Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

Colonel SYMBOL. About 25 percent above his rental allowance. The CHAIRMAN. How much?

Colonel SYMBOL. Sir, about 25 percent above his rental allowance. The CHAIRMAN. About 25 percent above. What is the rental al

lowance of the lowest grade now?

Colonel SYMBOL. About $67.50.

The CHAIRMAN. $67.50 a month?

Colonel SYMBOL. I believe that is the figure.

Mr. KELLEHER. $78 is the lowest with a dependent, I think.

Colonel SYMBOL. $77.10, I believe.

Mr. RIVERS. It is about $80.

Colonel SYMBOL. At little below $80.

Mr. RIVERS. Yes.

Colonel SYMBOL. For a sergeant with two children.

The CHAIRMAN. Ordinarily a person that has to pay $80 in a great community should get good quarters and they should be pretty good houses. Of course, you never have a tenant that is satisfied and you always have to make repairs and all things like that. The questionnaire may be a little bit too broad.

But nevertheless, the occupant of it-it is his money that is being paid out.

Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman.

Colonel SYMBOL. Sir, to answer your question directly, Mr. Chairman, an E-1 with 1 dependent gets $51.30 and an E-7 with 1 dependent gets $77.10.

The CHAIRMAN. I venture to say that in a great many instances in a great many localities and a great many places that a private citizen would not be required for the accommodation they are receiving to pay the same rent that the military personnel pays. Is that correct?

Colonel SYMBOL. That is right, sir.

Mr. RIVERS. Now, Mr. Chairman-Mr. Kitchin, will you yield right

there?

Mr. KITCHIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. RIVERS. I would like also to be sure for the committee's benefit that that questionnaire or any questionnaire which is directed to a serviceman's family, further substantiating the philosophy behind Mr. Kitchin's question-whether it be for substandard declaration or disposal or whether it be for Wherry rehabilitation or bringing up to standard, or whether it be for private housing, to which he has, as the chairman said, been compelled to go to get any kind of quarters. Just do not go out here in a shotgun fashion and give this to all types and categories of housing. So let us be sure whether it is for disposal purposes, whether it is to bring up the Wherrys to standard, or whether it is to get rid of these private houses, as the chairman said which has been forced on them, and for which they pay at least 20 percent more.

Colonel SYMBOL. Well, Mr. Rivers, we will be the first to admit that any questionnaire is not 100 percent perfect.

Mr. RIVERS. We know that. We understand that.

Colonel SYMBOL. And our attempt is to try to find out factually just what does the soldier actually live in.

Mr. RIVERS. The gentleman from North Carolina has not accused you of that.

Mr. KITCHIN. I am not accusing anybody.

Mr. RIVERS. We recognize you have to have something. That is

elementary, but let us find out exactly what the thing shows.

The CHAIRMAN. I think this: I think it is all right to have a worthwhile questionnaire.

Mr. RIVERS. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. To be considered, but that should not be the determining factor.

Mr. RIVERS. No.

The CHAIRMAN. Then there should be an inspection to determine whether or not the house is substandard, and that should be done by a visit to the premises, to look it over. Not with the idea of trying to make everything spic and span and with the most modern electronic equipment, but just say for everyday living.

If it doesn't meet that standard, it should be classified as substandard.

Mr. RIVERS. I agree with the chairman that some of this housing they have to use is just criminal.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Kelleher, I suggest for the consideration of the committee you try to prepare suitable language to have some physical inspection, in the bill.

Now, members of the committee, I recognized Mr. Kilday in regard to Fort Sam Houston. Wait one minute.

I think the facts-wait one minute, Mr. Kilday. I think in view of the fact that the subcommittee approved 2,000 units at Fort Bragg about 2 years ago and the 367 units is a part of the 2,000 units, the committee is warranted in approving the 367 units at Fort Bragg.

We had a long hearing, participated in by the subcommittee. I sat in because Fort Benning was involved, and Mr. Hardy and Mr. Rivers and the subcommittee recommended 2,000 units for Fort Bragg. This 367 is a part of that original 2,000 units.

Colonel SYMBOL. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And on that basis, I think you are warranted in approving the 367.

Mr. HARDY. Mr. Chairman, I want to be heard some time. I am willing to wait now until we get through with the rest of the business, but what I have to say is based on the whole proposition.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Now, Mr. Kilday with regard to Fort Sam Houston, 183 units. Mr. KILDAY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to include in the record a letter dated May 19, 1958, from Thomas S. Garrett, Sr., president of the San Antonio Real Estate Board, and the accompanying vacancy survey.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it is included.

(The letter referred to is as follows:)

Hon. PAUL J. KILDAY,

United States House of Representatives,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. KILDAY: The San Antonio Real Estate Board views with alarm a proposal by the Department of Defense contained in the legislation recently introduced into Congress for the erection of 183 Capehart housing units at Fort Sam Houston and 125 at Medina base.

It is the candid opinion of the officers and members of the San Antonio Real Estate Board that such consideration would not only be a needless waste of

Federal funds, but would further aggravate the vacancy situation in this city existing at the present time.

The board prides itself on its annual vacancy survey, a copy of which is enclosed for your benefit.

In this survey, completed on November 1, 1957, there were 2,584 single-family dwellings unoccupied; duplex's, 660; apartments, 1,352; and new homes under construction, 1,175.

