Lapas attēli

capable of handling the refinancing of mortgages, then the Government should be in position to have same refinanced.

How is one going to rehabilitate buildings, which I have done for a number of years, if the proper financing cannot be arranged because of race prejudice?

The buildings to which I refer are located in the Bronx, near 149th Street, which is in the heart of the Bronx. As you know, Hearns Department Store and other large stores, are located nearby.

Enclosed are copies of applications which I have made to the banks, and have been turned down because of race prejudice, and not because the earnings have not been enough. And, no counterpropositions were offered to me.

If you gentlemen allow this condition to exist, there will be no rehabilitation, and when the present mortgages become due, the banks will demand payment and cause chaos in the city of New York.

Our president has been notified by me of this situation. It is therefore imperative that in your rehabilitation bill, you should make necessary arrangements for financing, also the necessary arrangements for financing of buildings, where the banks do not entertain application for a mortgage. If there is anything I can do to speed up the mortgage bill, please advise. Yours very truly,



Location : 414 East 148th Street.
Size: 27 by 100.
Description: Five-story apartment house.
Layout: 2/5 1/4 first to fifth floors. Total, 15 apartments.

Located near 149th Street and Third Avenue, which is the heart of the Bronx, near all shopping-near all department stores in the Bronx.

Excellent transportation.

Mortgage application, $25,000; 4142 percent interest; 242 percent amortization; 7 percent constant. Rents

$7, 332. 96

[blocks in formation]



Location: 413 East 147th Street, Bronx, N. Y.
Size: 27 by 100.
Description: Five-story apartment house,
Layout: 3/4 first to fifth floors.

Located near 149th Street and Third Avenue, which is the heart of the Bronx. near all shopping-near all department stores in the Bronx.

Excellent transportation.

Mortgage application, $25,000; 412 percent interest ; 242 percent amortization; 7 percent constant. Rents

$9, 355. 20

[blocks in formation]


Phoenix, Ariz., April 5, 1954. Senator CARL HAYDEN, Senate Office Building,

Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR HAYDEN : Please send me a copy of the current housing legislation, H. R. 7839, together with any committee reports that may be published on this bill.

I would like to go on record as opposing particularly that part of section 105 which would extend title II loans to 30 years and that part of section 104 which increases the loan maximum to $20,000. The chances are that if these were enacted that mortgage lenders would not make loans under these terms; however, if all loans were made under these maximums perhaps a few of them would be absorbed.

In regard to the actual foreclosure costs, the proposed legislation increases the existing $75 to two-thirds of the actual cost. In order to protect the Government and the mortgagees I believe a definite maximum amount should be specified.

I would also like to go on record as opposing completely sections 220 and 221, as the 100 percent Treasury financing would definitely be an intrusion upon private enterprise. I believe that provision providing for a flexible interest rate in FHA and VA mortgage loans increasing the maximum to 6 percent is desirable along with the acceptability of FHA debenture funds for payment of mutual mortgage insurance premiums.

As this law is so all-inclusive, I have only, in passing, remarked on a few of its provisions. Yours very truly,

E. A. MARSHALL, Jr., Vice President.


Miami Beach, Fla., March 4, 1954. Hon. GEORGE SMATHERS, Senate Office Building,

Washington, D. O. DEAR SENATOR SMATHERS: The Miami Beach Apartment Association, officers and directors, have reviewed certain news items concerning titles 207 and 213 of the National Housing Act. It has been alleged that the gap created by a slowdown in multifamily construction has led to unemployment in the building trades in some major cities.

In line with our policy of keeping abreast of the potential results of certain legislation as it would affect our economy in the city of Miami Beach in the future, we desire at this time to call your attention to an economic fact which vitally concerns the apartment owners of this city.

While we will not attempt to discuss the merits or the lack of same in the National Housing Act, we can state without fear of rebuttal that the city of Miami Beach and its investors have planned well ahead for the growing economy of the area to the extent that at the present time there is not only a sufficiency but a surplus of apartment units in this city. Should title 207 and the construction of additional units be approved by the National Housing Act for a developer who would locate such building or buildings in the city of Miami Beach, only an adverse effect would develop for not only the existing buildings but the new construction under title 207 which would place the entire apartment industry in a disastrous financial condition.

We trust that you will consider this letter and the attached petition and pass on your recommendations to the proper authorities concerned with such matters. Respectfully yours,


We, the undersigned apartment houseowliers of Miami Beach, Fla., under. stand that the Government intends to finance apartment-house projects throughout the United States in order to stimulate building business.

We here on Miami Beach requesed a statistical survey through Dr. Reinhold Wolff, director of the bureau of business research, University of Miami, as to the economic condition of this territory, and we have been advised that we are off about 34 percent which means that we have more apartments in this area than we can absorb for a long time to come.

The 608 project apartment houses in this area can be rented for very little or for almost nothing at all, as you are undoubtedly aware that the Government was forced to take a lot of these buildings back. In view of the above, if any projects of this type were created in this area, it would be disastrous and would jeopardize the investments of all apartment-house owners in this area.

If there is any other information you desire about the economic conditions in this area, we will be glad to furnish such information upon request.

The attached list of signatures of apartment owners coincides with the feelings of the Miami Beach Apartment Association.

(The list referred to will be found in the files of the committee.)


Pittsburgh, Pa., March 26, 1954. Hon. HOMER E. CAPEHART, Chairman, Senate Banking and Currency Committee,

T'ashington, D. C. DEAR SIR: In order to assist you in your deliberation on the proposed changes to liberalize financing for new housing, I am herein setting down in condensed form pertinent facts. You, no doubt, recall our previous correspondence on such matters, and as a housing developer for the past 15 years, I am qualified from personal experience to intelligently discuss this matter.

1. I find that purchasers in the $13,000 to $14,000 range earn $90 to $100 per week, and 75 percent have less than $2,000 cash, so that after paying closing costs and some household goods, the most they can put down is $1,200 to $1,300 or about 10 percent of the sale price.

2. I find that purchasers in the $15,000 to $18,000 range earn about $150 per week, and the majority can put down $2,000 cash plus closing costs; therefore, the 10-percent downpayment must also cover this range, otherwise these purchasers will be deprived of houses.

3. I find that purchasers who earn $70 to $80 per week are satisfied to obtain half of a double house with 3 bedrooms, at $11,000 to $12.000 and can put down not over $1,000 so that houses in this bracket should rate a mortgage of 95 percent on the first $10,000 and 75 percent of the next $2,000, thereby creating a large field of low-income purchasers with $1,000 down.

4. In order to provide 2-bedroom apartment suites for not over $100 per month including utilities, apartment developers should rate a mortgage of $2,200 per room count in walkup nonfireproof buildings, or $2,500 per room count in elevator-type fireproof buildings. The encouragement of these building projects will provide new modern shelter for about 25 percent of those in need of housing.

I, therefore, urge you to give very serious thought to the recommendation of our NAHB representatives, as anything less than their request will affect the proposed goal of 1 million to 1,400,000 units that must be built in the next 12

months to house our people in sanitary modern homes and maintain a high economy.

I want to honestly assure you that the above facts are true and correct for the Pittsburgh area, and have been arrived at after a thorough study of the results of projects my firm has developed during the past 15 years. Very truly yours,

WM. S. MILLER, President.


ASSOCIATION Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is A. Lee Painter and I am president of the Mobilehome Dealers National Association with offices at 39 South La Salle Street, Chicago, Ill. Our association consists of more than 500 dealers of mobile homes located in approximately 43 States. I am president of the American Trailer Co. and have been actively engaged for many years as a mobile-home dealer and mobile-home park operator in Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia.

Our association is very much concerned that the comprehensive housing program presented in S. 2938 makes no reference to the mobile-home industry and thereby denies it the recognition which it has earned as the housing source for more than 2 million Americans, for it is approximately that number of people to whom the mobile home is a permanent dwelling unit.

Since World War II the mobile-home industry has earned its place as part of the housing resources of the country. The 1952 total industry production was 83,054 and the 1953 production was approximately 77,000. Surely an industry which has contributed so much-more, for example, than the prefabricated-homes industry-deserves proper recognition in comprehensive legislation which purports to treat of the entire housing problem of the Nation. The mobile-home industry has a claim to such recognition on at least two counts.

First. the mobile home represents the most satisfactory low-cost housing which private enterprise has been able to produce. The mobile home is a compact, complete housing unit with an average total cost to the purchaser of from $4,000 to $5,000. It is a completely furnished 2-bedroom unit with all modern conveniences. This committee has already raised serious question as to the results, if any, of the proposed section 221 with its 100-percent 40-year loan for a $7,000 unfurnished house. There is considerable question, for example, whether such section will be able to produce housing in the urban areas where the need for relocating people from urban renewal areas would be the greatest. With the assistance of the amendments proposed by our association, many of these people will be able to obtain adequate mobile homes at monthly payments which they can afford. In this way the problem of relocating displaced persons from urban renewal areas will be solved and the greatest obstacle to urban rederelopment would be surmounted. For example, the application of the FHA mortgage-insurance system, in the manner to be set forth later in this statement, would bring this low-cost housing within the reach of the lowest income group and certainly obviate the necessity for further public housing with the many disadvantages which are inherent in Government-owned shelter. Just think, the approximately 200,000 public-housing units in existence today will require an average annual subsidy from the American taxpayer of approximately $80 million per year for 40 years. Of course, we would not suggest it, but the subsidies for only 5 years would be enough to give 200,000 lowincome families a completely furnished 2-bedroom mobile home without charge and without further cost to the Government. Think then of the tremendous savings which would inure to the already hard-pressed taxpayer by enabling these low-income people to purchase through FHA insurance this ideal lowcost mobile housing, thus giving them the opportunity to build up some equity in their own homes instead of paying rent to the Government.

Secondly, the mobilehome-industry production should be maintained at its present level of approximately 80,000 units per year not only to meet the demand for these units from low-income groups, retired people, migratory workers, servicemen, and so forth, but to be in a position to meet the temporary housing needs of an augmented Military Establishment and stepped-up defense production force in the event of a national emergency. The mobilehome industry in 1950

44750—54-pt. 1-70

was called upon to supply thousands of mobile homes as military housing; and more than 25 percent of its production for several years went to servicemen and their families desirous of living in the only type of housing which assured the family being together as the serviceman shifted from station to station. The approximately 125,000 servicemen's families living in mobilehomes at the present time attest to the great contribution made by this industry and to its acceptance as adequate housing for servicemen.

However, there is one stumbling block to the continued stability of this industry and that is the inadequacy of existing financing facilities, the identical problem which, in the early thirties brought about the creation of the Federal Housing Administration. Present financing facilities for mobilehomes, like conventional mortgage financing of the 1920's, require too large a downpayment (about onethird of the retail price) and too short a maturity period (3 to 5 years). The result is to narrow the market thereby denying mobilehomes to many people who need such housing because of their occupation, service, retired, or migratory status.

We strongly recommend that the mortgage-insurance system under title I be amended so as to provide mortgage insurance for mobilehomes up to 75 percent of the purchase price or $5,000 whichever is the lesser, and for a maturity period of 7 years and 32 days, the same maturity period that will apply to the proposed modernization loans under this title. The proposed mobilehome-mortgage insurance under this title is patterned after the mortgage insurance for modernization loans of $3,000 for 5 years and 32 days. Considering that the latter loans are unsecured and enjoy a dignified position among banking institutions it is certainly logical that mobilehome-financial paper will be readily acceptable by such institutions.

We also recommend that section 207 be amended so as to provide for mortgage insurance for mobilehome parks or developments not to exceed $1,000 per space with an aggregate maximum for each park of $300,000. A mobilehome park is improved real estate and with proper appraisal standards, to be promulgated by the Federal Housing Administration, would prove a worthy adjunct to the mortgage-insurance system and would be the means whereby the mobilehome industry could satisfy the great demand for adequate mobilehome parks.

We are pleased to join the Mobile Homes Manufacturers Association and the Trailer Coach Association in recommending these proposed amendments. The amendments which we suggest are attached as part of this statement and we commend them to your favorable consideration.



To aid in the provision of housing for families in essential and migratory occupations and to encourage the growth of a mobile housing resource for national security by extending certain credit insurance provisions of the National Housing Act to occupants of trailer coach mobile dwellings.



Sec. 101. Section 2 (a) of the National Housing Act, as amended, is hereby amended by striking out the period at the end of the first sentence and inserting the following: "and for the purpose of financing trailer coach mobile dwellings by owner-occupants thereof.".

SEC. 102. Section 2 (b) of said Act, as amended, is hereby amended (1) by striking out thesemicolon at the end of the clause numbered (i) and inserting the following: "or for the purpose of fianancing mobile dwellings exceeds 75 per centum of the purchase price or $5,000 whichever is less" ; (2) by inserting in clause numbered (2) the following: “or for mobile dwellings seren years and thirty-two days," betwee nthe words "days" and "except."

SEC. 103. Section 2 (c) of said Act, as amended, is hereby amended by inserting in paragraph numbered (2) the words "or mobile dwelling” immediately after the phrase "any real property".

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »