Although predominantly black, Roosevelt does not fit the stereotype of a poor black community. There are black citizens of all income levels in the community. In an effort to replace the substandard housing that does exist there we have gone to those residents and community leaders of all income groups and pleaded with them to accept a public housing project. Their unanimous answer was "no!" In Inwood we have an urban renewal program underway. 271 units of low and middle-income housing have been built or are under construction. There is a need for more. We have asked HUD for funds for an additional 70 units. We were turned down. HUD claims that such construction would further ghettoize Inwood. Their solution is that we build low-income housing elsewhere in the town.

We cannot get community acceptance elsewhere in the town; in black, white or totally integrated neighborhoods. If we forced these projects down the throats of our citizens-as has been done in New York City-we would have 30 Forest Hills on our hands. Gentlemen, I am not prepared to cope with such a situation and I am sure the Congress of the United States wouldn't expect me to.

I would be less than frank if I didn't attribute some of the reluctance to accept such housing to a basic racial prejudice that still hides in the breasts of even some of our most liberal residents. However, the pricipal objection to subsidized housing in both our black and white neighborhoods is not racial.

Our town is inhabited by middle-income working people. Many have two or more jobs. Many wives also work. Most of these people pay property taxes of over 10 or 15 percent of their incomes. They also stand in the path of imminent increases in both state and federal income taxes; not to mention a 7% sales tax and the inflation which plagues us all.

When a public housing project is put into a community it costs that community's taxpayers more for police and fire protection, refuse collection, sewage disposal and for schools. Yet these projects pay virtually no taxes as they make increased demands on the already strained ability of a municipality to provide services. In addition, all experts now agree that these projects need a heavy input of operational subsidies and special social services in addition to their heavy maintenance costs.

If the people of this nation expect communities such as Hempstead to solve the housing problem created in large part by the flight of people from other parts of the country and from the Caribbean, then the nation as a whole must be willing to assume the cost of municipal services that the working people of our town must now pay when property is removed from our tax rolls for public housing.

We are not asking to shrug off our fair share of the burden, but we are seeking financial help to keep carrying it. The only practical means to this end is the Senate approved bill now before this committee for consideration. I urge your approval.

Now, as to the matter of senior citizen housing. Since January of 1968, the Town of Hempstead Housing Authority, using federal funds, has opened or has under construction more than 1,000 units of low-income senior citizen housing.

We have applications from some 3700 other elderly citizens whose requests we cannot fill because HUD has declined to release further funds until such time as we give in and agree to build additional subsidized low-income family housing. Although our citizens are vehemently opposed to the family housing for the reasons I have stated earlier, we have been successful in winning acceptance for the housing for the elderly, despite initial opposition.

Such housing serves a vital need in our community, where elderly residents on fixed incomes who have already raised their families no longer need or can afford large homes.

Senior citizen housing places a minimal burden on municipal services and has virtually no impact on our hard pressed school districts.

Thus, we find it totally unreasonable for HUD to withhold these funds as a form of extortion to coerce us into accepting low-income family housing.

Our senior citizen housing program has won praise from federal and state officials, since in addition to housing, we also provide extensive recreation and arts programs and easy access to medical facilities under the coordination of our Department of Services for the Aging. This department is directed by a trained gerontologist who is a member of the White House Conference on the Aging.

We now have an excellent area for a new 250-unit project. The land is available at $30,000 an acre, compared to as much as $100,000 an acre which the

federal government has paid for other senior citizen housing projects. It will be accepted in the neighborhood and it is needed now.

We in Hempstead Town resent that this much-needed project is being held hostage by HUD to satisfy the pipedream of some social planner who says two units of family housing must be built for each unit of elderly housing. Perhaps this formula has merit in some parts of the country. It should not apply in Hempstead Town.

We resent HUD's attempt to force it down our throats because our community already has provided private housing for people of all races, creeds, and income levels. We resent it because our community already has the overwhelming percentage of the population of the bi-county region. We resent it because our municipal services and school districts are already strained to the breaking point. We resent it because we already have a population density greater than our underground water supply can continue to support.

We urge the Congress to come to the aid of the 800,000 residents of Hempstead. We urge this committee to approve the amendment to the housing act that Mr. Lent will offer later this week. You have in your power the ability to prevent HUD from continuing to blackmail us.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for your statement. Now, Mrs. Carmel McCrudden. I understand you have a one-page statement you would like to put in at this point?

Mrs. MCCRUDDEN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. We will recognize you for that purpose and then you may remain and we will interrogate you along with the others. Mr. PURCELL. Mr. Chairman, should I stay?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Since she is from Mr. Barrett's district, if he would like to introduce her here it would be appropriate to do so.

