Page images

Mr. Hays. Of course, the charge has been made oceasionally that because of its political character, to use the term broadly, costs are greater in this field than in the private housing field. You do not agree with that? General FARRELL. I do not agree with that; no, sir.

Mr. Hays. How would costs in the city of New York compare with costs in other cities?

General Farrell. I would only be guessing, and I would say the major cities should be comparable. In smaller cities they are probably lower. Labor rates are high in the major cities.

Mr. Hays. At least on a population basis? General FARRELL. I think so. Mr. Hays. In the Eightieth Congress, I had a formula in mind which might be of some encouragement to the cities to make special exertions to hold costs down: If you fixed a per unit cost, and then if there were excess per room or per unit, the city would suffer certain penalties from the Federal contribution. I have not made any studies on the pending bill to see whether my idea is adaptable to it, or to what extent it justifies new studies, but it seems to me that the Federal Government is entitled to impose some kind of restraint if we can work out a formula.

General FARRELL. I think, Mr. Congressman, the restraints are probably in controlling the standards, which you do control by law, and by administration. I may say that we are in the business rather in a large way now. In the past year we have taken bids on 18 large projects. There has been a considerable fluctuation. The large cost per room, on the same basis on which the Federal Government figures it, runs all the way from $2,000 up to $2,700. The $2,700 happens to be on Staten Island where we have excessive transportation costs. The bulk of those figures is below $2,500 per room, which is what the present bill provides for.

In the past 3 or 4 months prices have dropped about 7 percent. There is a slight dropping of prices. But we urge that you retain the present limits because there might be, in the life of this bill, 6 or 7 years, another increase in prices. But I think you can control it by your standards and in your supervision. Your agency sets the standards and the community has to live up to those standards. Th also supervise the bidding, so I think you can control it by Federal administration.

Mr. Hays. That is all. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further questions?
Mr. MULTER. Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Multer.

Mr. MULTER. General Farrell, just to clear up one thing, in answer to a question a few moments ago, you said there is some part of the city's debt limitation not yet used up for housing. I think that is made clear on the first page of the Mayor's statement. The city itself has exhausted all of its resources as far as housing is concerned.

General FARRELL. That is correct.

Mr. MULTER. What has not yet been fully committed is the $300,000,000 recently authorized by the State!

General FARRELL. That is right. The city is committed up to the authorized debt limit in the present program.

Mr. MULTER. What would you say the public housing authority for the city of New York has done to the morale of these communities which have been developed ?

General FARRELL. That is so self-evident that we hope some of you gentlemen will get a chance to go through the new developments and the adjacent slum areas. I wish you could take the trip.

Mr. MULTER. Juvenile delinquency has practically been totally eliminated in those areas?

General FARRELL. That is right. They are islands of decent living surrounded by bad areas.

Mr. Kunkel. Under your New York system, is the State obligated to make a series of contributions over a period of time?

Generall FARRELL. Yes, sir; quite similar to the Federal system. It is slightly different in operation, but it is quite parallel. Over the life of the bond issue, the State contributes an annual subsidy if required. I may say that over the past several years' operations we have not taken but something like 35 percent of the authorized subsidy, if you will, from either the State or the United States in the operation of our projects. We have never reached the full amount.

Mr. KUNKEL. Does the obligation run for 40 years?

General FARRELL. It runs for the life of the bonds, which may be 40, 42, or 43 years. The maximum in the State is now 50, although they usually run 42 or 43 years.

Mr. COLE. Do you envision the complete elimination of all the slums on Manhattan Island!

General FARRELL. No, sir; not for a long time. I envision the elimination of the worst of them, with this program, the State's program, and the city's program, over the next 10 years. But there are 400,000 old tenements in the city of New York. Some have been improved, but it is going to take a long time to get rid of them all.

Mr. COLE. I think that from what I know of your program, New York City and State have been doing a very fine job. I think some of the other cities in the country could well take note of your municipality's operation, because I do believe you are attempting to do what you can, within your limitations, locally. I do want to comment, however, on your statement about the total authorized limit. There may be some question of how far you should extend that authorization, or the restriction, on levies for public housing. I do not know how far you can go.

General FARRELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. MONRONEY. General Farrell, yesterday one of the witnesses before the committee charged that the upper income limits of people who could move into these housing projects ran as high as $3,600 a year, and in some cases as high as $1,000, and still be eligible for admission to public-housing projects.

General FARRELL. I think some of those limits, under the State-aided program, will run that high, because the veterans, under the State program, get a special higher limitation over and above that of the nonveterans. That special authorization expires in 2 or 3 years. But the veterans do get a higher limitation.

I may say, however, Mr. Monroney, that in the administration of this selection, those with lower income get preference. While the legal top may be those limits, if there are two people equally in need of housing, the man with the lower income will get in first.

Mr. MONRONEY. As a matter of fact, do you know what the average income is in New York?

General FARRELL. In our housing?
General FARRELL. Including the old and the new?

General FARRELL. If I were guessing, I would say somewhere between $2,000 and $2,500, particularly the old housing has people with very low incomes. Some of the new housing, with veterans' priorities, has a higher average.

Mr. MONRONEY. There are so many demands that it always goes to the person with the lower income!

General FARRELL. That is right.

Mr. KUNKEL. General Farrell, what happens when a man gets in, who is in the low-income bracket, and then his income increases! That seems to be a problem in the war housing and Lanham Act projects. How do you handle that in New York?

General FARRELL. We are starting proceedings right now to get those out, particularly in the older housing projects, in which we were restrained until the 1st of April from putting them out. We have already served notices on some five or six hundred tenants. Proceedings are under way. It takes some time, because in each of those cases where they do not get out by persuasion, they have a right to go to court to


but that is under way right now.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions?
(No response.)
The CHAIRMAN. If not, you may stand aside, General.

You have been a very acceptable substitute for the mayor of New York, and we were very glad to have you.

General FARRELL. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mayor Thomas D'Alesandro of Baltimore is our next witness.

It is very pleasant to have with us a former esteemed colleague who has since become the chief executive of one of the great American cities, and to have him come back to give us the benefit of his experience and knowledge on this subject.

We are very glad to have you.

Mayor D'ALESANDRO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. I think it is quite a different feeling sitting down here, too.



Mayor D'ALESANDRO. My name is Thomas D'Alesandro, Jr. I am mayor of Baltimore and chairman of the standing committee on leg. islation of the United States Conference of Mayors, the membership of which comprises practically all of the larger cities of the Nation. Approximately 60,000,000 American people live in the cities represented in our organization.

I am appearing here before this committee to record the support of the United States Conference of Mayors for H. R. 4009. The con

ference of mayors has had a consistent record of support for a broad slum-clearance and public-housing program.

As early as 1935 it took affirmative action in support of a national public-housing program. Each of our annual conferences, since 1937, has gone on record in favor of an expanded public housing program. We vigorously backed S. 866 in the Eightieth Congress.

My own interest in the problems created by bad housing and slums precedes my connection with the United States Conference of Mayors. The city in which I was born and grew up, and of which I am now mayor, has slum areas as bad as any in the country and I have long realized the need for remedial action. During my nearly 10 years in Congress, I was further impressed with the fact that bad housing is not confined to a few large cities but exists in practically all urban areas, and in many rural sections as well. The need for action is Nation-wide.

Earlier this year I had the privilege of appearing on behalf of the conference of mayors, before the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency in support of S. 138, which subsequently became S. 1070, the housing bill

which has just been overwhelmingly approved in the Senate. Since H. R. 4009 corresponds very closely with the Senate bill, my remarks today will necessarily be similar to the statement I made before the Senate committee.

There is probably no single group which is more aware of all the remifications of the housing and slum-clearance problem than the Nation's mayors. In the last few years our offices have been besieged by distressed citizens pleading for assistance in finding homes for their families. We know of the disrupting effect of the housing shortage upon normal family life, of the families which have broken up, of the children who have had no proper homes during their growing years, and of the marriages which have had to be postponed.

The postwar housing shortage has made the headlines but it is only one aspect of the problem. The evil effects of our slums and blighted areas are more basic than a temporary shortage, and have long been a major concern to the Nation's mayors. We are familiar with the toll that these areas have taken as breeders of crime and disease, and the price paid in warped and twisted lives. Through studies made by various city agencies we have learned of the excessive municipal costs in these areas for public health, fire protection, police protection, and similar services. You have undoubtedly heard the figures which have been collected to prove these points and I will not take your time to cite them again.

The Nation's mayors have been the closest observers of past efforts to remedy these conditions. We know that private enterprise is unable to touch the housing needs of our low-income families despite the notoriously inaccurate claims of certain selfish interests. Private enterprise has not been able to handle this problem in the past and there is no evidence that it would be more successful in the future. If private enterprise could do what has been claimed for it by some who indicate that they are representing the building interests, we would not now have any slums. I do not blame private enterprise for this, but I do blame the exaggerated claims made by the realestate lobby.

The mayors of this country are completely convinced that public low-rent housing is the only means of providing decent housing for our low-income families. Let me quote you some very impressive figures on this point. Last year a subcommittee of the Joint Committee on Housing under Senator Wagner sent questionnaires to all governors, all mayors of cities over 50,000, and to a number of prominent citizens. Here are some of the results:

1. Practically all of the mayors replying reported that their cities contained a substantial number of low-income families living in slums or other substandard housing conditions.

2. Nine out of ten mayors agreed that within the foreseeable future private enterprise could not provide decent housing, new or old, for these low-income families at rents or costs they could afford.

3. On the other hand, 93 percent of the mayors of cities with existing low-rent public housing reported that these projects, to the extent that they had been provided, were adequately serving low-income families. All said that they had been built and operated efficiently, and that conditions of health, delinquency, and crime had been improved. More than five-sixths of them thought that the cost of city services in the neighborhoods had been reduced and real estate values increased. All agreed that the projects are not presently competitive with private housing of acceptable standards, and only one mayor indicated that the projects had ever presented any such competition.

4. Sixty-seven out of seventy mayors favored continuation of Federal assistance to local communities in providing public low-rent housing.

This last figure is, I think, really amazing. If any of the charges which have been made against public housing were at all true, certainly the mayors would know, since they have seen public housing operate at close range. If these charges were true there would have been many more mayor's opposed to a continuation of the program than a mere 3 out of 70. I can think of no other public issue which could command such complete agreement among mayors.

I have mentioned the charges which have been made against public housing. Let me dispose of a few of them briefly.

It has been alleged that public housing is not serving low-income families and that many upper-income families are residing in public Jow-rent housing projects. It is true that in the period after the war there were a number of families whose incomes exceeded the limits for continued occupancy. This was primarily due to the fact that during the war a number of projects were diverted from their original purpose and were used to house war workers regardless of income. This diversion was, of course, authorized by Congress. When the war was over, these projects reverted to their low-rent status, but it was impossible immediately to remove the overincome families due to the housing shortage. These families have, however, been removed as fast as local circumstances permitted.

In Baltimore, for example, the program for removing overincome families started in May 1947. We have about 5,000 low-rent dwellings in Baltimore, and at that time about 1,000 families were over the limits for continued occupancy. A certain proportion moved out each month, but even so the number continued to rise to a peak of 1,200 in February 1948, since this was a period of rising incomes and additional families became ineligible. Now, however, I am informed by the housing authority of Baltimore that, as of the end of March of this year, there were only 416 ineligible families in our low-rent

« PreviousContinue »