provides that the full cost of the housing development in the first instance shall be met by funds of the local authority by loan. The state assistance is to be equal to a certain percentage of the loan charges, sufficient to relieve the local authority of 75 per cent of the estimated annual deficit. The interest is to be at the full market rate. This plan involves virtually state and municipal partnership. The provision for aid by the Government is met only as a national emergency measure. The local authorities are required to furnish plans and balance sheets showing a development of not over 12 houses to the acre or 8 in agricultural districts.
It is desired that purchase money for the land be deferred until after the war. In addition to the above information, plans at one five-hundredth, showing public utilities, number of houses, etc., are to be furnished, and complete estimate of costs. This scheme of the English authorities marks the furthest advance in Government participation in housing that has yet been made anywhere in the world.
It further appears that whereas before the war and under normal conditions one form or another of Government housing had been adopted in the countries listed at the head of this article, including the greater part of the civilized world, nevertheless it was not until 1917 that the United States first awoke to this new demand on public authority. It was the state of Massachusetts which acted in that year by giving authority to its Homestead Commission to construct homes for working men.
Stanley Taylor in the Forum for April says: “Let manufacturers pay for recreation centers, expert advice, general improvements to the property, and even the cost of the land. This is a small investment for which to obtain a well-housed working force.” This would be the solution from the manufacturer’s point of view. He could not only establish his business on a better basis, but if the method was accepted as a general policy, could charge into the cost of his product the expense due to housing. In other words, the public would be paying for the housing through the medium of the manufacturer— a scheme whereby the latter would come out at least a little more than whole financially, and would be master of the situation ethically.
The income tax is a similar institution, and illustrates the point even more clearly. The Government says to its wealthy citizens, “We have no real fundamental plan as a basis for taxation, so we will ask you to raise the money for us. Whatever you make you must give a percentage of to us.”
So the manufacturer or purchaser charges into the cost of his kerosene or other commodity enough to pay all ordinary expenses plus something more
for the income tax, and he is sure to provide generously for this additional item. The Government has farmed out its sovereign power of taxation, and put it into the hands of the distrusted wealthy class. This is exactly what a plutocracy welcomes, but a democracy should be founded not upon the financial ability of the few, but upon the responsibility of the many. We have been apostles of individualism in this country, and our principle has been “every man look out for himself and the devil take the hindmost”—a very good principle until the majority are hindmost.
We have felt that if a man had a larger family than he could support, it was strictly up to him. Then we learned that the children in such cases became a menace to the community, physically and morally, and we had compassion for them, as they suffered under conditions for which they were in no wise responsible. To-day we try to maintain with state money, not only all criminals, but all insane, feeble-minded, indigent or destitute persons.
If it is right for the state to feed and clothe and care for idiots and other defectives, is it not right for the state to stop producing them in the first place? In other words, is there not a common responsibility for humanity totally different from the “Devil take the hindmost” idea? Have we not arrived at a point where it is evident to us all that we stand or fall together? There can be no isolations. We are all either laborers or loafers, and the loafers are being legislated out of existence or confined to hard labor. Soon we shall realize that all our labor is essential, and that whoever is unable to share it is a drag on society—a burden for the rest to carry.
Therefore, we are directly interested in the health and happiness and the productiveness of all. One of the important ways of meeting this need by common action is in providing the ways and means for wholesome housing for that portion of our citizenship which we find at present incapable of helping itself. Massachusetts has begun by trying to learn how these people can be helped; how much it is necessary to spend to build them a suitable house; how easy it is to secure financial assistance in paying for it, and how great is the longing of the illhoused for better homes. Practically the only side of the question not touched by the state is the land question, which, to be sure, is one of the fundamental issues.
The national Government has had to plunge vigorously into the housing business to provide communities for war industries. The ultimate plan of disposal of these communities is not fully developed or disclosed. Certain questions arise regarding the future of the houses. Liverpool’s experience with
It is desired that purchase money for the land be deferred until after the war. In addition to the above information, plans at one five-hundredth, showing public utilities, number of houses, etc., are to be furnished, and complete estimate of costs. This scheme of the English authorities marks the furthest advance in Government participation in housing that has yet been made anywhere in the world.
It further appears that whereas before the war and under normal conditions one form or another of Government housing had been adopted in the countries listed at the head of this article, including the greater part of the civilized world, nevertheless it was not until 1917 that the United States first awoke to this new demand on public authority. It was the state of Massachusetts which acted in that year by giving authority to its Homestead Commission to construct homes for working men.
Stanley Taylor in the Forum for April says: “Let manufacturers pay for recreation centers, expert advice, general improvements to the property, and even the cost of the land. This is a small investment for which to obtain a well-housed working force.” This would be the solution from the manufacturer’s point of view. He could not only establish his business on a better basis, but if the method was accepted as a general policy, could charge into the cost of his product the expense due to housing. In other words, the public would be paying for the housing through the medium of the manufacturer— a scheme whereby the latter would come out at least a little more than whole financially, and would be master of the situation ethically.
The income tax is a similar institution, and illustrates the point even more clearly. The Government says to its wealthy citizens, “We have no real fundamental plan as a basis for taxation, so we will ask you to raise the money for us. Whatever you make you must give a percentage of to us.”
So the manufacturer or purchaser charges into the cost of his kerosene or other commodity enough to pay all ordinary expenses plus something more
for the income tax, and he is sure to provide generously for this additional item. The Government has farmed out its sovereign power of taxation, and put it into the hands of the distrusted wealthy class. This is exactly what a plutocracy welcomes, but a democracy should be founded not upon the financial ability of the few, but upon the responsibility of the many. We have been apostles of individualism in this country, and our principle has been “every man look out for himself and the devil take the hindmost”—a very good principle until the majority are hindmost.
We have felt that if a man had a larger family than he could support, it was strictly up to him. Then we learned that the children in such cases became a menace to the community, physically and morally, and we had compassion for them, as they suffered under conditions for which they were in no wise responsible. To-day we try to maintain with state money, not only all criminals, but all insane, feeble-minded, indigent or destitute persons.
If it is right for the state to feed and clothe and care for idiots and other defectives, is it not right for the state to stop producing them in the first place? In other words, is there not a common responsibility for humanity totally different from the “Devil take the hindmost” idea? Have we not arrived at a point where it is evident to us all that we stand or fall together? There can be no isolations. We are all either laborers or loafers, and the loafers are being legislated out of existence or confined to hard labor. Soon we shall realize that all our labor is essential, and that whoever is unable to share it is a drag on society—a burden for the rest to carry.
Therefore, we are directly interested in the health and happiness and the productiveness of all. One of the important ways of meeting this need by common action is in providing the ways and means for wholesome housing for that portion of our citizenship which we find at present incapable of helping itself. Massachusetts has begun by trying to learn how these people can be helped; how much it is necessary to spend to build them a suitable house; how easy it is to secure financial assistance in paying for it, and how great is the longing of the illhoused for better homes. Practically the only side of the question not touched by the state is the land question, which, to be sure, is one of the fundamental issues.
The national Government has had to plunge vigorously into the housing business to provide communities for war industries. The ultimate plan of disposal of these communities is not fully developed or disclosed. Certain questions arise regarding the future of the houses. Liverpool’s experience with