On these maps, for instance, on the first map we have spotted tuberculosis cases in 1933; on the second map we have spotted the major and minor crimes for the year 1933; on the third map we have spotted the location of residence of the cases which were treated at the city hospital during the year 1933; on the fourth map we have spotted the residence of the cases handled by the municipal relief bureau, which is the city bureau to take care of the relief problem, for the year 1933; and on the fifth map we have spotted a combination of crime, disease, relief, city hospital cases for that year.

All of these maps will show that there is a very definite district in the city of Louisville which would be the ideal place for a slum clearance and housing project, and that from the standpoint of the city administration in both health and crime, if this territory could be cleaned out and improved it would be of a great benefit to the city.

The CHAIRMAN. Those maps may be filed with the clerk of the committee, for the benefit of the committee.

Mr. MILLER. We have made quite a study of the conditions in Louisville, starting back with July 1933, and at that time we took four districts, two in the eastern part of the city and two in the western part, more in the colored district.

Those four districts were studied from various angles to see the possibilities, and later one district was selected for the slum-clearance project in Louisville.

That project was well under way when it was stopped by a suit in the Federal court, and later that suit was taken to the Supreme Court of the United States and dismissed.

The studies were gathered at that time, and they clearly illustrate the necessity for a housing project in the city.

The great trouble which I think all cities are having, and which is true in Louisville and all other cities, is that due to the automobile and other factors, there is a tendency to move out of what might be called the old residential district in the city, to the outlying areas.

In Louisville, within the last 20 years' space, that district in Louisville has perhaps decreased in population by at least 25 percent. That territory is still there, and it is serviced by sewers, by streets, and by all of the public utilities, and the cost for keeping up those services have to be maintained.

On the other hand, the people moving out of those districts go to the outlying territories where they have no sewers and have none of the other services.

At the present time, our total bond issue of the city of Louisville, is about 40 million dollars, of which 20 million dollars is for sewers, and a good many of these people are moving out to the territory where even with that large expenditure on sewers you cannot have that service.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you levy a sewer assessment?

Mr. MILLER. No; all of our sewers have been on bond issue of the city as a whole.

The CHAIRMAN. You collect from those who use these sewers, by way of assessment?

Mr. MILLER. No; we do not assess for sewer benefits.

If we could rehabilitate that area which is perfectly good from location and all other standards, we would really bring back to the city a territory which would be much more sizeable and beneficial

from many standpoints, which today looks like it is soon going to become a blighted area between the business area and the residential district.

All diseases, juvenile delinquency, and crime is higher in this area than any other part of the city, and I think from the city's standpoint that is one of the most important things which we have to consider at the present time.

We have made a study of four districts in that area, for instance, at the city hospital, in reference to narcotic, insane, major and minor crimes, illiteracy, dependency, family service, public heaitli, nursing, and municipal relief, and find on those total services, the total cost to the city of Louisville is approximately 22 million dollars, of which four small areas contribute $176,000; or putting it perhaps in a more concrete manner, the taxes raised from those four small areas are $52,304 and the cost for those services alone mentioned, is $176,544, or an excess over the tax receipts of $124,240.

The cost for those services over the city as a whole is $8.30 per person, and the cost in district no. 1 for those services per person is $34.20, or over 4 times the average cost to the city; in district no. 2 it is $20.85; in district no. 3 it is $23; in district no. 4 it is $18.75, all compared with the cost over the entire city of $8.30.

We have taken also some lots through those various areas as a comparison of the social cost to the assessment and the tax value. The most striking loss is a lot in district no. 2, which is down in the colored district, where the assessed value is $450, the city receives $4.95 in taxes and the social cost was $1,330, or 296 times what was received in taxes.

Selecting various others lots, five lots in district no. 1 ran 20.5 times the taxes, and others ran 6.5 times the taxes and 41.5 times the taxes; and, taking certain lots in the other districts, they will show approximaely the same as a whole.

There is a high lot in district no. 3, where the total tax received is $31.68 and the social cost is $1,538.06, making 106 times the taxes received, and that will be true right straight through.

