Mr. MYER. Mr. Chairman, in the meantime, may I comment, I think the word "monopoly" is being used rather freely here this morning.

I would like to repeat that I think investigation will show that in many large real-estate developments similar in area and size to Greenbelt they limit their exclusive use, and limited exclusive use has been issued to operators to operate stores without additional stores in the area, and limited for periods of years, and I do not believe in that respect that Greenbelt is different from any others excepting that Greenbelt happens to be a cooperative.

That is an opinion.

Chairman PLOESER. Are you addressing that opinion to the Chair?
Mr. MYER. I am addressing the opinion for the record..
Chairman PLOESER. Any further questions?

Mr. PATMAN. I want to ask a question, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman PLOESER. Wait just a minute.

Mr. MADDREN. What is the present average income of old Greenbelt and new Greenbelt?

Mr. MYER. I would not have it separately at the moment. The average income for Greenbelt as such, and I believe I gave you the figure, is around between $3,500 and $3,600.

Chairman PLOESER. If you can obtain it, Mr. Myer, will you furnish it for the record?

Mr. MYER. I would like to put it in the record, and I will try to obtain it on a separate basis, if we have it, and I think we have it. I prefer to do that than to hunt for my information. Chairman PLOESER. Any further questions?

Mr. MADDREN. Yes.

Why was the one-half mile provision put in the current lease? Mr. MYER. Simply because we felt that we did not want, in view of the study that was under way, to tie up the whole area.

In view of the fact that there may be future developments-developments which will cause other people to develop real estate, and so on.

Mr. MADDREN. Now, you mentioned other available commercial areas. Are those other commercial areas in the center of a developed residential section of the community?

Mr. MYER. I believe there is one that is in the midst of the houses that were built as war housings that have not been fully developed. The rest of them are in other areas out where housing has not been developed as yet.

Mr. MADDREN. There are not any—

Mr. MYER. But not too far away.

Mr. MADDREN. Yes. So that there has not been full development

yet?

Mr. MYER. That is right.

Mr. MADDREN. One of the residential sections?

Mr. MYER. That is right.

Mr. MADDREN. But there is a residential section there?

Mr. MYER. However, there is a food store being operated there, a subunit of the main food store of the co-op being operated in that area. Mr. MADDREN. In that area?

Mr. MYER. Occupies some housing.

Mr. MADDREN. Outside the one-half mile area; is that correct?
Mr. MYER. That is correct.

Mr. MADDREN. Does the Public Housing Administration have any other similar exclusive contracts of any type? I mean private firms or cooperatives, too?

Mr. MYER. There are similar contracts to this one, except the details are different, at Greendale, Wis., and Greenhill, Cincinnati, which were a part of the pattern of Greenbelt towns turned over to the Federal Public Housing Authority in 1942.

Cooperatives are handling the services in Greendale and Greenhill on a similar basis.

They are the only ones I know of within the pattern of the housing for which the Public Housing Administration is responsible where cooperatives are providing the service.

There are leases and licenses in many of the war housing projects where services were not already available and which are in effect limited simply because most of those are projects that would not run for a long period of time and the buildings were constructed by the Government and leased to individuals and new construction has not been provided in the community.

Mr. MADDREN. And those are exclusive contracts with

Mr. MYER. I am not sure about whether they are exclusive contracts. In actuality they are, simply because there are not other places on which to do business. On a practical basis they are.

I might say I have had a great many requests for additional services in a good many of those areas recently which have been turned down because again we have the same general problem with those we have with Greenbelt.

The law requires that as far as permanent projects, Lanham projects, are concerned, they will be disposed of as expeditiously as possible.

We do not feel that we want to start developing new commercial facilities since most of them, we hope, will be disposed of within the next 2 or 3 years.

2

On the temporary projects, they are supposed to be removed within years after the war emergency is declared over, or if not, we would report to the Congress annually that the temporary housing is continued.

So they will be of temporary nature. Just how long they will be there, we do not know.

