against rent control which has infuriated the people of the United States by its injustice. If a $10,000 house was renting for $500 a month, it was just as inequitable as if the $10,000 house was renting for $25 a month. It is exactly as though, by law, a carpenter had to accept the wages he got in 1941, just because is employer didn't feel like paying him any more, and the carpenter was compelled, by law, to accept it or go without work. It is as simple as that. I personally believe that the seizure of property by law and the confiscation of it under the name of rent control, or anything else, is utterly unconstitutional, but if it is necessary for any reason to have a continuance of rent control anyway, it can be made at least just and fair by applying this formula, the appraisal to be made by competent persons connected neither to the rent-control office nor to the parties directly involved. The utter injustice and unworkability of the present law, and the instructions from the rent control office, which, to my mind are totally adverse with the intent of the law, compelled the city council at Tacoma, and the county commissioners of Pierce County, to vote out local rent control, greatly to the benefit and improvement of our community. Respectfully submitted. RAY THOMPSON, Member, Pierce County Rent Control Board, Tacoma, Wash. Hon. BRENT SPENCE, OFFICE OF RENT STABILIZATION, Chairman, Committee on Banking and Currency, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Whereas, Senator Dirksen and others are preparing to introduce legislation in your committee and on the floor of Congress, the effect of which will be to abolish Federal control on rents throughout the United States, and the Territories, and, Whereas, if the proponents of such legislation are successful in having it adopted by the Congress, such action will, in the many areas of the country where the supply of available housing has not yet succeeded in meeting the demand, allow housing rents to rise sharply, and Whereas the very large segment of the public which must rent its housing from others will find itself unable to bargain successfully for shelter in an area of scarcity where the market is uncontrolled, and Whereas bidding for scarce accommodations will cause inflation in the price of rental housing, with resultant inflationary effect on the economic life of the Nation as a whole at a time when the country is committed to a fight against inflation: Now, therefore, we, the Rent Advisory Board of the Harrisburg Defense Rental Area, Harrisburg, Pa., in order to forestall the devastating effects of the abolition of Federal rent stabilization with the train of inflated rents, and wholesale evictions which will certainly follow the lifting of Federal controls, urge the Congress to take such action and adopt such measures as will guarantee to the Nation and to our Harrisburg metropolitan area, continued control of rents for the period of at least 1 year. Rent Advisory Board, Harrisburg, Pa. JOSEPH BAZDAR, Chairman, Public Interest Representative. CHARLES H. CARSON, Tenant Representative. JOSEPH E. MITCHELL, Public Interest Representative. PHILADELPHIA COUNTY RENT ADVISORY BOARD, Hon. BRENT SPENCE, Chairman, Banking and Currency Committee, DEAR REPRESENTATIVE SPENCE: We, the undersigned members of the Philadelphia County Rent Advisory Board, are greatly concerned by the contents of an article which appeared in The Philadelphia Inquirer on Thursday morning, April 24, 1952. This article set forth, in substance, that an amendment to the Defense Production Act introduced by Senator Everett Dirksen would restrict rent control to those areas which have been declared critical and that rent control in so-called "non-critical areas" would be terminated. As a group of representative Philadelphia citizens who have served since 1948, pursuant to Congressional mandate, as the Rent Advisory Board of the Philadelphia Office of Rent Stabilization, we have become familiar with the rental situation as it exists in Philadelphia today. Our experience has convinced us that, whereas there may be adequate rental units in the higher rental brackets, there still exists a very acute shortage, within the city of Philadelphia, of rental units which rent for $60 per month or less. Philadelphia, which is a very important industrial center, and in which is located a large Navy Yard as well as many other military installations, has not been designated a "critical area," within the meaning of the Housing and Rent Act of 1947, as amended. This means that if the Dirksen amendment is incorporated in the new Defense Production Act and the Housing and Rent Act, there will be no control over rents in Philadelphia after June 30, 1952. We hesitate to contemplate the effect that this will have upon the 600,000 persons who live within the confines of the city of Philadelphia and who are now receiving the protection afforded by Federal stabilization legislation. Rent is a very significant item in the family's