SECTION 206 NAVAL RECEIVING STATION, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Admiral CHEW. The next item, Mr. Chairman, is at the Naval Station in the District of Columbia for retrenchment of facilities. We discussed the highway going through there, and the original estimate was $650,000 for retrenchment. This is an increase of $200,000 made necessary because of the responsibility of demolition that we now must foot the bill for, sir. Senator STENNIS. You mean that is down here at Anacostia? Admiral CHEW. Yes, sir. This is the so-called old station that the freeway goes through, the ones that we want to relocate, at the new Naval Station at Anacostia, the ones that Admiral Wilson spoke of; the people live there right now. Senator STENNIS. Back to these bombing ranges a minute, gentlemen. Senator Cannon had to be away today. He is a pilot, as you know, and he has been concerned, as the Chair understands, with respect to these bombing facilities you have down there. He raised the point of why you had to have a new one. Is there anything you want to say on that, why you have to have new bombing ranges? Captain BRIDGERS. Because this is not entirely a new complex, sir. It is partially a replacement for some old targets. There were two problems with the old targets. One is the physical area on the ground was inadequate for safety, and they were located both quite close to one of our big operating air stations, and also under a rather major airline. There was the problem of airspace and lack of adequate ground space. That was the reason for replacement. Senator STENNIS. All right. NAVAL RADIO STATION, WASHINGTON COUNTY, Admiral CHEW. Yes. MAINE Senator STENNIS. Page 80. My goodness, you have gone up on your price here. More of that transmission, $7,300,000. Admiral PELTIER. This is one that we talked about this morning. Senator STENNIS. Yes. Will this finish it up? Admiral PELTIER. Yes. Senator STENNIS. This particular part? Admiral CHEW. Yes, this finishes it up, sir. Admiral PELTIER. We are about 98 percent obligated now, so we know this will do the job. Senator STENNIS. Yes. All right, next item. PUBLIC LAW 85-685, SUGAR GROVE, W. VA. Admiral CHEW. The next item we also discussed this morning, Mr. Chairman, the item at Sugar Grove, W. Va., for an increase of $17,800,000, sir. Senator STENNIS. As I recall you said new field, new frontier work, and you just did not have the basis for your calculations and ran into more exacting requirements on it? Admiral PELTIER. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. As I mentioned this morning, this is basically in six areas, the structural steel, the drives, the aluminum panels, the operations building, instrumentation, and utilities. Senator STENNIS. Do you want to go into this any more in executive session? Admiral PELTIER. Not necessarily. There is nothing classified about this part of it. Senator STENNIS. You say here you are only 38 miles east of Harrisonburg, Va. Admiral PELTIER. Just over the mountain. Senator STENNIS. All right. You feel competent of your figures that this will wrap it up? Admiral PELTIER. Not on this one, I would not want to promise that because we have taken some bids on this, and believe the contractors are including a substantial contingency. We are examining that now as well as the tolerances we are requiring because of our belief that they are putting in quite a contingency item. We are trying to find out just what is causing this to see whether our requirements should be reduced. Senator STENNIS. How much competition is there in an item of this kind? Admiral PELTIER. Granted a lot of these items cannot be built by very many people, but we have been getting at least three bids on all of these items so far. Senator STENNIS. I thought maybe we would get about one. Admiral PELTIER. On the drives we started out with 12 bidders, but only 4 submitted bids. The drives came in higher than we estimated so we are examining that now. We got those bids last week. Senator STENNIS. I understand then back on the Washington County, Maine, installation that you will wrap that up? Admiral PELTIER. We are firmed up there, Mr. Chairman. Well, it is also very timely when you cannot be certain to say so. Admiral PELTIER. We cannot say on this. We know we are going to have to do something on the bids we have now on the Sugar Grove project. Senator STENNIS. All right. SECTION 204 CAPEHART FAMILY HOUSING Admiral CHEW. The next is section 204, Mr. Chairman, on family housing. All of the housing proposed falls within one or more of three categories which require construction of public quarters. Quarters will be constructed at stations which are new or are undergoing major increases; at isolated stations, where otherwise no housing will be available; or to replace temporary or inadequate housing. Most of the latter is World War II temporary housing which is now substandard, and is costing too much to maintain and operate. The pro posed construction will bring the military housing at the stations involved up to less than 55 percent of the requirements for officers and senior petty officers. Senator STENNIS. You mean appropriated funds? We have been talking about the Capehart housing as we came to it. Admiral CHEW. We skipped some of it on the authorization, and then I would like to speak again on the one project in New York which is not in the present authorization bill, and which has been cleared by the Department of Defense and Bureau of the Budget. Senator STENNIS. All right, proceed with whatever you wish. Before you get any further into this housing, I will read you a section from a General Accounting Office report, before you begin: More recently the Charleston Real Estate Board and the chamber of commerce protested the construction of any additional Capehart housing on the ground that adequate rental housing is available in the Greater Charleston area to provide for Naval and Air Force needs. To obtain a true picture of the housing situation, the Federal Housing Administration has requested the Post Office Department to conduct a survey of vacancies in the Charleston area. I call that to your attention because you would naturally want to take a more recent look at it, unless you have done it in the last few days. Admiral CHEW. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak to that. In this connection in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, I assured the committee that if the community support was forthcoming, as they indicate there, we would not proceed with the Capehart project, but that the authorization was necessary at this time; and I can assure you of the same, that if the community support is available, and there is housing available for the people that we are putting into Charleston, that we will not build. Senator STENNIS. That is all right, Admiral, and I am sure you will do that. But we are going to have requests here for Capehart housing in other places that are not in your budget estimates, and they will have a group here with a strong need, perhaps. Here you have a conflict in evidence down in Charleston, and you are, in effect, just telling us at the legislative angle, "You just skip this over and we will take care of the situation." We have all these requests coming in, and I would rather you take a more recent look at this Charleston picture and see what you have to say. Admiral WILSON. Senator, the Secretary has recently written a letter to both the mayor and the president of the chamber of commerce in Charleston and some other places urging that everything be done that is possible to give us more community support. Senator STENNIS. Yes. Admiral WILSON. We hope that this will bear fruit. I think it is worthy to note also that out of our original housing program this year when we first started to put this thing together, of some 8,000 units we wound up with about 4,000. In other words, we ourselves within the Navy Department cut the project about half. Senator STENNIS. Yes. When have you last really reviewed this situation? Did you ever hear from the mayor you wrote to? Admiral WILSON. This has been quite recently, sir, but we do get reports back from Admiral McManus, who is the commandant down there. One of the things which has, perhaps, clouded the issue there is that in Charleston they have a great number of houses for sale. These are not within the economic capabilities of our people to buy. Senator STENNIS. All right. I am just giving you a chance to make a further showing here about the situation. We have the statement here of the chamber of commerce and the real estate board who have protested the construction. That is dated March 30, and it is just up to you gentlemen whether you want to make another showing or not. Admiral CHEW. Mr. Chairman, may I provide for the record the latest figures of the housing, requirements, and the available assets? Senator STENNIS. Yes, I wish you would; and make a real survey of it now, and get it in here, not tomorrow, but before we mark up the bill. Let it be as near that date as you can have it. Admiral CHEW. All right, sir. (The information referred to follows:) The following is a statement with regard to rental housing community support in Charleston. The Navy's current housing requirement in the Charleston area is for about 2,000 families. An additional 3,000 Navy families will be going to this area within the next 2 years; 700 Navy families are living in adequate private rental housing, 456 families are living in substandard community rental housing, and 227 other families are paying rents which are too costly when considering their pay and allowances. Many of the vacant houses in the Charleston area were found to be for sale. More than 90 percent of the Navy families being phased into the Charleston area will be junior officers and enlisted personnel who cannot afford to buy homes which require even a nominal downpayment. In addition to being unable financially to buy homes, it is unrealistic to expect that many military personnel will purchase homes and take on the responsibility of a 25- to 30-year mortgage when their tours of duty in the area are from 2 to 3 years' duration. Consequently, for sale housing cannot be considered as fulfilling the Navy's housing requirements. This type of housing is not completely discounted, however, since it has been found that a small percentage of naval personnel will purchase homes. Senator STENNIS. What is your next item? NAVAL AIR STATION, ALAMEDA, CALIF. Admiral CHEW. The housing projects in order-the first one is at Alameda. The basic housing requirement for eligible personnel at this station is 5,523 units. There are now 49 adequate military units available. Completion of the proposed 900 units will increase available quarters to 949 units or 17 percent of the requirement. The air station maintains and operates facilities to support operations of aviation activities and units of the operating forces of the Navy. This project will provide housing to replace 806 units which have been declared inadequate and must be disposed of as housing by July 1, 1961, and 94 units of low-cost rental housing. A comprehensive joint factfinding survey of family housing in the San Francisco Bay area, made by the FHA and the postmasters of the area, revealed a critical shortage of rental housing. The survey board predicted a greater deficit in the future due to rapid influx of personnel and industry to this area. NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL, MONTEREY, CALIF. Admiral CHEW. The seventh project is at the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, Calif. The basic housing requirement for eligible personnel at this station is 1,640 units. There are now 476 adequate military units available. Completion of the proposed 250 units will increase the available assets to 726 units or 44 percent of the requirements. Monterey conducts and directs the instructions of commissioned officers by advanced education, to broaden the professional knowledge of general line officers and to provide such other indoctrination, technical and professional instruction as may be prescribed to meet the needs of the naval service. This project of 250 units is to provide housing for postgraduate students who are attending accelerated courses. A comprehensive survey of the small towns in this expensive resort revealed that adequate private rental housing is not available at a cost which military personnel can afford to pay. This shortage of adequate rentals has forced over 300 families either to buy homes in the area or leave their families at other locations. NAVAL AIR STATION, OCEANA; AND FLEET AIR The eighth project for the committee is the naval air station at Oceana, and the Fleet Air Defense Training Center, Dam Neck, Va. The basic housing requirements there for eligible personnel at these two stations, both Dam Neck and Oceana, which are not very far apart, is 1,897, and we have about 500 adequate units available, and completion of the requested 40 units will increase the available quarters to 614 only or about 28 percent of the requirements, sir. PACIFIC MISSILE RANGE, POINT MUGU, CALIF. The next project is at the Naval Missile Center, Point Mugu, Calif. The basic housing requirement for eligible personnel at this station is 2,250 units. There are now 583 adequate military units available. Completion of the proposed 300 units will increase the available assets to 883 units, or 39 percent of the requirement. The NMC conducts tests and evaluation of guided missiles. This project of 300 units is a second increment of Capehart units to provide housing which is necessary due to the increase in personnel resulting from the expansion of the Pacific Missile Range. This activity is located 45 miles north of Los Angeles and 45 miles south of Santa Barbara. These are the closest large cities capable of providing private housing support in the quantity required. A survey of the nearby towns of Oxnard and Ventura revealed that existing rentals are negligible. Regional FHA directors from Los Angeles and Santa Barbara stated that there were no rental units proposed for FHA financing. And further, that those applications which were on file, have been dropped in favor of housing for sale. The director of planning for Ventura County stated that the Government should provide housing for at least 60 percent of its military personnel. |