and then let the city do the job that it ought to do itself. Cities in general have sufficient credit to be able to start this highly essential type of operation if grants are used. Such grants should be for land assembly only.

We feel also that this kind of a program would improve if its legislation were to emphasize more strongly the idea that redevelopment must include all types of construction and land use. I do not know if it was the intention of the drafters of this legislation to imply that redevelopment would be principally for housing, but I sense that in this bill. Blighted areas should be redeveloped for the use most suitable for them, and should include commercial building, industrial development, public buildings, park and recreational space, and similar uses, as well as for housing. Many areas which should be redeveloped are totally unsuited for housing. Others would lend themselves best to this purpose. Any legislation should make clear that redevelopment programs under it should be comprehensive, and not merely confined to housing.

I suppose you gentlemen who have listened to other presentations by our association are thoroughly familiar with our attitude toward public housing. We think that public housing has failed to do what its sponsors have claimed for it; that it has not taken care of the people it should have; it is building political constituencies founded on shelter; it puts a premium on dependency; it is so expensive that it can care for only a fraction of the population, and that if it is continued or extended it will inevitably produce serious social dislocation. It has supported at low subsidized rents many who are employed and are able to pay adequate rent in privately owned buildings. We don't believe in it; we think that its proponents have hoodwinked the Nation by promising one thing and delivering another, and we challenge it as social policy.

I will save your time and mine by saying simply that we are unalterably opposed to it and to the section of the bill pertaining to public housing. In fact, we feel that this section is actually the essence of the whole measure, and for that reason we oppose the bill itself. The public-housing provisions would make lavish grants of public money to the tune of $88,000,000 a year. On the basis of simple arithmetic and disregarding interest costs, $88,000,000 a year would be upwards of three and a half billion dollars the Federal Government would pay out on the rent bills of the relatively few families who would benefit.

We are against this program. On the positive side, we favor a genuine slum clearance and housing program that will give to private enterprise the tools needed so that it can attack effectively the slum-clearance problem and the problem of low-rent housing. We have outlined legislation along these lines, and it has been placed in the hands of your committee. You can read our positive proposals yourselves, and so I will not go into their details.

That, in general, represents our attitude on this bill. I can sum up by saying four things:

1. The country desperately needs immediate construction of dwellings, and every possible effort and coordination should be made by the Government to speed production of houses. All of our attentions and energies should be spent in this direction. I do not believe our

country has ever had a housing crisis equal to that today-and it is a crisis caused by only one thing-shortage and lack of construction. 2. This bill, dealing with long-range programs, would not contribute to relieving the shortage, nor put a single veteran in a house for many, many months-perhaps years.

3. We ought to be working on the problems of producing housing and this measure, by throwing great fear into the building industry, is one of the elements holding back construction today.

4. The suggested redevelopment program could be improved in details, and ought to be embodied in separate legislation.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Farr.

The committee will adjourn until 10:30 o'clock tomorrow morning. (Whereupon, at 6:15 p. m., an adjournment was taken until Thursday, December 6, 1945, at 10:30 a. m.)

-34

483

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE PRINCIPAL PROVISIONS OF STATE URBAN REDEVELOPMENT LEGISLATION

(National Housing Agency, Office of the General Counsel, October 31, 1945)

INTRODUCTION

This analysis relates to State legislation (other than housing authority laws) designed to facilitate and make possible the clearance of slum, blighted, and deteriorating areas in our local communities and the rehabilitation and redevelopment of such areas. The statutes enacted to date fall logically into three main groups and are treated on this basis in this study, which is, therefore, divided into three parts-one for each group.

Part I treats those statutes intended to encourage private enterprise, through the operations of private urban redevelopment corporations, to accomplish both of the two basic phases of urban redevelopment: (1) land assembly and clearance, and (2) the actual redevelopment of the area. Toward this end certain public powers and aids are granted or made available to these private corporations. Part II deals with those statutes where the responsibility for land assembly and clearance (as distinguished from the subsequent redevelopment of the area) is placed upon the municipal bodies themselves, which generally already possess the public powers necessary for this purpose, or other local public instrumentalities. Under these statutes, actual redevelopment of the area still remains basically the job of private enterprise. The statutes treated in part III involve substantially the same approach as those in part II except that the legislation specifically designates local housing authorities as the public body for accomplishing the initial task of land assembly and clearance.

It will be noted that the statutes of 11 States are analyzed in part I, of 11 States n part II, and of 4 States in part III. Allowing for 6 States which have statutes alling into more than one of these groups, there are altogether 20 States which have, as of the present time, enacted urban redevelopment legislation.'

The following chart indicates the States now having urban redevelopment egislation and the part in this analysis where the legislation is treated:

Urban redevelopment corporation laws, which have been enacted in 11 States, uthorize the creation of private corporations for the purpose of undertaking rojects to acquire and clear slum, blighted, or substandard areas, and to construct nd operate in those areas dwelling accommodations and appurtenant commercial or recreational facilities. These projects are authorized to be undertaken with he assistance of certain public powers, privileges, and exemptions, and so are ubject to certain limitations, regulations, and supervision by public bodies. The orporations, known as redevelopment companies or corporations, are given all ecessary general corporate powers, including the power to borrow money and ssue bonds. In 6 States, the laws are applicable to any city or other municipality

In addition, the Ohio Legislature, during its 1945 session, created a committee to develop an urban reevelopment bill to present to the next session of the legislature. Also, there is now pending before the Congress a bill, already enacted by the Senate, providing for an urban redevelopment program for the District of Columbia.

485