bias, but as a simple logical deduction from the facts with which they had become competely familiar. We submit that the case for the public housing sections of S. 866 has been brilliantly and sufficiently spelled out in the record of the regional hearings so that additional arguments would be largely redundant. Very few trade-union members have ever been eligible for tenancy in public housing projects. You can be reasonably sure that if a small group of union members still live in these projects they are no doubt facing eviction because of the income limitation provisions of the law. There are, of course, many hundreds of thousands of very low income workers holding membership in trade-unions; we have a long way to go yet before we reach any wage millenium. But these low-income families are seldom found in the places where there are public-housing projects. The point I am making is simply that organized labor has gone all-out for the public-housing provisions of the TEW bill not as a matter of direct selfinterest for its own members. We are for this program because we believe that the most elementary social justice and civic sense demands that the low-income groups in our society be given at least equal opportunity to enjoy the advantages of decent, safe, and sanitary housing as any other group in society. The financial formula adopted in the original Wagner housing bill, and put into practice by the old United States Housing Authority, has not been improved upon despite the constant pounding it has taken from critics in Congress and elsewhere during an entire decade. As citizens of our home communities the members of organized labor have not grown insensitive to continued existence of substandard housing. As a matter of fact the moving around during the war years has sharpened and heightened the sensibilities of millions of American citizens in this respect. The squalor which is almost universal in all our urban centers, large and small, is no longer taken for granted. The need for slum clearance and a redevelopment of our blighted areas is felt keenly by everyday factory workers and housewives as by planners and professional social workers. We who have lived on the edges of the slums and who are inconvenienced and disgusted by the crowded disorder and civic mess of our cities and towns are more constantly and personally reminded of the need for a wholesale attack on these problems than are those who are confronted only intermittently with such facts of life. Public housing projects, both the old subsidized types and many of the Lanham Act permanent war housing jobs stand out today in city after city as object lessons demonstrating that we can vastly improve the quality, both physically and otherwise, of our city life if we are willing to override the narrow, selfish habits of mind which lead to the creation of these miserable conditions. The one point we wish to make regarding the public housing section of the bill is that we insist that no legal requirement or political pressures be brought to bear on local housing authorities to accept as tenants only a narrow fringe of our fellow citizens whose income is so low that they have become very special problems in our society. No local public housing authority can create a really normal community in one of its projects if it is obliged to live up to such an unfair, unjust, and unreasonable requirement. A very rigid interpretation of a regulation to admit only the very lowest income persons to public housing projects might have the effect of ruling out all prospective tenants, despite an admitted and glaring need. We insist that we stick to the principle that public housing take in a cross section of those persons whose economic status rules them out as customers for nonsubsidized projects. This permits some discretion in tenant selection without violating in any way the essential principle of the act which as we see it is to provide standard housing for those whom private industry cannot, or will not, serve. Interest rates.-The CIO strongly opposes those several sections of S. 866 which allows the Administrator, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, to raise interest rates to 4% percent. The Congress should limit interest rates to a maximum of 4 percent on all loans for housing built for profit by private builders. But interest rates on money loaned to any type of nonprofit housing should be limited by law to not more than one-fourth percent over the rate which the Government itself pays for money. In practice that would fix maximum rates at less than 3 percent on this type of project. On all guaranteed loans for housing, that is, where the Government takes the whole risk, the interest rate should only be as much as the Government pays on the money it borrows, plus a quarter of 1 percent to cover the cost of handling, etc. The late Fiorello LaGuardia, former mayor of New York City, emphasized this point in the testimony he gave before the Senate Banking and Currency Committee last year. The Veterans of Foreign Wars, in testifying a few days ago, took the same position. Anyone with even a little practical experience in the field of building knows this question of interest rates is just not debatable. If the Congress permits the rates to go above 4 percent for any kind of insured loan, then you have said goodbye to your hopes for any large amount of housing for moderate income families. This country must face up to the tough economic fact that interest on loans for building must never go above 4 percent or else the bulk of those of our fellow citizens who need new homes, either for rent or especially for sale, are priced right out of the market. The Congress should realize that this is the case and eliminate those sections of S. 866 which will surely bring the entire banking and insurance business of America down on the necks of the Housing Administrator and the Treasury, pressing for the top interest rate made permissible by this legislation. We urge that the National Legislature assume the responsibility for this decision and not leave any ambiguity about it whatever. The CIO is not at this point talking about limiting interest rates on money put up by someone who takes a genuine chance of a loss. We are talking about loans where there is no genuine risk. The people who buy FHA insured mortgages are not taking any risks in the ordinary sense of the word; the reason FHA loans are popular is because the Government has built a business which will pay back borrowers in the rare case where such a mortgage goes sour. That tremendously important fact has been completely obscured in the minds of the general public by the terminology which has been used and the legal rigamaroles which the ordinary home buyer has to go through. We ask for the lower rates of interest-that is, interest at not more than one quarter percent above the going rate paid by the Government on savings bonds, etc. for housing projects which are strictly nonprofit in character. The Government will draw up appropriate regulations to carry out this intent. These projects must be sold or rented to persons whose income is not above a certain amount. Generally speaking, those eligible for housing, entitled to these loans, constitute that group in society who earn just a little too much to be eligible for subsidized housing, but who still cannot afford the shelter which the ordinary private builder provides. We are not asking any Government assistance for thise large group in our society, excepting technical advice from the Housing agency which will help them plan and build their cooperative or nonprofit projects. The housing built with these low-interest loans will be standard housing in every respect. There is only one chance in a billion that the Government would ever lose a dime on a single unit so built under this section of S. 866. And only in the event that the Government does an inadequate job of supervising, either the site selection or the construction of such units, could there be an iota of risk involved insofar as protection of the Government guaranties on the money is involved. Both common sense and statistics demonstrate that there will be a far greater demand for any and all types of shelter for sale or rent at moderate cost-roughly for sums ranging from $35 a month to about $50 or $55 a monthfor many years to come. Veterans' homestead bill.-Title IV of the Taft-Ellender-Wagner bill provides for FHA insurance of 40-year mortgage loans at a maximum interest rate of 4 percent to finance moderate rental housing projects developed by nonprofit cooperatives. These mortgages would cover up to 90 percent of the value of the completed projects except that in the case of cooperatives made up primarily of veterans of World War II the mortgage could cover up to 95 percent of the value of the project. To assure adequate financing for cooperative housing developed under this provision, title IV also provides that the facilities of the National Home Mortgage Corporation proposed to be established under title II of the bill, or of any other Federal corporation established to make or purchase real-estate loans, will be available for mortgages insured under this cooperative housing provision. While not expressly stated in title IV, the legislative history of this corporative housing provision makes it clear that it is contemplated that the FHA will extend technical advice and assistance to housing cooperatives in the planning and development of projects. Directions to this effect are contained in the recommendations in the final report of the Joint Committee on Housing and in the report of the Senate Banking and Currency Committee on the Flanders amendments to S. 866. These provisions have certain advantages over the proposals for veterans' housing cooperatives contained in the Veterans Homestead Act: (1) As contrasted with the lack of any standards of construction or appraisal in the Veterans Homestead Act or any provision for supervision or inspection of construction, the TEW provision would require conformity to FHA minimum standards and FHA inspection of construction; (a) the Veterans Homestead Act contains no provisions for technical assistance to cooperatives which would therefore require these voluntary organizations to rely entirely upon private sources for such assistance. The TEW proposal contemplates that technical assistance would be made available by the Federal Government. The one real advantage of the financing arrangements for veterans' housing cooperatives contained in the Veterans Homestead Act is the provision for direct Federal loans to the cooperatives at an interest rate of one-fourth of 1 percent above the cost of the money from the Treasury. The CIO has, of course, recommended and urged an amendment to this section which would make the cheap money available to all bona fide nonprofit cooperatives or mutual projects. The CIO endorses and supports the general intent and purpose of the Veterans Homestead Act but believes that in practice the veterans would obtain even better results by setting up their co-ops under the terms of title IV of the TEW bill with the lower interest rate incorporated in it. It would seem quite clear to us that upon reflection the veterans' groups would see the enormous advantages in having competent supervision of all construction and such help as might be needed in planning their projects. Moreover, the CIO feels strongly that the bulk of the veterans of this country would be better off-as indeed all citizens would-if all the housing activities of the Government, both for veterans and nonveterans, were centered in the same over-all agency. The fact is that the Veterans Homestead Act does not completely exclude all nonveterans from its benefits. We feel that it is inevitable and desirable that some mixing of veterans and nonveterans will occur in these moderate priced nonprofit housing co-ops, and we believe that the one housing agency can handle the affairs of veterans at least as ably and sympathetically as they are dealt with by the Veterans' Administration. At this point we wish to place ourselves on record as predicting that from among both organized labor and veterans' groups there will quickly spring up a great many associations seeking to take advantage of this section of the TEW bill. As we see it, what the Government would be doing would be to encourage and assist a vast army of self-reliant, go-ahead, thrifty young families of limited income to pool their energies and resources and by adopting certain well thoughtout techniques of mutual assistance achieve savings, which will certainly be significant and which should be substantial, in the cost of shelter. Today the group that would be eligible for this type of housing suffers in a no-man's land; it supplies virtually no customers to private builders, and is not eligible (or willing, for that matter) to live in subsidized projects. In practice private contractors would build the houses for these nonprofit groups; the contractors would, of course, make profits. Outside of the lower interest rate that would apply, the savings would result from the elimination of certain promotional overhead costs and selling costs, and from such economies as could be effected through largescale operations. It is our conviction that hundreds of thousands of working people are only waiting until this law is passed to start organizing themselves to be able to get a lot of moderate-priced housing started. We cannot conceive of any step that this Congress could take which would do more to contribute to the morale and general well-being of the American community than the enactment of the TEW bill with these suggested, necessary changes. URBAN REDEVELOPMENT Early in the life of the CIO those of us who worked on the problems of providing adequate housing for millions of members of our organization who lived in the cities, came to the conclusion that redevelopment of our cities was an absolute prerequisite to the elimination of slums in order to achieve more healthful living environment and adequate standard of living for our members. After years of intensive effort and energy, we prepared a "memorandum on Postwar Urban Housing," copies of which have been made available to the committee, along with this statement, which points out the necessity of planning a national program of urban redevelopments. We are happy that S. 866 takes some first steps in this direction. We wish that it went further along the lines of the recommendations in our memorandum. We hope that the Congress, in passing S. 866, will recognize that their approach to this problem, though a beginning, is only a first step in the more substantial program which is needed if this blight of our cities is to be eradicated and prevented in the future. This committee, in our judgment, has an obligation to the underhoused residents of this country. It should and must act quickly on this bill which has been under consideration by the Members of the Congress and its various subcommittees for some 41⁄2 years. Early action would make it possible to implement the provisions of the bill during the present construction season and some alleviation of the housing shortage could be expected within the present year. The time for action is now. STATEMENT OF NATIONAL FEDERATION OF SETTLEMENTS, INC., NEW YORK, N. Y. The National Federation of Settlements is made up of 219 settlements and neighborhood houses in 70 cities, 26 States, and the District of Columbia. The staff members of these settlements have first-hand contact with families living in the most depressed areas of our cities. They know the conditions under which families live and can report on the effect which substandard housing and overcrowding have on family life. A study which was made by 60 of our member houses in 29 cities across the country points up the need for immediate construction of housing available to families of low and middle income. Out of 585 households visited we found that in 81 instances the family was doubling up with another family unit; 25 percent of the 140 veterans' families were sharing another family's home. Conditions under which these families are living, because of the impossibility of finding housing at the rent they can afford, are inimical to family well-being and to the bringing up of healthy children. For example, 84 families are sharing a toilet with from 1 to 13 families; 9 are using outside flush toilets while 28 families are dependent on privies. A further indication of the unhealthy aspect of these conditions, it was reported that 162 of the homes were infested with vermin, and in 56 cases with rats. The stories of children bitten by rats are not infrequently heard by settlement workers. From the following excerpts of the studies some picture can be gained of what it means to a family of low income to live under poor housing conditions. Remember that these families are only a sampling and indicate similar conditions in the neighborhoods under scrutiny. NEW ORLEANS, LA. One Irish-American family of six with three boys and a girl ranging in age from 11 months to 17 years is living over a store in a loft which has been made into two apartments. Their home, which is in the rear, is entered by going through a great wooden gate leading into a paved court and then up steep wooden stairs. For this, the family pays $8.75 a week out of the combined family earnings of $39 a week. The family sleeps in two dark rooms; the parents and baby have no access to the air except through the door to the second dark bedroom. Here sleep the three boys, 17, 14, and 12, with air from a narrow window. The only other room is the kitchen which has a door and window opening into the hall. NEW YORK CITY A Polish-American veterans' family of three is living with parents and a brother in a four-room apartment. Says the young mother, "Every room in our small, four-room, railroad flat is a bedroom except the kitchen and that's dark. Only one has two outside windows. So that my husband may have proper rest during the day (he works nights), the baby has to be taken out of doors, weather permitting, and that's not an easy task. We live on the fourth floor so that my carriage has to be stored about a block away. My husband and I have combed this city in search of an apartment at a reasonable rent, but so far we have not been able to get a thing. Ever since our marriage 2 years ago we have had to live with my mother, and because of the closeness of quarters, at time we get on each other's nerves." SAN PEDRO, CALIF. 1. A family of three is living in the trailer in which they came to California 3 years ago to do war work. They have not been able to get a house in all that time. There is no space that must not serve a very practical purpose. This does not allow the 11-year-old daughter much freedom or any feeling of having anything that is her own, and there is no opportunity for privacy for any member of the family. 2. A family of four living in three rooms says that plumbing and water lines are in bad shape, and the house is a firetrap. "We ask the landlady so many times to fix things that have to be fixed and she refuses to do anything. She says she has not done anything for 10 years for anybody that lived here and she is not going to do it now. She said if we don't like it to move, but we can't find a decent place to live, so we just have to stay here." LOUISVILLE, KY. A family of four moved to Louisville so that the husband, who is a veteran, could go to school. They have been unable to find an apartment. They live in one room in a hotel. The mother says, "The housing situation is a very perplexing problem with us. Because of our two children, we are unable to find a suitable apartment and a reasonable one. The present one-room efficiency apartment which we are now occupying is highly irritating as the children must be quiet most of the time that they are at home, so that the other roomers at the hotel won't be disturbed. As a result, both of us are becoming extremely nervous and irritable. The boy is just at the age where he must have room to play and be able to voice his protests once in a while, and he is unable to do so because of the small amount of space. We are, as yet, still trying to find a larger place and have applied for Bowman Field which we find had already 4,000 veterans on the waiting list, so that is just a dream!" CHICAGO, ILL. This family of six is living in one basement room with six small windows in it. The room is dark and damp. As Mrs. H. says, "I have become very discouraged over this housing and food and clothing problem. I feel I am doing wrong to keep my children with me in these conditions. If there was ever one hope of finding something livable, I would feel better. Do I have to separate the children from us in order to live like humans? We do not have a bathtub which makes things more difficult. I have one child sick in bed now, and he can't get any rest. "The floor is wet where there is a leak, from where we don't know. The owners can't seem to afford a plumber. We have tried to patch the leak with cement and other remedies to no avail. I have answered ads for flats, but there is also furniture to buy or no children wanted. Where can people with children live?" These stories could be repeated ad infinitum. They all testify to the need mounting steadily year by year and to the discouragement that self-respecting people feel in the face of the conditions under which they are forced to live. The National Federation of Settlements has gone on record repeatedly in favor of the Taft-Ellender-Wagner comprehensive housing bill. We particularly feel that the public housing titles are of paramount importance and we urge their retention. The text of the resolution passed by the delegate body of the National Federation of Settlements on April 20, 1948, is appended. RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE DELEGATE BODY OF THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF SETTLEMENTS AT THE ANNUAL MEETING, APRIL 20, 1948 NATIONAL HOUSING BILL A recent survey of housing conditions throughout the country made by the National Federation of Settlements confirms our local neighborhood experience that large numbers of families are continuing to live doubled up with other families, and that the need for new apartments, especially for the low and lowermiddle income group of veteran and nonveteran families, is increasing rather than diminishing. We believe that Congress has facts before it in the form of hearing minutes, surveys, and testimony gathered over a period of 4 years, which indicate beyond reasonable doubt the urgent need for the immediate passage of a national housing bill. |