budget, particularly insofar as low-income families are concerned. While people can substitute lower-cost food and clothing for such items which cost much more, they must have shelter at any cost. At the present time rents are being adjusted in accordance with the rent regulations issued pursuant to the Housing and Rent Act, so that landlords may obtain equitable rental income and ample allowances are made, in such adjustments, for increases in the costs of operating and maintaining their properties. For all practical purposes, in those cases where landlords have taken advantage of the many adjustment provisions afforded to them under the rent regulations, rents are being stabilized rather than controlled. If the existing restraints on excessive rents are removed completely we are convinced that the result will be a severe dislocation of the economic structure of the city of Philadelphia, and would cause undue hardship to large numbers of its citizens. Furthermore, it is our profound belief that very few tenants in Philadelphia are aware that the effect of the Dirksen amendment would be to remove rent control from their city. Most of the citizens of Philadelphia appear to be laboring under the misapprehension that Philadelphia is a "critical area.' This, of course, is understandable in view of the fact that manufacturing concerns in this city have been awarded such a large share of the country's defense contracts and that many military installations, in and around the city, have been expanded. May we respectfully request that your committee give very serious consideration to the effect of the Dirksen amendment as applied to such a large and important city as Philadelphia. Respectfully yours, GEORGE W. WILKINS, Chairman. DAVID E. TRIESTER JACOB HULITT RESOLUTION OF ST. JOSEPH COUNTY RENT ADVISORY BOARD, INDIANA Whereas the St. Joseph County Rent Advisory Board as organized pursuant to the Housing and Rent Act has as its primary concern the equitable handling of housing and rental units for the primary purpose of insuring an adequate housing supply; and although said St. Joseph County has not been declared a critical rental area as is provided for in the Housing and Rent Act; and Whereas the increase in defense contracts in said county in its industrial plants, i. e., the Studebaker Corp., Bendix Corp., United States Rubber Corp. has greatly increased since the outbreak of the Korean war and further, that this fact coupled with the other industries in the area has actually brought about a housing shortage so that for all practical purposes the area is a critical one: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the St. Joseph County Rent Advisory Board go on record as being opposed to the passage of the Dirksen amendment to the Housing and Rent Act, said amendment to free from control such housing units that are located in areas not heretofore declared critical by the housing expediter and the defense mobilization agency; be it further Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be directed to the Honorable Burnet R. Maybank, chairman of Senate Banking Committee and the Honorable Brent Spence, chairman of House Banking Committee. PETER F. GILLIS, Chairman, St. Joseph County Rent Advisory Board. GEORGE HUPP, Mrs. RAYMOND HERRLY, Board Members. MAY 8, 1952. STATEMENT OF DONALD M. LOVE, NORWOOD, PA. Mr. Chairman and members of this honorable committee, my name is Donald M. Love. I live in and own houses in Norwood, Delaware County, Pa. My appearance before this honorable committee is made generally to oppose all Federal Government controls and subsidies, and specifically for the purpose of opposing any extension or renewal of Federal rent control beyond its present expiration date of June 30, 1952. Rent control was imposed on the American people as a war measure, calculated to help check inflation, provide more rental housing and help share more equitably the cost of the war economy. It has failed to do any of these things during its long life of 10 years. Rent control has and always will increase inflationary trends. Low rentals, leaving excess family cash from weekly income funnels the excess into consumer goods with competitive buying and higher prices. Rent control has never caused a rental accommodation to be built. But it has caused millions of rental apartments and houses to be taken off the market. It defeats the creating of a market of rental housing. In April 20, 1951, at Omaha, Nebr., the local paper carried two columns of rental apartments and houses. Omaha did not have rent control. On the same day at Council Bluffs, across the Missouri River, the local paper did not have a single property for rent. Council Bluffs was under rent control. This has been the case in Dallas, in Los Angeles, and elsewhere. Here in Delaware County three boroughs are decontrolled and have space advertised for rent. But in every rent-controlled area in this county there is not a single house advertised for rent. Today, under the compromise bill of 