Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

this year, there are very few of them that cannot solve their own housing problems without some czar in Washington telling them how it can be done. A little further on here, the research angle of these instructions of this authority.

The Administrator is further authorized, for the purposes of this title, to undertake research and studies cooperatively with agencies of State, or local governments, and educational institutions, and other nonprofit organizations.

Not one word is in there that mentions industry. He is absolutely prohibited, under this bill, to cooperate with industry in the matter of research with such firms as General Electric, Libby-Owens, Ford, du Pont, or any one of dozens, of hundreds of firms spending millions on research that are left out of the picture completely, except that the Administrator shall-and again I say shall-designate the results of this research and study, in such form as may be most useful to industry and to the general public. I do not think I have to point out that if anyone were ever given an opportunity to propagandize his own work, it is granted in this bill.

I want to say just one word on research, that I think is important. Research is a fine thing. If this Administrator were to correlate the efforts of all of these agencies, and industries, I think no one would have any objection to it.

We could have objection to research falling into the hands of any one Administrator. Why?

I think the best example we have in this country is the Army and Navy. We send some of our finest men to the Army and Navy. They have the best educational facilities, and yet I am informed that not one single major invention for warfare has ever come from the Army or Navy itself. It has come from private individuals whose initiative has been responsible for those inventions; they have been sold to the Army and Navy.

This type of research, in our opinion, can only mean domination and an entering wedge to get further and further into this business. In section 303, on page 37, we then say: "There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this title." The gentleman has a blank check in this case, subject to the Appropriations Committee, to continue work.

Turn to page 59, if you will, and we will discuss title V, Slum clearance and urban redevelopment, for just a minute. Section 501 says:

In extending financial assistance under this title, the Administrator shall give consideration to the extent to which the appropriate local public bodies have undertaken a positive program of encouraging housing cost reductions through the adoption, improvement, and modernization of buildings and other local codes and regulations so as to permit the use of appropriate new materials, techniques, and methods in land and residential planning, design, and construction, the increase of efficiency in residential construction, and the elimination of restrictive practices which unnecessarily increase housing costs.

He shall give consideration in extending financial assistance to those communities which have cooperated. I do not think there is any great necessity in commenting on that. That just gives him one more power. I would like to reconstruct it after reading a few more quotes from line 22, page 59.

the administrator may make temporary and definitive loans

So far, I have not been able to find anyone who knows what a definitive loan is

to public agencies for the undertaking of projects for the assemply, clearance, preparation, and sale and lease of land for development. in such

*

*

*

amounts not exceeding the expenditures made by the local public agencies as part of the gross project cost

**

Line 8, as he makes these loans

as may be deemed advisable by the Administrator.

Again, he is in complete power as to who gets this money.

A little farther on, we give him, on page 61, $10,000,000 with which to make these loans, even bypassing an Appropriation Committee of Congress and allowing him to make these loans under the Second Liberty Bond Act.

Instruct the Secretary of the Treasury-he is authorized to direct and purchase any notes and obligations of the Administration. We find the Administrator then with the power to go into any community that he wishes, to institute these studies, lend this money, or to give these grants which I will mention later on, to those who have cooperated and if he does not like the research that has been made by the local community he goes in and makes it himself.

Where do we find ourselves?

The Administrator, on page 62, may, on and after the 1st day of July 1948, contract to make capital grants with respect to projects to be assisted pursuant to this title aggregating not more than $100,000,000 which shall be increased by further amounts of $100,000,000 on the 1st day of July in each of the years 1949, 1950, 1951, and 1952, but that no funds shall be disbursed by the public agency prior to 1949. However, he is able to contract with anybody after 1948.

I think that is important for this reason: a little bit further on we find out that in a slum-clearance development, in clearing a slum— That in view of the existing acute housing shortage, each such contract shall further provide that there shall be no demolition of residential structures in connection with the project assisted under the contract prior to July 1, 1950

*

No one can be displaced in a slum area before 1950. In 1948 the Administrator has the power to grant, to make a loan on any terms that he sees fit, or to make a grant to any community, to go out and buy unimproved land. It does not say he has to buy improved land, and what would undoubtedly happen is the pattern of communities buying unimproved land and building public housing under these instructions to take care of anyone that they want to displace in a slum before 1950. It seems rather obvious.

I think it is a fine thing to take care of these people in the slums, and we feel that we have an answer to this problem that I am going to discuss later on. Here you have a bill which goes much further than the highway bill. All of the highways in the country are not important until we replace every person moved out of his house for a highway. I do not believe it is necessary in the redevelopment or clearing of our slums.

On page 72, lines 1 and 2, it says:

* to indicate proposed land uses and building requirements in the project area

*

That is a power of the Administrator.
On page 72, line 7, we find that a—
Project-

And I think this is very important—

may include acquisition of land within a slum area or other deteriorated or deteriorating area which is predominantly residential in character.

Under the power granted there, an Administrator, in my opinion, could go into any area in the country, any deteriorated or deteriorating area, any area that is finished. According to the best interpretation of a real-estate appraisal that I know of, it starts deteriorating the minute it is finished. A liberal interpretation of that would empower him to go any place at all.

Mr. SMITH. That is already in the United States Housing Authority Act.

Mr. NICHOLSON. Under this bill, does it not set up another bureau? Mr. CARR. That is my understanding of it, yes.

* ** * any other area which is to be developed or redeveloped for predominantly residential uses and which prior to such development or redevelopment constitutes a deteriorated or deteriorating area or open urban land which because of obsolete plating or otherwise impairs the sound growth of the community or open suburban land essential for sound community growth.

In other words, they can put these public-housing projects anywhere that the Administrator may see fit. I do not think that is news to you gentlemen, but somehow or other I feel that it must be brought out forcefully, because how, under such a bill, you could expect anything but further and further projection of the Federal Government into this business, I do not know.

Let us examine for the second point what has happened under the Federal public housing program, what it has accomplished.

I think it was sold to the public, and very firmly myself at one time. I felt that the real estate people were short-sighted in opposing it until I studied it. It was sold to the public on the theory it was going to clear slums and house the needy people.

Let us deal with the needy people first.

In the debate in the Senate, Senator Taft said it was not for the welfare of the people. I would like to quote from a statement made by Mr. John Ihlder who was the head of our local housing authority here, in which he said:

I want to say here that we sometimes-well, that was 3 or 4 years ago in conference with welfare officials-determined that the greatest proportion of relief families who properly could be in a project was, on the outside, 25 percent; that if one filled a property with relief families, he made a poorhouse of it: he changed the whole psychology of it and interfered with the development of public housing.

They have not put even approximately 25 percent in any of these units. I think Congressman Gamble's committee, and Senator MeCarthy's committee brought that out forcibly. Probably much less than 10 percent of welfare families are in here. If you must provide enough public housing to take care of the low income families on the basis of putting 25 percent of them in one project, how much housing are you going to need? You are going to need more housing than we can ever pay for.

I want to point out one other factor of the public housing situation that seems to me gets overlooked too much. I want to quote from a

statement made by Mr. Langdon Post. Mr. Post is a regional director for San Francisco of the Federal Public Housing Authority, or he was; gentlemen, I do not know whether he is now.

This was from testimony that he gave before the Senate Banking and Currency Committee last year when they considered the two old bills.

He was formerly chairman of the New York City Housing Authority and probably supervised more housing than any other official in the United States and certainly one of the outstanding advocates of public housing. He published a book called Challenge of Housing. He makes this statement:

Another danger signal flashes from the political implications and opportunities inherent in a vast public program. It is obvious that housing is now in politics, and must of necessity be so if we are to house decently the poor of our cities. Until 1938, there was no money to be made in public housing and little political preferment to be gained by its espousal. Now, the picture is different; a large housing program benefits not only the slums dwellers but business in general. If the average businessmen sometimes show a lack of intelligence and foresight, he always has a sense of opportunism developed to a high degree.

In a housing program there are land to be bought, houses to be built, and tenants to be selected. Each step holds great possibilities for the politicians and the businessman. The real-estate operator has land to sell. The banks have bad mortgages which they are anxious to have reduced. The architects have plans for sale. There are building contracts to be awarded. The inhabitants of the slums are tumbling over themselves to get into the developments, which means that there will not only be the usual jobs for those in control to give out, but apartments as well.

This last plum is a new brand of political fruit which has enormous possibilities for exploitation. Imagine the golden opportunities latent in a $5,000,000 housing program in New York City. Commissions, profits, fees, jobs, and finally apartments for at least 200,000 voters. It is a bonanza beyond the wildest dreams of the most optimistic politician.

The fear of postpolitical exploitation is almost the only justified one which I have heard the opponents of public housing express. I confess that it has made me hesitate at times, and my 4-year experience with the New York City Housing Authority, in which time we built apartments for about 5,000 voters, has not served to allay my fears. If Tammany Hall's political philosophy ever crept into the New York City Housing Authority, I firmly believe that a public housing program would be doomed, not only in New York, but throughout the country. This is neither an academic nor a futile warning. The danger of political exploitation is inherent in public housing and instances have already occurred which constitute a real danger signal in themselves.

Mr. SMITH. Who are you quoting there?

Mr. CARR. Mr. Langdon Post.

Mr. SMITH. What page is that on, Mr. Carr?

Mr. CARR. This is on page 413 of the hearings before the Committee on Banking and Currency, United States Senate, first session. Mr. SMITH. Is that 1947?

Mr. CARR. Yes, sir. I made the statement that they have not cleared the slums for some reason or other, I do not know why that is not challenged. I was on a radio program not long ago with Nathan Straus, who was on the program, too. He made the statement that they built 155,000 units and cleared 190,000 slums dwellings. I can assure you again that I have been to 50 or 60 cities this year, and in every city, I tried to find out where they have cleared these slums. I have yet to find them. I want to give you a few examples.

Mr. COLE. You mean to say they do not clear slums at all? Mr. CARR. I mean to say they have not cleared one for one, or even approached that proportion. They have cleared some slums. Here is a report from Detroit, and for your information, this information.

was obtained from the Detroit Chamber of Commerce and from the Home Builders' Association, and they got their information from the Detroit Housing Commission. There has been a total of 4,817 permanent public housing units built in Detroit.

Seven hundred units were cleared in the Brewster project. The rest of them were built on urban land. Here is a telegram from Tampa, Fla.:

1,536 units permanent public housing; 833 units converted originally built for war housing; 1 project of 534 units actually replaces approximately 300 slum dwellings; of the remaining 1,002 permanent units there were only approximately 60 slum units removed.

Here is a telegram from Houston, Tex. I tried to get a little more information on Houston because in Houston, I am really ably informed that they not only did not do very much slum clearance, but actually took the buildings and sold them to spectators, and sold them in a different part of the city where they rerented them. I have not been able to verify that. They took the buildings out of the so-called slum area, sold them to a speculator, and moved them to another part of the city and rerented them. If anyone is interested, I will try to verify that. I though I would by this morning, but I have not been able to do so. [Reading:]

Houston Housing Authority controls 10 separate projects but in only 1 of these were blighted areas removed to make room for new. To build other, little or no thought given to clearance. Example Cuney Homes project were 36 acres virgin timber cut to build units. Nowhere did housing authority follow requirements of 1 for 1. Quote from annual report, 1947 Houston Housing Authority: "Demolition of any shelters, no matter how substandard, was set aside during the war."

Mr. TALLE. In the instance you mentioned a moment ago, of buildings being moved from one part of the city to another, before they were rented in this second location, were they repaired?

Mr. CARR. I presume they might have been; I do not know. Not only that, but the authority is looking ahead to the day when television will become as commonplace as the telephone.

Right here in Washington the figures, I think, are 2,818 units built and 205 units torn down. I think that illustrates that point. For some reason or other, it seems to me it gets by and is not challenged. We maintain they have not cieared slums. We have not been able to find out-and we have tried in numerous instances to get this information from the public housing authority. We cannot get it any more than you have been able to get it-any more than you have been able to get the figures on the cost of public housing.

Let us suppose for a minute that public housing were absolutely perfectly administered. Let us suppose it could be perfectly administered. That is what I feel is really the thing to worry about, with this kind of a program. This bill calls for 500,000 public housing units. Five hundred thousand public housing units do not house the people they claim need public housing. The lowest estimates made by advocates of public housing generally is that we need to house the lower one-third of our population-that is, over 10,000,000 families.

The CIO, one of the strongest advocates, in one of their booklets said "We need 18,000,000." Senator Taft in debate last year said that, in all probability, we would need at least 3,000,000.

Well, you can take any figure you want. If you stop with 500,000 units you are not helping the people you want to help. You have to

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »