Page images
PDF
EPUB

Senator SPARKMAN. No, I left before you did. That is the first I have heard of it.

Senator CAPEHART. What were the circumstances? Does anybody know?

Senator SPARKMAN. Suppose we not go into it but just say to him if he will come back tomorrow, we will be glad to have him make pictures.

Senator CAPEHART. I do not want to be a member of this committee denying a man from the press, particularly in the housing industry, the right to take pictures. So if you and I are agreed, then shall we send word to the gentleman that we will be happy to have him take all the pictures he wishes, even though Mr. Douglas does not care to have his picture taken?

This is the first time I ever knew Mr. Douglas was such a shrinking violet. I thought he was the great liberal who always wanted to permit everybody to do these things.

Senator SPARKMAN. That is the first that I have known about it. I would suggest if the gentleman wishes to take pictures, he be asked to come back.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to add one thing to which my attention has been called, about the statement of the fact the program would take 200 years to eliminate slums. I have been advised this was a statement made by the President's Advisory Committee as to the old program, and the rate then was only $60 million a year being utilized. Maybe we have cut it down a few years.

Senator SPARKMAN. That is what I am trying to do. That is the reason I brought up the point. It was made by the Advisory Committee of which you were a valuable member a few years ago. As I the President himself has used that expression 2 or 3 times, I believe, in presenting housing programs. We certainly do not want it to be 200 years; cleaning them up.

say,

All right, Mr. Cole, do you want to proceed with title IV?

Mr. COLE. Title IV. Low-rent housing: Title IV of S. 3399 relates to low-rent housing. One of its provisions would extend the time limits which the law now places on the authority of the Public Housing Administration to enter into loan and annual contribution contracts to assist locally owned low-rent housing. This authority with respect to 35,000 low-rent units became effective July 31, 1956, and will expire on July 31, 1958. The remaining authority, covering 35,000 additional units, became available on July 1, 1957, and will expire on July 1, 1959. The bill would postpone each of these 2 termination dates by 1 year.

As members of your committee know, the low-rent housing programs of our local communities have been faced in recent years by difficulties in finding appropriate sites having utilities and streets. The rapid growth of our cities and towns and the rapid disappearance of vacant land within their borders have materially delayed the lowrent housing program. This is so because the choice of public housing sites is often limited by practical inability to cross political boundary lines; by the fact that low-income families cannot afford to commute to their work from outlying areas which are not served by cheap public transportation; and by the inability to pay very high prices for remaining centrally located sites, including slum-cleared sites. Localities tend to prefer slum-cleared sites for low-rent housing because

the location is good, but then find that land costs are so high that the construction must consist of large institutional appearing projects which are not locally acceptable. I might add "not always locally acceptable."

This and similar difficulties have greatly delayed applications from local communities for Federal low-rent housing assistance, and have set the limits on the amount of the assistance for which there is any effective demand. As Public Housing Commissioner Slusser will explain, the lag in activity is largely centered in our very large cities. As of April 1, the Federal Government has entered into annual contribution contracts for less than 8,000 units of the 35,000 unit authorization which expires July 31, 1958. Although applications for thousands of additional units are being processed and more are being received, it is likely that almost half of these 35,000 units will not be placed under annual contribution contract by the July 31 expiration date. The proposed extension of time would permit these units to go forward. Also, the extension may make it unnecessary, under pressure of the two time deadlines, to choose between approving some projects which are not as well planned or located as they should be and permitting projects needed by our communities to become ineligible after considerable expenditure of local effort.

The most important reason why the authority should be extended is the need for additional low-rent housing to serve families who will be displaced by urban renewal activities and other forms of governmental action, including the highway program. It is estimated that during the 3 years ending June 30, 1960, 83,000 families will be displaced by urban renewal activities, about 75,000 by highway programs, and about 89,000 by other governmental programs, making 247,000 families in all. We estimate that almost half of these families will be eligible for public housing. Turnover in existing public housing will serve much of the need, since eligible displaced families desiring public housing are given a priority for admission. Nevertheless, the new public housing will provide a needed additional source for coping with the relocation problem. This is so even though it must be recognized that not all the additional housing will be provided in the right places and at the right times to serve displaced families.

The proposed extension of time would also be helpful to local communities which are attempting to perfect new approaches in the field of low-rent housing. During the past year, much thought and study has been given by local and Federal housing officials and by public interest groups to possible ways in which the program may be improved in the light of changing conditions. One interesting development, which has resulted from these studies, is that several communities are building or considering low-rent projects on scattered sites, with the houses designed to blend with the surrounding neighborhood. In some cases, the initial reason for this approach may be that a single site of sufficient size is simply not available. Other more basic motivations which may come into play are the desire to avoid an undue concentration of families on the basis of income or to avoid the construction of large projects which have a depressing institutional appearance.

Similar motivations have led some communities which have previously built large, multistoried projects to consider instead, the construction of garden-type apartments or row houses. Local and

25834-58--10

Federal officials are watching these developments with great interest. For example, it will be interesting to learn the extent to which additional operating costs, which may result from managing a project on scattered sites, are counterbalanced by the fact that tenants of individual houses have a far greater incentive to maintain and to improve their homes and yards. In order to solve cost problems and landscarcity problems, some communities are seeking to purchase existing houses for low-rent use. Still others have selected single-family home designs which permit the erection of prefabricated houses at favorable prices.

Commissioner Slusser is prepared to answer questions on these and other matters affecting the program. In his testimony, he will also cover the remaining provisions of the title. One of these relates to exemptions from income for purposes of determining whether a family is of low income and eligible for occupancy and, also, for the purposes of fixing minimum rentals. For reasons which Commissioner Slusser will explain, the enactment of this provision is essential in order to correct serious technical deficiencies in the present law.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES E. SLUSSER, COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC HOUSING ADMINISTRATION

Mr. SLUSSER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, approximately 1 year ago, we had the honor of appearing before this committee. We were then engaged in surveying various problems in the low-rent program, including the basic question as to the need for additional contracting authority for low-rent housing units. The committee was asked that legislation on this and other subjects be deferred until this survey was completed. My purpose today is to report on the results of that survey. Also, at the pleasure of the committee, we will be glad to furnish any information regarding the program which the committee, or any member, may desire.

As of March 31, 1958, there are outstanding annual-contributions contracts for approximately 77,400 dwelling units which have not progressed to the point where construction has started. Incidentally, unless otherwise indicated, all figures contained in our statement will be as of March 31, 1958.

Senator SPARKMAN. Mr. Slusser, will you hold that just a minute? Senator Capehart wants to ask you a question.

Senator CAPEHART. You say there are

outstanding annual-contributions contracts for approximately 77,400 dwelling units which have not progressed to the point where construction has started.

Is that public housing units?

Mr. SLUSSER. That is correct. Senator CAPEHART. About 77,400. completed in the last 5 years?

Mr. SLUSSER. In the last 5 years? little later?

How many have you actually

May I furnish that for you a

Senator CAPEHART. Yes. What do you mean by "annual contributions"?

Mr. SLUSSER. They are contracts we have made with local housing authorities which pledged financial assistance to low-rent programs.

Senator CAPEHART. In other words, those are 77,400 units which the Federal Government is obligated to proceed with, according to the law?

Mr. SLUSSER. Those are firm contracts.

Senator CAPEHART. How many do you have or maybe you cover that later how many do you have in the process of being

Mr. SLUSSER. I will cover that later.

Senator CAPEHART. Let me ask you one other question. Is this not the largest total that we have had for many, many years-this 77,400? Mr. SLUSSER. I do not believe so, sir. In the early days of the program, I think, they were contracted for rather rapidly. Again, that would be history.

