Mr. INGLIS. Yes.

Mr. BANTA. In other words, you believe that the power that the Taft-Ellender-Wagner bill gives to the central agency to control all persons who benefit under this law is a salutary thing?

Mr. INGLIS. Our relationships with the Public Housing Administration and their regulations have been generally harmonious, and we do not feel that they have been arbitrary.

Mr. BANTA. Have you ever analyzed this bill with a view to determining how much power this one agency here in Washington would have over all persons as well as all authorities which sought benefits under this law?

Mr. VAN ANTWERP. Mr. Banta, talking about the political implications of this work. Let me show you how it works out, if I may, on this public housing. I was one of those, when I sat on the common council, who was an advocate of this Parkside, which was the first project in Detroit. We had very bitter opposition from the people around that neighborhood. I voted and worked for Parkside and it went through as a public-housing project. When I ran for office last fall, every precinct in Parkside housing voted against me, and every precinct around voted for me two to one. The people who were opposed to public housing.

Mr. BANTA. Mr. Mayor, I was not thinking in terms of political implications. Not at all. I was thinking in terms of the power over the lives and over the local authorities, and even over the purse strings of the Government which this bill gives. My inquiry was, Have you ever made any study to determine just how much power is given to one agency? Mr. Boggs asked you whether or not you might not have the same opposition of persons to public housing if you financed and managed that locally and independent of any Federal agency. Not on the basis of political implications, necessarily, but on the basis of the controls which they exercise over the lives of the people. For instance, under the farm situation, to which you have probably not given much attention, the farmer who receives these benefits will be subject at least to the supervision of the Department of Agriculture. It takes a pretty big bureau to do it and a pretty expensive bureau to do it. And the State of Michigan will probably pay in taxes for the administrative cost and for all of the other benefits-a very large share, proportionately, anyway. So that if there were any way for you to solve your problem locally, which, as Mr. Smith pointed out, is not a very difficult one, so far as the difference between the amount of rent you collect and the contribution the Federal Government would make is concerned, would there be any objection to doing it and has there been any real thought given to trying to solve it at home, so that instead of having to come to Washington and send your money down here and have bureaucratic brokerage deducted, which you can be sure would all be taken out, has there been any attention given to solving this problem on a local level?

Mr. INGLIS. May I comment on that?

Mr. BANTA. Yes.

Mr. INGLIS. Mr. Smith did point out that we had only taken 62 cents per unit per month of Federal subsidy, which we think is a good record, and we think the Detroit housing commission should be commended for it rather than having it used against us.

Mr. BANTA. We think that is remarkable.

Mr. INGLIS. The point is that the reason we brought that into the discussion is that it does illustrate how little the public-housing program has cost the Federal Treasury. You gentlemen are undoubtedly aware that the total Federal subsidy appropriation for the current year is less than $8,000,000 for the whole of the United States, and that 60 cents figure I gave you merely reflects that in terms of Detroit. It is important that possible Federal subsidy be there, though, because in future years we are going to get a lower-income group into our projects. We are going to run into maintenance troubles, and the fact that that possible subsidy is there is the thing, of course, which gives us the low rate on the bonds. It is a very necessary part of the picture. We hope we will not have to use any Federal subsidy. But it ought to be there in case we need it.

Mr. KUNKLE. Do you keep your maintenance work on all of these buildings, steadily, month after month?

Mr. INGLIS. We keep it up pretty well. The Public Housing Administration has a new formula on which it is working, for maintenance reserves, which we do not like. It is going to cut down the size of our reserves, and if we had some substantial reserves built up for future maintenance, that would help. The Public Housing Administration is now making us cut those down, which, of course, reflects a more favorable current picture, but which might run into trouble about 10 years from now.

Mr. BANTA. You say you do not like that.

Mr. INGLIS. That is a minor detail, sir.

Mr. BANTA. Well, all these details are minor. But you know the foot in the door sometimes begets major details, and this law would place a tremendous power in one agency and while you have minor details now, you may run into major ones. Did you like the housing authority to put the doctor in the public housing project?

Mr. INGLIS. Public housing was a part of the war effort and we did exactly what the agency told us to do.

Mr. BANTA. And you always do what the Federal Government tells you to do?

Mr. INGLIS. As far as public housing is concerned, I do not think that this bill will grant any more control over us than the existing Federal housing law.

Mr. BANTA. It seems to have been pretty considerable thus far. At least they gave you orders which you were obliged to obey.

Mr. INGLIS. The Federal Government gave all kinds of orders during the war, sir, as you know. They told us to keep street cars on certain lines and put buses on other lines. They went into every detail of city government operation. We did what they told us to do and liked it.

Mr. SMITH. How does the average income of your slum dwellers in Detroit compare with the average income of slum dwellers throughout the country?

Mr. INGLIS. We do not have exact figures on that. We do know there are many moderate- and high-income people who are living in the slums in Detroit right now, because they have no place else to

live.

Mr. SMITH. According to your own statement the slum dwellers, the people who live in these areas, have an average income of $2,700. Mr. INGLIS. No, sir; I gave that as a rough estimate of the income of people in public housing.

Mr. SMITH. Well, you said that you house only the lowest income group. The lowest income group in Detroit, therefore, earns, on an average, $2,700 per family.

Mr. INGLIS. That is pretty high. The income level in Detroit is fairly high.

Mr. SMITH. Well, that is certainly the gist of your statement. You are telling the committee here this morning that the income of the lowest income groups in Detroit-and I think you used a figure of 10 percent, did you not?

Mr. INGLIS. I used that figure because that figure has been used as a theoretical group, that public housing is designed to serve.

Mr. SMITH. Then, the lowest income group, the lowest 10 percent, have an average income of $2,700.

Mr. INGLIS. I do not make that as a flat statement, sir. I gave that as a rough estimate in answer to your question. But I am going to get the figures that you have requested, and will give it to you right down to the last penny.

Mr. SMITH. Very well. Will you give us also the average income of the people that you expect to put into these houses?

Mr. INGLIS. I certainly will. As far as we can ascertain.

Mr. SMITH. But at the present time, the average income of those people, the average income of the lowest income group in Detroit, is $2,700, according to your statement?

Mr. INGLIS. That is a rough estimate that I gave to answer your question, and I do not want to be tied down to it.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Thank you very much. (The information referred to above is as follows:)

Net annual income of all tenants in Detroit's permanent low-rent projects

NET ANNUAL INCOME OF INELIGIBLE TENANTS IN PROCESS OF EVICTION

Mr. INGLIS. I do not have anything further to say except that I was going to explain these charts and I will give all members copies of this chart. I think you have all seen this one.

The CHAIRMAN. You have covered them generally in the testimony, have you not?

Mr. INGLIS. This one point I would like to make: This shows the fact that public housing pays twice as much tax as slum housing in Detroit. This shows what the tenant of public housing receives for his rental dollar.

The CHAIRMAN. That is in the statement, is it not?

Mr. INGLIS. No. As compared with what the slum dweller receives for his rent dollar. This is expressed in dollars and cents in terms of assessed value. For every rent dollar paid the slum dweller receives $19.10 in value and the tenant of public housing receives $76.20 in value.

Mr. VAN ANTWERP. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to yourself and the members of the committee for their very fine reception of our presentation. Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. We are very happy to have had you with us, Mr. Mayor. You have added immeasurably to our understanding of the problem. Thank you.

Mr. Brophy and Mr. McGuire want to make a brief statement.

Mr. MCGUIRE. I am president of the Milwaukee common council. I am here with Mayor Zeidler. I merely want to get into the record that I did not want the committee to misunderstand that we have a Socialist form of government in our city. We do not. Our Mayor did not run as a Socialist nor was he endorsed by the Socialist Party. He is not operating as a Socialist. Our entire council, composed of 27 men, is nonpartisan. I wanted to get that into the record.

I have a short statement, Mr. Chairman, that I would like to have made a part of the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, Mr. McGuire's statement may be inserted in the record

Thank you, Mr. McGuire

STATEMENT BY MILTON J. MCGUIRE, PRESIDENT, MILWAUKEE COMMON COUNCIL

Mr. MCGUIRE. Implicit in any national housing objective is the goal of a decent home and wholesome environment for every American family. American has not, on the whole, built enough houses in the past to provide adequate standards of shelter for the bulk of its people. New housing, generally, has been built for a relatively small group of the population enjoying the highest incomes. By this process, and subject to a variety of influences, only the old housing was left to filter down to the lower income groups. The requirements of a steadily increasing population and the limitations of the supply of progressively deteriorating old houses have led to a decline in housing standards wherever the volume of new construction fell below an exceptionally productive level.

I do not pretend to qualify as an expert, nor am I concerned with splitting hairs-technically, legally, or otherwise, but as president of Milwaukee common council of the city of Milwaukee-a city of more than 600,000 people—I am keenly aware of the desperate need for an all-out attack on every front, in order to accomplish a real and

and healthy home-building industry is of the utmost importance, if it can be given an opportunity to make its full contribution toward & prosperous economy of maximum and sustained production and employment.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will stand in recess until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock.

(Whereupon, at 12: 30 p. m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a. m., Friday, May 14, 1948.)