living in the immediate neighborhood can testify to that. Mr Y Donald is one. Dr. Collins is living on the outer area. Mr. PHILLIPS. I have a question. I saw by the paper that was about to be started on an area near South Capitol Street. à cording to my memory it would go from South Capitol, to M Scre and to the business street that runs north and south, and would back this side of the city pound. Is that a part of this program ' Mr. W. O. WOODSON. No. That is part of the redevelopmen of the District redeveloping agency. Mr. PHILLIPS. Why couldn't some of these people be put is southwest area? Mr. W. O. WOODSON. That is the question we proposed to K Ihlder. Mr. PHILLIPS. What did he say to that? Mr. W. O. WOODSON. He said that would be torn down and re but that it was too expensive a proposition. Mr. PHILLIPS. I do not see it is any more expensive to tear an old house. That would seem better than to buy a $30,000 Locin private ownership. That is not economy. Mr. W. O. WOODSON. We had suggested some areas in the northwes and southwest where the places could be wrecked and rebuilt as have done in New York and then take another segment and do same and rehouse the people in the same locality. He said that too expensive. Mr. PHILLIPS. I am glad to see the NCHA is interested in econot As you go across what I call the Navy Bridge and then go up Goo Hope Road you come to a place where there is a German orphanag and then a park. There is a triangle there. Mr. WOODSON. That is Naylor Road. Mr. PHILLIPS. Is this area involved in this redevelopment progra Mr. WOODSON. That is in southeast. Mr. PHILLIPS. That is right, but I got that idea somewhere, either from a letter from one of your members, or from the newspaper, s I went out to look at it, thinking that was one of the areas you wer concerned about. Mr. WOODSON. No. That area is in the southeast. Mr. PHILLIPS. Is that a good project? Do you approve it? Mr. WOODSON. It is being built. It is under construction. Mr. PHILLIPS. Then I think I must have mistaken the proposal. Mr. WOODSON. We have a statement prepared by the Far Northea Council. The secretary, Mr. Chinn, is here. We want to offer each of you a copy of that and would like to have you indulge us by having that read by Mr. Chinn and placed in the record. Mr. PHILLIPS. Wouldn't it be more satisfactory to have this goin the record? Is it necessary to read it? Mr. CHINN. If you prefer, Mr. Chairman. to add some statistical material. Mr. PHILLIPS. I think that will be helpful. Then we would Exe The material is as follows:) FAR NORTHEAST COUNCIL, Washington, D. C., February 13, 1952. protest against the proposed Richardson and East Capitol Street public housing projects. ALBERT THOMAS, Chairman, Committee on Independent Offices of the Appropriation Committee, United States House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. IR: We, the representatives of the Far Northeast Council, which comprises civic and parent-teacher associations of the northeast east of the Anacostia er, wish to express our appreciation of the opportunity you have extended us present the views of the citizens residing in the above-named area in respect the proposed public housing construction in that section of the city. Principally our objections and arguments in respect to the location of these perties resolve themselves upon these two basic facts: I. That there is no 1 problem of need for public housing for low-income family occupancy. II. at the area selected for the proposed projects cannot adequately absorb and ve the population for which the projects are intended. Our objections to the construction of these two housing projects are based upon e lack of necessity for such units. At the present time, in projects located in rious parts of Washington, there are now living in these public housing projects ople who pay rents ranging upward in excess of $70 per month. These rates d ranges positively indicate that such occupants now housed in these public using projects could pay current rates of rent charged for private facilities; nce their vacating the premises would provide additional housing space for the nuine low-income housing. In effect this practice of renting space to financially self-sufficient tenants tends I make the National Capital Housing Authority a bureaucracy in actual comtition with private ownership and private enterprise. Moreover, to the extent at such people constitute a plurality in occupancy, just to that extent is the uthority serving a middle-income rather than a low-income housing group. It evident, therefore, that before the Congress should appropriate more funds or ermit the use of current funds it should examine closely the rates of rental, the come group composition, and the number of vacancies in properties now under CHA supervision to determine what are the needs as well as the trends in the peration of the agency. The act which established the Authority did not anticiate nor intend that public housing should operate at a profit, since it is admitedly a public service available only to those pathetically in need of relief from -conomic pressures. Unless the Congress calls a halt to present trends, the Authority, whether Congress wills it or not, represents a practical example of the principle of soialism in its most insidious form. In this area of nonexistent competition, aided and abetted by regulation X, the Authority will expand its program of middleincome housing construction. Only the Congress can stop that tendency. In respect to the second principle upon which we base our objections, there is much that we shall attempt to condense into specific but logical categories in order to save the time of the Appropriations Committee. CHARTS (EXHIBIT A) The charts submitted here in evidence clearly indicate that within the radius of one-half mile there are presently located, or planned for location, a series of public housing projects which will concentrate beyond the physical ability of the Capital View Civic Association and the Northeast Boundary Civic Association to absorb a large number of housing units which will aggravate the many economic, social, educational, civic, and public service pressures already inadequate for those presently living within the boundaries of the area. A comparative study of the maps (exhibit B) will show that nowhere within the limits of the District of Columbia is there another community of this character similarly burdened with this disproportionate population problem. In reality the proposed construction is a striking example (often repeated) of a vicis of poorly coordinated unorganized, unrealistic planning by the National Ca Housing Authority. A closer examination of this total effect will expose additional falls ea logic. Under no circumstances should citizens who have an invested inte; 3 their individual homes and in the pattern of development of their co be placed in the dilemma posed by the disproportionate construction of public housing units. It must be clearly understood that the citizens. oppose public housing per se, but that they do oppose the practice wi pattern of construction has followed, namely the policy of the National C Housing Authority to construct public housing units without regar standard procedures followed by private builders. In this instance, and is the Authority has ignored under the guise of necessity, even the basic p of community life. Like a parasitic octopus, the authority fastens its upon an established community and extracts the very lifeblood of individ and community control by constructing inadequately serviced public he units which are left to exist as best they may. Furthermore, the housing of an additional 6,500 people in an area 90 p of which consists of detached and/or semidetached homes ranging in valet $15,000 to $40,000, will distort the social-civic elements of control and adjustCapital examples of this deterioration of a community pattern may be see: z any section of the city where public housing projects and home-ownersh; terns exist in proximity to each other. Note particularly the blighting effets Parkside Dwelling and Mayfair Mansions; Fort Dupont and Greenway : contrasts in management and general appearance. We respectfully suggest members of the committee make even a casual tour of comparable comL in this category. In many instances the property to be acquired by condemnation proceeding represents investments of individuals or groups over a period of years. Many the people whose land is sought would, if they were able, build their own t upon the land now in their possession. These lots represent an investirent the future since very little vacant land in the District remains available to the It would seem, therefore, that a Government agency would exercise more distion, since the application of the law of eminent domain would work unnecessa hardships upon defenseless victims of a land-hungry agency. Except for the arbitrary restrictions of regulation X (emergency construti controls) many of the lot owners here and elsewhere in the city would Low : building their own homes on some of the very lots now being diverted to pr housing. In this and in other areas the restrictions of regulation X are atta mount to giving the Housing authority an extended, noncompetitive field of own. tion, excluding private owners and builders to the end that the authority s building homes for potential middle-income groups rather than the disadvarties low-income groups. If this be the intent of the Congress, then private ent-77is destroyed; if not, then the whole problem of need must be reexamined in 12.9 respect. We seriously ask if this law is the type of safeguard the authority ze to justify its continued existence to serve the need for expansion in pa housing. We respectfully pose this question for an impartial Congress to prove for an equitable solution. Aside from the inequities involved in condemnation proceedings which teret return to the property owner, an amount representing a fraction either of the purchase price or the market value, we have more serious objections which we feel must be critically evaluated by the committee. These objections lie in ir> * which the Housing authority has apparently minimized. We refer to the in quate planning in respect to sewerage, highways, public utilities, and red municipal services. We feel that had the authority made a complete survey.. would have rejected the proposed sites for the units. SEWERAGE AND HIGHWAYS For nearly 20 years citizens in the council area have been trying to secure adequate sewerage and highways for the citizens living in the area contig to Watts Run (exhibit). Regularly, every year this stream causes exterste property damage during flood periods. To eliminate the problem of Watts R would be the key to the development of the whole area. Repeatedly during e year cellars, streets, adjacent land, and other real estate properties are subber to washouts, shifts in contours, and serious traffic hazards as the result of the uncontrolled drainage which the run is unable to carry off effectively. The de f this inadequacy are a matter of public record in Congress. Each new g project adds to the load upon this stream with more acute effects. Yet e of the fact that Congress has appropriated no money for the development run the authority with utter disregard for consequences, is preparing to se that load. During the last budget hearings the Commissioners admite need for emergency attention; yet no money was appropriated. It would at least $1,000,000 to improve the run. Will Congress or the authority e the obligation? If the projects are built, the direct danger to health, rty, and life of citizens in other areas will be aggravated. respect to highways the effects are evident. Highways, including subordistreets, depend upon the development of Watts Run. A swollen population e area will tax beyond limits the adjacent and even the nonexistent streets should be opened to public transit before the area becomes more congested. FIRE AND POLICE PROTECTION r more than 5 years the citizens have asked for adequate fire and police proon. To date we have an understaffed precinct and no additional fire house. tional property development in the area without adequate fire protection as foolhardy, to say the least. t the present time the fourteenth precinct is seriously understaffed; yet authority will bring more people into an area where the impact of crowded litions might well breed another slum. How does the authority propose to t this problem? At the present time the precinct has a fine record for control he various categories of crime. We are proud of that record, but we fear consequences of this abnormal shift in population to an area inadequately pared to offer the people basic municipal services. urrently the District of Columbia Board of Education is struggling within framework of a curtailed budget, to provide adequate schools for our chiln. In every school in the Northeast there is critical overcrowding. Please mine the following figures for significant facts: |