General Housing

(d) State guaranty of local authority construction notes is available up to a total of $7,000,000 at any one time; State 32 percent subsidies are available to a total of $245,000 annually.

3. (a) Yes, I favor a program along the general lines of the United States Housing Act of 1937.

(b) Administration of such a program could well be less highly centralized and controlled than in the past. I feel that much opposition to public housing arose as a result of extensive direct Federal-municipal relationship under the FPHA and its predecessors. The Federal program should permit acceptance of State housing projects for Federal subsidy.

(c) Section 6, part III, of the New Hampshire housing authorities law relates to the transfer of State subsidized projects to Federal subsidy. The State program was made necessary by the failure of the Federal housing program to meet that portion of the housing need which obviously requires municipal low-rent housing. The program was, therefore, conceived as a temporary one, pending passage of Federal legislation making subsidies for housing projects available again. Our State is not in a financial position to undertake the remedying of the war-caused housing shortages, or any considerable portion of it, without strenuous effort. As a matter of fact, provision has been made for bonding the State to raise annual subsidy funds (p. 18, Housing Legislation). We contemplate that we shall eventually be able to transfer projects in accordance with provisions of section 6 so that they will have Federal subsidy as in other States, and there will be no further need of State subsidies. We understand that commissioners of the housing authority of the city of Manchester have submitted to Senator Tobey an amendment to the Taft-Ellender-Wagner bill, or other Federal housing legislation, to make such transfer mandatory upon the request of any State, provided the projects in question meet Federal requirements.

4. (a) Urban redevelopment legislation in New Hampshire dates from the 1947 session of the general court, and no municipality has yet undertaken or planned any redevelopment under it.

(b) No.

5. (a) The city and State governments are not in a position to absorb costs of the acquisition and clearing of urban blighted areas in excess of the re-use values, for reasons previously noted.

(b) This appears an equitable proposal.

6. New Hampshire's redevelopment legislation enables local housing authorities to function as municipal redevelopment corporations. The assumption is that redevelopment planning will include planning for necessary housing. It was thought, in fact, that redevelopment of urban blighted areas might be undertaken primarily to provide a housing authority with a suitable project site.

7. New Hampshire's experience with low-rent housing and redevelopment of blighted areas is so slight that I do not feel justified in offering general recommendations.

Very truly yours,

CHARLES M. DALE, Governor.

STATE OF OKLAHOMA,
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR,

Hon. ROBERT F. WAGNER,

Oklahoma City, November 29, 1947.

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR WAGNER: Thank you for your letter of November 19, 1947. The 1947 regular session of the Oklahoma legislature considered a bill to establish rent control but no bills on the construction of housing such as you mention in your letter. The rent control bill was house bill 390, which was introduced on March 26, 1947. It was referred to the committee on judiciary No. 2, and after a number of hearings was reported by the committee to the house of representatives without recommendation. A copy of the bill is attached. In 1943 the Oklahoma Legislature enacted bills creating housing authorities in the University of Oklahoma and in two of the State's colleges. These acts were solely to provide student living quarters.

The 1947 session established a joint committee to investigate and report on veteran housing in the State's educational institutions. The committee was created by House Concurrent Resolution 2.

Attached also are my answers to the questionnaire enclosed with your letter of November 19, 1947.

If we can be of further assistance, please let us know.

Sincerely yours,

ROY J. TURNER, Governor.

ANSWERS ΤΟ SENATOR WAGNER'S QUESTIONNAIRE ON URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND PUBLIC HOUSING

1. (a) No.

(b) Not because of any reluctance to construct such housing but because of the great demands for all types of construction are using available resources to the full.

2. (a) Yes.

(b) They are unable to do so. All available tax income to cities is required to carry on the usual and necessary functions of city governments. (c) They cannot. (See 2 (b).)

(d) Unable to do so. Oklahoma has only a small surplus in its treasury. Increased costs for the operation of governmental functions, together with increased demands on the State for education, public assistance, and the like, maks such a possibility remote.

3. (a) Yes.

(b) None at this time.

4. Yes. However, it is well to remember that Oklahoma has a small population compared to many Eastern and Middle Western States. Our housing problem is critical but not quite desperate. The two largest cities in the State (Oklahoma City and Tulsa) have the greatest need. Their populations have increased greatly in the past few years, while the population of the State, as a whole, has slightly decreased.

5. (a) Yes.

(b) The sections of our largest cities containing the poorest housing happen to be located on tracts of more than average value. If costs are to be reasonable the housing developments would probably need to be made in relatively undeveloped sections of the cities.

(d) See 2 (d).

(e) Yes.

f) None at this time.

6. A public housing authority would probably be the best means.

However,

such an organization must be operated carefully and with the aim of actually securing the greatest amount of beenfit from its functions.

7. None at this time.

STATE OF WISCONSIN,

EXECUTIVE OFFICE,

Madison, November 29, 1947.

Hon. ROBERT F. WAGNER,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR WAGNER: Agreeable with the request contained in your letter of November 19, I am sending you enclosed my answers to the housing questionnaire submitted.

Sincerely yours,

1. (a) No.

OSCAR RENNEBOHM, Governor.

(b) Costs of construction have risen much faster than the incomes of slum Occupants. Even before inflation it was impossible to build new housing within the reach of lower-income groups. The filtering-down process has never been able to meet the needs of the low-income groups with decent housing.

2. (a) A limited amount of publicly assisted low-rent housing may be necessary in the larger industrialized communities.

(b) Few cities in Wisconsin are in a position to finance low-rent housing. (c) Few cities in Wisconsin are in a positon to furnish substantial annual subsidies for low-rent housing.

(d) Under the Wisconsin veterans' housing program, capital grants up to 10 percent of the cost of construction are available to local and county housing

authorities for veterans' housing. This program is currently inoperative because of constitutional questions.

3. (a) The basic formula provided in the United States Housing Act of 1937 will continue to be useful in meeting the needs of those communities where the slum problem is pressing.

(b and c) The modifications suggested in S. 866, now pending in Congress, constitute an improvement. In addition, eligibility should be limited to persons presently living in housing which is illegal under the police power regulations of the locality. Thus, minimum housing standards can be determined by each locality on a democratic basis.

Another improvement would be to utilize State housing agencies to a greater extent in the administration of Federal aid. The advantage of this variation would be to encourage greater awareness of the housing problem on the part of State governments and to establish facilities for assistance to localities at points close to the local problems.

4. (a) Nothing has been accomplished, and only one serious proposal has been made. This scheme is for the redevelopment of a close-in area in Milwaukee. It has met much local opposition and is doubtful of accomplishment.

4. (b and c) No. There is little expectation that any legislation, State or Federal, will be able to fully clear and redevelop all slum and blighted areas. The Wisconsin legislation is not likely to be effective because it provides only for tax abatement as a means of bridging the gap between costs of acquisition and value for redevelopment.

5. (a) Not in good position.

(b) This proposal is equitable, but few localities are likely to be in a position to carry their share.

6. Redevelopment which dispossesses families of low income is not feasible under present housing market conditions because of lack of alternative accommodations. Redevelopment will not be feasible until there is a surplus of housing of modest rent or unless redevelopment schemes are accompanied by low-rent housing projects.

7. None.

Re Federal legislation on housing.

Hon. ROBERT F. WAGNER,

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM, ALA., October 17, 1947.

Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. WAGNER: I am referring to your letter of October 10 on this subject. Please find attached hereto answers to your many questions on the subject of survey of urban redevelopment and public housing.

It will be my pleasure to cooperate with you and your committee on this matter in any way that I can. I am,

Sincerely yours,

Attachment.

W. COOPER GREEN, President, City Commission.

1. It is estimated that in Birmingham there are 34,700 low-income families living in substandard housing, in slums, or under highly unsatisfactory housing conditions-11,700 white families and 23,000 colored families. Low-income families are herein designated as being those who, because of their low incomes, are unable to pay a rental higher than $28.50 per month including the cost of utilities; $28.50 is the highest regular-grade rental charged in our local low-rent publichousing projects. The income limits for admission are $1,710 per year for families with less than three minor dependents and $2,052 per year for families with three or more minor dependents.

2. Private enterprise cannot and will not knowingly engage in a losing venture. It can therefore not provide new dwellings at rentals which cannot net a reasonable return on the investment. At the January 9, 1947, meeting of the mayors' veterans emergency housing committee, which the presidents of the Birmingham Real Estate Board and the Birmingham Home Builders Association attended by invitation, it was unanimously agreed that new construction could not directly relieve families of low income as above specified. Never, in the history of this city, has private enterprise adequately provided decent, safe, and sanitary housing for such low-income families, and there appears to be no reason to assume that

it will do so now or in the foreseeable future. As new construction adds to the number of dwellings less desirable old dwellings will become available. Some of these old houses are good and some are bad. The "hand-me-down" process works only up to a certain point. After that it creates slums and blighted areas.

3. (a) We favor the elimination of slums and blighted areas, dilapidated dwellings unfit for human habitation, insanitary and dry toilets, community toilets, and those for multiple-family use. These conditions contribute to spread of disease, the breaking down of family privacy, and promote immorality, crime, and delinquency; also the elimination of dwellings without inside running water, concentration of dwellings causing undue concentration of population, fire hazards caused by antiquated methods of lighting, heating, and cooking; therefore, we favor publicly assisted low-rent housing as a means of supplying decent, safe, and sanitary housing for such low-income families.

(b) Application was made in November 1944 to the Federal Government for loans to develop 3,000 additional public low-rent housing units, 1,000 for white and 2,000 for colored families. This would be our program over the next 4 years when and if funds are made available.

(d) Birmingham is in no financial position to furnish any subsidies for lowrent housing.

(e) We know of no law or measure by reason of which the State of Alabama can make such subsidies.

4. Birmingham has four low-rent public-housing projects, Alabama 1-1, 1-3R, 1-4R, and H-2902. Two are for white families and contain a total of 1,775 dwellings; and two are, for colored with a total of 992 dwellings; also one Lanham Act project of permanent construction for 300 white families. This is project Alabama 1041 and the housing authority has made application to the Federal Government for the transfer of this project to it for low-rent use

(a) Yes. There are, however, a number of families in these projects who, because of their overincomes, are no longer eligible to continue living there. They should be vacated as soon as housing conditions will permit, and thus make room for low income applicants.

(b) It is our opinion, and that of our citizenry generally, that these projects have been built and are being operated efficiently.

(c) The effect of these projects on neighboring real estate is that it has increased such values materially. Fire calls are few and are confined to small fires caused by negligence, and the fire damage is confined to furniture. The buildings are fireproof. The police department is still being called upon occasionally to quell disorders, but in number such calls are only a small fraction of those we formerly received from the areas before these projects were built. The health department has no dependable data as to how the projects affect the neighborhoods in the matter of public health.

(d) No, not at all. Private builders and owners cannot supply the demand for housing and have not been able to do so for several years. Some of these private builders and owners have expressed their preference in selling houses to families who are living in our public low-rent housing. They say that these families have acquired a respect for private property more so than others have, and they have been taught to meet their payments promptly, and that they have become better risks and better citizens all around.

5. (a) Yes.

(b) The city of Birmingham cannot pay any portion of such construction costs.

(c) We believe that slum clearing and the construction of low-rent publie housing should go hand in hand. Such public housing should not be built on land that was previously vacant land.

(d) Have no alternative proposal.

6. A redevelopment program is definitely necessary for our city to clear slums and blighted areas, and in making the land therein available for new private and public development, which could well go hand in hand.

7. (a) Definitely yes.

(b) No answer.

(d) None available.

(e) The city of Birmingham can't carry one-third of the net cost.

(f) No answer.

8. Rigidly enforced income limits for admission; giving preference to families of lowest income; vacating promptly all tenants whose incomes exceed the established maxima, and who therefore are no longer entitled to receive financial aid from the taxpayers.

9. State has no urban redevelopment legislation.

10. Cities need to have a much more liberal allowance in lieu of taxes on the low-rent housing projects. The occupants thereof must be serviced the same as other citizens. The amount heretofore allowed in lieu of taxes is grossly out of proportion to taxes paid on privately owned housing projects.

Hon. ROBERT F. WAGNER,

United States Senator,

CITY OF SANTA MONICA, CALIF., October 15, 1947.

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR: In response to the questionnaire received in your communication of October 10, 1947, we are making our reply based upon the best information available.

1. Based on your knowledge of conditions in your city, what is your estimate as to the approximate number of low-income families now living in substandard housing, in slums, or under other unsatisfactory housing conditions?

At least 2,500 families in Santa Monica are living in slums or substandard housing.

2. (a) In your opinion will private enterprise be able now or in the forseeable future to provide decent housing, new or old, for all of these families at rents or prices within their ability to pay?

In our opinion, private enterprise will not be able to provide decent housing for all of these families at costs within their ability to pay..

(b) Please indicate, briefly, the basis for your opinion.

Reasons for this opinion are based solely on present building costs of approximately $10 per square foot, and land prices ranging from $40 to $400 per front foot, which would make it impossible for private capital to make an adequate return on its investment from moderate rentals.

3. (a) If it is your opinion that private enterprise will not be able to provide decent housing for all such families, do you favor the provision of publicly assisted low-rent housing as a means of supplying decent housing for such families?

Reluctantly; yes.

3. (b) If so, what is your estimate of the number of low-rent units which, in your opinion, it would be desirable to provide in your city over the next 4 years? Four thousand.

Not at all.

(d) To what extent is your city in a position to furnish annual subsidies needed to permit such housing to be rented to such low-income families at rents within their ability to pay?

Very limited.

(e) To what extent are State loan and subsidy funds available for such purposes?

To veterans only on $7,500 loan limit.

4. If there is low-rent housing in your city developed under the United States Housing Act of 1937:

None.

5. (a) Do you favor a continuation of a program of Federal assistance to local communities, along the lines of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as a means of aiding the communities to provide decent housing for low-income families? Yes.

(b) If so, to what extent is your city in a position to pay a portion of the construction cost of such housing? (This may be indicated by the approximate percentage of the capital cost of any low-rent housing projects which your city would be able to provide.)

This would depend upon too many factors not presently predictable.

« Précédent Continuer »

Livres

General Housing: Hearings Before ... 80-2 on S. 866 ... , May 3 Through June ...