Mr. WILLIAMSON. We can get that for you. I think in our statement we used the subsidies under the act of 1949.

Mrs. GRIFFITHS. We had Mr. Slusser before this committee the other day, and he said the total expenditure of the Federal Government, in the past 10 years for public housing, is $116 million. Is that right or wrong?

Mr. WILLIAMSON. That couldn't be because the appropriation for fiscal 1955 was $68,950,000; for the previous fiscal year was $32 million. That would be a little over a hundred million dollars for 2 years.

Mrs. GRIFFITHS. Was that money actually spent on housing?

Mr. WILLIAMSON. Yes. Those were the subsidy appropriations. When we speak of an annual subsidy, that is one of a 40-year subsidy, and the Federal Government is obligated to pay those subsidies over the life of those bonds.

Mrs. GRIFFITHS. It is obligated to pay only where there is default? Mr. WILLIAMSON. No, it is obligated to pay the debt servicing, because an economic rent will not be charged; the difference between the social rent and the economic rent is the subsidy.

Mrs. GRIFFITHS. It hasn't worked out to those figures, is that it? Mr. WILLIAMSON. Yes. They were the actual appropriations. Mrs. GRIFFITHS. Was it actually spent?

Mr. WILLIAMSON. Yes. As far as we know.

Mrs. GRIFFITHS. You say Mr. Slusser, when he says it is $116 million, is absolutely wrong?

Mr. WILLIAMSON. 116 million?

Mrs. GRIFFITHS. In 10 years.

Mr. WILLIAMSON. The annual subsidy requirement we have for just 3 years the contract subsidy we have-and this is from the House appropriations hearings, page 2327; I believe we have it here-the contract subsidy for the 3 years, that is, the maximum that could have been appropriated because there are matters that are in the contracts

Mrs. GRIFFITHS. If we ever needed it they would have to spend it. They guarantee that if others fail they would have to pay this?

Mr. WILLIAMSON. No. In the 3 years, 1953-55, the contract subsidy was 208 million. The amount required for those 3 years-that is the requirement that they had to pay out in order to service the bonds, and these are PHA figures-is $113,784,424. The amount that they saved was the difference of 74 million, and our contention was that that subsidy was saved at the expense of denying public housing to those in the greatest need. That is an argument that we have tried to develop.

Mrs. GRIFFITHS. I would like to ask you about that. I noticed that you gave no figures on Detroit, while you pointed out that in some areas that the people who were living in the public housing were within a high income bracket.

You didn't point out Detroit. In Detroit would you tell me for the past 3 years the salary range at which people were living in public housing?

Mr. WILLIAMSON. We don't know that. We certainly could furnish it. That is the type of information that we would have to obtain from the annual report of the Detroit Housing Authority. I don't know whether we have it or not. We would have to check that.

We tried to get the annual reports of over 400 housing authorities through our direct letters to them, or through our local real estate boards, and unfortunately we have only been able to obtain about 40. Mrs. GRIFFITHS. How did you obtain any information on any of these facts and figures? Are these actual facts?

Mr. WILLIAMSON. Yes. I tried to footnote everything. All the information about the subsidies are taken from the PHA's figures in the hearings before the House on appropriations.

Every subsidy figure that we have is taken from the hearings. They are for every project, every public housing project. It contains the contract subsidy, amount required, and the amount that was not required.

Mrs. GRIFFITHS. And the persons living in it? Does it contain the information on the salaries of the persons living in them?

Mr. WILLIAMSON. No.

Mrs. GRIFFITHS. Where do you get that?

Mr. WILLIAMSON. The only information we have represents information that we obtained from the annual reports of the housing authorities. That is why there are just a few examples, because that is the only place that we can get the information.

Mrs. GRIFFITHS. Would you get it in some cities and not others? Mr. WILLIAMSON. Yes.

Mrs. GRIFFITHS. Let me supply you some information for the city of Detroit.

In Detroit they have pushed the income down, down, down until it is practically a welfare shelter, and that is what you want it to be, is it?

Mr. WILLIAMSON. Yes; that is what we want it to be. That is a very good record, because in Detroit, Mich., there are two projects. In fiscal year 1955 one project did not need $48,517, and the other project did not need $289,035. Now, if they have saved that subsidy and at the same time have reached down into the neediest group, then I think that they have done a very commendable job.

Mrs. GRIFFITHS. I would like to find out something else from you. You pointed out that they raised the rents. Would you give me the list of the people who moved out because they raised the rents in any project?

Mr. WILLIAMSON. Where?

Mrs. GRIFFITHS. You gave us some examples, that they raised the rents and that people then moved into a higher income bracket. Mr. WILLIAMSON. You mean the Columbus, Ohio?

Mrs. GRIFFITHS. Yes. Can you state positively of your own knowledge that you know that the people who were in the housing projects moved out because they raised the rents?

Mr. WILLIAMSON. I don't recall making such a statement.

Mrs. GRIFFITHS. It is in here.

Mr. WILLIAMSON. I don't think we ever talked about rents.

(The following letter and telegram were submitted for the record :)

REALTORS' WASHINGTON COMMITTEE OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REAL ESTATE Boards, Washington 6, D. C., June 10, 1955.

Hon. MARTHA W. GRIFFITHS,

House Office Building, Washington 25, D. C.

Dear Mrs. GrIFFITHS: In our appearance before the House Banking and Currency Committee on Wednesday, June 8, you stated that income limits in public housing in Detroit were consistently being lowered (please see p. 849 of the transcript).

Of course, we were interested in knowing the actual situation in Detroit, and we wired Harry J. Durbin, director-secretary of the Detroit Housing Commission, asking for the information.

The Housing Commission has replied stating that from the end of the war until 1948 for a family of 2 adults and 3 minors the income limits for admission were $2,640 per year and for continued occupancy, up to $2,920 per year. From 1948 through 1949 these limits were raised $340 per year for admission, making it $2,980, and $480 per year for continued occupancy, making the new ceiling there $3,400. From 1950 to October 1953, the income limits for admission to public housing for such a family were raised to $3,500, which was $860 per year more than that in effect in 1948. For continued occupancy from 1950 to October 1953, the income ceiling was set at $4,100, which was $1,180 more than that permitted in 1948. The above limits include, according to Mr. Durbin, $100 exemption for each minor child.

The Housing Commission director states that the last revision was made in October 1953, and that the income limits were again raised to $3,800 per year for admission and $4,500 per year for continued occupancy. This would amount to a raise of $1,160 per year for admission; $1,580 per year for continued occupancy over those limits permitted in 1948.

We believe that you will find this pattern of continually raising income limits to house higher and higher income groups to be no exception, but rather the rule for many hundreds of housing authorities across the country.

We are enclosing herewith copies of our telegram to the Detroit Housing Commission and their reply.

It is interesting to note that in the figures given by the PHA to the House Appropriations Committee last year (pp. 2348, 2352, hearings on Independent Offices appropriations for fiscal 1955) it was estimated that subsidies authorized for Detroit projects (Mich. 1-1, 2, 5 and Mich. 1-4, 6) for the purpose of permitting them to house lowest income families during the current fiscal year would total $562,035, and yet they were not going to use $337,552 of this amount. We believe that the income limits reported by the Detroit Housing Commission and the large subsidy authorized by Congress and not used for the current fiscal year prove conclusively that the Detroit Housing Commission-while it may be in many respects doing a commendable job—is not reaching as far down as it can to house those in the community in the greatest need of assistance. By using the subsidy the income limits for admission and continued occupancy could remain low. Instead, the trend has been the opposite.

Sending 1954 annual report airmail. Income limits for low-rent housing reestablished after war and continued until 1948. For family of 2 adults, 3 minors, admission $2,640 per year, continued occupancy, $2.920. From 1948 through 1949, $2,980 and $3,400. From 1950 to October 1953, $3,500 and $4,100 including $100 exemption for each minor child. Last revision made October 1953, present figures, including exemption, $3,800 and $4,500.

HARRY J. DURBIN, Director-Secretary, Detroit Housing Commission.

HARRY J. DUBIN,

JUNE 9, 1955.

Director, Detroit Housing Commission,

Detroit, Mich.:

Please send us airmail copy of latest report of Housing Commission and bill us for any expense. Also please advise collect wire maximum income limits (a) for admission (b) for continued occupancy for family of 2 adults, 3 children, broken down by years for 1945 to present time. Please give date of last raise in income limits.

JOHN C. WILLIAMSON,

National Association of Real Estate Boards, Washington, D. C.

Mrs. GRIFFITHS. The gentleman who spoke yesterday mentioned that the rents went up in some public-housing projects, and that he then deplored the fact that they moved into a higher income bracket. and it was not for the welfare cases.

Mr. WILLIAMSON. The Asheville case.

