(e) Have you any modifications in that program, which in your opinion, would make it more effective, or would make it more adaptable to conditions in your city? No. 5. (d) Please outline briefly, and describe the practical effect of, any alternative proposals which you desire to recommend as a feasible means of meeting this phase of the housing problem. None. 6. In your opinion, wholly aside from low-rent housing for low-income families, is a redevelopment program necessary for your city in order to clear slums and blighted areas and making the land therein available for new private and public development. Very definitely yes. 7. (a) If so, in your opinion, is some form of public financial assistance necessary to write off the excessive costs of acquiring and clearing the land in slums and blighted areas if it is to be made available at prices which will permit its redevelopment for the use which your city determines is more appropriate? Yes. (b) Please indicate, briefly, the basis for your opinion. Land prices are too high for acquisition on a straight self-liquidating basis; In addition, lots are too small, streets too narrow and inadequate, so that a new street arrangement and improvement, together with resubdivision of land, is necessary. This will add greatly to costs. (e) To what extent is your city in a position to finance these costs? Not at all. (d) To what extent are State funds available for this purpose? Very limited, if any. (e) S. 866, now pending in Congress, proposes that two-thirds of the net cost of local urban redevelopment programs be carried by the Federal Government and one-third by the locality. In your opinion, is this an equitable and adequate proposal? Probably so. (f) Please outline briefly, and describe briefly the practical effect of any alternative proposals which you desire to recommend as a feasible means of meeting this problem. None. 8. In carrying out a program for the redevelopment of slums and blighted areas in your city under such a program, what means do you decommend to assure that low-income families now living in such areas will be provided with decent housing? Adoption of the procedure outlined in the California Comunity Redevelopment Act (ch. 1326, Stats. 1945, State of California) which requires the city planning commission to prepare plans for any redevelopment project, and which provides other safeguards. 9. (a) If your State now has urban redevelopment legislation, please indicate the results achieved under it or now in prospect in your city. Not yet invoked. (b) In your opinion, under this legislation alone will your city be able effectively to carry out its program for the clearance and redevelopment of its slums and blighted areas? No, for the reason that costs will be too high. (c) Please indicate, briefly, the basis for your opinion. Reasons for this opinion are basically the same as stated in 7 (b) above. 10. Are there any other matters in connection with low-rent housing for lowincome families, or in connection with the clearance and redevelopment of slums and blighted areas, as to which you desire to comment or make recommendations? A veterans' housing project, constructed with State and Federal aid on city owned property as an emergency project, using Army surplus buildings, has, in effect, added to the problem of substandard housing. Hoping that the above answers are satisfactory for the purpose for which you sent the questionnaire, I am Sincerely yours, RANDALL M. DORTON, Hon. ROBERT F. WAGNER, CITY OF SANTA MONICA, CALIF., January 21, 1948. Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR: Mr. Dorton being away on business, your letter of January 16, 1948, relative to the questionnaire sent out by your office, has been referred to me for an answer for the reason that I assembled much of the data for the original questionaire. The estimate that there are 2,500 families of low income now living in substandard housing is, I believe, a conservative one. The principal reason, however, for the statement that it would be desirable to provide 4,000 low rental units in this city over the next 4 years is this: There is an over-all shortage of housing, particularly for families in the low-income brackets, many of whom now are forced to pay rent far greater than lies within their reasonable capacity. In addition to this, the growth of the community over the past 10 years has been such that it is reasonable to expect a continued increasing demand for housing in all categories. Yours very truly, Hon. ROBERT F. WAGNER, L S. STORRS, Zoning Administrator. NEW HAVEN, CONN., December 11, 1947. United States Senator, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR WAGNER: In accordance with your letter of October 10 relating to the broad question of slum clearance and including the questionnaire you enclosed I am pleased to advise you that after a conference with the New Haven Housing Authority and our local emergency housing director, the enclosed information has been suggested to me as indicative of the local situation. It is pleasant to know that the opinion of the municipalities throughout the country is being sought in regard to this matter. The indicated replies to your questions are as follows: 1. The Housing Authority of New Haven, after a careful survey of problem areas using the quantitative objective appraisal form, estimates the number of low-income families now living in substandard housing at 3,500 as a minimum. 2. (a) There is no possibility that private enterprise can provide adequate housing for the families with incomes below $1,500. (b) The reason for this opinion is that families in this income bracket (and under present conditions, well above this income bracket) are entirely unable to pay the actual cost of decent housing in New Haven. 3. (a) I think that publicly assisted low-rent housing for families of low income is the only sound solution of this problem. (b) The New Haven Housing Authority has already filed "shelf” application with the Federal Government for 1,400 units of this type. (c) The city of New Haven is in no position to finance the cost of constructing low-rent housing. The flight of taxable property beyond the city limits brings New Haven like other cities, face to face with a very serious financial problem. (d) Same answer as 3 (c). (e) No State loans or subsidy funds are available for the low-income family. The city has provided several hundred temporary homes for veterans and there is a State guaranty of funds for veterans housing under which the housing authority hopes to erect 300 units; but since there is no subsidy involved these houses will not fall in the "low-rent" class. 4. (a) The City has 1,000 units of low rent housing built under the 1937 law. These units served low-income families until incomes went up with war conditions. Nearly one-third of the present tenants cannot technically be classed as low-income families. The housing authority has made every possible effort to eliminate the families in question as rapidly as any housing can be provided for them outside, but progress is necessarily slow. (b) We are thoroughly satisfied with the efficiency with which this low-rent housing has been built and operated. (c) I have no figures of the effect of real estate values, but the reduction in cost of city services is illustrated by the fact that as soon as Elm Haven project was built we were able to discontinue one of our local police stations in that area. A careful study conducted at Yale University has shown that delinquency rates for families in housing projects has been cut in half-as compared with the records of the same families for 10 years prior to their admission to the project. (d) There has been no competition with standard private housing in the city since the tenants were all initially selected from those unable to pay an economic rent, and all families now able to pay an economic rent will be evicted as promptly as quarters can be found for them. 5. (a) I strongly favor the continuance of the program of Federal assistance. to local communities along the lines of, the United States Housing Act of 1937. construction cost of such housing. (c) and (d) No comments. (b) For reasons stated above, the city is in no position to contribute to the 6. Wholly aside from low-rent housing for low-income families, a redevelopment program for clearing slums and blighted areas is highly desirable to make the land available for new private and public development. 7. (a) For the carrying out of such a program some form of public financial assistance to write off the excessive value of slum properties is essential. (b) The price of such properties is now so high as to prevent development for any useful purposes without some financial assistance. (c) The city of New Haven is at the moment in no position to finance these costs, but should be able to participate in the future under a properly formulated Federal program. (d) No State funds are available for this purpose. (e) I think the program proposed in S. 866 now pending in Congress, is an equitable and reasonable one only insofar as the Federal participation is concerned; but not so as to the carrying of one-third of the net cost by the city of New Haven in the light of the city's financial position and financial prospects. It is suggested in this regard that consideration be given the State participation in the carrying of the remaining one-third of the net cost. (f) No comment. 8. In order to provide homes for persons now living in slums to be cleared, a Federal subsidized program for low-income groups should be developed parallel with or slightly ahead of-the redevelopment program. 9. (a) No such legislation is in force in Connecticut. (b) and (c) No comment. 10. No comment. Sincerely yours, DEAR SIR: Attached hereto are our replies pertaining to city of Chicago in answer to your questionnaire concerning housing and slum-clearance problems of cities. Sincerely, MARTIN H. KENNELLY, Mayor. DECEMBER 15, 1947. 1. Question. Based on your knowledge of conditions in your city, what is your estimate as to the approximate number of low-income families now living in substandard housing, in slums, or under other unsatisfactory housing conditions? Answer. As a result of the present high level of employment and incomes (both individual and family, many of which have two or more wage earners), there is a considerable disparity between (1) the number of families which occupy substandard or slum housing and whose incomes are within the current income limit for occupancy in a low-rent project, and (2) the number of families in such housing with incomes above the income limit for low-rent projects but insufficient to pay for standard private housing, even if there were enough of such units to accommodate all Chicago families. Irrespective of the number of families who now occupy substandard or slum housing and whose incomes are so low that they cannot afford to pay for standard private housing, and irrespective of the changes in the number of such families as either or both incomes and construction costs fluctuate, it should be noted that the 75674-48- -6 Hon. ROBERT F. WAGNER, CITY OF SANTA MONICA, CALIF., January 21, 1948. Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR: Mr. Dorton being away on business, your letter of January 16, 1948, relative to the questionnaire sent out by your office, has been referred to me for an answer for the reason that I assembled much of the data for the original questionaire. The estimate that there are 2,500 families of low income now living in substandard housing is, I believe, a conservative one. The principal reason, however, for the statement that it would be desirable to provide 4,000 low rental units in this city over the next 4 years is this: There is an over-all shortage of housing, particularly for families in the low-income brackets, many of whom now are forced to pay rent far greater than lies within their reasonable capacity. In addition to this, the growth of the community over the past 10 years has been such that it is reasonable to expect a continued increasing demand for housing in all categories. Yours very truly, L S. STORRS, Zoning Administrator. Hon. ROBERT F. WAGNER, NEW HAVEN, CONN., December 11, 1947. United States Senator, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR WAGNER: In accordance with your letter of October 10 relating to the broad question of slum clearance and including the questionnaire you enclosed I am pleased to advise you that after a conference with the New Haven Housing Authority and our local emergency housing director, the enclosed information has been suggested to me as indicative of the local situation. It is pleasant to know that the opinion of the municipalities throughout the country is being sought in regard to this matter. The indicated replies to your questions are as follows: 1. The Housing Authority of New Haven, after a careful survey of problem areas using the quantitative objective appraisal form, estimates the number of low-income families now living in substandard housing at 3,500 as a minimum. 2. (a) There is no possibility that private enterprise can provide adequate housing for the families with incomes below $1,500. (b) The reason for this opinion is that families in this income bracket (and under present conditions, well above this income bracket) are entirely unable to pay the actual cost of decent housing in New Haven. 3. (a) I think that publicly assisted low-rent housing for families of low income is the only sound solution of this problem. (b) The New Haven Housing Authority has already filed "shelf" application with the Federal Government for 1,400 units of this type. (c) The city of New Haven is in no position to finance the cost of constructing low-rent housing. The flight of taxable property beyond the city limits brings New Haven like other cities, face to face with a very serious financial problem. (d) Same answer as 3 (c). (e) No State loans or subsidy funds are available for the low-income family. The city has provided several hundred temporary homes for veterans and there is a State guaranty of funds for veterans housing under which the housing authority hopes to erect 300 units; but since there is no subsidy involved these houses will not fall in the "low-rent" class. 4. (a) The City has 1,000 units of low rent housing built under the 1937 law. These units served low-income families until incomes went up with war conditions. Nearly one-third of the present tenants cannot technically be classed as low-income families. The housing authority has made every possible effort to eliminate the families in question as rapidly as any housing can be provided for them outside, but progress is necessarily slow. (b) We are thoroughly satisfied with the efficiency with which this low-rent housing has been built and operated. (e) I have no figures of the effect of real estate values, but the reduction in cost of city services is illustrated by the fact that as soon as Elm Haven project was built we were able to discontinue one of our local police stations in that A careful study conducted at Yale University has shown that delinquency rates for families in housing projects has been cut in half-as compared with the area. records of the same families for 10 years prior to their admission to the project. (d) There has been no competition with standard private housing in the city since the tenants were all initially selected from those unable to pay an economic rent, and all families now able to pay an economic rent will be evicted as promptly as quarters can be found for them. 5. (a) I strongly favor the continuance of the program of Federal assistance. to local communities along the lines of, the United States Housing Act of 1937. construction cost of such housing. (c) and (d) No comments. (b) For reasons stated above, the city is in no position to contribute to the 6. Wholly aside from low-rent housing for low-income families, a redevelopment program for clearing slums and blighted areas is highly desirable to make the land available for new private and public development. 7. (a) For the carrying out of such a program some form of public financial assistance to write off the excessive value of slum properties is essential. (b) The price of such properties is now so high as to prevent development for any useful purposes without some financial assistance. (c) The city of New Haven is at the moment in no position to finance these costs, but should be able to participate in the future under a properly formulated Federal program. (d) No State funds are available for this purpose. (e) I think the program proposed in S. 866 now pending in Congress, is an equitable and reasonable one only insofar as the Federal participation is concerned; but not so as to the carrying of one-third of the net cost by the city of New Haven in the light of the city's financial position and financial prospects. It is suggested in this regard that consideration be given the State participation in the carrying of the remaining one-third of the net cost. (f) No comment. 8. In order to provide homes for persons now living in slums to be cleared, a Federal subsidized program for low-income groups should be developed parallel with or slightly ahead of-the redevelopment program. 9. (a) No such legislation is in force in Connecticut. (b) and (c) No comment. 10. No comment. Sincerely yours, DEAR SIR: Attached hereto are our replies pertaining to city of Chicago in answer to your questionnaire concerning housing and slum-clearance problems of cities. Sincerely, MARTIN H. KENNELLY, Mayor. DECEMBER 15, 1947. 1. Question. Based on your knowledge of conditions in your city, what is your estimate as to the approximate number of low-income families now living in substandard housing, in slums, or under other unsatisfactory housing conditions? Answer. As a result of the present high level of employment and incomes (both individual and family, many of which have two or more wage earners), there is a considerable disparity between (1) the number of families which occupy substandard or slum housing and whose incomes are within the current income limit for occupancy in a low-rent project, and (2) the number of families in such housing with incomes above the income limit for low-rent projects but insufficient to pay for standard private housing, even if there were enough of such units to accommodate all Chicago families. Irrespective of the number of families who now occupy substandard or slum housing and whose incomes are so low that they cannot afford to pay for standard private housing, and irrespective of the changes in the number of such families as either or both incomes and construction costs fluctuate, it should be noted that the 75674486 |