2600224 C.S. 84
RESTRICTED
+
XCR(70)303
11
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
4
as new estates are built, they tend to be located in less central locations (there are two more central Government Low Cost Housing estates under planning at present but these are exceptions to the normal rule) and since there has been a rise in construction and other costs over the years, the rents of the newest estates have been higher than the rents of the earliest estates in more central locations;
thus, if rents of more central estates were to be raised to reflect their better locations, the increases would have to be comparatively substantial in order to offset their greater popularity;
resettlement tenants have little or no say in the selection of their original accommodation so that a system of rent differentials might well bear some- what unfairly on the poorest families amongst the existing settlers who have fitted up their rooms and could not for this and other reasons such as places of employment, schools, etc afford to move;
whilst there may have been some initial difficulties, particularly in recent years, in collecting domestic rents in resettlement estates, by and large the amount of arrears to be written off annually has been negli- gible. On the other hand, where there have been increases proposed for domestic and shop rents in Mark I and II Blocks, there have been considerable organised public protests, although here again the very great majority of the rents due have eventually been collected. In view of the present shortage of private rented domestic accommodation and the re- cent controversy over the question of rent increases in post-war private domestic premises, it may con- fidently be expected that substantial increases in existing central resettlement estates will give rise to strong protests from sitting tenants and possibly even to concerted attempts to withhold rents; it may also be expected that this situation will also be ex- ploited by critics of the Government. There is scope, however, for establishing higher rents for new or con- verted blocks in these locations as proposed below.
It seems questionable, therefore, whether it will ever be prac- ticable or indeed desirable to endorse the Board's recommendation fully, however logical it may seem to be in theory and despite its support by the Urban Council and the Housing Authority. On the other hand, if Council endorses the Board's views in recommendation (f) on improved standards and finishes for resettlement estates (including converted estates) and its views on the proposed management experiment (Annex D), the effect for resettlement may very well be that there will be virtually no difference bet- ween future Resettlement and Government Low Cost Housing estates and hence there may well be a case for assessing resettlement rents in such cases on much the same basis as Government Low Cost Housing i. e. using land
RESTRICTED