DALLAS, TEX., June 9, 1955. Hon. JOHN J. BELL, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.: As one of our Texas Representatives, we claim the privilege of expressing our views to you on titles II and III, Senate bill 2126, to the effect that it is an unwarranted encroachment on private enterprise therefore please include this protest in the record. R. A. UNDERWOOD & CO., INC. DALLAS, TEX., June 9, 1955. Hon. JOHN J. BELL, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.: We are very much concerned over titles II and III of S. 2126 and hereby wish to register our opposition as we consider this to be an unwarranted encroachment on private enterprise and request that this protest be included in the record. KEITH REED & CO., INC., By HUGH BASS. Hon. JOHN J. BELL, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.: DALLAS, TEX., June 9, 1955. We desire to register our most strenuous opposition to titles II and III of S. 2126 which we consider to be an unwarranted encroachment on private enterprise. We request that this protest be included in the record. JUDSON S. JAMES & Co. DALLAS, TEX., June 9, 1955. Hon. JOHN J. BELL, Member of Congress, Washington, D. C.: We feel that titles II and III of the Housing Amendment Act of 1955 is a definite encroachment on private business and are opposed to such legislation and ask that our protest be made a part of the record. Hon. JOHN J. BELL, M. A. HAGBERG. SAN ANTONIO, TEX., June 9, 1955. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.: We wish to register definite disapproval of Senate bill 2126 which would enlarge Federal Government infringement on loans now being adequately cared for by the investment banking industry. DITTMAR & Co. STATEMENT OF HON. E. L. BARTLETT, DELEGATE TO UNITED STATES CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF ALASKA Mr. BARTLETT. The housing picture has changed very drastically in Alaska in the last 2 years. Construction of directly authorized military quarters in unforeseen large numbers has had a direct effect, naturally, in respect to private housing. The private housing projects to which I now refer are FHA insured and, the mortgages are owned in most, if not in all, cases by Federal National Mortgage Association. Private mortgage money in quantity is not, and has not, been available in Alaska. I know you will agree that the Government's interests will be best served if ways can be developed for the individual units already built but not sold or those under construction to be sold by the sponsors to private parties in accordance with the originally conceived plans. As it is now, from the information that I have gathered, it appears that sales of the various units are being held up almost entirely by financial and economic considerations. Unlike conditions in the States, including those in the area surrounding Washington, D. C., for example, very substantial downpayments must be exacted by sponsors in Alaska from their purchasers. Not only are the sponsors unable to even waive payment of settlement charges, as appears to be the case in the Washington, D. C., area, but the sponsors in Alaska are required to secure downpayments in amounts averaging $5,000 a unit. Unfortunately, the economic reaction of prospective buyers appears to be the same in Alaska as in the States. Purchasers seem to be as completely unable to make $5,000 downpayments in Alaska as they are in the States. In trying to find a solution to the impasse, it has been suggested to me that a very sensible way to cure the situation is to refinance the various projects in accordance with the requirements of the 1954 Housing Act. If the 1954 act formula was to be used and the valuations remain more or less the same, it would be possible for the mortgages to be increased an average of perhaps $2,000 a unit. If, then, the builders, as a condition to such an arrangement, were to be required to reduce the sales price by about $2,000, the downpayment required from the purchaser would need to be something less than $1,000. The best information that I have received from Alaska is that such a downpayment is entirely within the ability of prospective purchasers to pay. Further, if the formula of the 1954 act is used, the mortgages could be written for a 30-year period, thus decreasing the monthly payment to an average of perhaps $125 a month instead of a present average of approximately $180 a month. It appears to me that the only way the problem in Alaska can be solved is by means of some such plan as that set forth above. It is obvious that the ultimate objective, of individual ownership of the housing units built, cannot be secured under the present financial requirements, regardless of who attempts the sale of the properties. In looking at the 1954 Housing Act, it develops that the FNMA authority is restricted to $15,000 mortgages or less. The normal language present in other housing acts, whereby a differential is permitted in the Territories to take care of the higher costs, was omitted. The inclusion of the following language in one of the housing acts would meet the problem, and it is suggested that there be added to section 302 (b) of the 1954 act at the end thereof these words: "Except that for mortgages upon properties in the Territory of Alaska, the original principal obligation may exceed $15,000 by not more than 50 percent thereof." It is my understanding that the Administrator of the Housing and Home Finance Agency agrees that the situation is desperate and that my basic. plan offers appropriate chances of success. With FNMA's authority to handle the situation straightened out, I am informed that it is entirely practicable to expect that all of these troublesome projects can be placed on an owner-occupant basis by the end of this season. This plan is particularly appealing to me since it will enable the Government to avoid something that we all fear-a substantial number of foreclosures, with the Government being projected more forcefully than ever into the ownership and operation of individual housing. X |