Mr. BLANDFORD. We can move them considerable distances. Mr. LEE. We have moved them now about 1,300 miles. Mr. MCDONOUGH. Oh, you knock them down and rebuild them? Mr. LEE. Yes. Mr. MCDONOUGH. Now, so far as returning students, I do not think there is any question that this board of regents-there is a tremendous amount of ground all around the university there, in addition to the military reservation right adjacent to it. Both of those have tremendous areas. There is very little space around the University of Southern California. That is in the metropolitan area of the city, but at the University of California at Los Angeles there is great acreage there for temporary prefabricated homes which students would be glad to live in and set up fraternity groups around there, and they could live there very comfortably. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. At this point in the record we will insert a statement which has been submitted by Representative Patterson. (The statement of Representative Patterson follows:) HOUSING NEED IMPERATIVE The need for housing in the city and county of Los Angeles is acute. It has been increasingly so for a number of years. Today, due to war conditions primarily, all of us are awake to the imperative need for additional housing facilities. The shortage is seriously hindering the war effort. It is creating increasingly dangerous social and health conditions. To rectify this shortage would not only speed the war effort and remedy much of the community's present bad social and health conditions. According to a report of the city of Los Angeles housing authority, there is at present an overflow of 133,000 families, families for whom there are no homes available, trying to crowd into existing housing facilities in Los Angeles County. At least 58,000 dwelling units are needed immediately to alleviate this situation. The rest of the number, 75,000 families, will still be seriously overcrowded. By April 1, 1946, 43,600 additional dwelling units, together with 5,000 dormitory units, must be erected to take care of the needs of these people. This makes a total of 101,600 dwelling units, and 5,000 dormitory units, needed to barely eliminate the present housing shortage. In addition, we must consider that in another year, the population of Los Angeles will have increased considerably again, due to certain war conditions. First, in-migrant workers will swell the population. The War Manpower Commission has certified to a minimum necessary in-migration of 16,000 war workers through July 15, 1945. For the following year, to April 1946, the Division of Reports and Analysis states that 31,000 in-migrants are expected. For these men, it is estimated that 26.000 family dwelling units, and 5,000 dormitories for single persons, will be needed. Second, returning veterans will swell the population. Considering that many out-of-area veterans will settle in the county, and that about 25 percent of returning local veterans will require housing, it is estimated that close o 8,100 families of returning veterans will require housing. At least 7,600 dwelling units must be erected for this group. Third, families of servicemen will swell the population, with the shifting of troops from the European to the Pacific theater of war. At least 10,000 dwelling units will be necessary to house these families. In addition, it is estimated that from two to three thousand citizens of Japanese ancestry will return to their home in Los Angeles County. Therefore, a minimum of 43-46,000 family dwelling units, and 5,000 dormitory units, will be necessary in the near future, in addition to the 101,600 family units and 5,000 dormitory units needed at this very moment. This prospect should certainly not be viewed with alarm. On the contrary, it is one of the greatest challenges to our initiative, and surest guarantees of our prosperity, that has ever happened in Los Angeles or could possibly occur in many a year. Housing and community development must and will play a major role in achieving our objective of full employment, in making easier the transition from war to peace production, in supplying immediate and productive jobs for veterans, in keeping business on a high level of prosperity. We must use all the resources in the community to carry out this comprehensive program: small builders, big builders, contractors of all kinds, public housing agencies, planning commissions, all trades and skills, capital, labor, and government. The job must be done and done now! The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Havenner, Representative of California. STATEMENT OF HON. FRANCK R. HAVENNER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mr. HAVENNER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, the theory that large scale lay-off of war plant workers will ease the critical housing situation on the West Coast is a very plausible one, but actually it has not worked out that way. For instance, 2 weeks ago the Navy Department moved in under threat of condemnation and exacted a pledge to give preference to naval personnel in renting apartments in San Francisco. The lay-off already in our shipyards out there have been very large, and the estimate is that by the first of July 60 percent of the entire personnel in shipyards will be laid off, but the critical need for housing has not been relieved in San Francisco. I have here a letter from the principal organization out there which has been dealing with the problem, in which they still say that they need 25,000 units. The CHAIRMAN. Would you submit that for the record? Mr. HAVENNER. I will be glad to submit the statement if I may. I am in receipt of a letter from the Council for Civic Unity for San Francisco, dated May 10, which discusses the recent NHA authorization for construction of 2,500 private dwellings in San Francisco. Incidentally I think Representative Holmes was in error when he quoted the figure of 6,000 units as the authorization of NHA for my city. The Council for Civic Unity makes this comment: Much as we appreciate this small addition to the present very critical housing shortage here, the council is of the opinion that, in view of its recommendations for 20,000 temporary units, the building of 2,500 private units for the two counties would be most inadequate in fulfilling the urgent need for housing here in this city. The ending of the war in Europe will mean the stepping up of the war in the Pacific. San Francisco will be the port of embarkation not only for most of the supplies going to that theater but also for Army and Navy personnel. There will be many additional demands made upon the already inadequate housing resources of our city by workers in essential industries and related Government agencies who will be needed to step up the war in the Pacific. These people will need housing just as much as military and naval personnel. The Council for Civic Unity, after thorough study of the situation, believes that temporary housing is the answer to the present dire situation. We have noted that Congressman Elliott in his recent trip to the west coast also recommended temporary housing as the best immediate remedy for San Francisco. There are two very good reasons for temporary housing. First, it can be built quickly and economically; second, temporary housing can serve as an intermediary between the end of the war and that period when removal of blighted areas takes place during postwar urban redevelopment. I want to emphasize the fact that the Pacific coast is now the defense area of continental America, and San Francisco is the principal port of embarkation for this great defensive area. Until the war with Japan is ended the activity of this great port will be constantly stepping up, and there will be no cessation of the need for emergency housing facilities. I earnestly hope the committee will adopt the pending amendment and take such other steps as are necessary to meet this critical wartime need. The CHAIRMAN. I have here before me a statement by Representative Ed. V. Izac, a Member of Congress from the State of California, which he desires to submit for the record, which we will include at this point, if there is no objection. MAY 24, 1945. MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEES For over 2 years now it has been known to us who are most vitally affected by the lack of housing accommodations in war-congested areas, that one of the great deficiencies in war housing constructed by the Federal Government was the interpretation that these housing units were not available to men in the service nor to their families unless the latter obtained a job in a war industry. On several occasions I had conferences with our Federal Housing authorities in an endeavor in various ways to have this type of housing opened up to the families of the men who were by all rights more entitled to the term "war workers" than those who fashined the implements of war with which to equip them. Through subterfuge and in various other ways, we have managed to take care of some of the most deserving eases, only to find that in the past year due to the discharge of returning soldiers and sailors, some physically handicapped, that we were unable to provide even a roof over the heads of our own returning residents. Men who have been discharged and entitled to the term "veterans" have been declared ineligible for Federal war housing under the terms of the various statutes. I believe it is most important that this be changed at the earliest practicable moment so that every soldier and sailor who returns to his home area shall be given, if necessary, a prior right to all such housing because of his service to his country. It seems to me that this is especially needed in communities along the west coast where the necessity for continued war production will be apparent until the day of Japan's defeat; and where necessarily there is a shortage of housing now that many of our servicemen who have served so faithfully and so well are returing to the homes from which they were taken as we built our tremendous Army and Navy. I trust the committee will see fit to sponsor legislation to do justice to our servicemen and their families. ED. V. IZAC, M. C. The CHAIRMAN. Since the time has come when we must adjourn, I wonder if just for a few minutes with the committee and Mr. Blandford here before us we might have a little conference. (Whereupon, at 12:10 p. m., the committee went into executive session, after which it adjourned.) HOUSE AND SENATE WINGS OF CAPITOL No. 3 HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SEVENTY-NINTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON S. J. Res. 31 A JOINT RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE APPROPRIATION JULY 6 AND 10, 1945 Printed for the use of the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds |