Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

gress of Industrial Organizations. I am also legislative director of the United Steelworkers of America.

The CIO and the steelworkers appreciate this opportunity to appear here today to discuss our views on housing problems. We desire to be helpful to the Senate in its consideration of legislation dealing with housing. I might add, as a representative of the United Steelworkers of America, that not only are we concerned with assisting our members and their families in securing adequate housing, but also, as responsible citizens, we feel that we owe an obligation to all other groups who may not be as fortunate as members of our international union. In addition to the concern which I have expressed, there are other factors which I should like to make clear.

The prosperity of the American housing industry is an important factor in determining the well-being not only of members of the CIO, but of all workers in America-directly because millions of them produce materials and other items which go into new homes and are employed in the construction industry and indirectly because the American economic system is interdependent and the jobs of all of us are influenced by the degree of prosperity in all areas of the economy. The economic impact of home construction is tremendous. It is one of the major industries of the Nation. Its relatively high level of performance in the past two years has been an important bulwark against recession and against a continued rise in unemployment.

Furthermore, as consumers of housing, members of the CIO and other unions, as well as persons who do not belong to any union, have the same interest. A continuing high level of home building should enable these individuals to obtain adequate and economical housing in the areas and at costs where this has not heretofore been possible. The item of housing is a big one in the family budget. The achievement of a good home is a major factor in the standard of living which the workingman seeks.

The views of the CIO reflect its belief that a high level of home building is imperative to the national welfare. We firmly believe that with the aid of wise public policies decent homes for the great mass of low- and middle-income families of America, whose needs are the greatest and whose resources for meeting them are the least, can be attained.

Mr. Ben Fischer, director of the CIO's national housing committee, will present a more detailed statement of our organizations' position. Mr. Fisher recently served as an alternate member of President Eisenhower's Advisory Committee on Government Housing Policies and Programs. In addition, he has participated in the development of the National Housing Conference proposals presented here today.

Senator SPARKMAN. We are very glad to have you, Mr. Fischer. Mr. FISCHER. Thank you. I appreciate this opportunity to be here. I do not want to take too much of your time. You have already heard from the American Federation of Labor, and have heard from the National Housing Conference. Both of these statements are excellent and we join completely in these statements as made here and as presented in formal papers. We have our litttle piece of paper and tried not to go over the same territory everbody else goes over. Perhaps we want to emphasize several things which are becoming increasingly important.

Slum clearance and urban redevlopment

The housing program is supposed to be directed in considerable part to slum clearance and redevelopment of our great urban centers. We are concerned, as apparently most folks seem to be concerned, with the slowness of this program and its apparent inability to get going. It is our view that the major problem in the development of slum clearance and redevelopment programs is the deemphasis of housing and the lack of adequate housing legislation. Most of the housing legislation is directed to helping those who are pretty well able to take care of themselves. Most of our federally supported housing activities concern aids to the industry and aids to people in the upper middle-income and higher income brackets. We have not succeeded, except in a very small measure of public housing that we have had, in bringing aids down to the level of those who need them most. It is kind of a strange situation where the Federal Government's major activities and major supports in the housing field seem to be directed to those who need aid the least, and that they seem to neglect most those who need aid the most.

The legislation before you does not in any serious way tackle that problem. It is a difficult problem and it is a complex problem. We think that the proposals made to you by the National Housing Conference form a suitable basis for an approach to that problem.

We think, furthermore, that this committee should make clear through an expression of its opinion and through the legislation which it recommends, that the major concern of programs of redevelopment and slum clearance which are going to be supported by the Federal Government has to be the provision of housing-new housing and better housing-for lower middle-income and lower income groups.

I think an intimate examination of what goes on in the redevelopment program-I am not talking about public statements now, but an intimate examination of what goes on-will indicate that the question of rehabilitation and housing for people who now live in substandard and slum housing areas, is a very small item in most of our redevelopment and slum clearance programs. They are concerned with broad questions of planning and urban renewal, and rerouting of traffic, civic improvements, and many things which are good and which we have no particular criticism of, but they are only good in their proper perspective and in their proper place. They are not good if they are made substitutes for the major concern which should be present at all times, and that is to rehouse these people, and better house them, and primarily new-house them.

The reports we have from almost every place in the country, and whatever personal experiences I have had, indicate it is almost universally true that our redevelopment and slum-clearance programs are not primarily directed under the present policies and circumstances at solving housing problems, but are rather beautifying programs or something of that sort. We think it is of very real concern and we think the Federal Government should see to it that it is directed to the housing problem, and the housing problem as it directly affects folks who now live in slums and who need help.

In our opinion that cannot be done merely by administrative techniques, or merely by a determination of people that it should be done; but it requires a comprehensive program. Because what you come

up against is that in most areas of the country, and especially in the larger cities where this problem primarily arises, you cannot provide housing which is within the reach of the low-income and lower middle-income groups with any of the existing tools in any great quantity or in any realistic fashion.

The President's Committee indicated that industry would do this job, or it invited industry to do it. Industry has not done it and I have never thought they could. Not because of any deficiency in industry, but just because of the simple economics of the situation. Therefore it is our firm conviction that this committee should assume the leadership in the drafting of legislation and in the enactment of legislation which is actually going to provide the practical means for large-scale development of new housing for low-income groups that need substantial support, and for the low middle-income groups which need perhaps more indirect and less costly types of support.

Until this is done, we are fearful that the overall program is still going to be a faltering program and a program which produces injustices, and that we are not going to be solving our housing problem. In that connection, we do have the additional problem that even when and if you do develop adequate tools for providing housing in terms of the economic problem for the low-income and lower middleincome groups, then you have the additional consideration of solving the social problems that stand in the way of providing housing for the minority groups; because obviously, as you go through most of our cities, you find that the folks who now occupy the areas that are a blight and a shame to the cities of our Nation are too often members of the minority groups. Thus any solution of these urban redevelopment problems and urban renewal problems and slum clearance problems is dependent in good measure not only on having a good program in terms of economics, but having an adequate program in terms of facing up to how you go about solving minority group problems.

That is true in most of the communities I know anything about. In our statement we tried to develop some concrete proposal about what can be done about these matters, and we want to repeat again that we join with the American Federation of Labor and the National Housing Conference in their proposals to this committee.

Senator SPARKMAN. Without objection, your prepared statement will be made a part of the record.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Fischer follows:)

STATEMENT BY BEN FISCHER, DIRECTOR CIO HOUSING COMMITTEE

In behalf of the Congress of Industrial Organizations, I wish to express our appreciation for this opportunity to appear before this committee.

My name is Ben Fischer. I am an international representative of the United Steelworkers of America. I am also the director of the CIO National Housing Committee, and I appear here today in that capacity.

The comprehensive studies made under the auspices of the National Housing Conference indicate that America needs a construction rate of 2 million new housing units annually for the next 10 years if we are to eliminate slums and provide good housing for our families. While the objective of a decent home in a decent community for all Americans is widely acclaimed, there is little evidence as yet of an overwhelming zeal—either in the construction industry or in Government-to support a practical program to achieve it.

Overbuilding

Those who now claim we are overbuilding are mistaken.

The CIO views on

this question were fully set forth in a recent letter to the chairman of this committee from CIO President Walter Reuther. For the record, we attach a copy of this letter.

It is possible, however, that the present rate of new construction may soon exceed the demand of that portion of the market which can afford to purchase or rent most of the new housing now being constructed. These costs are beyond the means of the low-income groups, those earning less than $3,000 a year, and above the carrying ability of most of the so-called lower middle-income group, those earning between $3,000 and $5,000 a year. Even in the income bracket just above $5,000 most families are forced to overextend themselves and sacrifice other essentials in their effort to obtain suitable housing.

The answer, however, is not to curtail new construction, as some seem to be urging. The answer is rather to adopt a program designed to expand new housing for low-income and lower middle-income families whose need for new housing is greatest.

In this connection, we must note that slum removal on a large and effective scale cannot be achieved without an extensive program of new housing for lower income families. The so-called urban renewal and urban redevelopment programs will not achieve wide acceptance or wide application unless they are supplemented by substantial housing programs on behalf of the people now residing in slums and substandard dwellings. It is a good and desirable thing to clear slums and redevelop the areas, even in some cases to change these areas to nonresidential purposes. But our major emphasis must be on rehousing and new housing for low-income and lower middle-income families. Nothing else will work. Nothing else will bring forth the public support which is essential. Nothing else will avoid pushing dislocated slum residents into new congestion and the creation of new slums.

If we are to achieve a 2-million-unit annual rate of new housing construction—or even maintain our present high but inadequate rate-new national policies are required with an emphasis on realistic slum removal, construction of new homes for low-income and lower middle-income families, and equitable nondiscriminatory distribution of such housing.

The Federal Government's objective is a prosperous economy and a well housed America. Measured against this objective, however, its program-which is now beamed primarily at meeting the needs of better-off families-hardly justifies the exertions in which the Federal Government is engaging itself. If we are to have a national housing program, it must be a program which does precisely what its name implies. It must courageously meet the housing needs of that portion of the national population whose need for aid is the greatest-the millions of moderate and lower income families of America.

What, then, has been standing in the way of a sound, comprehensive, and adequate housing program? Two fears have been nurtured, carefully, and skillfully; the fear of public housing and the fear of Government aid for a practical middle-income program.

Public housing

Public housing has been retarded, and now practically brought to a standstill, by the unfortunate charge that it is socialistic. For years the program has been hamstrung at every level-but particularly in the Congress by the highly financed propaganda of the home builders, mortgage lenders, and the real-estate fraternity.

The public-housing program, so largely developed under the leadership of the late Senator Taft, is not a socialist program. It provides for construction of homes by private enterprise for a profit. It provides for financing by private capital for a fair return, the level of which is determined in the market place. It is operated by local citizens designated for this purpose by local governments in accordance with State laws. The Federal Government guarantees a repayment of the bonds and the interest thereon, and provides standards which are consistent with this Federal obligation.

The involvement of the Federal Government in the public-housing program is not drastically different from its role in the FHA program, for there, too, the Federal Government guarantees repayment of the loan and the interest thereon, and establishes standards to protect this Federal involvement.

The failure to carry out the public-housing program as provided in the 1949 act prevents proper housing of low-income families and wide-scale elimination of slums. Yet, no practical answer has been found to the problem of the lowincome family and the rehousing of the residents of slums except public housing. Every opportunity has been afforded to private enterprise to develop other solutions. There is no sign, however, that any realistic alternative has been found. On close examination, these highly advertised alternatives turn out to be impractical forms of publicly supported housing in which the Government takes all the risk but which are far less soundly conceived than the formula provided in the 1949 act.

We urge the Congress to return to the 1949 act and to implement its provisions so that our communities across the country can get on with the task of eliminating slums and providing new housing for their low-income families.

The second fear deals with Government aid for a genuine middle-income housing program. Whenever it is suggested that the extensive housing apparatus of our Federal Government be used to aid our lower middle-income familiesfamilies whose earnings are too high for accommodation in public housing yet too low to meet the present carrying charges of private home purchase a hue and cry is set off against Government meddling, Government expenditures, and creeping socialism. Oddly, this hue and cry is not heard when new billions of dollars of Government credit is sought to enable FHA to guarantee operations of the home builders, the real-estate fraternity, and the mortgage lenders. Ap parently, aids to business institutions to enable them to provide housing for those best able to pay is acceptable to the business community; but aids which are designed to enable these same groups to provide housing for those less able to pay is somehow evil.

This strange situation deserves forthright examination. What is needed? We require long-term financing at low interest rates with some assurance to the consumer that he can protect his investment in the event of temporary unemployment. These three factors-long-term mortgages, low interest rates, and protection against economic adversity-can permit widespread development of homeownership on an individual basis or through consumer cooperatives for literally millions of moderate-income Americans whose present housing facilities are inadequate. The institution of such a program will create new levels of prosperity, new opportunities for business, new profits for home builders, realestate operators, and mortgage lenders, and indirectly will increase the security of the present mortgage holders by improving and sustaining the general economic climate.

We urge Congress to face up to this challenge and not submit to the fears of shortsighted men who do not have confidence in our Nation's ability to serve the demands of the consumers through appropriate cooperative measures between Government and private enterprise. The details of such a program have been developed through the National Housing Conference for your consideration.

Minority group housing

A further major consideration, if the Nation's housing problem is to be solved, involves members of minority groups. The fact that Negroes cannot obtain good housing in good neighborhoods at fair prices and on fair terms has been widely recognized, at long last. Even a Negro who can afford a good new home usually cannot obtain land and adequate financing.

This situation is shameful and unfair. It is a major obstacle to a successful national housing program because slums cannot be cleared on an extensive basis and adequate housing cannot be provided for lower income families as long as new housing is not available to Negroes. The reason is simple; many of the slum-dwellers are Negro, and many of those in low- and middle-income brackets who most urgently need new housing are Negroes. If new housing is not available to Negro families, then the people who reside in the slums will not be adequately rehoused and the market among lower income groups will be substantially curtailed.

Our Federal Government should not make aids available to any community which neglects the needs of its Negro citizens. Federal aids are not a handout; they are a means of promoting specific objectives of national policy and should not be separated from, or made available in disregard of, such objectives.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »