The Army has a very serious problem in air transportation of cargo. The CHAIRMAN. Now, Major, with all due respect to the Army and Navy, there is one point that was brought up by a witness this morning, which I should like to place before you. It has been charged that the Army is storing, unnecessarily, surplus materials that are needed by nondefense industries. Do you see any evidence of that around here? ARMY NOT UNNECESSARILY STORING MATERIAL Major GARDNER. No, sir; we have to allocate aluminum in quantities of 5 pounds. I don't think that is storing material. That is not true. The CHAIRMAN. As an officer in the Army, you have found no physical evidence of it around here? Major GARDNER. None whatever. Mr. ARNOLD. In Chicago last week, at a meeting of manufacturers who were desirous of securing allocations of material for nondefense work, some one made the suggestion that at the Rock Island Arsenal a 5-year supply of some materials had been stored up, whereas they could have got along very well with a year-to-year supply. Do you know anything about that? Major GARDNER. I think that would have to be determined by the Army staff. I think their judgment would have to be given consideration there. The CHAIRMAN. In other words, it is something about which you have no knowledge? Major GARDNER. That is right. Mr. OSMERS. Major Gardner, to get back to aircraft manufacture, are some companies substituting other methods for riveting? NO CHANGES IN METHOD FOR RIVETING Major GARDNER. Not without the permission of the Air Corps. Nothing is permitted to be changed without the approval of the Air Corps. Mr. OSMERS. Has approval been given for changes in construction? Major GARDNER. No. Mr. OSMERS. For an operation that would substitute for riveting? Major GARDNER. No, sir. Mr. OSMERS. That would be considered a very vital and basic change, which would probably take several months to determine? Major GARDNER. Yes; due to the fact that at the present time there are 783,000 rivets Mr. OSMERS. It has been suggested that some of these plants ought to try welding instead of riveting. Major GARDNER. It has been suggested that that be approved. However, at the present time it has not been approved. Mr. OSMERS. But it is under consideration and in process of experimentation, is it? Major GARDNER. The material used for skin covering of the plane is too thin to weld. Mr. CURTIS. Major, this aluminum that is being conserved, the greater portion of that goes into airplane production, does it not? Major GARDNER. Yes, sir. Mr. CURTIS. I don't know that this bears on the investigation, but I want to know for my own personal information, is this used aluminum that was gathered up in the various communities, in the form of old pots and pans and coffee percolaters, melted down and made into aluminum which is used in airplanes? Major GARDNER. No, sir. Mr. CURTIS. It cannot be used for that? Major GARDNER. No, sir. Mr. CURTIS. What is it good for? Major GARDNER. Good for other uses of aluminum not connected with airplane skin-cover. Mr. CURTIS. To make more pots and pans? Major GARDNER. No, sir; it is used for forgings, for castings, and things of that short. Mr. CURTIS. In what industries? Major GARDNER. In various industries; in aircraft engines. Major GARDNER. I could not say that. We have nothing to do with scrap material except the disposal of it back to the aluminum company. What becomes of it there, we have no knowledge. Mr. CURTIS. But the fact that it is turned back into the whole industrial set-up makes that much more virgin aluminum available for aircraft construction? Major GARDNER. That is right. The same holds true of materials that are used in the training schools where they are teaching riveting and metal forming and the various operations in connection with aircraft production. They buy what is known as seconds of aluminum sheets-those that have been scratched and can't be used in aircraft for skins. They return that and are paid so much a pound for it as scrap material or second material, and they return it and receive so much per pound for it as scrap material. The CHAIRMAN. Major, we thank you very much. You have made a fair and intelligent statement, and we thank you for coming here. Major GARDNER. Thank you, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Our next. witness is Mr. Edwards. TESTIMONY OF GEORGE EDWARDS, DIRECTOR-SECRETARY, DETROIT HOUSING COMMISSION, DETROIT, MICH. you. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Edwards, Congressman Curtis will question Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Edwards, will you give your name to the reporter? Mr. EDWARDS. George Edwards. Mr. CURTIS. What is your official position? Mr. EDWARDS. I am director-secretary of the Detroit Housing Commission. Mr. CURTIS. You have a prepared statement, do you not? Mr. EDWARDS. Yes, sir; I have submitted a prepared statement to the committee. Mr. CURTIS. That will be received in the record. (The statement referred to above is as follows:) STATEMENT BY GEORGE EDWARDS, DIRECTOR-SECRETARY, DETROIT HOUSING COMMISSION Defense workers migrating into Detroit find themselves face to face with a housing shortage a shortage particularly acute in the lower rental bracket. Satisfactory homes, at low rentals, are almost nonexistent. The number of available vacant dwellings for rent have been decreasing for some time. As recently as 1938, when the real property inventory was conducted, 5.06 percent of the city's dwelling units were found to be vacant. The percentage of vacant units diminished to 3.5 percent in 1940, when the Federal census was enumerated, and a further decrease to 2.2 percent was recorded in February 1941, when a sample vacancy survey was conducted by the Work Projects Administration at the request of the Division of Defense Housing Coordination. This survey revealed that, after eliminating all units not for rent, units in which major repairs were needed, and those unfit for use, only 4,050 units (0.9 percent of the city's total) remained available for rent and in good and fair condition. Recently the homes registration office of the Detroit Housing Commission, in conducting a survey, found less than 1 percent of the city's dwellings to be vacant. Thus, in spite of considerable building activity, the available housing seems to be appraoching the vanishing point. It cannot be denied that this is a black picture to present to incoming defense workers in search of satisfactory homes. How many such defense workers there will be is difficult to estimate. According to a labor market bulletin issued by the Michigan Unemployment Compensation Commission on July 22, 1941, it was anticipated that the total employment in defense industries in the Detroit area would be increased by approximately 68,000 workers in the period from July 1941 to January 1942. This figure does not take into account the number of nonmanufacturing jobs that would also be created. However, many of the large defense plants in the Detroit area will not have been completed by January 1942. Many others will not be in full production until some time after. The Ford bomber plant, which will employ between 40,000 and 60,000 workers, the Chrysler tank arsenal, Hudson naval arsenal, and the Packard aircraft plant, are a few of the larger defense plants that fall in these classifications. The amount of migration resulting from this employment need, would, of course, in great measure depend upon the amount of auto curtailment made effective. In any event, the city of Detroit is very poorly equipped to house an incoming migration of defense workers in any amount. WORK PROJECTS ADMINISTRATION STUDY OF MIGRATION INTO DETROIT A recent study made by the Work Projects Administration during the early part of June, 1941, entitled "Recent Migration into Detroit and Environs" bears out the seriousness of the housing situation. Of the 16,300 families who had migrated into the Detroit area since October 1, 1940, only about one-third occupied a separate dwelling unit when enumerated. Well over half of the families had doubled up with others, and one-tenth were living in hotels and trailers. Not a very pretty picture in spite of the fact that it should be noted that many families had moved to the Detroit area without all their normal family members. It should be emphasized that reasonably satisfactory housing facilities must be made available if migrant families are to bring in all of their normal family members. The Common Council of Detroit has recognized considerable danger in the housing situation and has recently taken steps to alleviate conditions. A rentinvestigation committee has been appointed, under the chairmanship of Councilman John Smith, and including in its membership a number of Detroit's leading citizens representing various walks of life. This committee has divided itself into three mediation panels, every one of which meets periodically and investi gates many rental disputes. The purpose of the committee is to arbitrate dis putes between landlord and tenant and to make an attempt to prevent an inflationary run-away in rentals, which will inevitably happen if numbers of defense families migrate into this city, unless vigilant control is exercised. Many of the cases that have come to the attention of the committee indicated rent increases of 40 percent and more. The greatest cause for anxiety, however, lies in the practice on the part of the landlord of evicting one tenant in order to rent to another at a higher rate. Relief families are especially vulnerable to this source of attack. They cannot compete with workers in seeking and maintaining standard housing accommodations. G. R. Harris, general superintendent of the Detroit Department of Public Welfare, in a recent letter to the Joint Committee on Housing, said: "By reason of their unfortunate circumstances, families with no incomes must take what is left after the employed have their choice." "With Detroit's active part in the defense program, housing is becoming more and more a community problem," he continued, "slowly but surely the pressure of demand is causing the relief families to be evicted from any dwelling which is not substandard. It has been necessary to provide emergency shelters to house families for whom we cannot find accommodations in the community. In the present emergency it would appear that we must increase the number of these shelters. This, of course, is no solution, but it is a means of meeting a daily emergency situation." Conditions in suburban areas are no better. In most of these areas they are actually worse. Lack of facilities for the proper enforcement of building and health codes has resulted in a mushroom growth of shacks and jerry-built cottages in the unrestricted areas about the city. The lack of sewers and water supply have added to the burden, especially in Warren, Lake, and Erin Townships, in Macomb and Oakland Counties, where the lack of proper sewage disposal has already resulted in pollution in Red Run Creek, the Clinton River, and Lake St. Clair. Pollution is always the forerunner of epidemics, and once serious epidemics break out the citizens of Detroit will not be immune just because they live across the line to the south in Wayne County. LACK OF HOUSING IN DETROIT The lack of adequate housing in the city of Detroit has been a public concern for some time. For many years little factual material was available. During the year 1939, however, the time arrived when it became possible to express housing conditions in statistical terms, since at this time the results of the real-property survey of the city of Detroit became available in complete form. This survey, conducted within the limits of the city of Detroit during the period from March 1938, through September 1939, was sponsored by the Detroit Housing Commission and conducted under the Work Projects Administration. A striking condition disclosed by the survey is that a considerable number of people in the City of Detroit were living in dwellings and under conditions that are considered unsafe and insanitary. For instance, 70,781 dwelling units were found to be substandard out of a total of 414,658 units. Only 3,537 of the substandard units were found to be vacant. The real-property survey conducted sample surveys to determine the income of tenant families living in substandard housing. It was found that over 76 percent of the 52,125 tenant family groups living in substandard housing were earning less than $1,400 per year. The survey brought to light the dearth of available satisfactory vacant units at rentals compatible with the income of these people. Although 5.06 percent of the city's dwelling units were found to be vacant, only 4,443 were available at rentals of less than $30 per month; and 58 percent of the latter were found to be unfit to live in. Thus, the number of available vacant units, fit to live in, renting for less than $30 per month, amounted to less than 5 percent of the number of A dwelling unit was considered substandard if any one or all of the following conditions existed in connection therewith: In need of major repairs; unfit for use; less than 1 flush toilet; less than 1 bathing unit; no running water; no installed heating; neither electric nor gas lighting; number of persons per room 1.51 or more; any number of extra families, one of which contains 2 or more persons (exceptions are made to the last two conditions when the monthly rent is more than $40). tenant family occupants of substandard housing who were earning less than $1,400 annually. (See following table:) Total number of tenant family groups living in substandard dwelling units in the city of Detroit, by income and size of family The urgent need for more adequate housing, demonstrated by these statistics. poses one pertinent question: To what extent has private enterprise applied itself to this problem? To ascertain an answer we can review the records for the 10-year period 1930-1939, inclusive. If we do so we discover that the net gain in the number of dwelling units erected was actually less than the increase in the number of families for the period. Comparison of net gain in dwelling units with increase in families, 1930 to 1939, inclusive Number of new dwelling units constructed___ 1 34, 889 5.774 Net gain in dwelling units.... 29, 115 Estimated increase in number of families (United States Census). 55, 243 26, 128 1 Included 1,624 public low-cost housing units. (While the population of the city increased by only 3.5 percent in 10-year period the number of families increased by 12.9 percent.) RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION FOR RENTAL PURPOSES Of especial concern for the community was the attitude of private capital toward providing rental housing for the community. An accompanying chart (see facing page) illustrates the amount of residential construction during the decade and demonstrates that only an infinitesimal amount was for dwelling rental purposes. The bulk of the construction was in single homes, which are not built for rental purposes. Construction of two-family dwellings, usually occupied one-half by owners, was nominal; while construction of apartments, which are built solely for rental purposes, was almost at a standstill. Moreover, the chart shows that most of the apartments that were erected were the public low-cost low-rent projects. Out of 33,265 dwellings erected by private capital in the 10-year period, 1930-39 inclusive, within the city limits of Detroit, only 3,995 units or 12.1 percent were erected for rental purposes. Out of the 10,505 units erected in 1940 only 8 percent were in apartments or two-flats. The balance were single houses erected for owners. The first 8 months of 1941 do not materially change this picture. In this period 8,226 new units were provided, 95.8 percent or 7,882 of which were single houses. The following table (p. 7244) shows the number of single family residences that have been erected in Detroit (total for which building permits were issued) classified in accordance with construction costs, for the years 1939, 1940, and 1941. It is |