In view of the above figures, we fail to see the need for any additional construction. A recent check survey reveals that a slight increase has occurred in these figures since November 1, due primarily to economic conditions.

We sincerely trust that you will use your influence to oppose the enactment of this legislation granting these additional units.

(The 1957 occupancy survey as of November 1, 1957, is as follows:) 1957 оссираncy survey, as of Nov. 1, 1957

[blocks in formation]

Compiled and issued by the San Antonio Real Estate Board, Inc., San Antonio Home Builders cosponsors from basic data obtained through the San Antonio post office.

[blocks in formation]

Residential units.

166 151 70 25 12 123

2 143 118 57 149 159

Residential units.
Business units...

COMPARISON WITH CERTAIN PREVIOUS SURVEYS
[Percentage of vacancies]

1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1948 1949 1951 9952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957

3.03 3.30 3.33 3.07 3.35 9.90 1.73 1.97 3.00 3.43 3.88 3.76 4.75 4.10 3.08 9.09 6.90 8.04 7.50 6.73 5.36 2.36 3.33 3.80 3.55 3.84 5.15 5.78 6.55 7.82

A total of 4,596 residential units of single family, duplexes, apartment, and flats are vacant. Of this number 111 are in the so-called military area which incdules Wherry and Lanham housing and 154 in public housing on above date of survey. No figures obtained on Randolps and South Kelly.

In addition there were 1,175 single-family residences under construction and scheduled for occupancy within the next 90 days. This compares with 1,981 in 1955 and 1,421 in 1956.

This year's survey reveals two interesting features. The all residential vacancy ratio has decreased from 4.10 in 1956 to 3.08 this year, less than the national average, but in commercial occupancy, the vacancy ratio has climbed from 6.55 to 7.02. Partially responsible for the decrease in residential vacancies is the sudden influx of military families, smaller number of building starts, razing of homes on expressways. New community shopping centers with parking and changing traffic patterns have caused some business site vacancies. Public housing with a total of 154 vacancy units, static at 3.28 is 20/100 over city's ratio, while military housing has lowered its vacancy percentage from 11.23 to 8.87.

Zones 3 and 5 shows families moving from the commercial center while other zones remained static or gained. Commercial vacancies increased in all zones except 1, 2, and 21.

The number of families "doubled" in single units dropped from 6,141 down to 5,420, a very healthy sign. (Zone breakdown follows :)

[graphic][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed]

Mr. KILDAY. I call attention to this statement in the letter:

In this survey, completed on November 1, 1957, there were 2,584 single-family dwellings unoccupied ; duplexes, 660; apartments, 1, 352, and new homes under construction, 1,175.

This letter objects to the project both at Fort Sam Houston and at Medina base.

I do not object to the Medina base project, nor have I in the past objected to it. Medina base is a classified installation and more remote from the city than Fort Sam Houston. I believe those quarters are necessary, notwithstanding the protest of the real estate board. The CHAIRMAN. 2,500 units?

Mr. KILDAY. Yes.

Now, as to Fort Sam Houston, it is located within the city limits of the city of San Antonio. It is not remote at all. The city now surrounds practically all of it, and from this vacancy report and my knowledge of the situation, I do not believe that at this time we should include the 183 units at Fort Sam Houston. I offer an amendment to strike out, on line 22, on page 9 of the bill

The CHAIRMAN. What does the record show as to the available private ownership number of vacancies in the Fort Sam Houston area? Eleven hundred and some odd, did you state just a while ago?

Mr. KILDAY. This was vacancies that was broken down to 2,584 single-family dwellings unoccupied; duplexes, 660; apartments, 1,352; and new homes under construction, 1,175.

The CHAIRMAN. What does that make? That makes a total of about four or five thousand rental spaces then.

Here is evidence there are over 5,000 rental units in that area. Why, then, with that testimony, should we be warranted in building 183 units?

Colonel SYMBOL. Mr. Chairman, we have a total requirement of 4,372 families that require housing, and that includes, again, 871 lower 3 grades that are not authorized housing, but have to live off the community.

We have assets on the post of 2,806 units; that includes 1,527 units of community support.

We are using the community support on the outskirts of FortThe CHAIRMAN. All right. You are not using it very much because that gives you about 3,000 more community support that you are not making yourself available to.

Colonel SYMBOL. Sir, our records show that we have about 800 that are on the waiting list that are authorized quarters on the base and that are living in substandard or inadequate housing off the base. It gets back to this

The CHAIRMAN. Even if that is correct, you still have a surplus of community availability.

Mr. RIVERS. Could I inquire?

The CHAIRMAN. You got 4,000 to start with.

Mr. KILDAY. No, 5,811.

The CHAIRMAN. 5,811 to start with.

Colonel SYMBOL. I do not have those figures that Mr. Kilday has. The CHAIRMAN. Well, I suggest, then, in view of the fact that you do not have sufficient information to answer the arguments just submitted, showing there are 5,000 community available houses quarters or rooms that that item be stricken out.

Colonel SYMBOL. Sir

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the item is stricken out. Mr. GAVIN. Wait a minute, Mr. Chairman. If 5,811 homes or apartments are available, why would the Army come in here and try to justify these 183 units? With the situation existing such as ex

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »