Examples of privately constructed low-cost homes (1952–55)—Continued NOTE.-Most of the homes are no-downpayment financing under VA or 5 percent under FHA. 64 42 42 42 42 (2) 42-48 42-45 34 APPENDIX K [Advertisement from the Washington Post of Wednesday, September 30, 1953] HAVING INCOME TAX PROBLEMS? Recent large flotations of United States housing and other tax-free bonds have glutted the market to the extent that many sound State and municipal bonds are selling to afford a higher tax-free yield than has been available in years. We will be pleased to submit offerings. GOODWYN & OLDS INVESTMENT BANKERS 903 American Security Building Members Washington Stock Exchange APPENDIX L [Excerpts from Columbus Public Housing Study, Citizens Research, Inc., Columbus, Ohio, 1952] TABLE S.-Number of ineligible (overincome) tenants in low-rent housing projects, Columbus Metropolitan Housing Authority, by quarters APPENDIX M Number of families living in permanent low-rent housing, by occupation and race Couple and five children leave unheated tenement for city project apartmentOne of 1,500 relocated-Army veteran found lots of rentals, but they were barred to large family (By Emma Harrison) When Frank Hughes got out of the Army, he and his wife Dorothy began to look for an apartment. Now, some 10 years and 5 children later, they have found one. The Hughes family's move from a crowded, damp, unheated Brooklyn tenement back to the 20th century occurred when their application for city housing was accepted. They took possession of a modern 5-room apartment in Jefferson Park Houses, 330 East 115th Street. When the mammoth federally aided project is completed, the Hughes family will be 1 of 1,500 families relocated from what the City Housing Authority calls substandard housing. But being one of an impressive statistic doesn't begin to reveal the major changes being made in the lives of these families. To note that the Hughes family is now confronted with an abundance of heat, hot water and living space would be to oversimplify the meaning of that change. In the 10 years since the war, the Hughes family, like so many others, lived in varying degrees of makeshift and discomfort. Seven of these were spent in a sunless, stuffy 4-room flat in the West Sixties. The last straw in that occupancy was the appearance of a rat. The Hugheses fled to another inadequate apartment in the Rockaways. RENT IS DOUBLED When the resort season rolled around and the rent was doubled to $125, the post office transportation clerk and his family had to move in with relatives-in two groups. Two of the young girls were boarded out at $30 a week. One went to an aunt in Kingston. 'We could have got lots of places without the children, but when you say you have five, people think you're crazy," said Mrs. Hughes, explaining why the next refuge was a heatless, hot-waterless tenement on Brooklyn's Glen Street. The 7 Hugheses, including the new baby, Frank Jr., crammed themselves into 3 of its 4 tiny rooms. The fourth, a mere cubbyhole, was uninhabitable because of dampness. The first winter was heatless. Water was heated sparingly by a rickety gas water heater that the parents distrusted. Because the baby burned himself on the unguarded heater, Mrs. Hughes had to wash dishes only when he was asleep. Life was one constant head cold. In rainy weather, water streamed down the walls. Major expenditures added measurably to the $29.10 rent. A kitchen stove, gas radiator and refrigerator were bought. Gas bills were as high as $30; laundry bills averaged $2.50 a week. Frank Hughes' estimate of the rent with these extras was $60, only $7 less than the new, utilities-included apartment. CAT IS NECESSARY Besides the 5 children, 4 of whom slept in the 1 small bedroom, there was Tiny, the cat. There wasn't room for Tiny, but he displaced a certain number of mice and was essential. If the necessities of life were elusive, its niceties were impossible. The Hugheses painted walls 3 times in 18 months. Fumes from the gas radiator kept walls and curtains blackened. And there was Frank Hughes' biggest problem-sleep. A night shift man in the General Post Office, he tried to sleep days on a couch in the living room. Just before he moved, he said: "The kids climb on top of me and Frankie gets hold of my hair. Just to get in a room and close the door. That's what I'm looking forward to most." Now, although they are still unpacking, startling contrasts present themselves daily. Mrs. Hughes, a slender, energetic housewife in her early thirties, has taken an entirely new outlook on her duties in the sunfilled, spacious quarters. "It's a pleasure to do things here," she says. "You can see what you've done. In the other places you worked and worked and you couldn't tell it." CLOSETS, TOO, NOW She takes pleasure in such simple joys as being able to turn the radiator down, open the steel casement windows, and have closets. "But it's the children first," she said, thinking over the improvements the move has made. "They have room to play where they're not underfoot. Their colds are almost gone. And they have places to keep things. It's hard to teach them to do things right when they have no place to put things." Perhaps her greatest single joy is planning for curtains that will stay fresh and clean and brighten her home. Part of her day already has been lightened. In the new school, Our Lady Queen of Angels, there is room for one more Hughes daughter, Kaaren, 6. This leaves only Frances, 4, and the baby home part of the day. MAY 16, 1955. Memorandum re: Pattern proposed to be employed by Asheville (N. C.) Housing Authority for excluding lower-income families from public housing Pisgah View Apartments, in Asheville, N. C., was built under the Housing Act of 1949 and contains 262 apartments. The Federal Government has contracted to pay subsidies of up to $137,020 per year to permit this project to operate at a loss so that it can house families in the "lowest income group" and "who have the most urgent housing needs." The Housing Authority has set up ranges of monthly rents for the apartments as follows: $21 (minimum), $22 to $26, $27 to $31, $32 to $36, $37 to $41, $42 and over. The actual current occupancy of these apartments is as follows (bear in mind that the yearly maximum income of the family is determined by the ceiling of five times the rent): Number of families now housed at this rent The above allocation has apparently not resulted in the Housing Authority adopting a mandatory quota system like that in use by many, if not most, housing authorities. Under the quotas, a certain number of apartments are permanently earmarked for certain rents and hence for families of certain incomes (figured on the factor of five times the rent). Without the earmarking system the Asheville Housing Authority has been operating Pisgah View Apartments and another project, Lee Walker Heights (96 units) so that it used in fiscal year 1953, $89,340 of the permissible contract subsidy of $137,020. This left unused of the authorized ceiling subsidy $47,680. In fiscal year 1954 the Authority used $117,226 subsidy, leaving unused $19,794. For fiscal year 1955 PHA estimates the Authority will use almost the same as last year-$117,227. That would still leave unused of the authorized subsidy nearly $20,000, or, to be exact, $19,793. It seems that somebody has complained that Asheville has been using too much subsidy. Now, the only way the Housing Authority can do its maximum to reach down and house the lowest-income families is to use the full subsidy authorized by the Congress to do just that. So the Housing Authority of Asheville is to be asked to take apartments from lower-income families and earmark them for higher-income families and higher rents. This is purportedly to reduce the amount of Federal subsidy required. The current allocations without mandatory earmarkings are shown below alongside the proposed quotas to be fixed. This means, for example, that 32 apartments now rented to families who can afford to pay no more than $21 per month will not be rented to families in that income bracket when the present occupants vacate. They will be rented to higher income families. Under the proposal, and it is expected to be adopted shortly, families who can afford to pay no more than $31 per month will lose 36 apartments and families who can afford to pay $32 and more per month will have 52 more apartments than they have now; 13-the number of apartments now used by families who can afford to pay $42 and more per month-would be increased to 30. We certainly do not intend to pick on the Asheville Housing Authority. They are now using a higher proportion of the Federal subsidy authorized to house lowest income families than most authorities we have looked into. At least they are coming nearer to housing the families Congress and the public intended were to fulfill a social-welfare purpose unless public housing is going to serve those housing can be disposed of, Congress should insist that its statutory purpose should be carried out. That will mean using the subsidies authorized by the 1937 and the 1949 acts to full extent. Why should Congress authorize subsidies to fulfill a social welfare purpose unless public housing is going to serve those families Congress and the public were led to believe would be housed? We are convinced that the Asheville case is a mild symptom of a wave of such actions by housing authorities all over this country to house higher and higher income families in Federal public housing. This pattern, of course, has the effect of excluding the lowest income families Congress intended to take care of. HENRY G. WALTEMADE. Senator SPARKMAN. Senator Kuchel is here now. other commiteee functions, and he tells me he will take minutes. Senator Kuchel, we are glad to have you. your statement at this time. He is busy with only a very few You can make |