I am glad the home builders are beginning to face the facts, that we are not now building for this very low-income group, and I want, therefore, to keep that in mind.

I also want to keep in mind the importance of a flexible approach in regard to this home-repair program. I think it is a desirable thing to repair existing facilities insofar as they can be repaired, but when you get some of these old-time sections about cities, in which houses have been standing for 50 to 60 years, and they have been permitted to deteriorate-unfortunately-over a number of years, their possibilities of rehabilitation aren't too great.

I do want to see this private voluntary participation in these neighborhoods, or in the efforts to rehabilitate, and to renovate and to rebuild our American neighborhoods. I think that is the only hope. I don't think it can be done by specialists. We have that same problem in other areas of life in our country at the present time. America is a Nation of specialists, and specialists are fine. They have made a great contribution to the building of this dynamic economy that has made this country truly great. This country is noted for its mechanical genius, but there are some things that mechanics cannot do, and one of them is the building of neighborhoods. Neighborhoods must be built by the people, themselves.

Thank you very much, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Monsignor O'Grady.

Are there questions?

Mr. OAKMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to the Monsignor that it has been a question of whether or not the city of Detroit does have a program for moving the people out of these condemned areas for rehabilitation, out there as Gratiot-Haskins. As I understand under the law you could not force a family to move out. You could not move them out, even though the city had acquired the fee to the land through the right of eminent domain in the courts, until he had acquired a place to go. I have seen those figures. I believe that you mentioned here that about a third of them were put in the publichousing project.

Monsignor O'GRADY. I have the exact figures in the statement of mine here. I can't lay my hands on them right now. I know the figures. I think they moved 1,900 families in all out of one area and they have more to move out of the other area right now.

Mr. OAKMAN. About a third of the people went into public housing and some of them bought houses?

Monsignor O'GRADY. I understand that, too.

Mr. OAKMAN. Some of them, as you say, have rented other properties that may not be much more attractive than the ones from which they have been moved. On the expressways I think they moved out just under 1,100 families last year.

Monsignor O'GRADY. There is no relocation program as I understand it on that expressway. Last year they were moving through an area of high-priced houses, but now they are reaching out into this other area which is a low-income area.

I was there last week and I saw the steamshovels at work there. There is no program there and the Housing Commission-they have no relationship with the Housing Commission on that matter. talked to several families along there. I understand they give them

I

a poke every now and then, that they are ready to tear down the house and they had better get out of there. That is all they do.

On the other matter, I had quite a discussion about a year and a half ago. They keep on urging these families to get on and I finally got to move around with the people who are engaged in relocation, and I finally got them to take me to this one street and they said, “If you can get into these houses, maybe you will find the people that have moved in here themselves."

I had quite a time getting into the houses. I knocked on the door and I received some rebuffs, and finally I saw this lady coming along the street and I talked to her as nicely as I could, and asked her if she lived around there and she let me visit her home, and finally we decided to go there, and we saw this house and there were about five families living in that house. There were some of the people that moved out of the Gratiot area. I asked her if she would show me some more. When I talked about the facts this is the thing I am referring to. It is so difficult to get at the facts. I asked her if she had any friends along there we could talk to and finally she did introduce me to some of the friends and we got to see some of their houses. That is the way I studied that area, from one house to another. It was difficult to get in because they were suspicious. They knew this whole question was in debate and they didn't want to become involved in the debate. Of course, I know some of the people in Detroit didn't like that behavior of mine, but I can't help that. I was trying to get at the facts and I was willing to let the facts speak for themselves, but I will tell you, it is my idea to get the facts in Detroit. I will tell you that now. I have said openly at times that there wasn't any relocation; that these families somehow or other found places for themselves and I am still contending the same.

I haven't seen any evidence that there is any relocation, except in the public housing, as you stated. There is no question about it. Last year in that Lafayette project, I visited several of the families that have to be moved out. Some of them will tell you: where are we going, we don't know; how soon are you going to move out, you might ask. We don't know.

They will say sometimes maybe they will give us a project. That is what they mean by public housing, they will give us a project. I have seen the same thing in Chicago. We talked to the families that moved out to the New York Life project and it is the same thing. I think that is the real issue- are we spreading blight, are these new improvements contributing to the spread of blight?

Of course, you say the public housing saves at least one family, it gives them an out, but you are eliminated entirely and then are you going to find more blight? You have to find housing for them. Are you going to find it by blighting more areas? That is my question about Detroit. I know it is a hot political question. I don't want to become involved in it.

Mr. OAKMAN. It is a very difficult one.

Monsignor O'GRADY. I know.

Mr. OAKMAN. On the expressways, the State highway department is building one and the county highway department is building another.

Monsignor O'GRADY. I thought they were all in on that big project. I thought the Federal Government, county, State, and city were involved.

Mr. OAKMAN. That is right, financially. The State is the contractor, on the one, and the Wayne County Road Commission is the builder of the other. They actually don't do the construction work but the county lets out the contract. They accepted responsibility for building the north-south one, the Lodge Expressway.

Monsignor O'GRADY. That is the one I say.

Mr. OAKMAN. The east-west one, Edsel P. Ford, is the highway department. You don't feel there is any coordination?

Monsignor O'GRADY. I don't feel there is any coordination. After all, the city of Detroit has some responsibility for housing. They assumed it by setting up a housing commission. Now, all I am saying is whether you should build those highways or not, that isn't my province to say, but we should know what that does to housing in Detroit. After all, the city of Detroit is concerned about the housing supply. I know that all these workers in Ford and General Motors will say that they need in order to move their traffic, they need speedways. I think there is a question in there between those speedways and housing of people. Which are you going to favor? In other words, it seems to me that an expressway, like the Edsel Ford or the Lodge should not be built except on the basis of all the facts in the life of Detroit. In other words, that is what I am saying. If the people of Detroit, after they know all the facts, want to decide it in a certain way, I think that is their business, but I think they certainly should know what is going to happen to families whose houses are going to be torn down, and they are not getting the facts, I am afraid, in regard to that situation.

There should be some joint planning. There is no planning. The people in the housing commission tell me there is no planning with the highway commission. They go ahead and act independently in this thing as if there were no other elements involved except the building of a highway. It seems to me that the same is true with other things that use city land and tear down houses like the school departments or the health department is in the same boat. It is the whole question as to how we are going to plan for this use of city land. We have business, we have a man's house and you have got to find a place to live. It is awfully discouraging when you find when you go through these cities as I have, and I find people crowded in, as I find them, for instance, in Chicago, safe houses-if we ever had an exact record of the fires in those houses, and the mortality, the dangers, when you crowd people into a house; a 1-family house you crowded in there 3 or 6 families and then all this speculation that goes on in the sale of that house-that is the kind of thing I would like to see people face. Again, what the citizen is going to do about it after he faces all the facts, that is another story for him. I just want him to look at all sides of the picture. That is what I have been seeing in your cities. I know it is a tough issue in Detroit.

Mr. OAKMAN. Some of that land we condemned for the Gratiot development is now the site of the new medical college of Wayne University going up.

Monsignor O'GRADY. I know that.

Mr. OAKMAN. If we hadn't gone in and exercised the right of eminent domain I don't know where we would have put that school and they wanted it at close proximity to the receiving building and the medical college.

Monsignor O'GRADY. You have the same thing in Chicago. You have got it in St. Louis. You have the building of new medical centers. They are very important, I would say, but still I want to keep on weighing that against a man's house. In other words, a man has to have a house to live in, too. I am concerned about weighing one against the others. I think it is fine, and, of course, it makes it intriguing, and these medical centers become very popular, and they are very popular with the people. That is fine. I think these are the factors.

Mr. OAKMAN. Did you happen to see, Father, that new annex to the receiving hospital where they have this cancer clinic and hospital and the cardiac clinic in the hospital?

Monsignor O'GRADY. Yes; I have seen that, too.

Mr. OAKMAN. It is a beautiful thing. They had these cancer cases scattered all over the hospitals in the city, 1 or 2 or 3. They have brought them together, and they are given expert care; they are getting the best of everything. That is human progress, too.

Monsignor O'GRADY. I noticed in your children's hospital, too. They are trying to rebuild that area. I saw them in the repair program last week. The whole area is being rebuilt, near the women's hospital. They are trying to rebuild it. They are trying a repair program there. It is a sample. They are trying it out as an experiment. I was impressed by that, too. Yet, when I see some of these old houses in that other area, right near or back near the museum, you have got these old houses. They were fine houses in years past.

I visited a whole line of these houses. I see families living in 2 rooms, and I find families living in 1 room, and I find 1 man whose apartment I visited, he and his wife and 2 children-he told me recently they had some visitors, and they were with them for several months and couldn't find any place to live. They just moved in on them. There is a great deal of crowding in that area right now. Those are very nice houses. It is what will happen in time. That is the big question, as to what is going to happen to those houses and the whole question of enforcement in the courts is an enormously difficult problem in your city. It is a very difficult problem as I see it, to enforce the codes, among other things, in the city of Detroit. I hope that you can meet the problem. Of course, they say they have some public housing to meet the needs, and there are some 900 families they are going to move out to the Lafayette area. That is what the housing commission tells me. I don't know how many are left in the pipeline now. Some people whisper to me there aren't so many people left in the pipeline. That is the big debate behind the scenes, as to how many units are left in the pipeline.

Some people tell me there aren't over 6,000, some tell me 7,000. I haven't got all the facts in regard to that situation. Maybe you would find there aren't enough left to take care of that Lafayette area of yours. I suppose probably three to four hundred of those families could be taken care of by some additional public housing in your city. Mr. OAKMAN. That is the East Lafayette section.

44022-54- -42

The CHAIRMAN. May I call attention to the fact that we will have to come back after the recess? Are you about through?

Mr. OAKMAN. Yes. I think it is grand that Father O'Grady concerns himself with this problem, which is economic as well as social, and as a member of this committee and as a resident of the city of Detroit, we will be more than appreciative, Father, of any suggestions that you can give us for handling this very acute problem, because there is this great national problem of rebuilding the slum areas of all of our great cities in America. We have got to do it. It is going to necessitate moving people to do it.

During the war they told us, "Don't move anybody. Don't touch your slums now. You will only aggravate things." And then in the Korean war, the same thing.

There is always a reason for not going ahead with the progress that in the end will spell real progress. The thing we have got to do in government is try to make the blow just as painless as possible.

Monsignor O'GRADY. That is the problem. The question is finding houses for these folks without further spreading the blight. You can pack them in in some other areas but then you are developing your slums. That is quite an easy thing to do.

The CHAIRMAN. I am afraid we will have to recess to answer a call of the House. We will take a recess for 30 minutes.

(Recess taken.)

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

Mr. Oakman?

Mr. OAKMAN. I am all through, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. McCarthy indicated he had a question to ask Monsignor O'Grady.

Monsignor O'Grady, can you wait around for a few minutes?
Monsignor O'GRADY. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. McCarthy wanted to speak to you. We will have Mr. Wellman on the stand and if Mr. McCarthy still wants to interrogate you, I am sure Mr. Wellman will be willing to withdraw for a few minutes.

Mr. Charles A. Wellman, of California, executive vice president of the Glendale Federal Savings and Loan Association.

We are glad to have you here and we will be glad to have you proceed. STATEMENT OF CHARLES A. WELLMAN, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, GLENDALE FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION

Mr. WELLMAN. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, if it is satisfactory to the committee, I would like to submit the written statement for the record and comment on the major points covered by the statement.

The CHAIRMAN. That will be perfectly agreeable.

Mr. MCDONOUGH. I think for the benefit of the committee members, I should say that Mr. Wellman has been identified with the savings and loan business for many years and has had rather active and interesting experience with it. I think his testimony will be valuable to the committee and whatever he may say about title 6, I would like to inform the committee that he was quite instrumental in finally developing a compromise that would satisfy the savings and loan