« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
were being held with wholesale fruit and produce dealers in various towns and that such meetings had been held with the operators in Raleigh and that other meetings with the operators were scheduled to be held soon. He stated that they were for the most part receptive to the plan for the establishment of such a market.
Ballentine stated that Raleigh definitely needed a wholesale fruit and produce market and that the present marketing facilities of the city were inadequate and that the city operates it for the most part as a retail market and merely provides a building at a low rate of charges to a group of people who operate retail markets.
Mayor Snipes stated that the city of Raleigh ordered a market survey of the facilities in Raleigh and that they were convinced that our present facilities were inadequate and that they hoped at some future date to improve the facilities. It was his suggestion that the city attorney draft a resolution concerning the proposed Cooley bill and present it to the city council for consideration at a meeting to be held Thursday, June 1. This suggestion resulted in a motion by W. H. Weatherspoon, seconded by D. L. Cozart, that the committee favor the drafting of the resolution by the city attorney to be presented to the city council and that the resolution be presented by John Drummy, the chamber's manager of the industrial department. This motion carried by unanimous vote.
It was also understood that either the city or the Ralrigh Chomber of Comerce would work out some plan to have a representative attend the hearing in Washington provided the resolution met with the city council's approval.
There being no further business the meeting adjourned.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT H. MARTIN, SECRETARY, GREENVILLE
COUNTY MARKETING COMMISSION, GREENVILLE, S. C.
Mr. MARTIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee.
When I was telling some of the folks down in Greenville County that I was coming up here they said, “There will not be any need for preparing too many reports, because there will not be too many of the committee members there," so I have five copies of the report here, and I think it is going to come out just exactly right. We will have one left for Mr. Parker.
The CHAIRMAN. You do have a prepared statement?
Mr. MARTIN. It is not exactly a statement. It is just some points I thought the committee might be interested in.
From what I have heard here this morning, it looks like my talk or my presentation here will be a little different from some of the others.
All I have heard this morning is plans and ideas and so on about doing something. I think that in Greenville County we have done in the past 2 years on a county basis what the Government is now figuring on on a national basis.
Three years ago public officials felt that a modern marketing facility was needed in Greenville. Over 100,000 persons lived within a radius of 24 miles. Within a 50-mile radius 700,000 persons made their living in the cities and on the farms. The city area is surrounded by fertile farm land. The Marketing Facilities Branch of the USDA reported in its survey here that annually the Greenville trade area (a 10-mile radius) was consuming about 27,500 tons or 2,200 equivalent carloads of fresh fruits and vegetables. Eggs consumed annually in the trade area is about 200 equivalent carloads and 150 carloads of
dressed poultry. In 1944, farmers of the vicinity of Greenville harvested for sale about 8,600 acres of vegetables. We are within 30 miles of the largest peach-growing county in the world.
These facts and the fact that our only marketing place was a wide street where truckers, farmers, and grocers gathered early in the morning and made many of us feel the need for a facility that would cut handling costs from the farm to consumer.
We tried to interest our three banks in financing such a facility. They were not interested in the project and did not want to take a chance on its success.
The members of the Greenville County legislative delegation became interested in establishing a public wholesale market here. They bought 27 acres of land, passed an act appropriating $100,000 and authorizing the borrowing of another $100,000 by the Greenville County Marketing Commission to set up the new market. The act made the loan of $100,000 a full faith and credit of the taxing power of Greenville County. The bankers were anxious to loan the
. $100,000 at 3 percent interest, and all three participated.
That was a form of insurance on the loan, or had its effect in enabling us to build a bigger market. Also, we had had time to build up public interest to where there was no question of the need of it, or the good that the market was doing.
It appears that we have a perfect example of the need for legislation such as is contained in the bill H. R. 8320. Without the insuring of our loan by the county, it would have been impossible to have expanded our market after only 3 months of operation. We see the need of other facilities, but all funds are spent. Our loan is for a 10year period; however, it should be for a 40-year period as is provided in H. R. 8320. In other words, we have to pay back $100,000 in 10 years. We feel like your bill has a much better provision in there, making it a 40-year period rather than a 10-year period.
Thinking that the committee might be interested in pictures of the modern marketing facilities and what they cost, I have prepared this information on the pages to follow, which you have.
Also, I felt that the committee would like to know of the income and expenses of operating a marketing facility. This is shown on the chart following the pictures, which you have there on the last pages. This shows the market's first year of operation, and, with the expansion program completed, the net profit should be greater in the years to follow.
That is about all I have.
I would like to also point out, if any of you are interested in it, that I have some photostatic copies of the wonderful reception that we got through the press on developing our marketing facilities in Greenville. Those people are interested in our area and they are backing it 100 percent.
Our farm organizations and also our State now has a State marketing commission, which has begun the construction of a terminal market in Columbia, S. C., and we have $350,000 there that was appropriated by the State and the city and county there in Columbia, and already we are running into financial difficulties in getting enough money to build a proper facility.
Another thing I would like to point out is this: It takes a lot of money to build a market that is going to do the job.
A lot of our facilities are not fully used. For instance, the shed you see there maybe will not be used 100 percent during the entire period of a year. Our shed was used only about 4 or 5 months of the year at 100 percent capacity; so it takes a tremendous outlay of cash.
Also, we talk about whether the Federal Government should step in or not. I have some of these news reports here where in 1 week we received 21 trailer-truck loads of produce from Texas and Florida. We call it a little market there at Greenville compared to what we have been speaking of here this morning; so it is a national problem.
We think we have done a pretty good job of building the facilities that we have, and the reason that we need more is that we are handling products from other States and other areas.
The CHAIRMAN. In this picture of the market you show the first five merchant-store units, each costing approximately $10,000 to construct. You could not very well pay for that unit in a period of 10 years; could you?
Mr. MARTIN. We can just about do that. The rental on those store units is $100 a month.
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, you could amortize your loan for 10 years on that sort of project, and it would be self-liquidating?
Mr. MARTIN. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, $1,200 rent would meet your payments?
Mr. Martin. That is right.
The CHAIRMAN. But you do think it would be better to have the loan amortized over a longer period of years?
Mr. MARTIN. I think there would be a definite advantage to that, because it takes a lot of parking area, takes a lot of paving, and also we need more refrigeration facilities than we have, and those things are very expensive. Of course, that will not bring in quite as much return as the other. The best investment we have is those merchantstore units.
The CHAIRMAN. How far is this new building from the city, or is it in the city?
Mr. MARTIN. It is 4 miles from the center of town.
Mr. MARTIN. On the edge of town; yes, sir. The city limits themselves are within about a block of this market.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you have rail facilities in the back of the building?
Mr. MARTIN. Yes, sir. If you will look over there, you will see where the first carload was unloaded January 5th.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. MARTIN. I would like to point that out. That was a carload of Idaho potatoes produced in Idaho, which came to the little market in Greenville, and this dealer over there says that this saves him $60 a car over his previous method, when he was located downtown in a congested area with no rail facilities.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. We appreciate your coming up here, sir.
I am anxious to accommodate anyone who is scheduled to leave the city this afternoon, and there are others here who must leave
this afternoon and cannot be present tomorrow. If you will indicate it, I will give you an oportunity to make your presentation now.
At this time we will hear from Mr. J. W. Bateman, representing the commissioner of agriculture of the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Immigration.
STATEMENT OF J. W. BATEMAN, REPRESENTING THE COMMIS
SIONER OF AGRICULTURE, LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND IMMIGRATION
Mr. BATEMAN. I represent Mr. W. E. Anderson, the commissioner of agriculture of the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Immigration.
Studies of the marketing system for Louisiana farm products, particularly perishable products such as fruits and vegetables, poultry, eggs, seafoods, and dairy products, have pointed out the serious defects in the handling of these commodities. Four major defects common in practically all the population centers in the State include scattered sales and deliveries by farmers and others which result in price-making difficulties; present selling practices of farmers and truckers are wasteful and inefficient and result in lower incomes to producers and poorer quality to consumers at higher prices; lack of modern central trading places result in an uncertain supply of locally produced commodities; a majority of fruit and vegetable stores are poorly designed for handling perishable produce. This results in large losses in handling, unduly high operating costs and higher final prices to consumers.
The need for improved marketing facilities for perishable produce in Louisiana has been recognized for a number of years, and efforts have been made to improve the situation. Detailed studies by local and State agencies in cooperation with the United States Department of Agriculture have been made in Baton Rouge, Lafayette, Monroe, and other places in the State. References to reports containing the results of these investigations are as follows:
(1) The Wholesale Market for Fruits, Vegetables, Poultry and Eggs in Baton Rouge, La., February 1948, published by USDA in cooperation with the Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station, Louisiana State Market Commission, and the Louisiana Agricultural Extension Service.
(2) Marketing Farm Products in Monroe, La., April 1948, Mimeographed Circular 79, Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station.
(3) Factors Affecting the Establishment of a Produce Market in Lafayette, La., April 1949, Mimeographed Circular No. 92, Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station, in cooperation with the Louisiana State Market Commission and Southwestern Louisiana Institute.
These studies of produce markets clearly point to the conclusion that, as a result of inadequate marketing facilities for perishable produce, local production in areas near these markets has been discouraged and what could be a profitable local enterprise has not been realized. The consumer has to be supplied with produce imported from other areas which require considerable handling and refrigeration through facilities that are not suitable for efficient marketing. The result has been higher losses in handling to dealers and resulted in higher prices and lower quality to consumers.
The commissioner of agriculture recognized these unsatisfactory conditions and took steps to remedy them. This action took the form of Act No. 99 of the 1948 legislature, a copy of which has been filed with the clerk of this committee, which act provides for the authorization of the establishment of public nonprofit and tax-free corporations for the purpose of developing modern produce-marketing facilities.
These facilities are to be used by private dealers and farmers as places of operation for the handling and sale of perishable farm commodities. The Marketing Facilities Improvement Act, H. R. 8320, is of vital interest to the farmers, dealers, and the consumer because it serves to implement Act 99 of the Louisiana Legislature by providing methods of finance.
In other words, Louisiana Act No. 99 sets up the local machinery and financing as provided for in H. R. 8320.
Louisiana Act No. 99 is based on the model act developed by the Council of State Governments and provides for impartial local control of marketing facilities developed under the act, by insuring that all interested groups are represented in the direction of the facilities. Facilities provided for in this act will be operated by the farmers and the produce trade. The facility itself will not engage in commercial activities other than providing the means by which private dealers can operate more efficiently.
All of these efforts toward planning for improved marketing facilities by the State department of agriculture may not be realized in any respect unless Congress acts favorably on H. R. 8320, and the Departmeni of Agriculture of Louisiana therefore urges a favorable report by your committee and further urges passage of this bill by the Congress at this session.
The commissioner of agriculture wishes to register his objection to the limitation of 10,000 cubic feet cold storage as set forth in section 4 (a).
I submit this statement, Mr. Chairman, and I have supplied the secretary with four or five statements for the record.
I would like to submit, also, for the record a statement by Mr. Joseph Chakona, chairman of the special market committee of our association.
(The statement above referred to is as follows:) STATEMENT OF JOSEPH CHAKONA, CHAIRMAN, SPECIAL MARKET COMMITTEE
Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the Agricultural Committee, following the visit of Chairman Cooley and some of the members of the Agricultural Committee to the city of New Orleans a few months ago, a special local committee was appointed to study the market situation in New Orleans and determine the opinions of some of those in the industry who might be affected by the legislation contained in H. R. 8320.
In general, let me say that we are in favor of this legislation. While New Orleans may not be in as serious a condition in regard to needing marketing facilities as some other cities in the Nation, there is room for improvement. This city is growing steadily and is serving as increasing population within the city and its surrounding trade area. We might not have to plan immediately to come under the terms of this bill, should it become a law, but we certainly would be interested in developing plans for a central market which could be developed in the near future according to the developing needs of the city.
New Orleans now has a well-constructed farmers market, located in the wellknown French Market, but it is in a somewhat conjested area with no practical way of expanding the facilities. Right adjacent to this farmers market is a general