LITTLE OLD NEW YORK CITIZENS COMMITTEE MEMBERS BECOME NEIGHBORS (continued from page 4) A 1960 Ph.D. from Harvard in Political Science and international economist with the Morgan Guaranty Trust Company, Ivan Pluhar wishes he had instead been an expert in domestic finance during his negotiations for a house in the West Side Urban Renewal Area. But success was forthcoming and the Pluhars, Ivan, his wife Anna (the author of the article in this issue titled "Schools in the Urban Renewal Area - I") and their four children, Annamarie 10, Karel 6, Andrea 5, and Madelaine 3, will soon move into their four story home at 69 West 89th Street. They have taken a conventional mortgage and are financing their renovations privately. They will have a two family house, arranged into two duplexes. The Pluhars are eager to become active members of the Urban Renewal Area and Mrs. Pluhar hopes to be active in the PTA and other school organizations. The editors of the Little Old New Yorker, Ferris and Frank Urbanowski, became home owners during the summer and have become totally immersed in the renovation of their house at 33 West 94th Street. The Urbanowskis financed their purchase and renovations privately. They occupy three floors and have a floor through apartment on the fourth floor. They plan to occupy the fourth floor whenever family expansion dictates. Mr. Urbanowski, an editor at the Macmillan Pub1ishing Company, is doing the carpentry work on the house himself and is becoming an expert in custom made kitchen cabinets. Mrs. Urbanowski, a sometime actress (the Urbanowskis met in summer stock) and a student at Columbia University, will soon be at home full time to make sure that the renovations are finished before the arrival of their first child in June. Five other members of the Little Old New York Citizens Committee are in various stages of progression toward the day of closing on a house. Two couples, in partnership, are buying contiguous houses which will provide two duplexes, for the partners, and five rental units, making them eligible for section 220 of the National Housing Act (see the first issue of the Little Old New Yorker for the details of this section). A lawyer and his wife and an actor and his wife are among the others who are approaching a closing date. We hope that the next issue of the Little Old New Yorker will be able to list many more Committee members as new home owners. HOUSING LEGISLATION OF 1964 MONDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1964 U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 5302, New Senate Office Building, Senator John Sparkman (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senators Sparkman and Muskie. Senator SPARKMAN. The committee will come to order. We have other Senators that plan to be here, but we have a full schedule and I think we better get started. The first witness this morning is Mr. Harry Held, senior vice president of Bowery Savings Bank of New York, accompanied by Dr. Klaman, director of research. Gentlemen, we are glad to have you. STATEMENT OF HARRY HELD, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, BOWERY SAVINGS BANK, NEW YORK; ACCOMPANIED BY DR. SAUL B. KLAMAN, DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH Mr. HELD. Thank you. Senator SPARKMAN. You have a prepared statement. You may handle it as you see fit. Mr. HELD. Thank you very much. Senator SPARKMAN. We are glad to recognize another person at the table with you, too, this morning. Bob Poston used to be on this staff. I don't know whether he has forgotten that or not. He was on the staff of this subcommittee and when the House Committee on Housing was formed they wanted some good help so we shared him with them, and Bob went over there. The circuit is complete, and he is back here this morning. We welcome you back. Mr. POSTON. Thank you. Senator SPARKMAN. You may proceed. Mr. HELD. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Harry Held and I am senior vice president of the Bowery Savings Bank in New York. I am appearing as a member of the Committee on Mortgage Investments of the National Association of Mutual Savings Banks, accompanied by Dr. Saul B. Klaman, director of research, and Mr. Robert R. Poston, director-counsel of the Washington office, respectively, of the national association. The national association represents the savings bank industry of the United States which, last month, reached the $50 billion mark in total assets. Nearly three-fourths of these assets are in mortgage loans, the largest part of which is federally underwritten. In each of the past 10 years, savings banks have placed more funds in FHA and VA loans than any other type of lender. Clearly, we have a strong interest in Federal housing and mortgage legislation. I appreciate this opportunity to present the views of the savings bank industry on S. 2468, known as the Housing and Community Development Act of 1964. This is a most complex bill encompassing, in nine separate titles and 59 sections, programs for mortgage insurance, urban renewal, low-income and rural housing, community facilities and special Federal-State training and research programs. Among all these programs, we regard those on mortgage insurance-particularly for land development-and on urban renewal as especially significant. Our comments will be limited to these areas. MORTGAGE INSURANCE FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT Section 201 of the bill provides for a new title X in the National Housing Act authorizing FHA to insure mortgage loans for land acquisition and improvement and for installation of various facilities necessary for subdivision sites and for complete new communities. One can hardly disagree with the basic purposes of these far-reaching proposals to achieve well-planned, sound, and efficient land-use patterns in subdivisions and communities. Balanced and orderly urban growth and conservation of land resources are clearly preferable to the suburban sprawl and wasteful land use that have accompanied the postwar construction boom in many areas. While the proposed program holds forth the promise of balanced and well-planned residential, commercial, and industrial sites, coordinated with community facilities, it also contains within it dangers of land price inflation and speculation. Potential savings in land development costs anticipated from early acquisition and large-scale planning may be diminished by speculative activities of opportunistic groups. Ready availability of credit under the impetus of new Federal mortgage insurance programs can lead to a runup in land prices, especially in areas where there is a scarcity of choice sites. The issue which the Congress in its wisdom must decide is how this land insurance program can be legislated, regulated and administered so as to maximize its land planning potentials and minimize its inflationary and speculative dangers. While we do not presume to resolve this issue, we would like to offer some suggestions for the Committee's consideration: First, to discourage land profiteers and speculators, the basic conditions for mortgage insurance should be spelled out in detail, probably by appropriate regulations, and rigorously applied. This is especially important with regard to the requirements for comprehensive planning and sound land-use patterns. Specific criteria conforming to the highest standards of subdivision and community development need to be established. Not only technical planning standards, but urban economic criteria relating to location and use of facilities need to be worked out and applied. |