View report page

131
The Board, after taking necessary steps for giving effect to
eight additional Schemes, stayed proceedings under the A cts on
account of the tremendous cost, to the ratepayers of the metropolis
involved in carrying them into effect. It has been alleged that
a third of the cost of acquiring the sites was due to excessive
valuation of property so bad that demolition was the only possible
remedy for the evils to which it gave occasion. Provision
against a repetition of this excessive compensation has been
attempted to be made in amending Acts passed in 1879, 1882,
and 1885; with what effect we may expect shortly to learn, as
the County Council have taken in hand two of the Schemes
pigeon-holed by their predecessors. Under Cross's Acts the
owners of insanitary dwellings have hitherto received more than
the fair marketable value of their property. In this respect they
have been better off than the owners of houses dealt with under
Torrens's Acts, for these may be required to demolish them
without compensation; a course for which, but too often, justification
might have been found in the condition of houses dealt with
under Cross's Acts.
THE COUNTY COUNCIL AND THE HOUSING
OF THE WORKING CLASSES.
The Housing of. the Working Classes Committee of
the Council are desirous of working Cross's Acts and Lord
Shaftesbury's Acts together, i.e., to build lodging-houses
under the last-named Acts upon sites cleared under the
first-named Acts. A desirable course, doubtless, but apparently
not practicable under existing law. It will be well, however,
should it become possible for the Council to enter into
competition with the owners of insanitary property, by providing
decent homes for the working classes at a moderate but
remunerative rent under Lord Shaftesbury's Acts, which certainly
should have a trial. The Acts enable the local authority (i.e., the
Council) to erect, purchase, or hire houses, etc., either within or
without the metropolis. The question will naturally arise,
k 2