Here is what happened in the Asheville case: They didn't increase the rents. In order to use less of the subsidy-they already were saving $20,000-but in order to use less of the subsidy they revised the rent ranges so that they would take in less of the families who could only pay up to $21 a month, and take in more families who can afford to pay $42 a month. We cited that.

Mrs. GRIFFITHS. Was the housing project full when they raised the rents?

Mr. WILLIAMSON. We don't know what happened. This is the technique that the PHA itself discusses in its own manual as to how to arrive at their total rents.

Mrs. GRIFFITHS. As a matter of fact, you don't know whether they took in people at the lowest income bracket or some other income bracket, do you?

Mr. WILLIAMSON. No.

Mrs. GRIFFITHS. You just reduced the rents; is that right? It is not a fact; it is your conclusion?

Mr. WILLIAMSON. Yes. They are conclusions, but I think they are reasonable conclusions.

Mrs. GRIFFITHS. That is left for us to judge.

What I am interested in is the facts.

Mr. WILLIAMSON. I am sure of that.

Mrs. GRIFFITHS. This would be a very biased opinion; is that right? Mr. WILLIAMSON. I didn't even suggest an opinion. I was setting forth the technique that is employed by housing authorities and recommended by the PHA to use less of the subsidy.

Mrs. GRIFFITHS. Do you have any objection to their using less subsidy?

Mr. WILLIAMSON. We contend they are doing that at the expense of denying public housing to those who are the neediest.

Mrs. GRIFFITHS. Do you have a plan for subsidizing completely housing for those who need it most? Have you ever projected such a plan?

Mr. WILLIAMSON. We contend public housing is a welfare function, and we think it is a perversion of a welfare function if it denies that welfare to those in the greatest need. We think that is a basic fault.

Mrs. GRIFFITHS. Has your organization ever suggested to this Congress they have welfare housing and submitted a bill? Have you ever backed such a bill?

Mr. WILLIAMSON. No. We believe the care of the needy and destitute is a problem that is handled by the local people.

Mrs. GRIFFITHS. By private charity?

Mr. WILLIAMSON. By public as well as private.

Mrs. GRIFFITHS. On page 14 you point out

As a million and a half households a year become able to support homes costing over $10,000, vacancy rises; in homes costing less than $10,000, and these become available for families with incomes of less than $4,000. This upgrading will provide half a million or more vacant units each year which will be available for low-income families at low prices.

I would like for you to give me an example where in any of the five major cities, of the price at which these homes have become available at the rent prices?

Mr. WILLIAMSON. I am afraid, Mrs. Griffiths, that I can't, but I think that perhaps the National Association of Home Builders may be able to shed some light on the subject of the availability of housing for low-income people.

Mrs. GRIFFITHS. And the price range?

Mr. WILLIAMSON. I believe so.

Mrs. GRIFFITHS. A complete home, the same home these people moved out of, nothing changed, where the rent went down over the last 10 years if you could give me 10 examples in Detroit I would appreciate it. If one of those samples, or an example on Hastings Street, where the rent and home and services offered remained the same. That is, a one-family home wasn't cut up into 5 or 12 apartments, and the rent consistently went down as the value of the property, the replacement value of the property depreciated. I would like to see that.

I would like to ask you one other question: Yesterday there was some objection made to the fact that doctors lived in some public housing in some cities. I happen to know well a doctor who was a full doctor of medicine who had a practice, who left that practice to come to the city of Detroit to become a bone specialist. He was paid by the hospital $300 a month. He had a wife and two children. He didn't live in public housing, but I believe he would have been eligible for public housing. Would you have had objection to this man living in public housing.

Mr. WILLIAMSON. I would have objection to anybody living in public housing.

Mrs. GRIFFITHS. Do you feel that Ford wasn't paying their help enough?

Mr. WILLIAMSON. Mrs. Griffiths, there is one thing that we miss in this whole discussion of public housing. When you offer a man who makes $300 a month public housing aren't you in effect telling him that he doesn't really have to try to put a notch in his belt, to employ some of the American principles of frugality, to make sacrifices to get a home for his family and children? Sure it is very desirable. Everyone wants to see every family in adequate quarters, but I think that the worst part about public housing is that you are telling these people that they don't have to try; that the Federal Government will subsidize their shelter. I think that is one of the great disadvantages of public housing.

Mrs. GRIFFITHS. In his case that wasn't true, was it? Here is the wife who even took in sewing in this case. These people were way