The accuracy of this report of the consultation between the PHA representative and the local officials leading up to the December 1950 resolution of the city council referred to in the testimony, is clearly borne out by the resolution itself, a copy of which is enclosed. This resolution deals only with the 120 units in project ILL-11218 and states specifically that the reason for adopting it was the determination by the Federal Government that the need for Government control of the project has been declared to be terminated and that it is "now offered for sale"; that the city council was therefore committing itself to approve of the project as permanent housing and to the necessary waiver of building-code requirements; that if requested to do so by the Government or other owners, the city agreed to accept dedication of the streets and utilities; and that-"The city, for the reason that it has no authority to control or direct the sale of real estate used for private purposes, neither approves nor disapproves any method of sale that may be used by the United States to private owners, but is of the opinion that a sale to private owners will be of definite advantage in that it will not disturb the situation of occupants and will not further increase the difficulties concerning housing in the city and it will, in the opinion of the governing body, have no adverse effects upon private housing and the housing market."

This resolution shows no evidence that the determination by the local officials to classify the structures as permanent was made because of representations by the Public Housing Administration that the project would have to be torn down, but indicates an affirmative desire on the part of the local officials that the project be sold to private owners and an assurance to interested purchasers that they would not have to contend with curing existing code violations.

On the basis of this consultation and its own determination of the nature and condition of the structures, the PHA classified the project as "permanent," and subsequently proceeded, as authorized by section 605 (a) of the Lanham Act, to acquire the fee simple title to the land, previously held by it under lease, to facilitate disposition of the housing for continued onsite use.

The Decatur officials seem to imply in their testimony that the fact that the structures were moved to Decatur from other sites where they had previously been in use made them per se "temporary" because of their "portable" nature. The structures were designed and classified as "demountable" so that they could be moved from one site to another with changing war housing needs. Their "portable" or "demountable" nature obviously did not necessarily make them, in the eyes of Congress, structures of a "temporary" character within the meaning of the provisions of the Lanham Act covering removal or other disposal of temporary housing. Otherwise Congress would not have enacted section 603 requiring a redetermination of all "demountable" structures for the purposes of characterizing them as "temporary" or "permanent" within the meaning of the Lanham Act. The testimony that the structures were moved from other sites where they were previously in use, merely supports the conclusion that the structures were "demountable" and, therefore, were required to be reexamined under section 603; it does not support the conclusion that they were necessarily "temporary."

Indeed, section 603 was enacted for the very purpose of resolving, once and for all, after ascertaining the then current desires of the community, any preexisting disputes or misunderstandings concerning the "permanent" or "temporary" character of demountable housing in each community. The fact that the structures have provided decent housing on this site for some 12 years, the testimony by the representatives of Decatur before the Housing Subcommittee that the structures will provide decent, safe, and sanitary housing for an additional 5 to 10 years, the opinion of the 2 independent fee appraisers in September 1956, that the housing had, in the opinion of one of them, an economic life of an additional 25 years, and the other, of 12 to 15 years, and the appraisal of these experts that they are worth $400,000, certainly support our determination that the structures were not "temporary" in character in 1950 and are not so now. We shall be pleased to make available the appraisal reports, including photographs, for inspection by the committee at its request.

The Decatur officials have now apparently changed their minds concerning the desirability of disposal of the projects to private ownerships, believing that to do so would create a future slum. They believe that the housing should be conveyed to the local housing authority or the city to be operated by it for an additional period not to exceed 10 years as relocation housing, after which it will be removed. We are willing to accept the judgment of the local officials that they will not be able to prevent the projects from turning into a slum; and that the housing is needed for the purposes and period stated. We shall be pleased, if the com

mittee so desires, to appraise the property on the basis of use for 10 years and removal thereafter, and draft appropriate legislation to provide for conveyance at this appraised price, subject to additional commensurate payment for use beyond the 10-year period. We do not believe that the Federal Government should go beyond this in absorbing the loss resulting from not disposing of the projects to the highest bidder.

In further support of their contention that they should obtain the structures without payment, the local officials state that they have to build up a reserve to cover the expense of removal of the structures. It has been our experience, on the basis of numerous removals of "temporary" structures throughout the country, that the cost of removal very rarely exceeds the salvage value of the removed structures. Since the housing in Decatur is superior to the "temporaries," our experience does not support the conclusion that a deficit will result from the removal of the structures.

On closer inspection of maps of the projects we find that they technically include 30 single-family dwelling units located on scattered sites which have been or will be sold to tenants and veterans and which we are certain were not intended to be included by the sponsors of the proposed legislation. The proposed legislation should therefore be revised to apply only to that part of the projects which comprise a single site of approximately 22.452 acres on which are located 180 dwelling units and an administration building.

We have not had time to obtain the views of the Bureau of the Budget on this report. We shall advise you further as soon as they are received.

Sincerely yours,

OAKLEY HUNTER, Acting Administrator.

RESOLUTION APPROVING NORTH JASPER HOMES OF THE PUBLIC HOUSING ADMINISTRATION AS PERMANENT

Whereas the United States Government has heretofore built and operated a housing project in Decatur, Ill., known as ILL-11218, North Jasper Homes, which was rented to persons in need of homes who worked in plants producing war supplies; and

Whereas the need for Government control of said housing project has been declared to be terminated and it is now offered for sale; and

Whereas, owing to war necessities, certain Building Code requirements were necessary to be waived at the time said resident units were constructed; and Whereas the United States Government, by the Housing and Home Finance Agency, Public Housing Administration, has constructed certain public ways and certain sanitary sewers said water lines in public ways in said housing project which may be dedicated as streets, public ways, and sewer and water line rights-of-way by the United States or other owners; and

Whereas, in the records of the Housing and Home Finance Agency, Public Housing Administration, said North Jasper Homes is referred to and designated as ILL-11218; Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the city council of the city of Decatur, Ill., That—

1. The city commits itself to approve of ILL-11218 as permanent housing and to the necessary waiver of Building Code requirements; reserving, however, to itself the power and authority to require that when any changes are made from the existing conditions that such changes must conform to the Building Code existing at the time such changes are made.

2. If so requested by the owners of this housing project, the city of Decatur. Ill,. agrees to accept the dedication of the streets, public ways, sanitary sewers, and water lines where located on public ways to be maintained as a part of the streets, highways, public ways, sewer and water lines of the city.

3. The city, for the reason that it has no authority to control or direct the sale of real estate used for private purposes, neither approves nor disapproves any method of sale that may be used by the United States to private owners. but is of the opinion that a sale to private owners will be of definite advantage in that it will not disturb the situation of occupants and will not further increase the difficulties concerning housing in the city, and it will, in the opinion of the governing body, have no adverse effects upon private housing and the housing market.

Passed and approved this 14th day of December 1950.

Attest:

JAMES A. HEDRICK, Mayor.

D. F. DAVIS, City Clerk.

Senator SPARKMAN. All right. Another project bill is S. 1531. It pertains to some housing in Louisiana. Are you familiar with that, offhand?

Mr. SLUSSER. Yes, that is a Government site. They own the land. The State owns the land and we own the buildings. It seems to me it is a hospital. And these buildings were designed at the time of their construction so they could be used for that purpose.

Senator SPARKMAN. As a matter of fact, I believe we have already transferred it, have we not?

Mr. SLUSSER. I think that we have a downpayment of $100,000 on that. We came to an agreement on price and then got into a hassle down in Louisiana between the Government and the legislature.

Senator SPARKMAN. So what is desired now is to extend the time. Mr. SLUSSER. To complete the deal.

Senator SPARKMAN. What is the attitude of the agency on that? Mr. SLUSSER. We are quite willing. We have agreed with them to sell it. We have, as I understand, a $100,000 downpayment on that. Senator SPARKMAN. We have S. 1569, relating to Las Vegas, Nev. Mr. SLUSSER. I am not familiar with the details of that one, but we have a report on it which could be inserted in the record. Senator SPARKMAN. Will you, and let us have a statement. Also, there is S. 1090, Wethersfield, Conn. Mr. SLUSSER. That we are familiar with. bill-I believe there was time asked on that. we were going to sell in December of last year.

We have had a special
But I think that is one

Senator SPARKMAN. That is the one we had up last year.

Senator BUSH. They did not conclude the negotiations, but they have now concluded them, and it is purely a question of extending the time.

Senator SPARKMAN. You are agreeable to that?

Mr. SLUSSER. That is right.

Senator SPARKMAN. Thank you very much.

Our next witness is Mr. Boris Shishkin.

Mr. Shishkin, we are glad to have you with us. Please sit down. For the benefit of the record, will you please identify the gentlemen who are with you.

STATEMENT OF BORIS SHISHKIN, SECRETARY, HOUSING COMMITTEE; ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN W. EDELMAN, WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE, TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, MEMBER, HOUSING COMMITTEE; AND BERT SEIDMAN, ECONOMIST, AFLCIO

Mr. SHISHKIN. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am Borish Shishkin, secretary of the housing committee of the AFL-CIO. I am very happy to be here. I have with me my associates, Mr. John W. Edelman, Washington representative of the Textile Workers of America, and a member of the housing committee of the AFL-CIO, and Mr. Bert Seidman, economist of the AFL-CIO. I would like your permission, Mr. Chairman, to have them supplement my testimony here with their comments.

Senator SPARKMAN. We will be very glad to have them do that. You just proceed in your own way.

90300-57-54

Mr. SHISHKIN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to preface the presentation I am here to make on behalf of the AFL-CIO on housing with an urgent appeal to this committee to consider the background of the situation confronting this Nation today against which this legislation on housing that is pending before you in the committee is considered.

First I would like to emphasize the fact that we are in the midst of more than one revolution right now in our economic life. One is the technological revolution. The technological changes that are taking place more and more rapidly today are bringing truly revolutionary changes in the way of life of people in America. Transportation, communications, and all those things, are making this Nation more mobile. People are more and more on the move. All of this, of course, impinges very heavily on the need of people for shelter and a greater flexibility in providing that shelter where it is needed.

There is a stepped up pace of in-migration, of travel across State lines.

There is also another revolution going on, and that is the revolution in our population structure. For one thing, because of the truly revolutionary advances made in the field of medicine, we have added very substantially to the longevity of our people. That means that in our population structure we have more older persons, and they need special provision made to be able to house themselves properly and adequately in virtually all of our communities.

We have also taken into account the fact that in the population structure there have been other changes as well. For one thing, I would like to mention the fact that at the time of the last war, the end of the last war, we had a great increase in the marriage rate. In our chronological curve of the marriage rate there has been a great bulge of marriages in that period. It was largely precipitated by the wartime conditions, and the young people getting married, those who were being let out of the Armed Forces.

Now, those people that were married then have had children. These children are growing up. The time is advancing very rapidly when these war babies are going to reach marriageable age themselves. They are going to be married and are going to be knocking on doors looking for housing-and there won't be any housing for them unless something is done now.

We are now in a housing crisis in America, and representatives of many of our communities have been here to testify to you to that effect.

We are approaching a much more severe housing crisis unless and it is right upon us some provision is made and is made not after a long and painful study but is made in the course of this present session of Congress. We must be mindful of the fact that if any action is taken legislatively, it will take time to translate it into the actual brick and mortar terms of shelter for people who need that shelter.

Mr. Chairman, the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations considers housing as the key issue of domestic economic policy at the present time. In order to maintain economic stability and high employment, in order to maintain prosperity, our current dangerous lag in residential construction and bring the supply housing within the financial reach of the average American family.

We need a national housing policy which would sharply pull up the current dangerous lag in residential construction and bring the supply of housing in balance with the economic growth of our nation.

The marked and widening gap between housing needs and residential construction activity has become a matter of increasing concern to organized labor. At its recent meeting, the executive council of the AFL-CIO issued a vigorous statement on the current housing situation calling for a comprehensive all-out housing program to make possible construction of 2 million homes a year and to assure every family the chance to obtain a decent home.

At the conclusion of my statement, Mr. Chairman, I have the text of the executive council statement which I would like to insert in the record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Senator SPARKMAN. I notice you have several exhibits. They will all be included, and your statement as a whole will all be printed, but you may read all of it if you like.

Mr. SHISHKIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The tragic facts of the current housing situation are, I am sure, well known to the members of this committee. The urgent need to replace millions of dwellings which do not meet minimum standards for family living has been emphasized again and again. Attention has also been directed to the demand for new housing created by our rapid growth of population. Not enough recognition has been given, however, to the tremendous demand for new housing resulting from migration to particular areas where rapid industrial expansion requires a large number of additional workers. California, for example, has been receiving an average of 39,000 persons a month or close to a half million a year. According to the Chicago Association of Commerce and Industry, Chicago will need 513,000 new workers by 1960, of whom 404,000 must be supplied through inmigration. This would mean that 114 to 12 million individuals will move into the Chicago area in the next few years. Their housing need is known in advance. Advance provision must be made to have this need met.

The phenomenal mobility of the American population is not confined to just a few areas. According to the Census Bureau, in March 1956, 1 out of every 5 persons was living in a different house from the one he occupied a year earlier; and some 5.1 million persons were actually living in a different State.

The mobility of our population adds materially to housing requirements. The migrating family must be properly housed in its new location, regardless of whether its former dwelling is utilized.

Despite the widely recognized overall need for construction of at least 2 million housing units a year, last year only 1.1 million units were built. This represents a sharp decline of 16 percent from the 1955 level, principally in the more moderate-priced houses financed with FHA-insured and VA-guaranteed mortgages.

Private-housing starts declined from 1,309,500 in 1955 to 1,096,000 in 1956, or by 212,700. Combined FHA and VA starts dropped during the same period by 207,000, accounting for almost the entire falling off in housing starts. The decrease in FHA starts was 84,800 and in VA, 122,200. Moreover, while the overall decline in private-housing starts was about 16 percent, in both FHA and VA starts it was about 31 percent.