of urban areas. We agree with the principle that the assistance for planning to smaller communities should be channeled through State, regional, and metropolitan bodies who best know the comprehensive needs of the local urban areas thereby avoiding the danger which results from excessive Federal control. We also commend section 702 for providing financial assistance to create a reserve of planned public works. At any time in the national economic cycle such a reserve is important. The section will also be conducive to better working of the urban renewal program by permitting advance detailed planning of public improvements within an urban renewal area. Respectfully yours, LAWRENCE M. IRVIN, SPOKANE, WASH. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.: I urge that you vote against current public-housing legislation and vote for expanding section L to include minorities and other low-income families on controlled programed basis. Also vote for lower downpayments of 95 percent on first $10,000 and for elimination of proposed Presidential credit control. These matters urgently need your attention for the benefit of the people of the State of Washington. Hon. HAROLD O. LOVRE, Washington, D. O. JOHN PETEK, C. H. POINT REALTY CO., DEAR REPRESENTATIVE LOVRE: It is my understanding that the President's Advisory Committee on Government Housing Policies and Programs has recommended that the President direct the Housing and Home Finance Agency, the Veterans' Administration, and the Federal Housing Administration to work out an agreement whereby the Veterans' Administration would contract with the FHA to perform appraisals and inspections in connection with veterans' home loan applications. It is my further understanding that an Executive order is contemplated to direct this action. As you know, under the present system appraisals on GI loans are made by individual appraisers, on a fee basis, who must especially qualify with the Veterans' Administration. On the other hand, FHA appraisals are made by FHA employees. Most FHA offices are usually about a week behind in making such appraisals, whereas Veterans' Administration appraisals are usually up to date. Evidently the purpose of this contemplated action is to save money, I do not believe, however, that purpose can be accomplished, because, unquestionably, the FHA would find it necessary to hire additional employees as appraisers and additional clerical help to process the cases and as a general rule these appraisers are very hard to find. The most serious objections to the change as I see them are as follows: 1. Delaying action on veterans' applications. 2. A backlog of appraisals would result immediately because the FHA does not have enough qualified appraisers to handle the tremendous workload which would be piled on them and the FHA cannot hire enough qualified appraisers overnight to take up the slack. 3. Because of the increase in personnel which FHA would require, there would be no savings involved in the proposed merger, and many costs now absorbed by the fee appraisers for the Veterans' Administration would have to be borne by the Government, i. e., secretarial expense, telephone, car expenses, supplies, etc. 4. The Government would be taking over a function that has been, can be, better handled by the private fee appraisers and inspectors. 5. It would be the first step in the dismemberment of the VA and veterans would be dependent on 2 agencies rather than 1 to obtain redress for justifiable complaints. 6. The superior quality of VA appraisal and inspections has been established and it is in the best interests of the veterans to maintain this procedure. 7. The concentration of all appraisal activities in a single governmental agency carries with it the serious implication of price control. 8. Many contractors and builders in various sections of the United States that are currently striving to better serve our numerous veterans needing housing would become irked and irritated no end over needless delays which are bound to occur if the proposed merger is adopted. I would appreciate it very much if you would look into this situation and do what you can to prevent the change from taking place. Sincerely yours, Hon. HUGH A. BUTLER, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. C. H. POINT, President. ATLAS LUMBER Co., MY DEAR HUGH: Passage of housing bill S. 2938 is, in my opinion, very important, not only to potential homeowners in our area, but owners of homes that need improvement, and to the building industry, as well as to the national economy; and I sincerely hope that when this bill reaches the Senate floor that you and our mutual friend, Dwight Griswold, will strongly support the same. Am sure that you will, for both of you genelemen are fully aware that not only is additional housing at reasonable costs badly needed, but there are a great many homes that need improving; and at present, we here in Nebraska, at least, need something to stimulate business. Have read bill mentioned; and below are the features that impress me. 1. A realistic flexible interest rate for FHA-insured and VA-guaranteed loans. This is accomplished by section 201, title II of the bill. 2. A more adequate long-term credit for modernization and repair of homes. This is accomplished by section 101 of title I of the bill to increase the limits for title I repair and modernization loans to $3,000 and 5 years, and in section 125 of the bill which authorizes the open-ending of FHA-insured mortgages for sup plemental advances for repair-this highly desirable. 3. The provision in subsection 4 of section 201 of the bill authorizing additional servicing charges for mortgages made in outlying areas to encourage investors in other areas to invest in mortgages in areas where there is a shortage of funds is a badly needed provision. 4. The establishment of a secondary mortgage facility (title III of the bill) which would buy and sell FHA-insured and VA-guaranteed mortgages from lending institutions with limited funds in certain areas experiencing a shortage of mortgage money, and which would provide a more even distribution of funds for home mortgages is very important to this industry. 5. Increasing maximum mortagege limits under section 203 of the National Housing Act from $16,000 to $20,000 for 1- and 2-family houses is also highly desirable. Section 104 of the bill does give our President discretionary authority to put such increase into effect, and, in my opinion, such increase should not be discretionary, for this develops an uncertainty that we in the construction industry do not favor. 6. Existing homes should be given the same treatment in FHA as new homes. The legislation would accomplish this in section 104 of the bill. 7. The various programs of FHA should be consolidated and simplified. The bill accomplishes this. 8. There should be a leveling out of the FHA downpayment schedule to give a better break to homes in the $11,000 to $15,000 price brackets. This bill does this in section 104. 9. Also the provision for a 95 percent loan (up to $8,000) and the 30-year maturity period should be written into the law and not be left to the discretion of the President. While, as a rule, I do not like lengthy letters, yet the subject in question is so important to us that I wanted you to know just how I felt, and am cetrain that most of the lumber dealers in this area feel just as I do; and again am asking for your support. If there is any information that you would like to have, do not hesitate to ask me for the same. I trust that you are enjoying the best of health; and with continued high regards, I remain, Yours very truly, 44750-54-pt. 1- -71 GEORGE RASMUSSEN, President. Re Housing Act of 1954. Hon. HOMER E. CAPEHART, HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Chairman, Banking and Currency Committee, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR CAPEHART: The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in the city of St. Paul has revised the recommendations of the President's Advisory Committee on Housing Policies and Program, the recommendations of the President to the Congress, and the proposed Housing Act of 1954. These proposals represent a well-conceived board long-range program designed to attack all phases of the housing problem. To be effective, we believe, the new Housing Act must provide for all phases of the proposed housing program, including the provisions regarding: (1) rehabilitation and conservation, (2) slum clearance, and urban redevelopment, (3) construction of new housing, both public and private, to meet the relocation need engendered by both rehabilitation and slum-clearance programs. In St. Paul, we have two urban redevelopment projects in the development stages which will displace approximately 1,600 families, a major portion of which are either eligible for public housing or have income just above the maximum income limits for eligibility. To meet this rehousing need here and in other cities, private housing such as proposed in section 221 should be provided. However, the cost ceiling should be increased up to about $10,000 if any housing is to be produced under this provision in this section of the country. In establishing this program, precaution should be included to insure that families are not forced into home ownership programs far beyond their financial means. If the rehousing job is to be accomplished, the act must also include provisions for the continuation of public-housing program and the elimination of the present restrictions as to the volume of public-housing starts. The program of urban renewal, including rehabilitation and conservation, is a very complex program which will require considerable research as to methods and techniques by all communities undertaking this program. The provisions of the act for providing Federal assistance for the purpose of developing and testing methods and techniques for the prevention and elimination of slums and urban blight plus the provisions of Federal assistance for metropolitan urban planning are believed to be desirable. To insure successful results from the comprehensive housing program that has been proposed by the President, we urge that steps be taken immediately to insure that public housing be restored to include a minimum of 140,000 units of public housing during the next 4 years at the rate of 35,000 units per year. For your information, a copy of an editorial which appeared in the St. Paul Pioneer Press, Saturday, March 27, is attached. Yours very truly, NICK J. SMITH, Chairman. [St. Paul Pioneer Press, March 27, 1954] HOUSING IN THE HOUSE President Eisenhower submitted to Congress this session a comprehensive and balanced housing program in which public housing for low-income groups had a place but a very minor one. He asked Congress to provide a 4-year publichousing program of 140,000 units. The House Appropriations Committee has not exactly scuttled this program, but it has acted to cut the program down and bring it to an end 2 years hence, far short of the goal set by the President. The committee has provided for the start of 20,00 new units this year and declares that the whole program should be wound up with 15,000 more next year. The committee actually intends that the program end right now, since it has provided that no new projects may be undertaken. The 35,000 units are to take care of projects for which binding contracts exist. The main emphasis by far in President Eisenhower's housing program was on private enterprise. He suggested that an experiment be tried of extending financial encouragement to private enterprise for the provision of low-cost housing. He felt, however, that in the meantime authorization should be given for a minimum of public housing to take care of the worst and most urgent needs in this field. The Appropriations Committee has been ill-advised in upsetting the balance of the program by taking this feature so nearly completely out of it. The committee indicates that it considers public housing justified only in conjunction with slum clearance. If that is true, then there is no justification for winding up the program 2 years hence, because there is no chance that slum clearance will be a closed book in that time. Actually public housing is an adjunct not merely of slum clearance but of our social welfare program in general. It has been more sympathetically approached from that viewpoint in the Senate than in the House, probably because of the championship of public housing there on those grounds by Senator Taft. If the House itself does not restore Eisenhower's program, there is a good probability that the Senate will put back at least a part of it, as it has done before in publichousing appropriations. Hon. CARL HAYDEN, Washington, D. C.: PHOENIX, ARIZ., March 29, 1954. Strongly urge you to contact members of House of Senate Banking Committee as to the importance of pending housing bill. Also urge your support of the following items: (1) We strongly advocate maximum 2 percent investment requirements of FNMA to prevent excessive discount for use of new facilities; (2) we strongly advocate the continuation of the 1 for 1 plan on the present portfolio of FNMA. This plan has provided Arizona with its first large-scale veterans financing and FHA financing for small or outlying communities; (3) we advocate purchase by FNMA of any type of FHA-insured or VA-guaranteed mortgages; (4) we strongly urge 95 percent FHA financing up to $10,000 and definitely feel that imposition of administrative discretion over downpayment, mortgage amounts, and amortization terms very seriously interfere with sound long-range planning by the house building industry and should be stricken from new housing bill. Request your wholehearted support so that we may continue to build a bigger and better Arizona. RALPH E. STAGGS, Region 18, Vice President, National Association of Home Builders. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Senate Office Building., Washington, D. C.: SPOKANE, WASH., April 1, 1954. Urge that you vote against current public housing legislation and vote for expanding section 221 to include minorities and other low-income families on controlled programed basis. Also vote for lower downpayments of 95 percent on first $10,000 and for elimination of proposed Presidential credit control. These matters urgently need your attention for the benefit of the people of the State of Washington. JACK L. STIRN, Home Builders Association of Spokane. TUCSON, ARIZ., March 16, 1954. Hon. CARL HAYDEN, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR HAYDEN: The Tucson Home Builder's Association upon the approval of its general membership request your support of the housing bill recently introduced by Senator Capehart and Representative Wolcott. We request this support with one important exception, that exception is the loan to value ratios on FHA-insured mortgages. We feel that the schedule of downpayment set forth below should be adopted for the following reasons: Loan to value ratio: 95 percent. 85 percent- Selling price 0-$15, 000 -$15, 000-20, 000 A. These downpayments would be ones that the people could actually afford. B. It would ameliorate the discrimination previously shown against the medium-income groups. C. The large natural housing demand occasioned by the high birth rate of the 1920's and the large number of postwar marriages has very largely been satisfied by the low cost 2- and 3-bedroom houses built in such volume in the last 7 years. These people are now older, have better incomes and larger families; they want and need better housing with 3 and 4 bedrooms. These houses will have to cost an average of $8,000 to $15,000 if they are to be well designed and soundly built. They should be a permanent addition to our housing inventory— ones that the community can well be proud of for years to come. D. A high volume of housing starts is one of the best methods of insuring a continuous national prosperity. Very truly yours, TUCSON HOME BUILDERS' ASSOCIATION. Hon. HOMER E. CAPEHART, UNITED HOUSING FOUNDATION, Chairman, Senate Committee on Banking and Currency, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR CAPEHART: I am writing you as president of the United Honsing Foundation, a federation of 14 cooperative housing projects. While we have not personally appeared before your committee, we are very much interested and would like to have our recommendations recorded by your committee. Our members have over 9,000 dwelling units built or planned for the next 12 months in developments ranging from 32 single-family homes to 2,226 apartments. We are interested in strengthening the cooperative housing movement and creating more genuinely cooperative developments for working people. The enclosed booklet on pages 26 to 32 explains our program in greater detail. Although only 2 of our members have been financed under FHA insured loans, in the past 12 months hundreds of individuals who have participated in the section 213 program have come to our office for information and advice. The suggestions contained in this letter are the result of these many interviews and conferences. (1) The average investor in a section 213 cooperative has no way of telling exactly what it is he is buying. The basis of estimating the monthly charges, the plans, the specifications and other relevant material are not available to him. The result of this "pig in a poke" pattern of investment is often serious disappointment. If the relevant information were available, the investor could if he wished investigate what he was buying, seek professional advice if he so desired, and thus make an intelligent decision as to whether or not he should buy. Althought some FHA published material suggests that all information is available, the fact is that it is not; in our opinion, the only way of insuring that the prospective investor get the facts before he makes his downpayment is to write the requirement into the legislation. It is our experience that giving the prospective cooperator all the facts is the soundest basis for establishing a cooperative housing project. Since many of the people sponsoring projects under section 213 are unfamiliar with cooperative practice, they resist full disclosure of the facts, for such full disclosure has not been necessary in their previous building experience. This resistance has been very strong and in some cases has been overcome only by intervention of the New York State attorney general. Because of the unfamiliarity of so many sponsors with cooperative practice, it is essential to spell out in the legislation the requirement of full disclosure of the relevant facts. |