Mr. MADDREN. Could we have a list of those developments which have exclusive contracts, and the names?

Mr. MYER. I did not say there were any that had exclusive contracts.

Mr. MADDREN. If they do.

Mr. MYER. Unless it is very essential, I would like to beg off, for the reason that we are very, very shorthanded, and it would take time to search those contracts of several hundred projects throughout the country.

If you have specific projects you are interested in, we could go to them immediately, but it is going to be a somewhat costly process, to recheck all those contracts to see whether there are any that are exclusive.

We have supplied to you, I beleive, the pattern of the type of contract that we have in Maryland and in the area of Wisconsin, and in the area surrounding Greenhill project in Cincinnati, which Mr. Bal

linger requested, but I think that gives you generally the pattern that is followed.

If the committee wants it, of course we will try to provide it, but I would prefer not to go to the cost of supplying it unless it is essential to you.

Mr. MADDREN. Yes.

Chairman PLOESER. It is agreeable.

Mr. MYER. All right.

Mr. MADDREN. Is it true that the nearest other store is approximately 3 miles from Greenbelt?

Mr. MYER. I have never stepped it off, Mr. Maddren. I do not know.

Mr. MADDREN. I have understood that it is in the neighborhood of about 3 miles from the community.

Mr. MYER. I would not know. Perhaps some of these people from the community, when you have them on the stand, could probably tell you that better than I could.

Mr. MADDREN. Do you know whether it is true that residents are required to join the cooperative in order to obtain patronage dividends.

Mr. MYER. I suggest that you ask the cooperative about that.

Mr. MADDREN. That does have a bearing on the factor which you considered in reviewing the lease, though, of the cooperative, because you consider the number of members which the cooperative had.

Mr. MYER. I think I know the answer, but I would much prefer you get it from Mr. Ashelman.

Chairman PLOESER. The Chair would like to state at this part of the hearing, I would like to confine it strictly to the monopoly issue, unless this has some bearing.

Later in the hearing, after the monopoly issue has been exhausted, we will get into the question of cooperative operation.

The Chair has no objection except that it is trying to keep the record relevant that bears on the monopoly issue, and it does not object to the questions.

Mr. MADDREN. I think it has a bearing, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to ask just one more question, if I may?

If I recall, you said that the date of the counsel's resolution was about October 25, 1946, is that right?

Mr. MYER. As regards which? September 30, 1946.

Mr. MADDREN. And the lease with the cooperative was then executed on November 1, 1946?

Mr. MYER. That is right.

Mr. MADDREN. What consideration was given to the counsel's resolution?

Mr. MYER. None that I know of as far as this lease is concerned, because I would like to repeat this lease had been in process, and had been in process of negotiation for a long period. It was pretty much a settled fact by the time this question came up.

Furthermore, we think if you will read the resolution carefully, it did not urge the establishment of new facilities in the area for which we have leased the services to the cooperative group. Simply additional services in Greenbelt generally.

Mr. MADDREN. Thank you. That is all I have.

Do you think Federal Public Housing ought to have a policy of preventing one type of business as against another?

Mr. MYER. I do not understand your question.

Mr. BALLINGER. Do you think that the contract you signed with Greenbelt Consumer Services showed a preference to co-ops as against private business? Gives them certain privileges?

Mr. MYER. Mr. Ballinger, I feel this way about it: If I had been presented with a similar type of contract which had been conducted by private business as well as it has been conducted by this co-op for an extension of the lease, a continuation of these services that have been conducted there, for a period of that many years, that I would probably give them the preference just as we did the co-op in this particular case.

I would see no reason why any good business person would not do so. The services were established. As far as I know they were generally acceptable. The returns to the Government were good. I saw no reason for opening up the issue.

Mr. MADDREN. By the same token, you would keep the co-op and everybody else out; is that right?

Mr. MYER. I did not understand your question.

