Lapas attēli

made by the opponents of public housing was that it would all go in a dozen large cities; that it was a “big city bill and the smaller communities would not get any of it.” The contention of the proponents of the legislation was that it would be widely spread, as was the case in the first program approved by the Congress. The proponents were correct.

Senator Cain. Thank you, sir.
Mr. FOLEY. I don't want to seem to be evasive of your point.

Senator Cain. No; I just wanted to raise the point. I don't know the answer to it.

Mr. Foley. If there is any material possibility of the type of thing you are talking about, perhaps a provision of protection could be written into the bill.

Senator Cain. My thought would be that we make the provision as definite as we can. If we are talking about upper limit for this type of housing for $4,400, we ought to say that.

In your opinion, how many families under your definition of money limit would be eligible for this housing?

Mr. Foley. You mean simply that fell within this income bracket?

Senator Cain. Yes; that could adequately be taken care of by such housing?

Mr. FOLEY. The figure, according to this census figure, total for urban areas, would be a third of 23,287,000 houses.

Senator Cain. Thank you.

Mr. FOLEY. That is the total of all the incomes of the urban classification.

Senator Cain. Just about 8 million families, potentially, we are talking about?

Mr. FOLEY. Yes.

Senator Cain. Do you have, Mr. Foley, the figures for the FHA and the VA operations during the year 1949?

Mr. FOLEY. I don't have them at hand. Perhaps someone with me does have them.

Senator Cain. What I am getting at, Mr. Greene, is the following question:

Are those figures broken down by income ranges of the families purchasing property assisted under those two methods of financing?

Mr. GREENE. By income ranges for 1949?
Senator CAIN. Yes.

Mr. FOLEY. We have some tables, I think, on the first 6 months of 1949.

Senator Cain. This question goes with that, Mr. Greene:

How big a proportion of the families assisted by FHA or VA during 1949 would be eligible under the income limitation in this bill?

I don't know whether I am right or wrong, but it seems obvious, as we start, that middle-income families are presently being také care of by VA and FHA.

Mr. FOLEY. We have some figures illustrative of that situation.

I can give you the distribution of monthly rentals on section 608 projects.

As I pointed out in the testimony this morning, the situation with respect to meeting the needs in for-sale housing has been much better than the record in section 608. And the average taken for the country as a whole would be somewhat more encouraging than the figures

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

taken for the probable problem area. Every family that has an income suitable for that can get that kind of housing. The fact is that those averages, which are encouraging for-sale housing, and show progress as against 2 years ago, are heavily weighted by the volume of that low-income down in southern areas, leaving a much less encouraging picture in the northern areas, and particularly in metropolitan areas of the northern half of the country where costs are higher.

On the rentals situation, section 608, for January-June 1949, it is much less encouraging. I have it here picked out by cities which perhaps is illustrative, and we can furnish more general figures. I think I have them.

For instance, figures in Washington-where there has been a large volume of rental housing construction under section 608—

Senator Cain. Referring to the State of Washington?
Mr. FOLEY. No; the city of Washington.

This table shows that, of 13,853 units placed under construction covered by commitment issued during that period, the first half of 1949, there were less than one-half of 1 percent of them that proposed rent between $50 and $60 per family unit; 15.4 percent proposed rent between $60 and $70, and one-third proposed rents between that figure and $80; and the balance ranged above.

As distinguished from that, to show the impact of the geographical situation, take Greensboro, for instance. Let me take an extremely advantageous case-Memphis, where 2,030 units were placed under commitment in the 6-month period, and 50.7 percent of them were below $50 for proposed rent.

That requires explanation. There has been a great activity down there, because of the civic interest, and special abilities, and so forth, encouraging interest in the production of private, low-rent housing, particularly for minority groups, which largely contribute to that figure.

Then, between $50 and $60, 11.5 percent; and between $60 and $70, 32 percent. If that were the situation for the country as a whole, or even widely available in the country as a whole, you would have a much less urgent problem to consider here.

Take my own city of Detroit: 1,579 units committed in that period; that table shows none of them below $70; 13.1 percent below $80, and the balance above.

Take Philadelphia: 5,177 units committed; 3.2 between $50 and $60; 7.7 between $60 and $70, and the balance added above.

So that is fairly indicative of the general geographical spread. The situation in the South, however, is not to be judged by the situation in Memphis. For instance, in Greensboro, 320 units; there were 35.3 percent of them with rent less than $50. Whereas, in Houston, of 1,200 units, none were less than $50, but 31 percent were below $60. I think that gives a fairly typical demonstration of the problem in cities.

Senator SPARKMAN. May I ask what size unit that was?

Mr. FOLEY. I don't have them on this table here. I do have some break-downs. The table indicates a more discouraging picture, with respect to cost per room. Because cost per room—the size of the family units is not uniform as between cities, and there has been during the past 2 years a trend toward a smaller average unit; so that, when you take those unit rentals that I have given you, it does not necessarily reflect rent on a 4.5-room unit.

Senator Cain. At your convenience, Mr. Greene, if you will provide for the record an answer to this question: how large a proportion of the families assisted by FHA or VA during 1949 would actually be eligible.

Senator Cain. I would appreciate it.
Mr. GREENE. Very well.

Mr. Foley. Mr. Greene can get it from their record, and I will be glad to get what I can.

(The material referred to follows:)

Distribution of monthly rentals in sec. 608 veterans' emergency housing projects

covered by commitments issued January to June 1949 for selected insuring offices

[blocks in formation]



New York
Los Angeles.
San Francisco

Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent
0 (1) 15.4 33. 8 21.6 19.4


100 0

5.0 10.3 23.0 24. 5 26.7 9.9 100 3. 2 7.7 21.9 28. 3 19.9 8.6 5.1 5.3

100 23. 2 24. 7 19. 2 22.4 9.6 .1


100 5.8 32.8 50.9 8.6 1.9 0


100 2 35,3 15.6 15.9 25.0 8. 0 .2

100 3 50.7 11.5 32.0 4.8 1.0 0


100 31.2 45. 3 21.2 2.3 0


100 1.0 1.0 2.5 18. 3 14. 5 10.0 40.7 12.0

100 0 9.3 10.8 55. 2 20.0 4.1


100 10.7 47.7 15. 1 25. 5 .6 .4 0

100 0 0 13.1 20.6 58.6 5.5 1.9 .3

100 .3 2.0 26.5 27.7 28.1 9.0 1.7 4.1 .6

100 1.5 33.3 27.6 22. 6 11.5 3.5 100 0

7.9 19. 1 40.1 7.9 25.0 100 0 6.8 29. 2 42.4 17.1 3.9




[ocr errors]

1 Less than 0.05 percent. 2 33.8 percent of monthly rentals are less than $45. 3 38.3 percent of monthly rentals are less than $45. Source: Federal Housing Administration.


Distribution by size of dwelling unit-Selected FHA insuring officers-Based on sec. 608 VEH commitments issued January to June 1949 1

(Percentage distribution)

[blocks in formation]

1 In general, monthly rentals cover shelter rent, cooking and refrigeration equipment, space heat, hot and cold water, janitor service, grounds maintenance, and in some cases gas and electricity. In about one-fourth of the units, either heat or cooking or refrigerating equipment must be provided by tenants, and in 10 percent of the units, largely low-house or semidetached units, only minimum services are covered by rents.

2 Insuring office jurisdictions cover more than just the city named. For example it covers the entire State for the Denver, Topeka, Memphis, Greensboro, and Atlanta offices, about half the State area for the Chicago, Detroit, Seattle, and San Francisco offices, and about one-fifth of the State area for the New York and Houston areas.

3 Totals do not always add to 100 percent because of rounding. Source: Federal Housing Administration.



The attached table presents for the first 6 months of 1949 the net effective family incomes of families who were to occupy new single-family homes on which the mortgages were insured under section 203. On a national basis, the figures show that roughly two-thirds of the families obtaining section-203 insured homes during the first half of 1949 had net incomes of less than $4,800. Looked at geographically, however, it is found that proportionately more of the low-income families obtaining this type of housing were located in southern and western communities. Thus, in the Greensboro and Houston areas, for example, twothirds or more of the families were of moderate or low incomes. In the New York and Chicago areas, in contrast, less than half the families earned less than $4,800.

