« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
ownership housing was introduced which was described as holding the possibility of obviating the need for public housing. Public housing, reduced to the skeletal role of caring for families displaced from slum-clearance projects, was restricted to 35,000 units, but, as if this were dangerously near to being too much, was surrounded by elaborate procedures in order to be sure it would not, in these straitened circumstances, be rashly resorted to. A voluntary mortgage credit plan was conceived to deal with the difficult problem of minority housingownership variety. No provisions were made with respect to minority rental housing.
What has happened in the past year on housing? The tough parts, that is— not housing for persons whose income is $8,000 and above and whose skin is white. We would very much like to report to this committee that even though progress doesn't come easily it has been perceptible. But we can't. We don't see low- and lower-middle-income groups more adequately housed; we don't see progress with respect to minority housing. In fact, on this latter, if anything it seems tougher for with the trend to suburbia and with all suburbia white, Negroes are left the deteriorating urban cores—which when they become “renewed” are all too likely to be open to citizens of white skin.
Statistically our impression would seem to be confirmed by the record of this last year:
Slum clearance and urban renewal projects : Approved workable programs, 20.
Public housing (1954 act): 142 units in 2 projects under loan and annual contribution contract.
Rehabilitation of existing dwellings (sec. 220): 7 applications.
Rural and minority mortgage credit-Voluntary Home Mortgage Credit Association : 85 loans.
It is good and fine to say, as the President does, that, “It is properly a concern of this Government to insure that opportunities are provided every American family to acquire a good home” and to describe good housing as “a major objective of national policy," but as members of the social work profession we are perfectly confident that if this committee sent interrogators around to the less well-off portions or urban and rural housing and asked the families living in structures without running water and without toilets if they had noticed a new and real concern of Government to help them get into decent housing, the reply would be, “You're kidding.”
The Chicago chapter of our association reports that housing for low-income nonwhite citizens is scarcely keeping pace with the population increase, which means that no dent at all has been made on the large amount of substandard housing evident to all with eyes to see who have looked at Chicago's housing and statistically indicated in the results of housing census of 1950. The 1950 housing census showed roughly one-fifth of Chicago's housing units to be substandard. It showed that close to one-quarter of the nonwhite population was living in houses without water, that almost 30 percent of this group was living in housing with no toilets. The Chicago chapter comments:
"In our opinion as social workers dealing with many of the problems arising from poor housing, the Government, city, and State programs offer practically nothing. Private housing concerns have built private dwellings which do not meet the need of most low-wage earners. The average wage earner cannot qualify for public housing and he lives in substandard housing as a rule. There is then a tendency to use public housing for those people who are practically or actually indigent."
There is no denying that when one does not have the headaches and responsibilities of a program on one's own shoulders, it is easy to sit on the outside and criticize. If we felt the situation were even trending toward where it needs to go, we would not speak out so vigorously. But we have the impression that the Housing Act of 1954, even if amended as the administration asks that it be, is never going to translate into reality the President's objectives. We feel an altogether new housing bill is called for and are looking to the chairman of this committee to provide the leadership that the situation so bady requires.
Not because we are unalterably wedded to public housing but because so far as we have been able to perceive, public housing has to date proved the one means of getting decent housing to the lowest income groups, do we want to see a real program of public housing. We would like to see a program of 400,000 units of public housing a year. Minimally, we would like to see us be as bold as the late Senator Taft was willing to be when he joined in the sponsorship of the Housing Act of 1949 and endorsed 200,000 units a year. Further, we would like to see real down-to-earth thinking on how decent housing can be provided minority groups. In saying this we cast no disparaging glances to the South, for the South would seem to have been wrestling with this quite as hard as northern and western urban centers. On a recent trip to Jackson, Miss., I was genuinely impressed with the effort that is being made in that city on this problem.
Also as members of the social work profession, we would like more thinking on the problems of housing older persons. We have studied the two bills before your committee, Senator Magnuson's S. 1412 and Senator Sparkman's S. 1642, with interest. Our comments follow :
With respect to S. 1412, we like Senator Magnuson's avoidance of segregating older persons and his proposal to make eligible for public housing the widow, widower, or single person whose income is not above applicable limits. We question, however, in present circumstances, whether more than a handful of older persons would get housing under Senator Magnuson's bill if it became law, for he qualifies admission by specifying that, in the judgment of a duly authorized official, “such admission will not prevent or delay the admission of any eligible family to the project.” Inasmuch as public housing projects in urban centers the country over have long application lists, the Senator is not likely to provide much housing for older persons whose income would make them eligible for such projects.
In S. 1642, Senator Sparkman takes waiting lists into account and calls for a specified number of units for the use of older persons built as part of low-rent housing projects. Again we commend the nonsegregated approach.
