The Area Rent Director, after consideration of all the evidence in this matter, has determined that the maximum rent for the above described housing accommodations should be decreased on the grounds stated in

Therefore, it is ordered that the maximum rent for the above-described accommodations be, and it hereby 69.60 is, decreased from $.

Marth

per...

to $......

62,50

effective from... August 14th, 1961... No rent in excess of $.... 62,30

lished by this Order) may be received or demanded.

per Month (maximum rent estabDue to decrease in services of Painting, Decorating and ropairs.

Any rent collected from the effective date of this Order in excess of the amount provided in this Order shall be refunded to the tenant within 30 days from the date this Order is issued unless the refund is stayed in accordance with the provisions of Rent Procedural Regulation 2.

This Order is now in effect and will remain in effect until changed by the Office of the Housing Expediter.

NOTICE TO LANDLORD.-The penalties for collecting rent in excess of the maximum rent established by this order are set forth on the back of this Form.

GPO-O-ORS 1677

NOTICE TO LANDLORD AND TENANT

This is a final ORDER which has been issued by the Area Rent Director decreasing the maximum rent for the accommodations described therein.

THIS ORDER IS IMPORTANT-READ IT CAREFULLY.-As of the date of issuance this Order establishes the maximum rent for both future and the past rental periods. Any rent in excess of the maximum rent, as finally fixed by this Order, which has been collected since the effective date of this Order, must be refunded to the tenant or tenants from whom it was collected.

NOTICE TO LANDLORD

You are in violation of the Rent Regulation if:

(a) You collect rent in excess of the maximum rent fixed by this Order.

(b) You do not make the required refunds within 30 days after the date this Order is issued, except where the refund is stayed in accordance with Rent Procedural Regulation 2.

The duty to make such refund is yours and you should make every effort to locate any prior tenants to whom a refund is due.

Notify this office of the name(s) of tenant(s) to whom refund(s) was (were) made; date of refund; and the amount paid to each.

Failure to comply with this Order may subject you to a suit by the tenant or United States Government for three times the total of the amount refundable under the Order and any amount subsequently collected in excess of that fixed by the order, or $50, whichever is the greater.

NOTICE TO TENANT

You should examine this Order and pay no more than the reduced rent fixed therein. You should ascer tain whether you paid rent to the landlord for any period after the effective date (the date appearing in both of the first two paragraphs), and compare the rent you paid with the reduced rent stated in this Order. The difference is the amount of refund due you for each rental period.

If you have paid rent in excess of the amount established by this Order and you do not receive: (a) The refund from your landlord within 30 days, or

(b) A notice from the Area Rent Office that the landlord's duty has been stayed in accordance with Rent Procedural Regulation 2

you have a right to institute suit against your landlord for three times the amount refundable, or $50, whichever is the greater, plus attorney fees and costs.

If you do not receive either the refund or the notice referred to above, and you do not intend to institute suit, you should notify this office accordingly.

EXHIBIT F

AREA RENT OFFICE, Atlanta, Ga., February 8, 1952.

To: Members of the Rent Advisory Board.

All area office personnel.

From: Kale Alexander, area rent director.

Subject: Detroit meeting, February 5 and 6, 1952.

The meeting in Detroit was called to give the chairmen of the rent advisory boards and the regional and area rent directors an opportunity to exchange ideas and to present the problems confronting them in an effort to devise ways and means to eliminate backlogs, improve information, public relations, and rent advisory board activity.

The national office presented several new ideas, one of which is known as the tenant-consent petition, Form D-1-A, and which will be discussed later in this memorandum.

Another technique is a proposed form, D-144, which is only in the formative stage. It is designed for the use of landlords to petition for rent increases in excess of 20 percent. A landlord should use this proposed petition only if a rent increase of 20 percent or more, over the June 30, 1947, maximum rent, has already been obtained by adjustment or lease for the relief of higher costs, and a further rent increase is required to cover the rise in costs that have occurred since the maximum rent date. The requirements are similar to the 5 (a) 18 procedure, but are less involved. As stated, this procedure is not in use in any area office on an experimental basis, and may or may not be adopted.

