The CHAIRMAN. You come from a city that is known as the cradle of American liberty, and your long experience and fine standing should certainly give weight to a voice from that great city.

We are glad to have your views. I regret now that the House has called us to the floor and we will have to go over there. We will have to adjourn.

Mr. DILWORTH. Thank you very much, sir.

(Whereupon, at 11: 10 a. m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a. m., Friday, May 11, 1956.)

HOUSING ACT OF 1956

FRIDAY, MAY 11, 1956

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY, Washington, D. C. The committee met at 10 a. m., in the committee room of the House Committee on Banking and Currency, Hon. Paul Brown (acting chairman) presiding.

Present: Messrs. Brown (presiding), Rains, O'Hara, Ashley, Vanik, Wolcott, Talle, Kilburn, Widnall, Betts, Mumma, McVey, Nicholson and Bass.

Mr. BROWN. The committee will come to order. Mr. Clerk, call the first witness.

Mr. CARDON. Mr. Chairman, the first witness is Mr. Ira S. Robbins, chairman of the board of the National Housing Conference, Inc. He is accompanied by Mr. Edward F. Barry, president of the National Housing Conference.

Mr. BROWN. Gentlemen, we are glad to have you with us. You may proceed in your own way.

STATEMENT OF IRA S. ROBBINS, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, NATIONAL HOUSING CONFERENCE, INC.; ACCOMPANIED BY EDWARD F. BARRY, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL HOUSING CONFERENCE, INC.

Mr. ROBBINS. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, may I thank the committee for this opportunity to express the views of the National Housing Conference on basic housing legislation presently before you.

My name is Ira S. Robbins. I am chairman of the board of directors of the National Housing Conference. For 11 years I served as a housing official of New York State in the administrations of both Governor Lehman and Governor Dewey. I am an attorney and presently am executive vice president of the Citizens Housing and Planning Council of New York City. Accompanying me today is Mr. Edward F. Barry, president of the National Housing Conference, chairman of the Memphis Housing Authority, a distinguished attorney, banker, and civic leader. While I shall present our prepared testimony we will both be glad to answer any questions that may be directed to us. As chairman of one of the most successful local housing authority programs in the country for a great many years, Mr. Barry is particularly well qualified to answer questions as to the impact of federally aided housing programs on local communities. The National Housing Conference is a nonprofit citizens' organiza

77603-56- -15

tion. Just 1 month ago it held its 25th annual meeting in this city. The organization is supported by memberships and contributions.

Our organization has appeared before this committee to present its views on every major housing bill that has been before it since the mid-thirties. Our position, I am sure, is well known. I shall attempt to be as brief as possible. Two years ago we presented to this committee a study of housing needs. It was predicated completely on governmental statistics and showed conclusively that if the pressing housing needs of this country are to be met, if slums are to be eliminated and displaced families are to be rehoused in proper shelter, a construction program of at least 2 million new homes a year is essential. The figures that we presented have never been disputed. Figures from the 1950 census showed that there were approximately 7 million substandard homes in the urban metropolitan areas of this country that should be demolished at that time. There were approximately 2 million additional substandard homes that were subject to rehabilitation. That number through obsolescence and overcrowding, is growing, not decreasing. Under our present programs, we are making no headway whatsoever, because the rate of obsolescence and deterioration is far greater than any inroads we are making toward correcting the situation. There is nothing in the provisions of the administration's program contained in H. R. 9537 that will arrest this backward trend.

We find it of grave public concern, when the administration presents a housing program that is deficient both as to economic concepts and social objectives. Official spokesmen have made it clear to the committees of the Congress that the public housing program recommended in H. R. 9537 has no relationship whatever to the needs of even those low-income families to be displaced by the limited urban redevelopment and renewal programs they are recommending. It is, they say, based upon the size program they believe the House of Representatives may accept, and then they add something to the effect that the total local demand for such programs is not in excess of 35,000 units a year. It would be difficult to find a responsible mayor of any of the several hundred major cities in this country who would agree with that statement. Testimony of the American Municipal Association, which represents some 12,000 communities, totally refutes such conclusions. Our own observations, working with and as part of citizen organizations throughout the country, lead us to challenge such statements.

There can be no doubt but that the crisis operation that has affected public housing for the last 10 years or more has cooled the ardor of communities to apply for public housing units, no matter how badly they need them. Constant congressional attacks, more often than not with crippling legislation on appropriation bills, have made it practically fruitless for cities to spend the money, time, and energy in preparing applications for Federal aid that is not there.

The low-rent public housing program was conceived as requiring maximum local responsibility. It was to be a local-Federal partnership. The same was true of slum clearance and urban redevelopment and renewal. Projects, in theory, are locally planned, owned, and operated. However, Federal controls have mounted to the point where the initiative, imagination, and desire on the part of local officials to move ahead, are smothered. Oversupervision and redtape

prevail. Any suggested deviation from what Federal officials determine to be good for a local community is treated as heresy and vetoed. The partnership concept has been destroyed. The Subcommittee on Housing of this committee has, in its studies, uncovered this fact again and again and reported on it objectively and effectively, with particular reference to urban renewal.

