivision, for special taxation, and for the rental of crown land for 959 years (practically freehold). The area allowed to one man was not to exceed 667 acres of firstclass land, 2000 acres of second-class land, 5000 acres of third-class land. The value of such land varied from $100 an acre in the towns and $15 in the villages, to $10 for suburbs and 60 cents to $5 for rural land. These figures are the minimum. The land was also leased for periods of 10 to 33 years at 5 per cent of the land value.
The Financial Aid and Land Reform policies have been combined in England, notably in the co-partnership tenant societies. In 1909 the Town Planning- Act was passed, authorizing the Public Works Loan Commissioners to grant loans to Public Utilities Societies for housing purposes up to two-thirds the value of the houses plus the land, and on 30 to 40 year terms at 3)4 and 3% per cent, respectively. In 1914 the act was changed to provide for the loan of 90 per cent of the value at 4 and 4)4 per cent. This scheme figures out for combined interest and sinking fund at 5.78 per cent for the 30- year and 5.43 per cent for the 40-year terms. Tenants may then take out shares in the Co-partnership Society up to say $1,000 with 5 per cent fixed as the maximum return.
The fifteen societies associated in the Co-partnership Tenants, Limited, have built, up to last year, 3702 houses and have spent apparently something in excess of $12,000,000.
Recently a new plan has been devised in Eng-- land, which the English journals seem to regard as a final solution of the present problem. The plan
attractive, interesting groupings on the streets.
Do the mechanics who are to be housed appreciate this? Do they demand it? Is it a prime essential of successful housing? Does the crow collect bright bits of broken china ? Does the vain peacock strut in vain? Did Orpheus charm all nature? Do the peasants of France resent the destruction of Rheims ? Has anyone disputed Keats ?
“Beauty is truth, truth beauty,
That is all we know and all we need to know.”
So I enclose a poor practical dissertation upon the use of Government money in housing.
Wm. Roger Greeley.
A
GLANCE at the brief history of State ex
perimentation in house building discovers the use of three methods of governmental encouragement: (i) Special taxation, (2) direct financial aid, and (3) aid through improved land policies.
Under the first head comes the remission of customs duties on materials intended for use on wageearners’ houses. This method has been tried in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Cuba, Austria, Belgium, France, and Spain. It testifies to their interest in the problem of housing their people, but is not a careful or scientific way of meeting this problem. It gives some encouragement to build, to a limited class, partly at the expense of the state.
A better device has been practiced in New Zealand, Northwest Canada, and in some of the German states—the taxation of unimproved land at a higher rate than improvements. Speculation in land is thereby discouraged and legitimate development promoted. One of the immediate effects is the more intensive occupation of land. People paying a high tax on land and a low tax on improvements naturally try to get along with a minimum of land and to develop a maximum of buildings thereon. Crowding results in the centers, but outside the land falls in value, and the owners, in order to market it, are forced to develop it more attractively with open spaces and other advantages over the crowded land in the centers. So a balance is eventually struck. It can be argued that a lack of individual initiative would quickly throw the outside land of falling value into the hands of the Government for taxes. Government ownership of agricultural and forest lands has proven not only a safe but very profitable investment to the communities that have tried it.
Direct financial aid (2) has been exercised through the medium of co-operative building and credit organizations, cheap money, easy terms, etc. It has usually been the local authority rather than
the state that has employed and practiced this method. The London County Council is a notable example.
Land reforms (3) have been tried extensively in New Zealand. Twenty-five years ago laws were passed providing for the breaking up of large estates, for their purchase and subdivision, for special taxation, and for the rental of crown land for 959 years (practically freehold). The area allowed to one man was not to exceed 667 acres of firstclass land, 2000 acres of second-class land, 5000 acres of third-class land. The value of such land varied from $100 an acre in the towns and $15 in the villages, to $10 for suburbs and 60 cents to $5 for rural land. These figures are the minimum. The land was also leased for periods of 10 to 33 years at 5 per cent of the land value.
The Financial Aid and Land Reform policies have been combined in England, notably in the co-partnership tenant societies. In 1909 the Town Planning- Act was passed, authorizing the Public Works Loan Commissioners to grant loans to Public Utilities Societies for housing purposes up to two-thirds the value of the houses plus the land, and on 30 to 40 year terms at 3)4 and 3% per cent, respectively. In 1914 the act was changed to provide for the loan of 90 per cent of the value at 4 and 4)4 per cent. This scheme figures out for combined interest and sinking fund at 5.78 per cent for the 30- year and 5.43 per cent for the 40-year terms. Tenants may then take out shares in the Co-partnership Society up to say $1,000 with 5 per cent fixed as the maximum return.
The fifteen societies associated in the Co-partnership Tenants, Limited, have built, up to last year, 3702 houses and have spent apparently something in excess of $12,000,000.
Recently a new plan has been devised in Eng-- land, which the English journals seem to regard as a final solution of the present problem. The plan