and rooming houses they have a first and unanswerable claim on the State armories in this city, and that approximately 15,000 persons can be accommodated in these armories if it is the disposition of the National Guard to provide for them. The fact that these armories are rented at certain hours for badminton, indoor tennis, etc., that there is valuable equipment in them, and that they are occasionally required for drills, certainly constitute no valid arguments against using these excellent facilities for men who fought in the war. It is fortunate that the State has at the head of the National Guard a West Point graduate and lieutenant general who has seen service in both wars, and is fully aware of the present emergency. The problems of additional custodial service, lights, cots, etc., are small ones with which experienced Army officers are accustomed to deal as matters of routine. It would be nothing short of criminal to resort to all sorts of dubious and unsatisfactory remedies in the case of single veterans when our armories, centrally located and in excellent condition, can be made available to them promptly. If the proposal to use the armories for single veterans does not completely solve the problem, there are eight abandoned public schools which could readily be converted into dormitories. One is in Brooklyn, three in Queens, three in Manhattan and one in the Bronx. These would require showers for the veterans but this certainly cannot be considered a difficult problem.

Aside from the use of armories and abandoned schools for single veterans, other expedients are under way, largely for veterans with families. The first of these is the plan of Governor Dewey to use abandoned Army and Navy reservations in and near the city. Thus far, agreements with the Federal Government appear to have been made covering certain surplus buildings at Fort Tilden at the west end of the Rockaway Peninsula, Fox Hills, and Miller Field on Staten Island, and the Coast Guard station at Sheepshead Bay adjacent to Coney Island. It is stated that these reservations when adapted and reconstructed will house about 3,000 families or 10,000 persons. In a serious emergency of this kind, it seems to us necessary to take advantage of every facility quickly available which offers reasonably good shelter.

It should be borne in mind, however, that these abandoned Federal facilities are located in places difficult to reach and that they have other drawbacks which are likely to appear later on. For example, the barracks at Fort Tilden are located in an active military area, with poor bus transportation and no nearby stores and other community facilities. Miller Field also is hard to reach. Fox Hills and the Coast Guard station at Manhattan Beach appear to be the best of the reservations so far obtained. Military authorities inform us that there is no immediate possibility of obtaining the use of the better Government reservations in the area such as Fort Schuyler, Fort Totten and Fort Hamilton. Fort Hamilton is about to be converted into a veterans' hospital and occupancy of this area for temporary housing would undoubtedly interfere with the hospital program since it would be almost impossible to clear the area within any reasonable time.

It should be particularly noted that in all suggestions for additional immediate housing, temporary or permanent, the factors of schools, transportation, sewage, drainage, sanitary facilities, fire and police protection, health standards, abandonment of established building requirements, local stores, etc., must be given consideration if we are not to yield to hysteria and produce results which will be a menace to the entire community and of no real benefit to prospective tenants.

We have considered all of the methods proposed to meet the immediate emergency, and our conclusions may be briefly summarized as follows:

As to additional living quarters in existing buildings now only partly occupied or boarded up, or restricted as to the number of families by the multiple dwelling law, we strongly recommend:

First, that the multiple-dwelling law be amended so as to permit conversion of existing one-and two-family brick dwellings into three-family dwellings, espe cially in the Boroughs of Brooklyn and Queens. This change in law is estimated to provide 10,000 apartments, accommodating approximately 35,000 people. While there is a serious shortage of building materials, it appears from experience since the end of the war that somehow small builders and home owners are able to obtain the essential materials for conversion, which in many cases involves comparatively small changes. Amendments to the multiple-dwelling law to accomplish this end, if recommended by the joint legislative committee to recodify the multiple-dwelling law, could be adopted by the legislature and approved by the Governor early in January.

We are fully cognizant of the objections to these amendments, but they do not seeem to us to be valid in the present emergency. It is a fact beyond dispute that all over the city in houses and apartments of all kinds, housing people of all income groups, there is doubling up and over-crowding, which cannot effectively be controlled. We are also aware of the fact that there are a number of one- and two-family houses which have already been illegally converted into three-family houses, whose owners would no doubt like to legalize what they have already done. We also know that conversion of this kind involves problems which will be with the city for many years to come, but all of these considerations do not weigh against the necessity for action. The multiple-dwelling law amendments to permit conversion should provide that such conversion must be completed within a period of 2 years.

Another amendment of the National Housing Act approved by the FHA, if enacted, will greatly stimulate this type of modernization and conversion. This amendment will make possible insured modernization loans of sums up to $10,000 without the necessity of giving a mortgage. These loans would run for 7 years and would be available for conversion of space into apartments and for other commercial modernization. It is urged that this amendment be approved. by Congress as quickly as possible.

It is also suggested that the State banking law be amended to the end that banking institutions may make arrangements for a pool for so-called modernization loans.

We were particularly impressed by the statement made by Dr. Stebbins, city health commissioner, that he reluctantly endorsed the conversion policy. However, he said that this solution was preferable in every way to temporary housing, from the standpoint of the health and welfare of the community.

We recommend that section 263 of the multiple-dwelling law, as amended by chapter 880 of the Laws of 1945, be amended so as to increase the allowable rent to be charged per room in rehabilitated structures and to liberalize the tax exemption provided in the law. Improvements to rehabilitated structures are now exempt for a period of 10 years where owners charge only $8 per room per month. We recommend that this ceiling be raised to $12 per room per month and that the entire building, including the improvements, be exempt from taxation for a period of 3 years. In addition we recommend that the improvements be exempt for a further period of 7 years. We believe that with this encouragement the more progressive owners of boarded-up buildings will find it financially possible to improve their properties. Without this exemption we have no faith in this rehabilitation proposal. There are approximately 27,000 closed apartments in Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx and it is estimated that 10,000 of these would be rehabilitated if the law were amended to provide this additional leeway in rent and the proposed amendments to the laws governing FHA modernization loans are enacted.

Third, we recommend that steps be taken immediately to obtain the approval of the OPA and, in the absence of such approval, legislation by Congress which will authorize a fair rental ceiling on vacant and usable year-round buildings in the Rockaway Beach, Coney Island, and Long Beach areas. These are houses which rent for substantial sums in summer. The owners are willing to rent up to the beginning of the summer season for comparatively small amounts, but demand that the temporary tenants move before the summer season commences so that they can collect summer rentals. As an illustration, we are informed that a vacant apartment at Rockaway Beach could be rented at $30 per month for 8 months by an owner who proposes to charge $150 a month or $600 for the 4-month summer season. This owner is willing to rent year round for $70 a month or $840 a year, but is prevented from doing so by present inflexible OPA regulations. It has been estimated that in Rockaway Beach alone 8,000 additional people could be accommodated the year round in about 2,300 units by this method.

Fourth, we recommend that small summer bungalows at the same beaches be made available for year-round use by the same devices, that is by a reasonable, new OPA ceiling. These bungalows will have to be furnished with heat, and sanitary facilities will have to be augmented. These are substantial but very small houses which are in good condition and which are certainly infinitely preferable to any kind of temporary housing which might be made available. Moreover, they are located in communities with reasonably good transportation facilities, with shops, churches, schools, and other community facilities. We believe that at Rockaway and other beaches 7,000 people could be accommodated in over 2,000 units in this way. The problem of protection of water lines against

freezing is difficult, but by no means insoluble. In addition, some insulation may have to be provided in these buildings. None of these difficulties, however, present anything like the problems involved in bringing into the city the temporary, demountable or prefabricated 'houses described in the following paragraphs.

Serious difficulty will probably be experienced in obtaining the cooperation of owners of bungalows, especially in the Rockaways. We therefore recommend that the bungalows fronting on or close to the boardwalk be condemned by the city, rented temporarily by the New York City Housing Authority and finally torn down, and the space they occupy converted ultimately into an addition to the Rockaway Beach and park system. A considerable number of bungalows fronting on the beach, for a distance of a mile and one-half, from Seventy-second Street to One Hundred and Eighth Street, were torn down in connection with the Rockaway improvement. Ultimately, it is desirable to get rid of structures of this kind and a long range and temporary program might be combined in this way.

In considering facilities in outlying districts, we have given attention to the suburban counties such as Nassau, Westchester, and Rockland. We found that there are almost no vacant apartments to be had in these communities-certainly not enough of them to have any effect on the present need. There are a considerable number of houses for sale at high prices, but we do not know how these prices can be reduced by any device worth considering.

TEMPORARY HOUSING

We come now to the various plans offered for temporary housing.

As to prefabricated houses, which are comparable to permanent housing, if properly located on land intelligently laid out and serviced, we find that, unfortunately, there appear to be no responsible corporations with a successful record in this field who are willing to make firm commitments in this particular area to supply such housing within any reasonable time.

Several large tracts are available, particularly in Queens, where such houses could be put up if they were available, notably one of the golf clubs which contains about 140 acres. One of the leading savings banks which considered this matter carefully, and which as a matter of public service for a time was ready to head a group of banks to finance such a project, announced through its president that it had dropped the matter when it was found that it was not practical from the point of view of early delivery, entirely apart from financing. We have discussed the matter with the presidents of two concerns in this field, and have been unable to obtain from them any assurances which would justify our recommending this expedient. They simply do not care to make contracts in the New York City area at this time.

We consider now the establishment on leased and city-owned land of Quonset huts presently available in considerable quantities. We have carefully canvassed this subject. We find that 7,000 such huts, 20 by 48 feet, are available, that they can be declared surplus and leased from the Federal authorities. These huts can be installed on the basis of approximately 10 to the acre and each hut will provide two dwelling units. The land required for 5,000 huts together with streets would be approximately 500 acres. Equipment such as showers, wash basins and toilet bowls are available with the huts and they are already wired. We find that the total cost, including connections to water and sewers in sections where these facilities are already installed in adjacent streets, would be $2,500 per dwelling unit or a total of $25,000,000.

We have selected several areas presently unoccupied and convenient to railroad freight lines and piers to which the huts and supplies could be readily delivered and, installed without rehandling. These areas should not be too large and they should serve the several larger boroughs.

Plot A is south of Eastern Boulevard between the Bronx River and Sound View Avenue and would contain 190 acres including at least 100 acres of the 160 acres of the recently filled and as yet undeveloped Sound View Park. The other 60 acres of this park, scheduled for development in 1947 would have to be developed immediately to provide recreation for the neighborhood, including those housed in temporary Quonset installation. This plot, excepting the park property, would have to be leased and we recommend the condemnation of an easement for 3 years for this purpose, so as to avoid delay in negotiating with owners, and because of the fact that title to a good deal of this land is in dispute or is complicated by tax liens.

Plot B contains more than 100 acres, is north and west of Idlewild Airport on land proposed to be acquired for the expansion of the airport, but not needed for this purpose for several years. The acquisition of this property has already been recomended by the Comptroller' as an addition to the airport. All that would be necessary would be to advance the date of acquisition and to acquire the property immediately. Part of the adjacent area is now being filled by the department of sanitation and these filling operations would have to be discontinued.

Plot C is the area known as Ulmer Park, just south of Belt Parkway on Gravesend Bay. This contains 20 acres. An easement should be condemned for a 3-year period.

Plot D includes the 40-acre piece of Canarsie Park north of the Belt Parkway, and additional surrounding privately-owned property. An easement would have to be condemned on approximately seventy acres of privately owned property for a period of 3 years. This plot would have a total area of 110 acres. This part of the park has not been developed and can be deferred because of the emergency.

We estimate the cost of condemning the easements heretofore outlined at $300,000 and the total cost, including complete installation of the huts, at $26,000,000. We recommend that this sum be made available to the city housing authority out of city capital funds without delay, on the assumption that it is unlikely that the rental would cover little more than the cost of the easement and of the park development. Pending legislation may make Federal funds available for at least a part of this cost, but if this is not forthcoming we see no way of solving the problem without the expenditure of city funds.

The total number of persons to be accommodated in these huts would be 25,000. They would be taken down within 3 years in the course of which they would be crowded but reasonably comfortable. They are built of metal and are more fire resistant than other types. We believe that .this is by all odds the best of the temporary expedients which have been suggested, and it is our further conclusion that the first of these huts will be available for occupancy in 3 months, and all of them on or before July 1, 1946.

Coming now to so-called demountable or other temporary wartime housing declared surplus by the Federal Government, we believe that the arguments against importing such housing into the city are, under anything like normal conditions, quite unanswerable, and that except as a last resort the disadvantages to the entire community are formidable. To begin with, there is only a small amount of such housing which the city of New York, as distinguished from other municipalities, may obtain. The most recent estimate of demountable housing units given us by the Federal authorities indicates that within 700 miles of New York City approximately 2,500 could be made available and that 1,000 trailers and 3,000 temporary units can also be made available. This housing is in all sorts of stages of disrepair and disintegration and many parts will have to be replaced. Red tape and delays involved in acquisition, moving, and reconstruction are usually underestimated. The structures will be expensive to take apart, move, and reerect. They will always be more or less unsatisfactory, and many collateral problems will arise, including the abandonment in certain areas of building and fire standards. We doubt whether any law or promise to remove these structures within a short time will be carried out, and we feel that the slums which will result will be a disfigurement, hazard, and handicap for a long time. Therefore, the locations selected for such housing must be chosen with the greatest care.

We have recommended some undeveloped park areas for temporary use in the previous paragraphs describing Quonset huts, but the idea of placing temporary structures of any kind in needed central public parks required for rest and recreation is unthinkable. Not only would areas needed for outdoor recreation, at a time when juvenile delinquency and other similar problems are under discussion, have to be sacrificed, but the surrounding property would depreciate in value, the entire zoning system in the area would collapse, and all kinds of other hazards and threats would soon arouse neighborhood protest.

Most recommendations for the use of park areas for abandoned and reerected war housing have been made by those who do not know the problems. For example, it has been suggested that a large part of Flushing Meadow Park be used for such housing, on the assumption that all the utilities necessary for this purpose exist in this area. The fact is that the facilities provided at the time of the fair consisted in part of permanent installations for limited park use, and in part of temporary installations for the fair, which have either been removed or have disintegrated in the ground.