Mr. MADDREN. You said that if there had been services performed by a private corporation over an extensive period of time which were satisfactory that you would have made the same contract with them.

Mr. MYER. What I am saying is: Had the institutionalized pattern that existed there been one of private stores which had rendered adequate service, as I felt the cooperative had, we probably would have given them the same consideration for a continued lease as we did this cooperative.

Mr. MADDREN. By the same token you would have foreclosed the residents of Greenbelt from organizing a co-op.

Mr. MYER. No.

Mr. MADDREN. And foreclosed any competition coming in.

Mr. MYER. No, we would not because the rest of Greenbelt is still open for further facilities if they are needed, and if people are interested in developing them.

Mr. BALLINGER. On less desirable commercial sites, perhaps.
Mr. MYER. It is a matter of opinion, again, Mr. Ballinger.

Mr. BALLINGER. You a minute ago admitted that probably the best commercial sites were in the center of the town, which is within this half-mile radius?

Mr. MYER. You just wanted me to repeat that?

Mr. BALLINGER. It is very important.

Chairman PLOESER. Any further questions?

Mr. Riehlman?

Mr. RIEHLMAN. Mr. Myer, I would like to ask you this question: Several times you have stated that the revenue to the Federal Government has been very satisfactory from the cooperative. As I understand it, the Federal Government gets a percentage of the gross business? Mr. MYER. That is correct.

Mr. RIEHLMAN. What percentage is that?

Mr. MYER. I will give you those figures in just a minute, sir, as soon as I can find my sheet here.

Two percent of the gross in the food store.

General merchandise store, 3 percent on the gross up to $4,000 a month, and 22 above that amount.

Drug store and fountain: 5 percent of the gross.

Motion-picture theater: 15 percent of the gross.

Filling station and repair garage: A flat fee of $2,500 a year.
Barber and beauty shop: 10 percent of the gross.

Tobacco store and bus station : 3 percent of the gross.

Valet shop: 5 percent of the gross.

Swimming pool and refreshments: 5 percent of the gross.
Mr. RIEHLMAN. That is the entire-

Mr. MYER. That is the list of the facilities which they operate.
Mr. RIEHLMAN. That is right.

Mr. MYER. That is correct.

Mr. RIEHLMAN. I have no other questions, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman PLOESER. Mr. Patman?

Mr. PATMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the record at this point a statement by the Greenbelt Consumer Services, Inc., in answer to a release that was issued by the committee of August 18. In order to make it clear I think the committee's release should go in just preceding it.

Chairman PLOESER. Does the gentleman object to that being at the end of the hearing?

Mr. PATMAN. I do not object.

I thought maybe it might be best at the front, since we were just starting.

Chairman PLOESER. I would prefer, if the gentleman has no objection, that such matter go at the end of the hearing.

Mr. PATMAN. With the notation at this point that it does appear? Chairman PLOESER. Your request will show in the hearing, as you

stated it.

Without objection.

(The documents above referred to were later made a part of the record.)

Mr. PATMAN. Now, Mr. Myer, I read one paragraph here of the chairman's statement which I think in a very excellent way presents the issue of cooperatives, and since I believe that you are properly qualified to answer each one of these questions, I wanted to propose them to you.

Chairman PLOESER. Does the gentleman-he understood my restriction on the committee staff, and I hope that the whole committee can conform to that. I would like to stay to the monopoly issue.

Mr. PATMAN. With the monopoly issue. When will we have one on the consumer cooperatives?

Chairman PLOESER. Well, I do not know how many witnesses precede the subject.

Mr. PATMAN. After Mr. Myer, here is Mr. Black, and here is Mr. Thornhill, and Mr. Bauer, and Mr. Cain, and Mr. Freeman.

Which one of them could I ask this question about cooperatives? You see, I want to ask questions and get the answers concerning the questions raised by the committee chairman in this statement that the chairman read at the beginning, and I feel like this witness is qualified, and best qualified of all to answer these questions.

78446-48- -3