View report page

47
there is a vicious circle—the relative poverty of the district results
in a low standard of shopping—this low standard drives money
away to other shopping centres outside the district and depresses
the earnings of the existing shops, so that they fail and close, and
there is a further loss on the rates. W ere more of those employed
at the local factories to live locally, especially it they replaced
those in receipt of low incomes, shopping would react to it, and by
obtaining the added money in local circulation, would be able to
expand so that ultimately the district would obtain a shopping
centre which would meet all local needs. Round this centre
the local activities would be drawn—cinemas, libraries, etc.
These by attracting the population, would benefit the shops in
their turn.
Another necessary line of development is the provision ot
facilities for education. Although this district has an elementary
school population of some 27,000, t here is no secondary or technical
school. To enable their growing children to obtain the advantages
of this advanced education, parents at present are transferring
to other districts. These facilities should be provided locally.
The suggestion above, that some of these houses might be
allotted to workers coming from areas other than London is made
only in view of the situation that has developed as the result of
this large scale enterprise. As it has been stated in reference to
London County Council housing estates, that each person removed
costs about £7 per year for a period of 40 years, there would
ordinarily be a natural reluctance to incur this expenditure unless
as a result of it conditions in London benefited. How far a local
authority should embark on housing schemes to provide accommodation
for the £4 per week man is debatable. In many cases
the rents of the municipal houses are such that they can be paid
only by the persons whose earnings would ordinarily have placed
them outside the class for which it was originally anticipated that
help would be required to properly house them. It seems that one
reaches the position that for those who can afford to live in these
nouses, no municipal action was necessary, while for those who
need such assistance, the rent charge makes occupation of the
premises prohibitive. The family man earning £2 10s. Od. a week
or less living and working in London cannot afford to occupy these
ouses. If he does so and finds the rent and the railway fares, it
rnust be at the expense of necessities. Good housing can be
ought at too high a price. There is too great a tendency to stress
the baneful effects of bad housing on health, and, by implication,
to overstress the advantages of good housing. The relationship
between bad housing or overcrowding and disease is often taken
to be cause and effect, whereas more frequently both arise from a
common cause. Those who interpret the relationship as being
a direct one will be disappointed to find that the removal of