Mr. BARRETT. I certainly would like to introduce Mrs. McCrudden because I do not know anybody in the city of Philadelphia who works harder in the interest of all groups to get them properly housed. She is credit to the city of Philadelphia. She works inexhaustibly. It is nice to have you here Mrs. McCrudden.

The CHAIRMAN. We are delighted to have you and you may proceed. Mrs. McCRUDDEN. Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

The CHAIRMAN. Then we will resume our questioning starting with Mr. Purcell if no one else comes in ahead of him.

STATEMENT OF CARMEL MCCRUDDEN, CHAIRMAN, HOMEOWNERS OF PHILADELPHIA

Mrs. McCRUDDEN. I welcome this opportunity to present a statement on the housing crisis which presently exists in Philadelphia. As you know thousands of FHA homeowners have suffered many injustices. Today, in Philadelphia, we have thousands of families living in housing purchased through the FHA which is badly deteriorating, grossly unhealthy, and dangerous to the family's safety and well-being.

As a 221 (d) (2) homeowner who is in need of repairs on my house, I live each day with the hope that you will provide the needed legislation so that my house can be fixed up. I come here today to point out what I find to be good in your proposed legislation. First, title I, part A, section 7b2, continues a requirement which HUD has unlawfully failed to follow in the past. Under this section, the Secretary is required to inspect residential properties before insuring mortgages in order to make certain that the property complies with the local ordinances relating to the public health and safety. Second, under title I, part B, section 114, 518(b) of the National Housing Act is amended to allow section 221 (d) (2) homeowners to apply to HUD to

have repairs done on their houses and to be reimbursed for money they have already spent. The section further amends the standard of defects to be fixed to include housing code violations. Under the present 518(b) HUD is not correcting housing code violations, and many 235 homeowners are being prosecuted. Also, under this section, 221(d) (2) homeowners, who have purchased their properties since August 1, 1968, will be eligible for repairs on defects which existed at the time of purchase. This provision opens up the repair program to the many 221(d) (2) homeowners who suffered from the abuses under FHA. Third, title A, part 3, section 704b, will allow homeowners under the new FHA 401 and 402 homeownership program to get the same relief as mentioned above.

The Senate's bill lacks many of these above provisions. We congratulate the subcommittee on the incorporation of these provisions into the housing bill of 1972 and urge their passage immediately.

It is critical that the 221(d) (2) homeowners get immediate relief. Numerous homeowners are living in houses dangerously close to collapsing which the Department of Licenses and Inspections aptly describes as unfit for human habitation. For example, one 221(d) (2) homeowner's house is being held up by one brick. Numerous homeowners have had children poisoned by lead based paint. The parents are prosecuted by the city, and families live with the threat of having no place to live tomorrow. FHA responds only by varnishing over the lead paint, if they do anything at all. Numerous homeowners live in constant fear of electrical fires due to corroded wiring. Many times you can go into a house and look outside through all the holes. Rats and roaches have immediate access to houses through these holes and gaping cracks in sewer lines.

Many 221 (d) (2) homeowners cannot live a day longer in their houses. Each day Congress fails to pass a bill providing relief, one more house in the inner city is abandoned. Our decaying inner cities are filled with desperate people who are fighting to survive daily. We look to you as our representatives to provide this legislation to help curb the rapid decay in the cities. If necessary, we urge you to pass Title I, the Mortgage Credit Assistance Section, separately from the rest of the 1972 Housing bill. The point is that we need relief now, and we turn to you to help us in this desperate crisis.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you madam. Now then we will resume questioning.

Mr. PURCELL. All right, let's see, who is the next Republican?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Right here.

The CHAIRMAN. We will go around.

Mr. Koch.

Mr. KOCH. Mr. Hanley is here.

Mr. HANLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Wait, we have made a mistake. Mr. Stevens came in. Will you wait until the next round?

Mr. HANLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Purcell, can you tell us the percentage of substandard housing? Mr. PURCELL. In the town of Hempstead, sir, I would say probably we have about 4 percent.

Mr. HANLEY. About 4 percent?

Mr. PURCELL. Yes, sir. The definition of substandard housing is something that has been kicked around quite a bit, what one man's version of substandard housing and another. But we feel that on a liberal attitude toward it, it is concentrated primarily in two of our areas, and frankly, sir, we have knocked down some of it. We have an unsafe building law which we put into effect about 2 or 3 years ago, but I think to answer your question, I would say that within the framework of the town, perhaps about 4 percent.

Mr. HANLEY. I am somewhat familiar with Hempstead and I can only assume much of this substandard housing, and certainly your housing is relatively new, as you have indicated in your testimony, that much of it has been constructed subsequent to World War II? Mr. PURCELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. HANLEY. Would this percentile affect housing that was constructed prior to World War II?

Mr. PURCELL. No, I wouldn't say that was necessarily true, sir.

The construction seems to be in two or three of the communities and they have been either waiting for urban renewal programs to come into effect, which is true in the Inwood area, so we are uplifting that housing down there with the program. But these programs have taken so long and there has been so much redtape involved that the people haven't wanted to invest in those buildings that the people are living in hoping that sooner or later they are going to get them out of there. That is why unless something can be done to expedite programs such as urban renewal you are going to have a continuation of this particular type of problem. This is where most of the substandard housing has existed in communities where they were looking for some kind of help but it hasn't come about as quickly as they would hope it would come about.

Mr. HANLEY. Is urban renewal the primary culprit?

Mr. PURCELL. No, not completely. I think some areas, because of landlords who buy houses on speculation, then put tenants in there and very often put more than the legal amount of tenants in there, they have been culprits too, to a small degree, particularly in the area of Roosevelt. This is one of the things that plagues the Roosevelt area. And it is also some of the FHA programs have not been effective in the community either. They have not helped us in some of this type of housing.

Mr. HANLEY. What efforts have been made by local governments from the standpoint of code enforcements where absentee ownership prevails?

Mr. PURCELL. We have a good code enforcement, I would say. One of the problems we run into very frankly is the civil liberties unions. We have gone in and tried to enforce some of these and we have been taken to court in a couple of cases. We just finished a court case recently and you know it is not easy to invade the privacy of, someone's home and there has been resentment over this. But we do have, I would say, a reasonably good code enforcement. We have tried to solve this but very often you can't throw people on the streets because they claim that their relatives are living with them and this is a hard thing to prove, who the relatives are sometimes.

Mr. HANLEY. I see. If I understand your testimony correctly, you mentioned a $1,500 property tax.

Mr. PURCELL. That is a fair average, yes.

Mr. HANLEY. $1,500?

Mr. PURCELL. Yes, sir. Between our school tax, our town tax and county tax, I would say that we are averaging in that neighborhood. Mr. HANLEY. In contrast to the rest of the country you are about on top of the ladder.

Mr. PURCELL. I would say we definitely are, yes, sir.

Mr. HANLEY. How much open land remains available in

Mr. PURCELL. In the town of Hempstead? In 1966 we had 6.6 percent of the land available. I would say now based on building between 1966 and today that we are less than 6 percent of the land of which about 3 percent would be available to be built on. The other 3 percent I think will also always remain in some form or other but we are at the lowest percent of vacant land of all of the towns of both the county of Nassau and the county of Suffolk. We have by far the lowest percent in land that is still available.

Mr. HANLEY. I see. I thank you, Mr. Purcell, and I have no further questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Williams?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Purcell, I think Mitchell Field is close to Hempstead.

Mr. PURCELL. Yes, sir; it is in the town of Hempstead.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, I do want to say this; for a short time during World War II, I was stationed at Hempstead and I am surprised to find that you could even locate some land on which to build some housing for the elderly let alone find housing for low-cost units, and what you are really saying is you just do not have the space.

Mr. PURCELL. That is right.

Mr. WILLIAMS. And yet you cannot get the Federal authorities to realize that Hampstead is 90-some percent developed and you just can't find space.

I can certainly appreciate that point because in my own town there is one small residential tract left to be developed and it is for sale for something like $35,000 an acre. If you can find any commercially zoned property along one of the commercial streets it goes for a $1,000 a front foot, so that 100 feet would be $100,000.

So that I think that HUD and everybody else has to realize that some towns are either completely developed or almost so and not try to apply a broad brush regulation to them.

Mr. PURCELL. I would like to make, in reference to what you have mentioned, sir, that our most recent senior citizen housing project we bought a junk pile out there for, I think we paid $100,000 an acre for it, and there was criticism by some of our taxpayers, you know, in spite of the fact that it was Federal money being used there. There was severe criticism of the project but this was the only land available. That is why I would like to see this land in Mitchel Field, which is available. There are 10 acres there available at $30,000 an acre. Because this property was purchased from the Federal Government we would probably have to pay interest on it. So it might bring it up to about $40,000 an acre but it would still be less than half of what we have already done.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Now, Mrs. Carmel McCrudden, first of all I must say this, I think a homeowner has a responsibility to keep his or her

79-555-72- -34