housing program was enlarged through authorization for 37,500 new public housing units. The President's new legislative proposal is to continue building 35,000 units a year. According to the 1950 Census, 63 per cent of the housing units in the country were of standard quality; by 1960, the figure had risen to 80 per cent. Most of the substandard housing is now found in rural areas and in the older sections of the cities. Nearly all of the public housing activity has been in the urban slums. By the end of fiscal 1964, there were 562,000 completed public housing units, and 173,400 more were under development. The completed units comprised about 1 per cent of all housing units in the nation. They were inhabited by 2.1 million people, of whom 1.2 million were children. The chief arguments for subsidized public housing are that slum clearance and low-rent projects improve the health, safety and moral welfare of the people involved - and that this help must come from outside the slum community. It is paradoxical, therefore, that there is so much concern about the social, moral and psychological environment of the 2 million people who are living in public housing. The point is that the housing projects tend to be self-contained and isolated. Because of the rent subsidy, there is a concentration of low income families, many with social and emotional 88 as well as economic problems. The Housing Act of 1949 included in its declaration of policy the goal of "a decent home and a suitable living environment for every American family." That statement has remained in the later amendments. Yet almost every week there is new evidence that many of the slum dwellers displaced by urban renewal projects are no better off than they were before. From 1949 to September 30, 1963, 176,908 families, and 65,657 individuals had 11/ been displaced by 703 urban renewal projects. The success of their relocation is 11/ Advisory Commision on Intergovernmental Relations: Relocation. January 1965. from unpublished Urban Renewal Administration data. Table 3 - 10 currently a matter of heated debate. Official statistics show the vast proportion to be relocated in standard housing. Other studies show more than half still in 12/ substandard housing. The experience with federally-subsidized low-rental housing since 1937 requires careful review. Since 1949, and certainly since 1937, the quality of the nation's housing supply has changed and for the better. The shortage of housing, found Short in many cities in the immediate post-war period, has largely been overcome. ages have been replaced by an overall vacancy rate of better than 5 per cent. Further, the sociological and welfare approaches to the relationship between housing and family problems have become much more sophisticated. A social worker in New York City commented several years ago that many of her colleagues find themselves longing for the good old days. "For then we could blame everything on the bad housing. Then we always knew exactly what to do: 'press for better housing that is the solution.' 13/ New knowledge, based on experience, should not be ignored as we continue, or increase, certain types of expenditures. The findings of social workers, psycho logists and psychiatrists warrant a new examination of our present public housing concepts. 14/ In slum clearance, too, private, local and voluntary efforts, usually centering around the improvement and enforcement of housing codes, can accomplish a great deal if given the chance. Jane Jacobs refers to a process of "unslumming". Evidence for it can be found, as she points out, in many neighborhoods and cities. She cites specifically the rehabilitation of Boston's North End and the Back-of-theYards in Chicago. Others mention programs in St. Louis, Philadelphia, and the salutary effects of code enforcement in Charlotte, North Carolina, where 20% of the 12/ For example, Hartman, Chester: "The Housing of Relocated Families." Journal of the American Institute of Planners, November 1964, reviews a group of studies. "Community Action in East Harlem." In Duhl, D.J. (ed.) The Urban People and Policy in the Metropolis. Basic Books, 1963 13/ Lurie, E. Condition: 14/ Jacobs, J. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Random House '61 city's housing supply was brought up to the standards of the housing code between 1948 and 1956. In 1951 bankers and real estate men provided the capital for Baltimore's 15/ "Fight the Blight Fund," which has since been adopted elsewhere. The Future programs The President has requested funds for the continuation and expansion of existing and the creation of new ones. He has also asked, once again, for the creation of a Cabinet Department of Housing and Urban Development. NAM believes that such a step, which institutionalizes these programs and makes them permanent, would be a grave error. Too many responsible individuals in all areas of concern (government, business and the universities) have raised too many serious and relevant questions for us to proceed as though this approach to the cities and their future deserves to become a permanent part of our society. The President was right when he said that progress is not the gift of governments. Removing the doubts and confusions about the major goals of federal urban development programs is an essential no matter what the organization of the agency with major responsibility for carrying out those programs. Enhancing the stature of that agency without a period of re-study is likely to be what Professor James Q. Wilson (Director, Joint Center for Urban Studies, MIT & Harvard) recently called committing" one of the cardinal sins of American government: never killing, curtailing, or changing a program that has not proved useful, but simply adding on 16/ to it a new program in hopes that it will take up the slack." ... 15/ Meyerson, M et. al. Housing, People and Cities, McGraw-Hill, 1962, Chapter 11. 16/ Wilson, J.Q.: "Urban Renewal Does Not Always Renew." Harvard Today, January 1965. 12 BIBLIOGRAPHY Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations: Relocation: Unequal Treatment of People and Businesses Displaced by Impact of Federal Urban Development Programs on Local Government Metropolitan Social and Economic Disparities: Implications for Alevisos, John P: Statement to Select Subcommittee on Real Property Acquisition, Committee on Public Works, U.S. House of Representatives, 88th Congress, 2nd Session, February 28, 1964 quoting his studies on the effect of urban renewal on small businesses. Anderson, Martin: The Federal Bulldozer. Technology Press, 1964. Massachusetts Institute of Business Week: February 21 and March 14, 1959, reports of studies by Frieden, Bernard J: The future of old neighborhoods: rebuilding for a changing population. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 1964. Gans, H: "The Failure of Urban Renewal A Critique and Some Proposals." Commentary, April 1965. - Goodman, William I: "Urban Planning and the Role of the State." State Journal of the Hartman, Chester: "The Housing of Relocated Families." Jacobs, Jane: "The Death and Life of Great American Cities. "Random House, 1961. Johnson, T.F.Morris, J. R, Butts, J.G: Renewing America's Cities. The Institute for Social Science Research, 1962. Kristol, Irving: "Is the Welfare State Obsolete?" Harper's Magazine, June 1963. Meyerson, M. et al: Housing, People and Cities. McGraw-Hill, 1962 Von Eckhardt, Wolf: "Urban Renewal and the City." A series of six articles appearing in The New Republic, Sept. 21 and 28, Oct. 5, 19 and 26, 1963. Weaver, Robert: The Urban Complex. Doubleday, 1964. Wilson, James Q: Winnick, Louis: "Urban Renewal Does Not Always Renew." Harvard Today, Jan 1965. "Economic Questions in Urban Redevelopment." Review (Proceedings), May 1961. Zimmer, Basil G: Rebuilding Cities. Quadrangle Books, 1964. American Economic 14 |