This meeting reaffirmed the belief that rent control must be administered in each area on a basis that will receive public acceptance. What will work in Wisconsin may not work in Massachusetts. They ran us out of Wisconsin because we were too tight, and out of New York State because we were too liberal. The tenants in Boston and Newark are highly organized, and they object to liberal increases. If this policy is followed, the State of Massachusetts will throw out Federal rent control and enact State rent control.

Therefore, each area rent director should consult with his local rent advisory board and adopt a rent-adjustment schedule which will be realistic, considering the needs in his locality, and one that will be publicly accepted. In Boston, the tenants object to increased cost adjustments for money spent since August 1, 1951, for repairs, painting, decorating, new roof, etc., and are of the opinion that the 20-percent granted is all the landlord is entitled to, regardless of the terrific increase in cost of materials, labor, etc., since 1942. On the other hand, Chicago allows increases in rents (no offset) for the above items. Therefore, each area must solve its own problems.

It was stressed and restressed that the rent advisory boards can do just about anything they wish to do, and that it is indeed rare where the national office, on appeal, has overruled the local rent advisory board.

In each speech that Tighe Woods makes, he calls attention to the fact that rent control is tied in with prices and wages; and as they rise, rents should be allowed to rise also.

Permit me now to convey to you the following policy procedures I learned from the Detroit meeting:

COMPLIANCE

1. Our goal is to obtain better compliance.

2. We should present to the rent advisory board those cases where a settlement cannot be reached through a landlord-tenant conference, before we send it to litigation.

3. In willful cases, where the regulations demand treble damages, the rent advisory board may assess the damage between single and treble.

4. Treble damages should be assessed against large or professional landlords. 5. Small landlords (especially women), who do not follow an order, may be assessed one and a half or double damages (the area rent director should use discretion on a case basis).

6. In cases where the tenant says to the landlord, "The maximum rent is $75 per month. If you will let me have it, I will pay you $100 a month," the damages should be collected from the landlord with all the money going to the United States, and none to the tenant.

7. If litigation has a case and suit has not been filed, it may be recalled by the area rent director and referred to the rent advisory board.

8. If litigation will not accept a case because the landlord is entitled to the 20 percent and says the court will allow the 20 percent anyway, or thinks the case too weak on the self-help angle, it should be sent to them regardless.

GOVERNMENT-OWNED PROJECTS RENTED TO EMPLOYEES

1. All Government-owned housing rented to Army, naval, civilian personnel, or contractors, comes under rent control on February 1, 1952, in all areas critical and noncritical (except new construction since February 1, 1947). This means public housing units, Atlanta Housing Authority (because they are partially subsidized by the United States Army, and the United States Army wishes to stop subsidizing housing projects).

2. They have 45 days from February 1, 1952, to register. However, if they fail, do not call on them to register until after April 1, 1952.

3. If large projects, they register in triplicate, on their stationery, at rents they were receiving February 1, 1952. (If small projects, they may use D-804.) The rent received on February 1, 1952 is the rent.

4. The FHA-insured rents will be accepted as established by the FHA in critical areas.

5. Public Housing units, Housing Authority units, Federal-aided projects, etc., are to be allowed the 20 percent, even though they were previously brought up to comparability.

6. Public Housing was told to increase their rents to comparability because Congress was tired of subsidizing these rents.

7. In some areas, tenants filed thousands of complaints when the 20 percent was granted on Public Housing units because the property had deteriorated or services had been decreased. If you run into such a situation, please proIceed in the following manner:

(a) Do not revoke any orders without first giving the local representative a chance to repair the property or restore the services.

(b) Consider the class and construction of the property before considering to revoke the order (such as converted barracks).

(c) If the local representative will not cure the complaint, refer the case to the RAB before proceeding to revoke the order. If the RAB says "O. K.," then go ahead.

This could become a national issue, and Board approval must be obtained.

EVICTIONS

The only important discussion related to petitions for demolition: 1. First, consider, "Is it to the public welfare," such as building a school, hospital, expanding a defense plant. If you think so, then issue the certificate.

2. As for parking lots, nonhousing rental, etc., then do not issue the certificate. 3. Good faith: If the facts cannot be determined in the area office, then refer the case to the RAB for an oral hearing to determine whether it is "retaliatory."

RENT ADVISORY BOARDS

The chief discussion on this subject is the failure of some of the rent offices to review a complaint from the landlord or tenant, and making no attempt to correct an error, or explaining to the landlord or tenant why the increase was a certain amount. Instead of the area office doing this, they tell the landlord or tenant to appeal to the board. This results in bad public relations and puts an unwarranted workload on the board, which results in the use of "panels" and an unjustified amount of oral hearing which could be prevented, if the area office tried to handle the complaint instead of passing the buck to the Board.

1. Very few offices use the stamp.

2. Or, have a Rent Advisory Board approved rent schedule.

3. Or, present first rents on an individual basis to the Board.

4. Or, inspect the units before the case is presented to the Board.

An area office should attempt through correspondence or personal interview to correct errors and to explain the position of the area office, and, failing to satisfy landlord or tenant, then advise him of his right to appeal to the RAB or national office.

PRIOR OPINIONS

The meat of this subject is: (1) Have the RAB approve a rental value schedule and give copies to the contact representatives, examiner-inspectors, etc., so that any person calling on the telephone or at the office may receive an on-the-spot

decision.

The final increase will be the amount given over the telephone or in This saves the landlord writing us a letter and the office writing back. Send a copy of the prior opinion to the tenant, if the unit is occupied.

person.

TENANT-CONSENT PETITION, FORM D-I-A

This form was adopted in May 1951 and placed in effect in several offices on a trial basis in order to determine whether or not it should be adopted on a national basis.

The comments coming from the landlords and tenants in areas where it has been in operation is about 50 percent pro and 50 percent con. It is designed to promote better relations between landlords and tenants, to eliminate docketing and a waiting period of from 7 to 14 days.

When the form is received, it is screened. If it is in order, and there are sufficient grounds and the increase requested does not exceed the amount allowed. under the adjustment schedule, it is stamped and mailed to landlord and to tenant, with one copy retained in the area office. If the requested amount is less than the allowable amount, the increase granted is the requested amount, the case is not docketed.

This procedure is optional with the landlord, as he may use Form D-1-B if he wishes, and the case will be processed under the D-1-B procedure. The D-1-B procedure may also be used if the tenant refuses to sign the D-1-A consent. The results of the experiment with the D-1-A are as follows:

1. A review of the D-1-A petitions filed showed coercion in only 5 percent of

the cases.

2. The tenants succeeded in getting repairs made when the landlord filed for an increase due to an increase in services.

3. The publicity was on the ground that the agreement must not exceed the allowable amount under the schedule and was therefore favorably received by the public.

The reaction to the adoption of this procedure was about half for and half against it.

In my opinion, the form will work if it is confined to increases for major capital improvements, increases for services, furniture, furnishings, and equipment, increase in the number of subtenants, and increase in the number of people living in the dwelling unit.

It may also work for increased cost adjustments, but I believe that no adjustment under 5 (a) 11 (i) should be permitted on this form, because it is too dangerous, especially where the landlord and tenant agree to a new rent that is far in excess of comparability, and the office must deny the petition. Would the reaction from the landlord and tenant be, "We agree on a rent, and a Government bureaucrat says we can't have it"?

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Chairman, that concludes our formal state

ment.

We have a report that we want to file for the record. It has to do with credit restrictions.

Mr. BROWN (presiding). It may be inserted.

(The information referred to is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REAL ESTATE BOARDS PRESENTED BY HARRY J. FITZGERALD, EVANSVILLE, IND., IN REGARD TO REAL ESTATE CREDIT RESTRICTIONS

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Harry J. Fitzgerald, a member of the Realtors' Washington committee of the National Association of Real Estate Boards. Our association represents 1,123 local real-estate boards and 47,655 realtors throughout the United States engaged in all phases of the real-estate industry. Our offices are at 1737 K Street NW., Washington, D. C., and 22 West Monroe Street, Chicago, Ill.

The National Association of Real Estate Boards supports and urges the repeal of credit restrictions over real estate, known as regulation X, because:

1. It has penalized the little fellow who could not afford the larger down payments for a home.

2. Congress recognized, when it approved the so-called Denton amendment in 1951, that the credit regulations issued by the Federal Reserve Board and the Housing and Home Finance Agency were too harsh with respect to FHA and con