The National Housing Conference wishes to pay tribute to the studies, the hard work, and the effective hearings that have been held by your Subcommittee on Housing throughout the country. We believe that it has made the finest contributions to the eventual solution of the housing problems in this country that any group has contributed for many, many years. We look forward to a continuation of its studies on the high, objective plane on which they have been carried out over the last year.

We recognize that getting an overall housing program underway is not easy. The acquisition of sites for low-rent public housing projects is becoming increasingly difficult. We know that families of minority groups are confounded on every side when they attempt to secure land on which to build their homes. We recognize the tensions that sometimes develop over open occupancy. We know that there are no easy solutions. But if these problems are ever to be met, we must begin with a program that will increase the supply of homes for families of all incomes. In public housing, it is incumbent upon local housing officials to give first preference to families with the greatest housing needs. It is a fact in almost every community in this country that minority families are forced to live under the worst housing conditions. When we restrict public housing to a mere 35,000 units or even 50,000 units, we are assuring that public housing that is constructed will be occupied largely by minority-group families. Instead of alleviating the problem of segregation, we are intensifying it.

We recognize that problems of urban redevelopment and renewal are intensified by the fact that adequate housing does not exist for families to be displaced. Experience has shown that approximately half of the families to be displaced have incomes so low that they can only be rehoused through public housing. Most of the other half fall within the middle-income range for which no housing whatever is provided. Until these facts are met head on, the urban renewal program will be stopped dead in its tracks after a few pilot projects are completed, which are being made possible because of the existence of a limited supply of public housing. Any mass displacement of families without proper provision being made for their rehousing can only result in forcing these families deeper into existing slums, or into doubling up in existing marginal housing, thereby speeding up the process of creating new slums.

One of the most difficult problems in the process of slum clearance is the displacement of small businesses for which no adequate compensation can be made under existing law. We wish to commend Mr. O'Hara for the introduction of H. R. 9351 which would take great strides toward meeting that problem. We hope sincerely that it will be adopted as part of the Housing Act for 1956.

Once more, may I point out that the National Housing Conference feels strongly that, in order to meet the housing needs of the American

people, programs must be devised to stimulate housing production to at least 2 million new homes a year. The program that we recommended last year we believed would be a long step toward achieving that objective. We were joined in our recommendations by the AFLCIO and by many public interest organizations. As you know, most of our suggestions were embodied in S. 3158, introduced in the Senate by Senator Lehman and eight cosponsors, and H. R. 9517 and H. R. 10296, companion House bills introduced by Mr. Thompson of New Jersey and Mr. Davidson, of New York. We feel that what we recommend is practical of operation, and we believe that a dynamic, nonsubsidized housing program for families of middle income is essential to the economic and social health of our country.

As for public housing, we have always believed that Senator Taft was right in urging a public housing program of about 10 percent of new house construction during a given year. We know that 200,000 units are needed each year if we are in fact to make inroads on the demolition of slums and on the problem of rehousing families from substandard shelter. We have no illusions as to the immediate possibility of the acceptance by the Congress of this total program, but we are convinced that when the country knows the facts, the basic concepts and objectives of that program will be accepted. We are hopeful that many of the features of these measures will be accepted, this year, by this committee.

May I devote the remainder of my remarks primarily to the provisions of H. R. 10157, introduced by Mr. Rains. We feel that if this measure is accepted in large part by this committee and by the House of Representatives that progress will have been made in 1956 toward the development of a housing program of substance. It is of genuine concern to us that the whole problem of housing for families of middle income is almost totally ignored, and that the public housing program is still so restricted that it bears no relationship to the mounting, critical housing needs of families of low income. However, within the framework of the important provisions it covers, we feel that H. R. 10157 is a forthright and forward-looking response to the findings of your Subcommittee on Housing.

Title I, amendments to the National Housing Act, are an improvement over the recommendations submitted in H. R. 9537, as recommended by the administration. We should hope for their adoption. We applaud particularly hope for their adoption. We applaud particularly section 104, which would make the cooperative housing program under section 213 a basic, workable part of the FHA program. These amendments, coupled with the constructive recommendations made in title II of the bill, dealing with secondary market legislation, should remove both the legislative and administrative roadblocks that have practically killed the cooperative housing program. Mr. Campbell, Washington director of the Cooperative League of the United States, will testify in detail on the cooperative housing provisions that are so essential to the success of that program. We wish to associate the National Housing Conference with his testimony, and will not repeat the details of his presentation.

We do not oppose section 107, which would liberalize relocation housing insurance under section 221. We feel obliged, however, to point out that we have grave doubts as to whether or not raising the cost