18.

If you do not desire to answer questions 14, 15, 16, and 17, give percentage of increase on all rents..............

ALL INFORMATION SUBMITTED WILL BE
KEPT CONFIDENTIAL. ONLY TOTAL
FIGURES WILL BE USED.

Signature of Owner/Operator/Manager

Address

DID RENTS "SKY-ROCKET" IN LOS ANGELES AFTER DECONTROL?

1. Tenants' Council claimed rents would "Sky-rocket" 100% to 300%.

2. Housing Expediter claimed increases would be "exorbitant".

3. Spokesmen for Rental Industry claimed average increase would not exceed 20% - 25%.

AFTER DECONTROL:

1. Tenants' Council has no comment.

2. Survey by Rental Industry on January 15, 1951 showed increase of 5.5%.

3. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports 6.1% increase between November 15, 1950 and February 15, 1951.

83762-51-pt. 2- -27

[For the Los Angeles Times, Friday, April 20, 1951]

POLITICAL HOKUM

Last August, when rent control was a live issue and the city council majority voted for decontrol, there were a lot of wild threats against this majority along the line that the vengeance of an outraged electorate would be visited upon them.

But what are the facts? In the recent primary election 9 of the 10 councilmen who voted for decontrol were reelected, Don Allen being without opposition. The other 8 decontrollers elected at the primary were J. Win Austin, George P. Cronk, Ed J. Davenport, Ernest E. Debs, Harold E. Henry, John C. Holland, L. E. Timberlake, and Leland S. Warburton.

Lloyd Davies was the tenth councilman who voted for decontrol and he was defeated for reelection, but the issue of rent control did not enter into the conflict. The people of the district decided that Davies had not devoted sufficient time to his city hall duties.

[From the Long Beach Independent, Long Beach 12, Calif., Saturday, April 28, 1951]

UNNECESSARY CONTROLS

There is a lot of pressure being used in Washington to again enact rent control to apply to areas which have been decontrolled. It is the usual tendency to use controls on everything and everywhere just because some places and products need it. Long Beach would again come under rent control if such a law were passed. Actually Long Beach and its surrounding areas need more renters-not rent control.

A trip around almost any part of the city will disclose "for rent" signs in greater numbers than have been seen during the past 10 years. The continuous building programs in Lakewood, Lakewood Park, and other areas is evidence that more "for rent" signs will be prevalent in Long Beach. Large numbers of the city families are moving into these new areas.

To see what has happened to "for rent" advertising we checked our own experience. We found that the worst period of rental shortages for Long Beach was in 1945-46. During that period "for rent" advertising in newspapers practically disappeared. The housing shortage was so serious it was not necessary to advertise a vacancy. Early in 1947 the big building expansion got underway. By 1948 new houses and apartments were found in all locations.

On January 20, 1950, rent control was taken off in Long Beach when it was shown there was no actual shortage of rentals. Our records show that we carried 1,739 "for rent" advertisements for the week preceding rent decontrol in Long Beach.

Now there is talk of another control program for every city in the country. The ridiculous part of such a suggestion for Long Beach is shown again by the number of "for rent" advertisements carried by the Independent for week ending the 16th of this month. For week ending April 16, 1951, we carried 2,518 "for rent" advertisements. That means we carried 44 percent more "for rent" ads last week than we did the week before rent controls were taken off 15 months ago. That is surely a sound reason why new controls should not be invoked unless there is a freeze of everything in our economy.

Many cities have never taken off controls because they continue to have a serious housing shortage. Other cities decontrolled and now find themselves overcrowded again with defense workers. Control is justified in such cases. It is not justified where rentals exist, as they do in Long Beach at present. Controls should be only on scarce goods and services, because where there are scarcities, prices will skyrocket. That condition does not exist here as is evident by the "for rent" signs in windows and in the newspapers. That should be the best evidence that controls are not justified in this area.-L. A. C.