APPENDIX G

Distribution of income after Federal taxes for families and unattached individuals (1950 dollars)

Projected number of households and after-taxes income distribution, 1950-65

APPENDIX I

Public housing eligibility of families currently housed in urban renewal areas (compiled from HHFA-URA new releases, January 11 through May 13)

Number of ineligible (overincome) tenants in low-rent housing projects, Columbus Metropolitan Housing Authority, by quarters

APPENDIX K

Number of families living in permanent low-rent housing, by occupation and

TEN-YEAR SEARCH FOR A HOME ENDS-COUPLE AND 5 CHILDREN LEAVE UNHEATED TENEMENT FOR CITY PROJECT APARTMENT-ONE OF 1,500 RELOCATED ARMY VETERAN FOUND LOTS OF Rentals, but THEY WERE BARRED TO LARGE FAMILY

By Emma Harrison

When Frank Hughes got out of the Army, he and his wife Dorothy began to look for an apartment. Now, some 10 years and 5 children later, they have found 1.

The Hughes family's move from a crowded, damp, unheated Brooklyn tenement back to the twentieth century occurred when their application for city housing was accepted. They took possession of a modern five-room apartment in Jefferson Park Houses, 330 East 115th Street.

When the mammoth federally aided project is completed, the Hughes family will be 1 of 1,500 families relocated from what the City Housing Authority calls substandard housing. But being one of an impressive statistic doesn't begin to reveal the major changes being made in the lives of these families.

To note that the Hughes family is now confronted with an abundance of heat, hot water, and living space would be to oversimplify the meaning of that change. In the 10 years since the war, the Hughes family, like so many others, lived in varying degrees of makeshift and discomfort. Seven of these were spent in a sunless, stuffy four-room flat in the West Sixties. The last straw in that occupancy was the appearance of a rat. The Hugheses fled to another inadequate apartment in the Rockaways.

RENT IS DOUBLED

When the resort season rolled around and the rent was doubled to $125, the post office transportation clerk and his family had to move in with relatives— in two groups. Two of the young girls were boarded out at $30 a week. One went to an aunt in Kingston.

"We could have got lots of places without the children, but when you say yon have five, people think you're crazy," said Mrs. Hughes, explaining why the next refuge was a heatless, hot-waterless tenement on Brooklyn's Glen Street.

The 7 Hugheses, including the new baby, Frank, Jr., crammed themselves into 3 of its 4 tiny rooms. The fourth, a mere cubbyhole, was uninhabitable because of dampness.

The first winter was heatless. Water was heated sparingly by a rickety gas water heater that the parents distrusted. Because the baby burned himself on the unguarded heater, Mrs. Hughes had to wash dishes only when he was asleen. Life was one constant head cold. In rainy weather, water streamed down the walls. Major expenditures added measurably to the $29.10 rent. A kitchen

stove, gas radiator, and refrigerator were bought. Gas bills were as high as $30; laundry bills average $2.50 a week. Frank Hughes' estimate of the rent with these extras was $60, only $7 less than the new, utilities-included apartment.

CAT IS NECESSARY

Besides the 5 children, 4 of whom slept in the 1 small bedroom, there was Tiny, the cat. There wasn't room for Tiny, but he displaced a certain number of mice and was essential.

If the necessities of life were elusive, its niceties were impossible. The Hugheses painted walls 3 times in 18 months. Fumes from the gas radiator kept walls and curtains blackened.

And there was Frank Hughes' biggest problem-sleep. A night shift man in the general post office, he tried to sleep days on a couch in the living room. Just before he moved, he said:

"The kids climb on top of me and Frankie gets hold of my hair. Just to get in a room and close the door. That's what I'm looking forward to most."

Now, although they are still unpacking, startling contrasts present themselves daily. Mrs. Hughes, a slender, energetic housewife in her early thirties, has taken an entirely new outlook on her duties in the sunfilled, spacious quarters. "It's a pleasure to do things here," she says. "You can see what you've done. In the other places you worked and worked and you couldn't tell it."

CLOSETS, TOO, NOW

She takes pleasure in such simple joys as being able to turn the radiator down, open the steel casement windows, and have closets.