Senator CAPEHART. Is this the largest amount we have had in the last 5 years?

Mr. SLUSSER. No; it is not the largest amount. It has been somewhat reduced. We have had contracts outstanding for over 100,000 units. Senator CAPEHART. Roughly, how many public housing units are contracted for in the last 5 years? You do not have that figure?

Mr. SLUSSER. I do not want this to be a firm figure, but, as I recall in my mind, contracts for approximately 320,000 units have been entered into since the 1949 act. I do not want to get you confused on this. At the present time, there are a total of 430,000 units under management.

Senator CAPEHART. For example, this project in Indianapolis is part of that?

Mr. SLUSSER. That is correct, sir. The PWA project at Indianapolis is included in the 430,000 units under management.

Senator CAPEHART. Under the law, you have been mandated to sell those 420,000?

Mr. SLUSSER. The 320,000 figure relates to the 1949 Housing Act. I believe the figure is reasonably close.

Senator CAPEHART. You were mandated to sell them?

Mr. SLUSSER. Sir?

Senator CAPEHART. Were you not mandated by Congress to sell these?

Mr. SLUSSER. No, no. You probably have in mind the Lanham Act war housing projects and the federally owned PWA projects. If my memory serves me, there have been about 320,000 units contracted under the low-rent program since the 1949 act. There are, however, in management, 430,000 units.

Senator CAPEHART. Beyond that?

Mr. SLUSSER. Included in the 430,000 units are Lanham Act projects which were converted for low-rent use, PWA projects, and projects developed under the older acts.

Senator CAPEHART. I understand that. My question is: Have you not been mandated, however, by Congress, to sell those 420,000 units? Mr. SLUSSER. Oh, no, sir.

Senator CAPEHART. How many have you been mandated to sell? Mr. SLUSSER. We have been mandated to sell all of the PWA projects. There are only several of those projects left.

Senator CAPEHART. One of these is the project in Indianapolis! Mr. SLUSSER. Yes, sir. One of those is in Indianapolis.

Senator CAPEHART. You have only been mandated to sell the PWA projects and the Lanham? Where did the balance of the 420,000 units come from?

Mr. SLUSSER. They were developed under the orginal act of 1937, as amended from time to time, including the 1949 Housing Act.

There are also a few units of farm-labor camp housing, which was originally developed by the Department of Agriculture.

Senator CAPEHART. They were built under that act?

Mr. SLUSSER. Yes, sir.

Senator CAPEHART. I see.

Mr. SLUSSER. The authorization under the 1949 act, as you know, has been cut back several times by the Congress.

Senator CAPEHART. Thank you.

Senator SPARKMAN. I wonder, Mr. Slusser. You said you were going to furnish that figure. I wonder when you do it if you could not break it down and show the number each year?

Mr. SLUSSER. That have been constructed? Or do you want contracts and construction?

Senator SPARKMAN. I should think so, if you could give that for each of the years after the enactment of the 1949 act.

Mr. SLUSSER. Very good.

Senator SPARKMAN. Anything that came to you before that or as a result of the various war programs could just be shown as other housing units or however you may show it. But give us a breakdown. Mr. SLUSSER. We will give you a breakdown.

Senator SPARKMAN. Those that have come about since the enactment of the 1949 act.

Mr. SLUSSER. All right.

Senator SPARKMAN. Year by year.

Mr. SLUSSER. All right.

Senator SPARKMAN. I think that will answer his question.

[blocks in formation]

1 Only 2,899 are charged against the 70,000 units authorized by the 1956 act and the balance was against the 1955 authorization.

2 Units put under construction include 11,582 units constructed under the Housing Act of 1949 but initiated prior to the act; in addition there are 970 units contracted for prior to the Housing Act of 1949 which are expected to be built but are not yet under construction. Thus the total number of units under annual contribution contract but not under construction is 77,392.

« PreviousContinue »