We are pleased that the Senator does not talk about projects for older persons. The figure of 50,000 units specified in the bill strikes us as a reasonable beginning figure until we are in a position to determine with greater knowledgability the extent of the need. Of course, 50,000 units of low-rent housing for persons over 60 years would obviously be disproportionate if no more than 35,000 units were authorized for all other persons, but we are assuming that Senator Sparkman in submitting S. 1642 has in mind a companion bill to S. 1800 which would appreciably increase the general authorization.
In connection with the problem of housing for older persons, we would like to call to the attention of the committee a report by the Nevada State Welfare Department, dated December 1952, entitled “A Survey To Determine the Housing Needs of Old-Age Assistance Recipients in Nevada.” We believe the committee would find study of it useful. Indicative of the problems being met in this State is the following comment from a Nevada member of our association:
“The need for adequate low-cost housing for aged persons is particularly acute in Reno and Las Vegas. We are concerned particularly about recipients of old-age assistance in Las Vegas where the going rental for a single apartment is at least $80 a month. This is out of reach of the average recipient in view of the maximum old-age payment of $65 a month.”
We would also like to observe that nowhere in the proposed measures have we seen recognition of the problem of "home-base” housing for migratory agricultural workers. This is a problem which has long been crying for attention.
The AASW is looking to this committee to draft a housing bill which will adequately meet the housing needs of the American people.
Senator FULBRIGHT. The next witness is Mr. H. C. Ballman, executive secretary of the Air Pollution Control Association.
Mr. Ballman, will you come forward, please.
Mr. Ballman, Senator Capehart asked me to express to you his regrets that he had to leave. He has an appointment.
Mr. KUGEL. Senator, if I may, I am not Mr. Ballman, but I am here representing him. I am the first vice president of the Air Pollution Control Association.
Senator FULBRIGHT. What is your name, please?
Mr. KUGEL. I will present Mr. Ballman's statement as he has it written.
Senator FULBRIGHT. You may proceed.
STATEMENT OF H. KENNETH KUGEL, FIRST VICE PRESIDENT, ON
BEHALF OF H. C. BALLMAN, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, AIR POLLUTION CONTROL ASSOCIATION
Mr. KUGEL. Mr. Ballman is executive secretary of the Air Pollution Control Association. His testimony here presented before the United States Senate Committee on Banking and Currency:
I, Harry C. Ballman, executive secretary of the Air Pollution Control Association; whose membership includes individuals representing educational institutions, research institutes and agencies, industrial establishments, manufacturers of air-pollution-control equipment, civic organizations and citizen groups, and governmental agencies including control officials, representatives of State and county governments, and members of Federal agencies such as the Bureau of Mines, Public Health Service, and so forth; set forth the following statements at the request of and with the authority of this assocation. The association has been in existence since 1907, having operated successively under the names of the International Smoke Prevention Association, the Smoke Prevention Association of America, the Air Pollution and Smoke Prevention Association of America and finally the Air Pollution Control Association. It is the only association, to my best knowledge, devoted to the purpose of furthering the knowledge and practice of air-pollution control, operating in this country today. This association represents the broadest cross section of know-how available in the present day art of air-pollution control. It is a nonprofit organization. May I further point out the broad base or scope of the membership of this association mentioned above, which includes authorities in all the fields of science having to do with air pollution control, necessitates an objectives viewpoint which is not allowed to tilt in favor of any one group or interest. The sole objective of this presentation is to obtain workable, realistic, reasonable approaches to accomplish an established ultimate in air-pollution control.
With the above premise in mind and with the authority of the association I represent, may I present the following:
I. Section 1001 through sections 1002—the sections which authorize research for air pollution and its control are presently covered in S. 928 which is presently before the Senate Committee on Public Works, and hearings are under the jurisdiction of a subcommittee chaired by Senator Robert S. Kerr. The moneys, as I understand it, will be requested by the proper authorities after the appropriation authorization is enacted. Therefore, since the part of this bill duplicates the one of the several purposes of S. 928, I believe it should be considered for deletion to avoid duplication.
II. Page 8, lines 11–13 (sec. 1003, par. G) provides distribution of loan funds over the 48 States without consideration for the population concentrations or the pattern of industrial concentrations in this country. May I suggest the allocations of loan funds to areas or States on a basis of recognition of concentration of air-pollution problems which are not evenly divided over the 48 States.
III. Money for corrective equipment for Government-owned or leased plants should be extended and procedures set up to facilitate approval of expenditures of such money based upon requests of local smoke and air pollution control officials.
Finally, the purpose of the bill is good, but the suggested changes, additions and deletions are offered for your consideration and, with them, we would approve the bill.
Senator FULBRIGHT. Thank you,very much, Mr. Kugel.
(Whereupon, at 12:35 p. m., the subcommittee recessed until 10 a. m., the following day, Tuesday, May 17, 1955.)