It should be noted that the data shown on the attached table for the selected insuring offices is based upon the new single-family home mortgages insured under section 203 on properties within the entire jurisdiction of the insuring office identified by the name of the city in which it is located. Insuring offices have a much wider jurisdiction than the boundaries of any one city. For example, the Denver insuring office has jurisdiction over the entire State of Colorado; and, similarly, mortgage-insurance activities throughout the State of North Carolina are reflected by the data in the column captioned Greensboro. In addition to the five boroughs of the city of New York, the New York office includes within its jurisdiction nine adjacent counties of New York State. Each of the other insuring offices named have at least 18 contiguous counties of a State within its jurisdiction.

Net effective family income for new home mortgages insured under sec. 203, January

to June 1949 for selected insuring offices

[blocks in formation]



New York
Oklahoma City
Los Angeles.
San Francisco.

Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent 0.1 14.5 33. 1 25.4 11.6 7.4 2.6 3. 1

2. 2 . 1 24.0 36.8 20.5 9. 8 4.8 1.5 1. 5

1.0 12.7 40.4 24. 6 12.9 4.9 2.6 1.7

.2 2.0 37.4 30.6 16.1 6.1 3.6

.9 .2 27.5 39.0 18.0

4.3 1.5 1. 2

1.5 2.0 43. 6 34. 0 11.9 4.4 1.9 .8


.6 2 25. 8 41.0 17.4 9. 5 2. 9 1.7


.7 3. 2 41.6 29. 8 13.3 7.0 2.4 1.6


6 .1 21.1 42.4 18. 9 9.4 4. 2 2.0 1.0

9 .8 36.4 38.2 15.4 4.8 2.6

.8 .5

.5 11.8 38.1 24.9 10.6

2. 2
2. 7

3.2 1.2 21.8 36.4 21.0 10.4

3.6 1.6 1.6

2. 4 .1 33.5 37.9 17.1 5.4 2.9 1.7

.4 1.4 27.3 42.2 16.8 7.5 2. 5 1.0


7 .3 27.9 41.0 14. 7 8.3

1.8 1.0

1.1 .2 22. 1 42.3 19.5

9.1 3.6

22. 1 34.0 20. 7 11.6 4.6


2.0 2.5





Source: Federal Housing Administration,


A distribution of the monthly rentals proposed for section 608 projects covered by commitments issued January through June of 1949 for the country as a whole as well as for selected FHA insuring offices is shown in the attached table. Since the selection of tenants in these private projects is done by the project sponsors without review by the FHA, no data are available as to the distribution of incomes of the families actually housed.

An examination of the rentals at which these 608 projects are to be offered shows, however, that it is only in the South in areas such as Atlanta and Houston that any significant proportion of the units were proposed to rent for less than $60 a month. In northern areas such as New York and Chicago a heavy proportion of the units are being offered at rents in excess of $100 a month. In Detroit no units were planned to rent for less than $70 while in Denver everything was to rent for $80 or more. Taking the country as a whole, well over half of the units for which commitments were issued during the first 6 months of 1949 were to rent for $80 or more.

Senator Cain. Mr. Foley, how many families can be assisted by the 2.15 billion dollars which will be authorized by this bill, approximately?

The reason I ask the question is we have now established there is a total eligibility of about 8,000,000 American families.

I would therefore like to know the number of families that this stated-dollar sum would accommodate. It isn't what we are doing this afternoon, or when we pass this bill, but I think we are laying down a trend for the future.

Mr. Foley. It would be simple, of course, to calculate what $2,000,000,000, or any figure you might want to take, would amount to in the way of families.

Senator CAIN. If you will make a calculation and submit it, please.

Mr. Foley. Taking the $8,000 figure, it is then estimable in simple arithmetic.

Senator Cain. We would like to know whether we are starting off to accommodate 5 percent of the middle-income group or 15 or 25 percent, or whatever it happens to be.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »