The labor world. [volume] (Duluth, Minn.) 1896-current, 1920-06-19

estate values increase.'' OF course,
what the writer really meant was land
values. Real. estate consists of both
land and improvements, and the pres.
enee Of the church increases land values
only. This correction made, Let us re-.
turn TO the advertisement.
Why will the placing, of a church in
town cause land values to increased
The Interchurch Movement explains as
follows:
"Put q church in a town and it be-
comes at once q center Of inspiration
for better schools, better politics and
general community improvement. Put
church in a. town and you insure q
community where: law and order reign,
where the personal and property rights
Of men and women are respected, where
children grow up trained in the ideals
that have made America great. Kill
the church and you kill the voice that
is constantly calling men to more un-
selfish living. Kill the church and you
cut the nerve of your hospitals, your
colleges, your civic organizations and
even of respect for government ITSELF
In other words, the church will in
crease land values, because it is pub
lie benefit. The Interchurch World
Movement of North America merely
calls attention to an economic fact
which single takers have for many
years been asking the public to con-
slider. Now that this great church
movement comedies its correctness and
Importance, let US see what the con-
cession implies.
What is implied in the statement
that "real estate values increase9D It
means that those making use Of real
estate must pay more. Home buyers
will have to pay bigger prices for
home. sites. Tenants will be required
to pay higher rents. The increase will
be at the expense of the landless.
Landowners will appropriate practically
all the financial gain. If the landless
have contributed toward the expense
Of putting the church in the town. they
will find themselves in the position Of
the Irish peasant whose rent was raised
every time he made a permanent i'm
provement at his own expense on his
landlords farm.
But that is the situation in which
the landless man finds himself as the
result Of any public improvement. If
he lives in town that has good schools
he must pay higher rent to a private
landlord for the privilege of living
where good schools-not provided by
the landlord, however-may be en-
joyed. If there is good fire depart
ment, a good police force or any other
public necessity Of good quality, the
landlord, though he may have had no
part in providing it, can make his
tenant pay an additional sum for the
benefits he derives. And then the gov
eminent compels the unfortunate tenant
to pay second time for those same
benefits in taxes on his labor.
This is not, Of course, an argument
against public improvements, but it is
an argument for a change in method
of distributing their financial benefits.
Why should the landlords be permit
ted to appropriate the financial benefits
OF improvements that all the people
have madef Why should not land val
ues produced by collective action of
all the people be put into the public
treasury instead of in private pocketsa
Why should the landless be compelled
to pay second time in taxes for SER
vices already paid for in rent? And
why should not the 1nterchurch World
Movement of North America demand,
az a matter of justice and morality,
that the changes mentioned be made!