ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

Register dated February 16, 1952. Ironically, the decertification notice reads as follows:

*

Upon specific data * * and on the basis of other information available * * * the undersigned find that the conditions required * * * do not exist in the area designated as Lorain, Ohio (includes all of Lorain County), and the certification dated October 30, 1951, is hereby revoked.

In attempting to cover up his iron-glove treatment of the LorainElyria Rent Advisory Board, the Rent Control Director issued a special press release dated November 30, 1951, announcing postponement of the "application of full Federal rent control in the new LorainElyria critical defense area." Rents would have been rolled back to July 1, 1951.

The release is cleverly worded. It implies close contact with the rent advisory board. Mr. Woods said in the release:

I am glad to comply with this request. I want to be sure that when the Federal stabilization program does come into the county it will be adapted so far as humanly possible to the conditions prevalent in the area.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Woods could have found out what the conditions in Lorain County actually were had he taken the trouble to consult with the rent advisory board, his "board of directors."

May we take a few moments to inject another note into this discussion, and that is the question of the constitutionality of Federal rent control. We are aware, of course, that the United States Supreme Court is the final arbiter in such questions, but no one will deny that the Congress is bound to legislate within the framework of the Constitution.

Today we have two types of Federal rent control. The first type is that which exists in the so-called defense-rental areas (the green areas on the attached map) which were designated as such under the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942. This type of rent control was brought into existence as an exercise of the war powers of the Congress. We do not dispute that during World War II this was valid exercise of such powers. This type of rent control was continued in the postwar years because the emergency conditions created by World War II were still evident.

The Supreme Court held in February 1948, more than 4 years ago, that this type of rent control was a valid exercise of the war powers (Woods v. Miller, 68 S. Ct. 421). World War II rent control applies only to units in existence prior to February 1, 1947. However, we are confident that a close examination of this World War II rent control now, in 1952, will reveal no basis whatsoever for its continued existence; and further, that the emergency housing conditions created in World War II to which the Supreme Court referred in the Miller case, are no longer in existence in these noncritical areas to the extent that control of these units is still a valid exercise of the war powers.

The mere fact, substantiated by the Bureau of Census in 1950, that the percentage increase in housing units since 1940 is greater than the percentage increase in population for the same period, is sufficient to remove the only basis on which the Supreme Court rested its 1948 decision in the Miller case:

* ** that there has not yet (1948) been eliminated the deficit in housing which in considerable measure was caused by the heavy demobilization of veterans and by the cessation or reduction in residential construction during the period of hostilities.

We insist that there ought to be no hesitation on the part of the Congress to remove this vestige of World War II controls at this time.

Now as to the second type of rent control. Is the imposition of Federal rent control in the so-called critical defense housing areas a valid exercise of the war powers of the Congress? If it is not, then it is repugnant to the fifth amendment and is clearly deprivation of property without due process of law.

The Supreme Court has held repeatedly that a declaration of war is not essential to the exercise of the war powers, but that Congress may exercise the war powers for "defense in advance of war." (U. S. v. 243.22 Acres of Land, etc., 129 F. 2d 678, 63 S. Ct. 441). We do not take issue with this opinion, but we are strongly urged to sound a warning of the danger of extending and applying this doctrine to every nook and cranny of our economic life.

The United States has been engaged in a hostile operation in Korea for 22 months. Two Congresses, the Eighty-first and Eightysecond, have had the opportunity to weigh dispassionately the implications of our involvement in the Far East, and neither has entertained seriously a declaration of war nor for that matter the waging of war itself. Hence it cannot be said that the war powers were invoked as a preliminary step to a declaration of war. On what basis, then, does the Congress persist in exercising its war powers without regard to the relationship of this exercise or its remoteness to the actuality of war?

Does the mere existence of another power, equally capable of waging war, provide this essential validity to the congressional exercise of the war powers?

This, then, and not Korea, is the basis for invoking the Constitutional war powers and the resultant deprivation of the rights guaranteed the people of the United States in the Fifth Amendment. The Congress by insisting on the continuation of this type of control, after 20 months of reflecting on our involvement in the Far East and abhorring a declaration of war, is adding fuel to a doctrine which ultimately would sound the death knell of Constitutional government, contractual and property rights, and the scrapping of the free competitive system which made this country great. For so long as any potential enemy exists, the Congress, unless it is more alert to its constitutional responsibilities, could continue to whittle away at a fundamental human right to own property until that system which we strive to overcome will have won a bloodless victory.

In closing, it might be well to consider Supreme Court Justice Jackson's separate and concurring opinion in the Miller case which upheld the rent control act in February 1948 as a then valid exercise of the World War II war powers:

No one will question that this power (war power) is the most dangerous one to free government in the whole catalog of powers. It usually is invoked in haste and excitement when calm legislative consideration of constitution limitation is difficult.

We are forced to ponder and reflect on this implied admonition to the Congress realizing that the war powers have been invoked during 22 months of calm deliberation which saw almost the entire Congress pitted against invoking the power to declare and wage war itself.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we firmly believe that we have presented convincing reasons why rent control should be permitted to end on June 30.

We have pointed out that there is no basis whatsoever for continued rent control in the World War II defense rental areas; also, that in the critical defense areas the problem of meeting the housing needs of military and defense personnel is being met adequately and competently by the local communities and private initiative.

We have also revealed instances showing how the rent control law has been shaped and twisted to suit the wishes of the Rent Director, and the inherent inequality that runs through the whole structure of this type of control.

We have further raised a grave question as to the constitutionality. of a continuation of rent control.

We are confident that the committee, after weighing all the facts, will reaffirm its faith in the American system of free enterprise by permitting rent control to terminate on June 30.

(The exhibits at the end of the statement are as follows:)

EXHIBIT A

[From the Minneapolis Sunday Tribune, January 13, 1952]

CLASSIFIED ADS HINT EASING OF HOUSING LACK

More rental units were advertised in the classified columns of the Minneapolis Star and Tribune in 1951 than in any year since the outbreak of World War II. The units advertised were apartments, houses, duplexes, and rooms.

A marked drop in "wanted to rent" ads and a rise in "for rent" ads indicates an almost complete easing of the rental market in Minneapolis, according to Robert Witte, classified advertising manager of the papers.

There were 123,682 individual ads "for rent" in 1951, Witte said.

He pointed out that fewer landlords are imposing restrictions such as "no children" or "no pets" and that "wanted to rent" ads seldom carry the "desperate for a place to live" theme that was common just after the war.

There has been a drop to 26,513 "wanted to rent" ads since the 1946 high of 57,629, Witte said.

"Unless there is a marked change in local conditions," Witte said, "these figures would indicate that the rental housing shortage in Minneapolis probably is reaching an end."

He pointed out that some factors do not show in the figures. He said, some landlords read the "wanted to rent" ads and do not themselves advertise. Some prospective tenants do not advertise but read the "for rent" ads. Figures listed in the ads are subject to certain bargaining, he pointed out. There still is a wide variation in rental prices sought and rental prices asked, he said.

The advertising figures for the past 10 years:

[blocks in formation]

NUMBER OF RENTAL ADS
APPEARING YEARLY IN

THE MINNEAPOLIS STAR AND TRIBUNE
1942-1951

120.000

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951

EXHIBIT B

[From the Pittsburgh Press, March 28, 1952]

CAREFUL, Now

The Federal Government has been asked to declare Allegheny County a "critical rental housing area."

If this were done, rent controls would be put back into effect in nine commurities where the local councils and township commissions have lifted the ceilings. These include Wilkinsburg and Mt. Lebanon.

In addition, new rental units placed on the market during the past 5 years would be brought under Federal control for the first time.

This is a drastic step, which should be reserved for situations of extreme urgency. If we are ever o get away from Government controls, certainly extension of Federal supervision is not the way to accomplish that goal.

Rent control started out, like so many other things, as a wartime measure in the early days of World War II. There is no question it was needed-to prevent inflation, individual bardship, gouging, and other evils generated by a housing shortage.

Last year, when Congress was debating extension of rent control, we favored this. We felt that lifting rent ceilings all over the Nation would spark another dangerous inflationary spiral.

It looks as if Congress is going to tack another 1-year extension on this lew, which now is scheduled to expire June 30. That may be justified, although we would prefer to hear more evidence on this score before a firal decision is reached. But there's a big difference between keeping present rent ceilings and imposing the harsh restrictions-including rollbacks-that accompany a "critical" designation.

Last month, the Government saw fit to declare the Midland district in Beaver County a "critical housing area." It found there was a terrific shortage of housing there because of a huge influx of defense workers into the area.

When Wilkinsburg council voted to decontrol rents in that borough February 27, the CIO International Union of Electrical Workers sought to block the action. They wanted Federal officials to say no-even though the law gives the council the authority to remove rent ceilings.

The Federals now have said it's all right for Wilkinsburg to knock out rent controls-which is the only thing the Federals could say under the circumstances. Now the IUE would penalize the whole county for what Wilkinsburg has done, whether Wilkinsburg was justified or not.

So far as we can tell from the evidence on hand, there has been no sizable influx of defense workers or military men into Allegheny County. And those are the only two grounds on which a "critical" designation legally may be issued.

If there really is a critical shortage of rental housing in this county, let's establish it by definite proof, not by bureaucratic fiat and political pressure.

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »