STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK W. BOYKIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA

Mr. BOYKIN. Gentlemen, you have my cousin up here, you see. He is always after me about getting back to the lake that he lost in this little fight we had between the North and South and his folks and my folks had to walk away from that place, but I got it all back. It was old Dr. Rains back there. I have been talking to Congressman Rains about a little matter we have at Mobile. It is very simple and I do not think we will have a bit of trouble. He is looking after it for me in your committee, but he suggested I come and have a little talk with you, too. It is just about some of these houses that we have in the city of Pritchard, Ala., and Mobile. Everybody has agreed to it, I mean the housing board at Atlanta and Mr. Bloom here, and I just wanted to be sure, though, that nothing happened to keep me from being included, because we had at Mobile and Pritchard, the two fastest growing cities in the world, and we just need these and a lot

more.

Everybody I have talked to about it has assured me that we could keep them as permanent projects there for low-rent housing. Also, I have just talked to Mr. Bloom this morning and we have an application in for 1,000 units for the colored folks down there.

Mr. RAINS. Let me interrupt there, so we can get it in the record. As I understand it, you have two projects which are permanent projects, one in Pritchard and one in Mobile, and they are under the jurisdiction of the same housing authority. One of them, 1,036, known, as Alabama Village, and another, No. 11-2, known as Gulf Homes and you want those two transferred to the Public Housing Authority? Mr. BOYKIN. That is correct.

Now, Congressman Rains, I also understand that you have already accepted a proposition for four other projects.

Mr. RAINS. There are several listed already.

Mr. BOYKIN. Four, I think.

Mr. RAINS. Already there is in the bill, 1,031, 1,033, 1,034, and 1,035, and 1,101 in Mobile, and these two that I have just mentioned, Gulf Homes and Alabama Village are in addition.

Mr. BOYKIN. That is correct.

Mr. RAINS. So you want those transferred to the local public housing agency in Mobile?

Mr. BOYKIN. That is correct.

Mr. BROWN. Did I understand you to say that these were the two fastest growing towns in the world?

Mr. BOYKIN. Two of the fastest growing cities in the world or any other place. I want you to come down there and see them for yourself and I wish you would bring your whole committee.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to put a copy of my letter to Congressman Rains in the record so we will have it and also a memorandum of Mobile press record.

The CHAIRMAN. They are accepted.

94397-49 -33

(The letter and article referred to above are as follows:)

Hon. ALBERT RAINS,

Member of Congress, Washington, D. C.

JULY 25, 1949.

DEAR ALBERT. Referring to our telephone conversation the other day concerning the two projects which are to be included in your pending housing disposition bill, these projects are numbered Alabama 1036 (Alabama Village) and Alabama 1102 (Gulf Homes). I understand hearings are being held this morning on your bill, H. R. 5616, and Congresman Spence's bill, H. R. 5631.

The Mobile Housing Board has made application to the Public Housing Administration for both of these projects, and the board of revenue and road commissioners of Mobile County has passed a resolution asking that Alabama project 1036 be retained and designated as a permanent low-income rent project.

The city of Prichard, Ala., passed a resolution on September 23, 1948, requesting that Alabama project 1036 be retained as a permanent low-income rent project. By a vote of 4 to 1 the housing board reaffirmed their desire to have both of these projects retained as permanent low-income rent projects.

The city of Prichard will pass any necessary resolution giving the Mobile Housing Authority jurisdiction over any of these projects within the city limits of Prichard, inasmuch as there is no housing authority in the city of Prichard. I have been discussing these two projects with housing officials here and in Atlanta, and as I understand it, they will interpose no objection to the inclusion of these projects in the pending bill.

Sincerely,

FRANK W. BOYKIN, M. C.

[From the Mobile Press and Register, August 5, 1949]

HOUSING AUTHORITY SEEKING ADDITION OF SIXTH PROJECT-MOBILE BOARD VOTES TO PUT COLORED UNITS UNDER GROUP'S CONTROL

With five Government housing projects in Mobile and suburbs already included in a congressional bill for retention by the Mobile Housing Board, four members of the board voted Thursday to seek the addition of a sixth local project in the bill. The five projects now listed in the bill going through Congress are Thomas James Place, Prichard Homes, Gulf Village, Alabama Village and Gulf Homes, comprising a total of 4,111 dwelling units. These projects are occupied by white

families.

The project which the board wants added to the list is Maysville Homes, a colored project of 462 units, located in the vicinity of Dublin and Antwerp Streets. The four housing board members who cast their votes for addition of the Maysville Homes project were Dr. L. W. Hollis, L. M. Cooper, Don Barbour and Herman D. Todd, Chairman J. C. Van Antwerp was absent when the vote was taken. The six projects were constructed by the Federal Government during World War II to house workers in Mobile's expanded wartime industries. The Mobile Housing Board operates them as agent for the Public Housing Administration. Of the five local projects now in the bill, Thomas James Place has 1,711 units; Prichard Homes, 400 units; Gulf Village, 200 units; Alabama Village 1,200 units, and Gulf Homes, 600 units.

Mr. BOYKIN. I am very much obliged, and I hope you all will put these two projects in.

Mr. MULTER. I would not dare get contentious after the nice way you treated us the other night, but it has been suggested that there is considerable sentiment that these premises should be sold to the occupants, if the occupants want to buy personnally or through cooperatives.

Mr. BOYKIN. We have been doing that down there.

Mr. MULTER. Do these two projects qualify under that category? Mr. RAINS. Let me answer. There are two other projects he has in Mobile which do qualify under that category, which they do want to sell, but these two are permanent ones that they want for low-rent housing. I saw that, and I think that is correct. Is it not right?

Mr. BOYKIN. That is correct.

Mr. TALLE. I gather what the gentleman from Alabama has said indicates the mobility of Mobile has taken on new acceleration these last few years?

Mr. BOYKIN. Yes; that is right. All we need now is a TennesseeTombigbee to be developed and our troubles will be over in this world. I tell you that, and I believe you are going to get it. I wish you would take a committee down, to see these. We could go down there in 3 hours and see these projects, and we have to figure on that other thousand units for the colored people that we are going to ask them to give us. I would be glad to have you all down there, not only at Mobile, but at my hunting lodge at Rains Lake. We have room to take care of a hundred there, and we would be glad to have you at any time. There is the finest hunting in the world there.

The CHAIRMAN. Your remarks will be given sympathetic treatment. Mr. BOYKIN. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Congressman Sutton of Tennessee.

STATEMENT OF HON. PAT SUTTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE

Mr. SUTTON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I have a prepared statement. Before I get into the statement, I wish to say I have no pride of authorship of any bill. My interest was in the bill that passed before, even though it did not take care of my housing bill in my section of the country. For that reason, of course, I introduce this amendment to the National Housing Act, which would take care of the housing situation, I presume, in the South, more than any other place, although it would take care of the housing situation in some of the rural sections. For that reason, I refer to the bill that I introduced, even though I would like to see it as an amendment to your Housing Act that you now have under consideration.

Mr. Chairman, my bill (H. R. 2377) amends section 203 of the National Housing Act and authorizes the Federal Housing Commissioner to insure construction advances on single-family dwellings. Under the provisions of the National Housing Act in its present form, construction advances are available only in cases where a minimum of 25 units or houses are to be constructed. This type of legislation is useless to the little man, or persons who want to build a home. The present act is beneficial only to real-estate speculators or builders of large projects. There are many advantages to the prospective builders of a home if my bill is enacted. It provides for advancements for construction purposes for single-family units or dwellings in the amount of $7,500 per unit, which would be amortized over a period of 30 years at a maximum interest rate of 4 percent, and not more than 5 percent, including the insurance. I realize that the money lenders would probably not be eager to loan money at the proposed 4 percent interest rate. Therefore, it may be necessary to increase the rate of interest to 5 percent and not to exceed 6 percent, including the insurance.

If my bill is enacted and the National Housing Act is so amended, veterans or any one else desirous of building a home may purchase his materials from small establishments or mills and employ local car

penters or small contractors that are ordinarily not equipped to contract to handle large construction projects. The individual desiring to build a home will be enabled to shop around in the open market and buy materials on a competitive basis; and, since the Federal Housing Commissioner will be authorized to insure funds for labor and materials, the home builder will be provided with cash for the payment of his materials and labor on a weekly basis. This bill (H. R. 2377) does not change the National Housing Act in any respect except that it enables the Commissioner of Housing to insure construction materials and labor advances to persons who desire to build single-family homes or units in quantities of one or more up to 25. The Housing Act now provides for a maximum of $6,000 per unit, provided the 25 units above mentioned are constructed. Persons or corporations who are in a position to take advantage of the advances under the act in its present form are largely speculators, and of course property that is constructed with the benefit of Federal insurance is later sold to individuals who are required to pay considerable profit to the real-estate operators or speculators.

Under my bill (H. R. 2377), in my opinion, the builder of a home will be able to complete a building at a cost of $7,500 that would cost him in the open market $10,000 or more. The insurance is not to exceed 90 percent of the value of which the Housing Administrator estimates the value of the property when it is completed. In other words, any individual who desires to build a home and can negotiate for a lot would ordinarily be in a position to borrow up to $7,500 for the construction of his improvements, labor, an other incidentals to building, and have this amount insured by the Federal Government. In my opinion, if this bill is enacted, it will go a long ways toward the solving of the housing problem. The banks and insurance companies are flush with money. Likewise are numerous individuals who would be happy to advance funds for the building of homes provided these loans were insured by the Federal Government. I have received numerous communications from veterans complaining that they are unable to procure sufficient financial aid for the construction of homes. Being a veteran myself, I know something of the difficulties that our comrades have in procuring homes, as I have personally experienced trouble of this kind.

I realize that this measure will be frowned upon and vigorously opposed by large building firms or corporations and by persons who speculate in building projects. But, on the other hand, our housing problem is most important, because without a happy, contented people, without a healthy, economic program of our own in such matters as health, education, and a better standard of living, how can we expect other nations to follow our example, or how are we going to help financing other nations to get back on their feet to a freer, happier, and more democratic way of life?

The housing problem is not impossible, and it is not complicated. although many have tried to make it seem so. The simple facts of the case are that numerous persons who are in need of a home simply cannot borrow the money to build. Our housing problem is local and is one that each community should work out and will work out if my bill amending the National Housing Act is accepted. This amendment will insure the financial assistance that local communities must have if our housing problems are solved.

I believe, with our national housing already enacted and the one that you are proposing now and also if we take care of that small man, individual, where he can be assured of building himself a home, instead of leaving him where he can only build 25 or more, in other words, if he can borrow the money to build 25 units or more, if we break it down to the single family, then I believe our housing problem will be solved. I appreciate the opportunity of appearing here this morning, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Many Congressmen have expressed the desire to appear. They have not all been able to appear, and they may be permitted to introduce their statements for the record.

Mr. MCKINNON. My colleague from California, Cecil King, wanted to be here today to present some testimony, but he was detained in the Ways and Means Coinmittee, and he asked me to bring it here and introduce it. It, too, concerns a problem similar to Mr. Boykin's, involving the Los Angeles public housing agency, which has requested that two projects be included in the list on page 44 of the bill so that they can be transferred to the Los Angeles Public Housing Agency. The CHAIRMAN. That may be submitted.

(The statement referred to above is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. CECIL R. KING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. Chairman, I am here today to respectfully request this committee to amend H. R. 5631, and more particularly page 44 thereof so as to include, under the listing of California projects, the following:

In support thereof I ask consent to include in the record letter and exhibits attached thereto which I have received from the executive director of the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles under date of August 2, 1949.

At the conclusion of the War the Public Housing Administration established a policy governing the disposition of permanent federally owned surplus war housing on a priority basis. Under the priority system established by the Public Housing Administration, local bodies (including housing authorities) were enabled to exercise first priority to acquire this type of facility to house families of low-income veterans and servicemen. The Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles did not, at that time, elect to exercise the priority which would have enabled this Agency to acquire said housing facilities as it was the judgment of the Authority that occupants be afforded the first priority to acquire these facilities through the medium of mutual ownership corporations which had been organized for that specific purpose. In advising the Public Housing Administration of this decision the authority specifically reserved the right to exercise this priority at a later date in the event the mutual corporations failed to acquire these properties.

These mutual groups did not acquire the properties as they were unable to raise the necessary cash payments required by the Public Housing Administration. A petition was thereupon submitted by all veteran organizations urging the housing authority to acquire these facilities for low-cost veterans and servicemen's housing. Under date of August 2, 1949 the City Council of Los Angeles, by resolution duly adopted, authorized the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles to seek congressional authorization to acquire these projects. Officials of the Los Angeles Housing Authority have discussed the situation with officials of the Pubic Housing Administration and were advised that there would be no objection on the part of the Administration to the inclusion of the aforementioned projects in H. R. 5631 now being considered by this committee.