"But it's the children first," she said, thinking over the improvements the move has made. "They have room to play where they're not underfoot. Their colds are almost gone. And they have places to keep things. It's hard to teach them to do things right when they have no place to put things."

Perhaps her greatest single joy is planning for curtains that will stay fresh and clean and brighten her home.

Part of her day already has been lightened. In the new school, Our Lady Queen of Angels, there is room for one more Hughes daughter, Kaaren, 6. This leaves only Frances, 4, and the baby home part of the day.

The CHAIRMAN. All of the representatives of the big cities have testified here saying that the elimination of slums is a matter of major importance. It is not only a city question, but it is a national question. How would you proceed to eliminate those slums?

You say you are opposed to mass demolition.

Mr. WILLIAMSON. Mr. Chairman, we said we were opposed to the mass-demolition approach as the only way of doing it. There is no question but that in some areas the only way you can redevelop them is through mass demolition. But we didn't want the overemphasis on mass demolition to prevent a sound approach toward the rehabilitation of many areas that could be salvaged. The mass-demolition approach is not only expensive, but you have to dislocate many people, commercial as well as residential. I think Mr. Multer is well acquainted with what we think is an example of the mass-demolition approach in the Washington Square area of New York. We don't know whether that is the only way that area could be redeveloped, but we can see where overemphasis toward mass demolition could have unfortunate results. The CHAIRMAN. I had understood you to say that you were opposed to mass demolition and were in favor of the improvement of existing housing in slum areas. I wondered where you would get the funds to improve housing in slum areas, and if you did improve them if it would change the character of the areas?

Mr. WILCOX. That is one of the reasons we like the urban renewal program under FHA. If a city, through this program, will adopt

methods setting up certain restrictions and requirements for the modernization or certain regulations as to the number of people who can live in one apartment, or in one room, then after having adopted a plan for the urban renewal and redevelopment, certain houses in that area they are sound structures, they were built years ago, that is true, but the foundations are sound, and they have all the plumbing and utilities-we feel those houses should be reclaimed. That is why we feel that the FHA program can be of great value in reclaiming many of those older units.

We agree that in many areas-perhaps whole blocks may have to be destroyed-but that would be the exception, we feel, rather than the rule. We think that in practically any given block there are many sound homes that could be redeveloped if given the opportunity and the proper cooperation through enabling legislation with our cities. The CHAIRMAN. It seems to me you not only have to reclaim-it is not the home you have to reclaim, but you have to reclaim the area, and as long as it exists as a slum area, it isn't desirable to spend very much money on existing housing. That is just my opinion.

Mr. WILLIAMSON. It is hard to establish a definite formula. Much depends on the area. We do believe that if you overemphasize the mass demolition approach that you are going to destroy much property that is salvagable, and you not only do that but you dislocate many people through condemning their property, where such might not be essential to the redevelopment of the area.

We believe that you can stretch this power of eminent domain for redevelopment too far. I think that the Supreme Court's decision was very far-reaching. We are hopeful that the States in proceeding to condemn property for redevelopment won't take that decision literally, and condemn property, and rebuild the area just to create a more pleasant environment, more pleasant in the opinion of the redevelopment agency.

That is one extreme of the mass demolition approach. We do believe that in some places it is essential. We just don't want the extreme concept to take hold as a general rule.

The CHAIRMAN. You believe that the clearance of slums is of great importance, don't you?

Mr. WILLIAMSON. Yes, sir; very important. Our slogan as adopted last year is "No Slums By Sixty," and we are working hard at it. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions?

Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. O'Hara.

Mr. O'HARA. May I ask a question at this time? The reason I wish to ask it out of order is I have to go to Chicago this afternoon and cannot be here later.

I have just received a letter from the South Shore Commission in Chicago, an organization of civic leaders, bankers, real estate men, and other community leaders of prestige and influence. It relates to liberalization of section 220, and I will read it in order that you may make such comment as you wish. This is the letter:

DEAR CONGRESSMAN: We have been informed that the House Banking and Currency Committee is to meet on Tuesday to discuss the liberalization of section 220 of the Federal Housing Administration Act, mortgage insurance.

Heretofore the section has been used but rarely, primarily because of the restrictions placed upon the user. It is our feeling, in the South Shore Commis