meager resources for acquirement of other homes. We are informed that 70 percent of the land seized so far under the auspices of the Federal housing bureaucracy has not yet been put to use. Residential areas have been condemned and seized under the socalled police power of the housing authorities subsidized by the Federal Government, and instead of being used for new or renovated housing have been converted to business use. After the squandering of billions of dollars by the Federal Government for slum clearance and public housing, we have succeeded only in putting a tiny plaster on the cancer of poverty and human and housing decay in our big cities. The pending bill would increase Federal housing expenditures by $9 billion in the next few years without getting at the roots of the problem of municipal blight. Yearly subsidies for public housing would rise from $336 to $520 million per annum. The net result would be to enlarge the class of people who have come to depend on the Government not only for housing but for free food. Millions of adult citizens as well as their children are being taught by occupancy of public housing that they need not rely on their own efforts to obtain a modern dwelling place. We are, in effect, creating a class of paupers, instead of rehabilitating those who live in the poorer sections of our cities. Certainly there is need for improvement in the housing of the poorer elements of the population of our towns and cities. But those who cannot help themselves can be best helped by the local and State governments which are close to the problems involved. Such funds as are needed can easily be raised by tax-exempt municipal and State bonds and other obligations. As to the housing needs of the mass of our people, there are ample funds available through individual savings, banks, insurance companies, and building and loan associations, as well as huge pension funds, to provide all the money and credit needed. Through private enterprise and capital, the people of the United States were amply supplied with the best housing in the world in the years prior to World War II. The suspension of construction during that conflict created a backlog of need for housing, and government insurance of mortgages aided in providing homes for our veterans and other young people. But there is no longer a housing shortage or emergency. Instead, as has been shown, there are clear indications that we are moving toward a condition of oversupply of housing. It is time to "Stop, Look, and Listen" before entering on a gigantic new federally subsidized housing program. We respect fully urge, therefore, that enactment of the pending bill be deferred pending a careful and detailed investigation of the need, if any, for the vast further involvement of the Federal Government in the housing industry. We especially urge that the present laws be amended so that a referendum vote of the people of a community shall be taken as a requisite to approval of any plan for either urban renewal or public housing. Recognizing that there are some people who do not have the capacity to care for themselves, some of our members favor the rent assistance program as a substitute for public housing. The members of this committee have before you 92 pages of involved language, the net effects of which, if written into law, would be to impose an additional tax burden upon your constituents and on the people of the United States generally for another generation. In addition, the bill would lead to increases in the already enormous private and public debts, add many more bureaucrats to the Federal payroll, hasten ultimate socialization or communization of the housing of the Nation, increase the class of paupers who willingly rely on the Government for housing and food, and expedite and increase the physical and moral deterioration of the towns and cities of the United States. We know of no justification for the further encroachment of the Government of the United States in the field of housing. It is time for the Federal Government to withdraw from this kind of business. We repeat that private initiative and enterprise during the course of more than 150 years supplied the people of this Nation with the highest standard of housing in the world. It is capable of doing so in the future, starting now. There is absolutely no emergency which requires the enactment of this bill. There is time for careful consideration and thought to determine whether there is need for further intrusion by the Federal Government into the housing industry. For these reasons and others, which lack of time prevents detailing. we recommend that the pending bill be rejected. Thank you again for your courtesy. Senator WILLIAMS. Thank you very much, Mr. Brinkman. I just wonder. You are not opposed wholly and in total to urban renewal, are you? Mr. BRINKMAN. No, not opposed to urban renewal. We favor urban renewal if it is conducted by the towns and local communities and through some help from the States to their own communities. We believe there is a need for urban renewal but not Federal urban renewal. That is the gist of our thinking, that we believe that local communities and States aiding some of those communities are fully capable of doing all the urban renewal that is necessary. At the House hearing the other day the chairman of the House committee, Mr. Rains, said that one reason the towns and cities and States were unable to do the job fully was that so much of the tax revenue of the country is collected by the Federal Government and that the towns and cities had been deprived of tax sources. Personally, I agree with him. And it seems to me and I am speaking now just myself and not officially on behalf of the associationthat if the Federal Government were to relinquish the excise taxes, for instance, and not tax telephones and gasoline and furs and clothing Senator WILLIAMS. Ladies' handbags. Mr. BRINKMAN (continuing). And things of that kind and let those sources be open to the cities and States, there would be ample money for the local communities and the States to conduct whatever work is necessary for urban renewal. Senator WILLIAMS. You know within sight of where we are there is a vast urban renewal area, Southwest Washington. Are you headquartered in Washington? Mr. BRINKMAN. Yes, sir. I am very familiar with that. In fact, I wrote a chapter in a book on that very project, if you are speaking of the Southwest project. That was a very terrible thing in my estimation. I do not know whether you were here, Senator, at the time that project was undertaken, if you are speaking of the Southwest project. Senator WILLIAMS. I have been here since Hall's was an establishment. I remember when Hall's restaurant was out there. Mr. BRINKMAN. If you recall, that area, a very large area, many hundred acres, was occupied by colored people. And a great many of them owned their own little homes down there. I suppose some of those homes did not have a bathtub. Probably people took a bath in an ordinary wooden tub or something of that sort. They lacked certain modern facilities. But the people did own those homes. The colored people owned those homes. They were very happy there. They lived in their own community. They knew their neighbors. The Federal Government came in and took that area by condemnation. They tore down the housing before the people were able to make any sort of a defense. They established a special jury, not an ordinary petit jury such as you have in criminal and civil cases. And they established values by Government testimony of appraisers. And the poor people in that area were unable to defend themselves or get the proper value for their houses. And they were evicted at that time. without any provision for their resettlement. To my mind, it was a very atrocious act. Now, I may say a great part of that area still is not occupied, and some of it has been sold for business purposes. Senator WILLIAMS. You are worrying about the tax aspects. You know there were 500 acres there. Mr. BRINKMAN. I think perhaps there was Senator WILLIAMS. And it was a total taking. The first two residential apartments had a higher assessed value than the entire 500 acres before these two high-rise apartments came in. Mr. BRINKMAN. Yes. Very high-rent apartments. Senator WILLIAMS. High rent? Mr. BRINKMAN. They were very high-rent apartments. They were not fit for the occupancy of the people from whom the lands were taken. Senator WILLIAMS. I live in one and I will concede that. But I am just saying in terms of tax base this renewal eliminated one of the Nation's worst slums and has created a most wholesome new community. Now, I know that there was great hardship on the very low income people that live there, but the legislation, the urban renewal legislation, provides that people will not lose their home until a sanitary, wholesome replacement home can be found. You are familiar with that, are you not? Mr. BRINKMAN. Yes, I am familiar with the provisions of the law, but it has not always worked out that way, in fact. And this bill I think is designed to sort of remedy that condition, because they realize it has not always worked out that way. And to that extent the bill may be helpful. I am willing to concede that. Senator WILLIAMS. Well, I am glad to hear you say that, because that is certainly our hope with this bill that we will improve those situations where there is real hardship. Mr. BRINKMAN. I think if you are going to carry on Federal urban renewal through the Federal Government, then there are provisions in this bill that would be helpful. There is also the provision that instead of building an $18,000 or $20,000 house for a poor family you might give them a rent certificate that would pay part of their rent in an existing privately owned unit. Now, our association has not gone officially on record for that, but some of our members believe that that would be preferable to public housing-to pay something of the rent of some of these people who are unable to live in decent dwellings. Senator WILLIAMS. That is in this bill for elderly people. Senator WILLIAMS. Yes. Mr. BRINKMAN. Yes, and I think perhaps there is some provision. for what you call slum dwellers too. I think, for instance, they contemplate taking over 35,000 private dwellings in private ownership and existing housing. Senator WILLIAMS. I think it provides for 10,000 leased units to demonstrate this concept, 10,000 units. Mr. BRINKMAN. Yes. Senator WILLIAMS. Thank you very much. I have nothing further. Mr. BRINKMAN. I think there are provisions of this bill that, if you continue to have Federal intrusion in this field of housing, would be helpful and make it less harsh. Senator WILLIAMS. Thank you very much. Mr. BRINKMAN. Thank you. Senator SPARK MAN. Thank you, Mr. Brinkman. Next will be Mr. Roger Starr, executive director, Citizens' Housing and Planning Council of New York, Inc. Come around, Mr. Starr. We are glad to have you, and we appreciated the introductory remarks that our colleague on this committee gave you a short time ago. Mr. STARR. Thank you. Senator SPARKMAN. Your statement will be printed in full in the record. You may proceed as you see fit. STATEMENT OF ROGER STARR, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CITIZENS' HOUSING AND PLANNING COUNCIL OF NEW YORK Mr. STARR. I will read excerpts from my statement, Senator. I want to say first I am very grateful for the opportunity to appear here and that our council endorses the legislation, the bill as a whole. My remarks are directed entirely to one section of the bill, the section dealing with low-rent housing. Senator SPARKMAN. Very good. Mr. STARR. I am executive director of the Citizens' Housing and Planning Council, a voluntary nonprofit agency founded in 1937. We have been in continuous operation ever since. We try by education and persuasion, by analysis, criticism, and suggestion to influence private and public forces in New York City so that a decent home in a sound neighborhood will become a living reality for each of our citizens. Our board of directors, chosen by our membership, includes people of widely divergent means and background. At this moment it includes the vice chairman of one of the country's largest realty development firms, as well as a number of members of the Real Estate Board of New York. It includes several distinguished attorneys who represent real estate and banking interests in our city and the executives and principal partners of contracting and building materials firms. It includes world renowned architects and city planners, social workers, economists, labor leaders, and many representative citizens who are simply devoted, as you are, Senator, to the ideal of good housing for all Americans. I am speaking also on behalf of a Joint Emergency Committee for More Low Rent Housing which we organized last year. The steering committee of the emergency committee includes representatives of 12 large civic groups in New York, and the committee as a whole includes 100 prominent New Yorkers. We formed this emergency committee last year precisely because New York City is facing a low-rent housing emergency. This emergency is evidenced now by organized rent strikes of the tenants in many of our city's worst multiple dwellings. I see by this morning's paper that 400 buildings are now on strike. The tenants refuse to pay the rent. This emergency is evidenced also by rallies, demonstrations, petitions, and other visible signs of an organized and growing unrest. Increasingly, our fellow citizens are insisting on extensive improvements in the housing available to low-income families, and at the same time there is a growing inability and unwillingness on the part of the private owners to do anything substantial about the conditions complained of. I am here primarily to talk about the dimensions of the low-rent public housing program that is incorporated in the bill before you. Section 405 of the bill would provide an annual expansion of the limits of authorization for annual contributions for low-rent public housing. These annual increases would be sufficient, in the words of the Administrator, to provide 35.000 new public housing units per year over the next 4 years, and, in addition, 25,000 units per year could be purchased and perhaps rehabilitated or else leased. Gentlemen, this number of decent homes falls far short of the need. We urge you to increase this limit to 100,000 units per year for the next 4 years. We urge also that the limitation of 15 percent for any single State be waived. We urge you to recognize that in cities like New York, which have the most serious need, the phase dealing with the rehabilitation of existing buildings offers only a slim hope of progress. And vacancies in new buildings, except for luxury apartments, simply do not exist. Now, nothing is easier than to come here from New York City or some other local place and announce how badly we need something and then cry to the National Legislature, "It's up to you to pay for it." I find myself here before you not because this is a first stop in a blind appeal but rather because we in New York have tried and are trying |