In studying it from the question of tuberculosis, there is in the city as a whole one case to every 463 people in the city; in district no. 1 there is one case to every 226; and in the four districts as a whole there is one case to every 156 people in those four districts as compared to one case for every 463 people in the city as a whole.

Of course distrist nos. 1 and 2 are down in the colored belt where the tuberculosis rate is higher than in other places.

I have a table here which I would be glad to file, which shows the ratio of the tuberculosis cases is three to one as compared with the rest of the city, for these four districts.

It also shows that the tuberculosis deaths is two to one; that the city hospital cases are 1.8; major crimes 4.6 times the average; and minor crimes, 3.8 times; delinquency and lependent children 2.4 times; family service is 1.5 times; municipal relief is 2.5 times.

This table will show all of those averages, and that they run more than twice the average in the rest of the city.

As to housing as it affects Louisville we have made a study of the possibility of getting some housing in some other way than by the Federal Government, and we find it is absolutely impossible to get

any private industry to build any houses for this low-income group, for the simple reason that they cannot pay sufficient rental.

Also, to really meet this problem we would have to have power to condemn property, and it would have to be done on a large-scale operation. If it cannot be done on a large-scale operation, the surrounding territory would so influence the neighborhood that I am afraid any investment put in there would be lost.

Taking a survey for the year 1934 of rentals paid in the city of Louisville, the total rentals were 53,500. Of that number, the rentals under $10 were 12,000 in round figures, or 22.5 percent; the rentals from $10 to $14.99 was 13,442, or 25 percent; from $15 to $19.99 was 9.799, or 18.3 percent; from $20 to $29.99 was 8,861, or 16.8 percent; from $30 to $49.99 was 6,047, or 11.3 percent; $50 and over there were 3,223, or 6 percent.

Assuming income of rentals at 18 percent of the income, about 47.6 percent of the families in Louisville have annual incomes of not more than $1,000; 22.5 percent, or more than 12,000 families have annual incomes of less than $700.

These two groups constitute the greater portion of those living in the slum clearance areas and assuming these two groups could pay an average of $10 a month as rental, we will find that would yield to private industry 12 percent on a thousand-dollar house, and there is practically no construction in the city of Louisville in recent years of this character.

In 1935 there were 241 dwelling houses built in Louisville, and of those there were only 52 which cost under $3,300, or only 5 houses out of the whole 241 dwellings built in 1935 that cost $1,000, which shows that you have got 55.9 percent of the citizens in Louisville who pay $20 a month or less, and 18 percent of the new buildings fall within that class.

Now, we have got about 44 percent which pay $20 or more, and perhaps 89 percent of the new construction has been within that range, so as a matter of fact, about 60 percent of the inhabitants have to be supplied with about 20 percent of the new construction. There are two other phases I would like to mention, as affecting the city of Louisville, and I think all cities, and that is, we are very much in favor of two particular items in this bill. One is the item where the civil and criminal jurisdiction is returned to the city on this character of property.

Under the present law the city lacks such jurisdiction of property owned by the Federal Government, and I think for the proper administration of the city it is absolutely necessary that the city laws be extended to this class of dwelling houses.

The other item is the question of taxes. This bill provides there may be entered into an agreement with the city to pay an annual sum in lieu of taxes. There has been some hesitancy on the part of a good many cities in going into these housing projects for the reason the city cannot afford to lose or to carry these large areas within the city without receiving some return in the form of taxes or payments.

There is one other thing I would like to say, and that is in regard to the present situation in Louisville due to the fact that we have had some publicity, as the Louisville case was the case which was taken to the Supreme Court of the United States. The project was a slum.

clearance project, and was first started in 1933, and was well under way and would perhaps have been largely completed by this time if it had not been for certain political influence which came into play for the express purpose of preventing this housing project being carried through. It was taken into court, which stopped that project. Since then we have had two low-cost housing projects started and they are now partially complete. Both of those two projects were on property which was purchased without condemnation proceedings. One was out near a new industrial development of Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co., and some of the distilleries, and another was a colored industry over at Seventh and Kentucky, on the old ball park.

Both of those are housing projects, and while they fulfil one need, they do not fill what is perhaps the greatest need from the city's standpoint, and that is rehabilitation of the territory which is already serviced with utilities, streets, and sewers, and I think I can say from the standpoint of the city as a whole there is a great deal of interest still in the old project; and I think the public as a whole, the business interests, and the social interests, are all very anxious to see that old project, which is in the slum area, carried out, and we hope that this bill will give us the right to join with the Federal Government.

Our present law does not give the city as much authority as we would like, and we have a bill drawn up which will be introduced into the special legislature which Governor Chandler has agreed to call as soon as this session, which is devoted to revenue, is completed, which will give to the city of Louisville all of the authority needed to join with the Federal Government in setting up a housing authority, and if this bill is passed by the Congress, I am quite sure Louisville will be very anxious and will cooperate in every way in setting up as many housing projects as are feasible in the city.

We would like to have one not only where the old project was, but also one in the colored district so as to take care of the slum area in what is known as the district around Eighth and Chestnut Streets.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mayor Wilson, will you come forward?

STATEMENT OF HON. S. DAVIS WILSON, MAYOR,
PHILADELPHIA, PA.

The CHAIRMAN. Your full name is S. Davis Wilson?

Mr. WILSON. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. You are mayor of the city of Philadelphia?
Mr. WILSON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. How long have you been mayor?

Mr. WILSON. Four months; comptroller before that and several years deputy comptroller of Philadelphia County.

The CHAIRMAN. You have been long associated with the city government?

Mr. WILSON. Yes; I have a rather intimate knowledge of the city government and conditions.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed to present your views to the committee.

Mr. WILSON. I have studied this proposed bill very carefully and am heartily in accord with it. I have talked with mayors of other cities in Pennsylvania, and I have quite close contact with a number of people, and I find very generally that this bill is very popular and will meet a great need.

Speaking generally, I would say that it will do more than any other one thing to bring us back to normal. Our buildings trades have been hard hit, the unemployment of mechanics has been more serious than with other classes of workers, especially in Philadelphia. Housing such as proposed in this bill will benefit so many people throughout the country and so quickly, beginning with the raw material, manufacture of things necessary in connection with the construction of houses, and it will help all along the line.

Besides that, I consider it a good investment from the standpoint of the Government, because of the return of the investment in the way of restored normal conditions of employment at fair wages, from the standpoint of saving money for the taxpayers in connection with crime and crime prevention, and the matter of the cost of health protection to the taxpayers.

As far as Philadelphia is concerned, under our present law the city government is permitted to condemn houses that are unsafe. I have made a survey of some 2,000 houses and proceeded with the condemnation of those properties through the office of the city solicitor. Our procedure there is for our building inspection bureau to first inspect the property and make a report. If they recommend that the property be taken down, the owners are notified, and after a certain time we file a petition in court. If the petition is allowed, a writ is issued and the sheriff then advertises for bidders to tear down these properties. Last year it cost us $100,000.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have to pay damages in those cases?
Mr. WILSON. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. So that the only cost the city has is the destruction of the building?

Mr. WILSON. That is all, and that cost becomes a lien against the property. It is very seldom, however, that we collect that, because the land is usually worth very little in the older sections of the city where the lots are rather small and isolated.

I am now planning to have my own department-that is, the department of public works, bid on this tearing down. About onehalf of the cost of tearing down a building is represented by insurance, and as the city of Philadelphia is a self-insurer we save that 50 percent of the cost of demolition, so that we are going to tear down these buildings as rapidly as possible.

Unfortunately the city is not allowed to build on these properties, or lend its credit in connection with the construction of private properties.

Furthermore, our financial condition, while it is very good, our bonds are selling at away above par, and our tax rate is lower than it has been for many years, yet, because of the general reorganization of the city taking place and the reorganization of our hospitalization, and institutions, we have not the money anyway to use for building purposes.