STATEMENT OF STATE REPRESENTATIVE EMMETT S. ROBERTS, OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLA., CHAIRMAN OF FLORIDA'S INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE ON MIGRANT FARM LABOR, IN SUPPORT OF H. R. 11793 For the information of the committee, I have been chairman since 1955 of the Governor's committee on migrant farm labor studying the problems of agricultural migratory labor in the State of Florida. In addition, I have been closely associated with the migrant farm labor problem since 1940 in Palm Beach County, Fla., an area which has one of the largest concentrations of this labor in the country during the winter vegetable season. I have served in past years, not only as a camp manager of a housing project for this labor, but also as a member of various local groups and State committees working with the migrant labor. I am also Florida's representative on the Council of State Governments' committee. My observations, therefore, represent not only our State committee but other interested citizens and organizations. First, our State committee placed housing as the No. 1 problem in the migrant agricultural labor field in our State. Certainly there are many other problems, some of which coexist with housing; however, we have felt that improvements in housing conditions must come first. In our opinion, this improvement can be accomplished by (1) strengthening our sanitary and building codes and providing proper inspection to insure enforcement of these laws and (2) a Federal-assistance program of making available to farmers or farmer associations long-term insured loans for construction or improvement of migrant farm housing. The loans, of course, would require certain minimum standards in order to provide adequate, decent, and sanitary housing. It is our committee's opinion that H. R. 11793, introduced by Congressman Paul Rogers, will materially assist in accomplishing the goal of improvement in the migrant housing problem. Due to certain conditions existing in the agricultural economy, many farmers find it impossible to obtain credit from private sources for this type construction. Even if they should be fortunate enough to obtain a loan, it is almost entirely of short-term duration, making repayment almost impossible if the farmer incurs 1 or 2 bad years. It is our hope that consideration can be given to H. R. 11793 to ease the necessity of a farmer's having to practically declare himself a pauper in order to obtain a present Government loan. A farmer can obtain operating credit from various credit sources, which on the face of it makes it appear that he has assets that would enable him to secure a loan for capital expenditure. However, financing of crops and financing of permanent migrant housing cannot be compared. It is also felt that in some areas associations of farmers or State agencies, if made eligible, would find it more feasible and efficient to construct and operate larger housing camps than an individual farmer with a small labor requirement. Larger camps could facilitate State regulations in the field of health and sanitation services. There is a considerable awakening throughout the country regarding the plight of the migrant worker, and the necessity of taking positive action on both the local and Federal approaches is apparent. We feel that H. R. 11793 is a positive step-financially sound and socially desirable. We, therefore, would appreciate having the record show the strong endorsement of H. R. 11793 by Florida's Interagency Committee on Migrant Agricultural Labor. We wish to thank the subcommittee on Housing of the Committee on Banking and Currency, of the House of Representatives, for the opportunity to express our views on H. R. 11793. [Telegram] Hon. ALBERT RAINS, NEW YORK, N. Y., July 14, 1958. Chairman, Banking and Currency Subcommittee, Appreciate your reading into records following re housing legislation under consideration in your committee. Citizens' committee for children urges support of provision which allows autonomy to local authority, which permit pur chase or extended occupancy by overincome families in public-housing units. Also urgently needed is long-term planning for urban renewal. CITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR CHILDREN OF New York CITY, INC., Hon. J. ARTHUR YOUNGER, MENLO PARK, CALIF., July 1, 1958. House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: In view of the current emphasis upon education which I feel confident that you as well as ourselves regard as valid, we wish to call your attention to an amendment to the cooperative housing section of FHA which, in our judgment, would remove the barriers that prevent some students from acquiring an education. The amendment that we refer to would permit direct loans at 3 percent to certain nonprofit organizations providing housing for university students. Such an amendment would facilitate the extension of housing on a low-cost basis. For example, we are informed that cooperative housing at the University of California costs much less than that in the regular university dormitories. Based upon 12 years of association with a small university during which time we intimately knew the problems of students, and subsequent conversations with students and parents, expenses are still a major consideration in deciding whether to send a young person to university. Some are not able to pass this barrier. DEAR CONGRESSMAN YOUNGER: I am writing to you to urge that you support an amendment to the college housing program which would authorize direct Federal loans to certain nonprofit organizations providing housing for university students. When I attended the University of California, I lived in the University Students Cooperative Association, which would be one of the organizations covered by the proposed amendment. Without the low-cost housing provided by this association, I would not have been able to finish my education. I believe anything that can be done to aid the enactment of this provision would be in the best interest of the country. Very truly yours, HAET, DOMINGUEZ, SPEISER & WILLIAMS, By LAWRENCE SPEISER. MENLO PARK, CALIF., July 9, 1958. Hon. J. ARTHUR YOUNGER, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: I respectfully request that you give full support to an amendment to the Housing Act of 1950, introduced as Senate bill 3855, extending the coverage of the college housing program to make cooperative, nonprofit, student housing associations eligible for low-interest-bearing loans. This legislation is of particular importance to us in California, since such a large number of students at the University of California at Berkeley are furnished board and lodging through the University Students Cooperative Association. This organization, since its inception in 1933, has provided accommodations for thousands of students who would have otherwise experienced extreme financial difficulty. Many would not have been able to attend the university. While a student, I was manager of the University Students Cooperative Association. Although it is 20 years since I graduated from the university. I have maintained interest in student housing problems and know that there is a continuing need for low-cost, decent, safe, and sanitary accommodations for students at Berkeley and at other universities throughout the country. The cooperative association has proven its ability to provide such accommodations at just over one-half the cost in university dormitories. Your support of this amendment to the Housing Act will be much appreciated. Respectfully yours, WILLIAM E. SPANGLE, Jr. SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. FRED R. BRUNETTI, INC., GENTLEMEN: The following are some suggestions that I wish to have recommended to the members of the Subcommittee on Housing of the House of Representatives at the time this subcommittee holds its hearing with reference to the new housing bill: 1. Eliminate the rent control on all 608 and 207. Allow the locality that desires rent control to have jurisdiction. 2. Increase the 207 loans to become 100 percent of the certified costs. This will encourage builders to construct rental units, and eliminate the windfall problem. 3. The interest rate on 207's should be 5 percent, the same as 222's and 213's, in order to eliminate discounts (finder's fee) demanded by lending institutions. 4. We should drop the United States savings and loan proposal (FHA to insure top 20 percent of a 90-percent conventional loan) completely because it favors exclusively savings and loan institutions who, generally, do not handle the volume builder. In place of this proposal, suggest a 100-percent loan with a 60-percent guaranty with maximum of $7,500, the same as the present GI loan. This new legislation should be made available to all civilians, and should be administered by the FHA. This would stimulate building in a sufficient volume to have a definite effect on the present recession. With the FHA handling the program, the possibilities of runaway inflated prices is greatly controlled, due to their procedures and stabilized cost analysis. 5. The GI loan should be discontinued in its entirety and the act allowed to die. The VA handling GI loans then could be disbanded, and the elimination of this agency would effect tremendous savings to the Government, especially when we have two agencies performing the same function. May I respectfully request that your committee seriously consider the above proposals, as I believe they are vital to the housing program of the Nation. Very truly yours, FRED R. BRUNETTI, President. THE CAUSE OF HOUSING DESIGNED FOR SINGLE PERSONS OF ALL AGES Statement by Mrs. Jency Price Houser, National Legislative Representative Mr. Chairman and members of the Housing Subcommittee of the House Banking and Currency Committee, my name is Jency Price Houser, legislative representative for the cause of housing designed for permanent occupancy by mature single (unattached) persons-but, more especially, business, professional, and retired women. For over 10 years now I have represented single persons needing a way of obtaining their own housing. In 1950, I was instrumental in having added to the National Housing Act subsection (g) of section 213, reading as follows: "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prevent the insurance of a mortgage under this section covering a housing project designed for occupancy by single persons, and dwelling units in such a project shall constitute family units within the meaning of this section." This was the first time, to our knowledge, that single individuals had been even recognized in the act. In 1955, I presented the first statement bringing this need to the attention of your committee, and have followed through each year since with a statement. all of them having been printed in the volumes of official hearings. Quotations from many parts of the country were printed therein. They were from governors, mayors, city-council members, housing officials, lawyers, ministers, labor leaders, teachers, writers, social workers, architects, government officials, organization directors, women's club leaders, and accountants, as well as from employed and retired single individuals, including widows. What they said is as true now as then. Another series of such diversified, documented support, on a national basis, is a part of this statement, and I can assure you that it is but a brief selection, typical of what we have received during the last few months. Let me also give you some recent statistics, which I believe will help you to see why such a program would tend toward housing women in particular. In January 1958, the Reader's Digest quoted an article which appeared in Harper's magazine in October 1957, saying in part: "There are now about a million and a half more women than men in the United States, and the Census Bureau predicts that by 1975 women will outnumber men by perhaps as many as 3,600,000. This growing surplus is likely to cause some interesting changes in American society-in our courting and marriage habits, family life, the job market, even politics. *** at present there are 7,700,000 widows in the United States, a good proportion of them in their early 50's and many in a precarious economic position." The quotations from single women in this statement will show what is meant by "precarious." Based upon those figures, and upon information which has come to us over the years, we believe a conservative estimate of the immediate need of housing would be for 2 million single persons. (This would be the equivalent of almost 4,000 in each of our congressional districts.) As a result of a special survey during the last few weeks, I have received further written evidence of the desperate need of a housing program for lone women, in nearly all of the United States. It is not only the constant creeping upward of rental requirements that these people are having to cope with; the quality of housing which many are forced to occupy is beneath the dignity of American women. They are priced out and designed out of the housing market. Single women do not often want to live out in the suburbs, but they cannot afford the luxury apartments and developments being built within the city. There are hundreds of thousands caught financially between the public housing programs set up for poor people and those set up for wealthy people. They are, for practical purposes, left out of our overall housing program in this country today, and are thereby forced to be ever on the move. One woman Government enployee living here in Washington, D. C., told me a few days ago that she moved 13 times between 1941 and 1950, and is still trying to find a suitable place to live within her means. Some of the reasons given to me for this constant forced moving by single women are: (1) Creeping increases in rentals, about which they have no say, but have to pay or move. (2) Changes to undesirable management, about which they have no say, but have to endure or move. (3) Sale of property, about which they have no say, but have to move. (4) Cutting down on services, about which they have no say, but have to endure or move. (5) Retirement necessitating a cheaper place, or frequently the rent is raised specifically and they have to pay or move. Then there are problems of becoming misplaced or displaced persons, due to various expansion programs or highway and urban-renewal programs; these too create an even greater shortage of the bits and pieces of housing which often constitute the living quarters of single women. This complex and humiliating housing problem is not brought about usually through any fault or shortcoming of these people, except the fact that women do exist. This need for proper housing for them has been neglected and/or perhaps ignored for many, many years, and now with a quickened sense of the increasing presence of the elderly it is staring us in the face. It is my firm belief that if our retired people of today had been offered, even 10 years ago, when we first began working on the problem, a workable and attractive housing program, some preventive mutual plan such as ours, much of our present crisis would not exist. In surveys among single persons I found that only about 32 percent of them pay 20 percent of their income or less for rent. The others indicated that they pay from 20 to 150 percent of their income for housing; 30 percent indicated that they pay between 20 and 30 percent, over 22 percent indicated that they pay between 30 and 40 percent, over 7 percent pay between 40 and 50 percent, and 8 percent pay between 50 and 150 percent. There were more than twice as many 28431-58-44 paying over 20 percent than paying 20 percent or less. It was interesting to note that while a large percentage of those paying from 40 percent and up are retired or in semiretirement, a number of employed single women are paying upwards of two-thirds of their income for housing, in places not designed for single-person occupancy, and against which they receive no financial interest in the property. While our long-range figures for the need of such housing have indicated that two-thirds of the single people are employed and one-third retired, this particular group came to 40 percent retired and 60 percent employed. We believe that the natural age trend for housing designed for single-person families should be onethird retired or elderly and two-thirds working persons. We recommend this as a national noninstitutional formula, for credit purposes, as well as for a natural and happy way of living. We firmly believe that housing designed for the single person is essential for housing designed for elderly citizens, and housing designed for elderly citizens should be tied into housing designed for single persons. Most women are single at least twice in life, and many of us more than twice. Allowing and encouraging single people (beginning with those not acceptable to the YWCA) to share in some attractive form of a mutual housing program will enable them to help pay off mortgages or other such obligations while younger and earning more. By the time they reach retirement age, much of their major financial indebtedness will have been paid off and result in lower rentals at the time of retirement-when incomes are usually much lower. Also it would give more than one generation of workers a chance to help pay for the housing. This is just the opposite of what is happening to these people now, many of whom when they retire must either pay higher rentals or become pilgrims to roam without a home. But to our knowledge, there had been no encouragement and there had been no planning to help take care of this national need, until my colleagues and I took a forward-looking and energetic interest a few years ago. With single people themselves, we have labored to develop the research and planning that has been done to date, including such things as the type of housing unit and site selection desired, and an acceptable, workable, and safe system from a financing standpoint, keeping always in mind the potential ability of these patriotic, worthy citizens to pay for such housing on some mutually agreed upon plan. Many of them, however, may give up and drift into lonely charitable or semicharitable cases, if sufficient hope and proper help is not given in time. In the case of senior citizens, either their retirement income must be increased substantially, or the cost of housing must come down. It is a question whether both are not necessary. Such housing as advocated here will build up the morale of these citizens, and will surely help to remove the fear that is likely the cause of much mental and physical illness. It stands to reason that when worries of obtaining proper housing (a permanent residence) vanish, these people can and will become goodwill ambassadors, here and abroad, thus raising the American standard of living-in a very real sense. All they need is a chance. During the past years we have tried in every way that we know how to get financial leadership including in the form of a temporary revolving fund loan. You will remember my appeal for a $10 million direct national revolving fund loan, at a fair rate of interest, in each of my 4 previous statements to you. A $50 million direct national revolving fund loan for this purpose is more in line now, since a financial and industrial crisis does exist, and such a loan will harness and bring into the housing market a large untapped supply of money from single persons themselves. If such financial leadership by the Government can be permitted to come into being, it will enable single women to know that their savings will be reasonably safe, should they participate financially. This group of forgotten citizens, forgotten insofar as the housing field is concerned, should not be expected to advance any part of their small savings as equity, or other similar thing, until such financial leadership and some assurance of protection as I have described above is forthcoming. These women are already taking a beating, and have been for years. There has always been the tight-money policy, insofar as these single women are concerned, single women, of any age, having been erroneously considered or I might say labeled "poor credit risks" without scarcely a second thought or consideration by some who were in a position to help. These women will be most conscientious in paying for their housing-if given a fair chance. |