(The following was later received for the record:) At the hearing before the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency on February 14, Senator Maybank asked Mrs. Stone to make specific suggestions as to agencies that should have the responsibility for administering child care programs under S. 349. Mrs. Stone said she would contact the representatives of the organizations for whom she had testified to see whether they could agree on a statement covering the point in question. The statement agreed upon follows: "We urge that responsibility for programs for groups of children 3 years of age and upward be vested in the Office of Education, with administration by State departments and local boards of education. This would use existing machinery and personnel with valuable experience in such programs and would insure the maintenance of established standards for nursery schools and kindergartens. "For welfare programs for infants and young children not dealt with in groups, we believe that the responsibility should rest with the Children's Bureau working through the appropriate local agencies." Agreed to by: American Home Economics Association. Association for Childhood Education International. National Council of Jewish Women. United Council of Church Women. Senator IVES. I am wondering if a lot of this could not be handled and should not be handled at the State level. The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Senator IVES. Rather than the Federal level. The CHAIRMAN. Doesn't the Office of Education do that? Mrs. STONE. Yes. Senator IVES. The reason I raise the point is because in the last war I think almost all matters of this kind were handled through the New York State War Council, which went into the whole thing very extensively. Mrs. STONE. The actual programs, and it should be done at the State level, but I also want to plead for not having the children left until last in the Federal plans. The CHAIRMAN. I am hopeful that Senator Ives' suggestion that the States can because the State level knows more about it than in Washington. Senator IVES. The educational facilities are largely a State matter. The CHAIRMAN. Entirely so. Senator IVES. State and local. You have to have your coordination primarily there, although I can see your point with respect to Federal Government responsibility when it comes to developing overall programs. Mrs. STONE. That was all I meant. The CHAIRMAN. Any questions? Thank you, Mrs. Stone. The witnesses for tomorrow will be from the American Municipal Association; Veterans of Foreign Wars; and Howard Elliott of St. Louis. The meeting now stands in recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. (Whereupon, at 11:50 a. m., the meeting was recessed.) DEFENSE HOUSING ACT THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 1951 UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY, Washington, D. C. The committee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to recess, in room 301, Senate Office Building, Senator Burnet R. Maybank (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators Maybank, Robertson, and Schoeppel. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please be in order. The first witnesses this morning will be the representatives of the American Municipal Association. Mr. Perrin, will you come up, sir? I might say that, in view of the fact that I understand the first three witnesses are gentlemen representing the American Municipal Association, if Mayor Weeks, of Aiken, desires to come up where he can probably hear better, we would be glad to have him as well as Mr. Harrell, the city manager of Norfolk, Va. Please come up and have a seat at the table. I might say that Senator Robertson and Senator Sparkman intend to be here in a little while. Since the Senate meets at 12 o'clock, any testimony they may miss they will read in the record, I am sure, as well as the other 94 Senators. STATEMENT OF RICHARD W. E. PERRIN, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, HOUSING AUTHORITY, MILWAUKEE, WIS. Mr. PERRIN. My name is Richard W. E. Perrin. I am the executive director of the Milwaukee Housing Authority and I am appearing here on behalf of our mayor, the Honorable Frank P. Zeidler, under the sponsorship of the American Municipal Association. If it please the committee, I would like to offer for the record a prepared statement of the American Municipal Association which has been filed with the clerk. I should like also to offer a statement which has been prepared by the mayor, the Honorable Frank P. Zeidler, which is fully documented and states his position on the bill being heard by this committee, S. 349, the Defense Housing and Community Facilities and Services Act of 1951. The CHAIRMAN. What is the second statement you offered? Mr. PERRIN. That it was one prepared by Mayor Zeidler which I am also offering for the record. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the statement by the mayor will be made part of the record. The Chair hears none. (The statement referred to follows:). OFFICE OF THE MAYOR, MILWAUKEE The honorable the SENATE BANKING AND CURRENCY COMMITTEE, GENTLEMEN: Mr. Richard W. E. Perrin, executive secretary of the Milwaukee Housing Authority, has been authorized by me to present my views on the proposed "defense housing and community facilities and services bill of 1951." I have previously noted in a telegram to the committee my apprehension that the Federal program of low-rent housing under the Housing Act of 1949 is in jeopardy. My statement on the proposed bill outlines a potential similar conflict to that being waged over the Housing Act of 1949. Yours respectfully, FRANK P. ZEIDLER, Mayor. STATEMENT OF RICHARD W. E. PERRIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, HOUSING AUTHORITY, MILWAUKEE, WIS. The principal purpose of my appearance before your Honorable Body at this time is to present a statement of the Honorable Frank P. Zeidler, mayor of Milwaukee, concerning bill S. 349, “Defense Housing and Community Facilities and Services Act of 1951." My authorization for appearing in behalf and instead of Mayor Zeidler is attested by letter attached and hereby submitted for the record. I am in full accord with Mayor Zeidler's stated position concerning the bill. For sake of emphasis, however, I take the liberty of stressing a few points that I consider to be particularly important. The principal burden to the community engaged in production for defense is that of housing in-migrant industrial workers and their families. Production centers such as Milwaukee are a magnet to which literally thousands of families attach themselves. Many of these in-migrant families are of the rural, nonfarm category which normally pose somewhat of an unemployment problem in many smaller communities. The impact of this in-migration upon the large industrial center comes at a time when the community is actively engaged in a joint program of slum clearance and low-rent housing, and resisting energetically the attempts of vested groups to thwart the program. Milwaukee, for instance, has just begun in a small way its program of blight elimination and low rent public housing, using the financial aid of the Federal Government made possible by title I and title III of the Housing Act of 1949. Aside of being required to defend its program, modest as it is, there now arises a problem of an increasing population due to the attraction of employment in defense industries. Employers, themselves, are aware of this situation as attested by the advertisement appearing in the Milwaukee Sentinel, Sunday, February 4, 1951, hereto attached as exhibit A. Generally in-migrant war workers are people of small means. They seek out the cheapest accommodations that appear to be available which, unfortunately, are generally those rooming houses, light housekeeping quarters, and similar accommodations found almost exclusively in the blighted and deteriorated areas of the city. The pressure of this added population greatly militates against blight clearance activities which may be contemplated in these areas. The social problems engendered by a congested population and inadequate facilities is noticeably aggravated by this influx. Bill S. 349, in declaring the desirability of building primarily for rental purposes rather than for sale, is unquestionably a sound approach, since it is probable that an adequate supply of housing will be produced for sale purposes under existing conditions. This is indicated by the record volume of home construction that has continued into January of 1951. Concerning the type of rental housing to be provided, it is abundantly clear that the rentals produced by any program similar to that of the so-called section 608 program will not meet the need of the average defense worker, in-migrant or otherwise. For example, one local 608 project, consisting of 130 two-bedroom units, rents for $110 per month provided a 3-year lease is entered into, $115 in the event of a 2-year lease, and $125 in the event of 1-year lease. This is shelter rent for a four-room unit in an apartment-type building without basement, garage, or automobile parking facilities and without the cost of heat, hot water, and other utilities. The total rental cost is therefore probably around $160 a month. In a somewhat less expensive section 608 project of 48 units, consisting also of four rooms each, the rentals range from $92.50 to $99 per month providing a 3year lease is entered into. This rental includes heat. In this particular project, an addition is under construction in which a 10-percent increase in the stated rentals is contemplated. In still another section 608 project, consisting of 16 three-room units containing one bedroom each, the rental is $85 including heat providing a 2-year lease is entered into. According to the inspector of buildings of the city of Milwaukee almost half of roughly 6,300 units, which were built in the city of Milwaukee during 1950, are one bedroom units. In most of these apartments, therefore, it would be impossible to accommodate more than one child even if the landlord did accept children. The fact of the matter is, however, that most privately built housing, particularly of recent date, is being rented to the exclusion of all children. Recognizing, therefore, that the rent range produced in the 608 projects seems to be from $85 to $125, it is equally clear that any extension thereof, or the use of a plan which is essentially the same, could hardly be expected to produce rentals which would be any more favorable. The emphasis, therefore, must clearly be on that type of rental housing which will produce rentals within the paying ability of the type of defense worker who is in the greatest need of shelter within his ability to pay. Section 2 (6), in providing that housing constructed by government shall consist of one- to four-family dwelling structures, so arranged that they may be offered for separate sale, is undoubtedly a wise provision. It is suggested, however, that the limit be increased to include six- and eight-family dwelling structures which, for reasons of planning and construction economy, may be more desirable in certain instances. Single-family dwellings, particularly, are not generally considered as ideal rental units from the point of view of economical construction and operation. In requiring that the buildings be so disposed that they may be offered for separate sale, it is suggested that no limitation be imposed which would preclude the disposition of the entire project to another governmental agency, such as a housing authority, for relocation housing in its slum-clearance operations, thus relieving the Administration of the problem of a half owned project which disposition by individual building might entail. This is not to say that the physical plan of the project should preclude the sale on an individual basis. As a matter of fact, the permanent veterans' housing projects, undertaken with municipal aid by the Milwaukee Housing Authority, were planned so that each building is a marketable entity, situated on a platted lot with proper front, rear, and side yards according to local ordinance. A sketch of one of these projects, Northlawn, demonstrating this point, is hereto attached and marked "Exhibit B." Concerning the cost of dwelling units proposed under title II of the bill, the limits prescribed in section 203 would appear to require some clarification as to whether $9,000 for two-bedroom units, $10,000 for three-bedroom units, and $11,000 for four-bedroom units is the cost of the buildings or the cost of land and buildings including all improvements. The setting up of dollar cost limits on a dwelling unit basis, without providing for a permissive increment at the discretion of the Administrator, appears to be somewhat unrealistic in view of the continuing tendency to inflation. Finally, while it is recognized that bill S. 349 provides essentially for standby authority at this time so that the best possible job may be done with defense housing and community facilities and services when, where, and if the need arises, the long standing needs and unfulfilled hopes of the communities must not be ignored. Defense housing must result in more than a routine effort to provide shelter for defense workers. It must complement the community's long-term effort to eliminate its blighted areas and provide housing for its low incomeminority as well as its veterans in need of help, and above all else at this time it must reach those defense workers who are most in need of decent shelter for themselves and their families at rents they are able to pay. The CHAIRMAN. Do you wish to read this statement of the American Municipal Association or just highlight it? Mr. PERRIN. Just insert it in the record. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the statement of the American Municipal Association will be inserted. (The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN MUNICIPAL ASSOCIATION, CHICAGO, ILL. Municipal governments in the United States are apprehensive of effects upon local governments of huge industrial and military expansions which will be occasioned in many localities as a result of American preparations for national defense. Heavily impacted municipalities will be no more able in the immediate future to finance vast and suddenly increased demands for capital improvements and expansion of services than they were in the period of World War II. Nonetheless, to serve rapidly expanded populations and installations new housing and additional community facilities and services must necessarily be provided. The American Municipal Association, the national federation of 10,300 municipal governments and their State leagues of municipalities, expresses in this statement its appreciation for the understanding of the staggering scope of the fiscal problem of supplying essential additional facilities and services which the chairman of this committee has demonstrated in the defense housing and community facilities and services bill of 1951, S. 349. Municipal governments realize their responsibilities in the defense program and want to be able to discharge them fully. The United States Government can count on all-out cooperation of the municipalities. During World War II and the period just preceding it, the Federal Government expanded war production and war training facilities rapidly. The population of many unincorporated areas was multiplied several times over, and even cities of 150,000 or 200,000 found themselves suddenly in need of scores of rew policemen and firemen to protect new war plants. Many communities were like Alexandria, La. which found itself surrounded by training camps with soldiers numbering five times its own population. Still other places were required to extend sewers, water mains, and streets to accommodate new plants. Even more urgent in many cases was the need for new schools. Federal assistance for the construction of physical facilities and operations of schools, police and fire departments was given. This was justified in part by the fact that so many of the new plants, camps, or other installations were located in unincorporated areas with little or no reserve taxing power, or in the more isolated sections of the larger cities. Furthermore, as the defense program is expanded in 1951 and 1952, there will probably be a tendency to go still further into more remote areas where no public facilities now exist. The purpose of legislation such as S. 349 is to permit the rapid expansion of the defense program without imposing an unfair share of National Government responsibilities on a limited number of municipalities or people. Any steps toward dispersion and decentralization of the Federal Establishment will further prove the need for Federal financial assistance to offset sudden increases in the scope and costs of local government services and facilities. Statistics available to the association show Federal expenditures of $358,333,362 for public works necessitated as a result of military and war-connected industrial installations and expansions in every State and in the Territories up to June 30, 1949, under the Lanham Act and successor acts, and Federal expenditures of $115,124,495 in Federal grants to help finance local public services which were necessarily expanded in the same period under the Lanham Act programs. Federal grants and loans to local governments, or direct Federal expenditures went into 4,059 public works projects (water and sewer plants, schools, streets, etc.) and into 3,150 public service projects (additional personnel, maintenance, etc., of fire and police services, hospitals, schools, etc.). Federal expenditures for war-connected community public works were almost equally divided between assistance to local governments and direct Federal expenditures for construction. Assistance totaled $179,129,589, consisting of $171,014,473 in grants and $8,115,116 in loans, and direct Federal expenditures requiring no local sharing of the cost totaled $179,203,773. A total of 4,059 public works projects were undertaken, 2,228 of which constituted projects in which the Federal Government extended assistance in the form of grants or loans and 1,831 of which were built and financed by the Federal Government directly. The 4,059 projects were made up of the following: 1,241 schools, 874 hospitals, 459 water projects, 446 sewer projects, 716 recreation projects, 160 police and fire projects, 86 street or highway projects, and 77 projects of other kinds. For the 2,228 projects financed jointly, the Federal Government provided $179,129,589 in grants and loans and the municipalities provided $99,533,050. |