1947 and its extensions we have houses controlled and decontrolled in the same communities, and the houses are frequently identical. There is one marked difference between controlled and decontrolled rental housing. The controlled is quickly becoming slum housing. An owner cannot maintain and make his local tax and mortgage payments on the rental ceiling income, so the maintenance is neglected. While your rent law creates slum housing, you in Washington have been voting millions to remove slum housing. It does not make sense. Rent control is akin to cancer. Some rent control is no more to be desired than some cancer. Get rid of both. Rent control is a tenet of communism. You know that the leaders in unions most vociferous for controls have been those which were Communist-led. You know that in every case they have and are using coercion on you. They have and are publishing to their members list of who votes for rent control, but you should also know that they do not speak for their members. Remember Ohio and Robert Taft's election for proof. If you do not believe in socialism and communism, then do not support the plank of its doctrine-rent control. Respectfully submitted. DONALD M. LOVE. SOME FACTS AND FIGURES ON THE QUESTION OF THE NEED FOR RENT CONTROLS IN THE CITY OF NORFOLK (Statement of Mrs. John H. Biggs, Norfolk, Va.) 1. The reason given for controls is to have adequate housing at reasonable prices (in line with the current living index). This can never be by rent control as stated by Mr. Woods. In his testimony before the Senate Banking and Currency Committee in June of 1951, Mr. Woods said "the only way to get out from under controls is to encourage construction of new units so we recommended no controls for new units." By this statement, Mr. Woods is saying that controls deter and discourage construction, and thus the longer it remains the greater the need for controls. Facts and figures show that when controls are lifted there is a heavy upward swing in building and when controls are reimposed there is a definite decrease in building. 2. The lifting of current restrictions will bring about the building of all the needed units in any area. In any field of endeavor where there is an opportunity to make above the average return on your invested dollar, you will find the hundreds of investors crowding into the field until the return reaches the average level. 3. The issue of control should be an unbiased, fair, and a just determination of facts as to whether controls are needed and should be based on facts gathered in the community or city, by its unbiased citizenry after having heard its citizens on the issue. Certainly no one will admit the law to give favor to any group or class. If such is so, why not have a fair and open hearing to determine the issue. 4. In this area, it has been shown by spot checks that there was adequate housing available. Many hundreds of vacant units are for rent and many more for sale. A survey made by the census takers showed in 1950 that there were 56,122 dwelling units in the city of Norfolk and that 54,034 were occupied. The record further showed that there were 2,088 ready for occupancy and available and 989 withheld from the market. It further showed that there was an increase of 17,389 since 1941. The census showed that in 1943, which was the peak year of the war, we had 305,127 people in Norfolk. All housed. In 1950, we had only 188,601. In 1943, there were 982 building permits issued, 1944, 1,015; 1945, 1,526; 1946, 2,003; 1947, 2,604; 1948, 2,412; 1949, 2,332; 1950, 2,684. This does include the large housing developments just out of the city limits built there because there was not sufficient space in the city. There was $40,723,095 spent in building activities in the area that included the heavy construction during 1950. In 1950, we spent $9,979,300. These facts can only leave one conclusion-we have no housing problem. More houses will be built, if the Government would release credit restrictions, which could be done under Public Law No. 139 which does not make rent control mandatory, as does Public Law No. 96. On January 21, 1952, a committee of the Norfolk Property Owners Association took a spot survey extending from Princess Anne County to the end of Willoughby, checking on both sides of Ocean View Avenue and the results were as follows: Furnished apartments. New apartments, about one half will be furnished and one half unfurnished, now available and ready for rent Under construction, will be ready in approximately 30 days; undetermined number that will be ready from 60 to 90 days_-_ In addition to that, 14 houses for rent and 14 houses for sale. 43 70 55 The total of 196 houses and apartments that we found as of that date. On December 4, 1951, at an organization meeting, we took a spot check and found 75 furnished apartments available as of that date. The results of these surveys would indicate that housing is available any and every day a survey or check might be made. By MAYON A. Cox. (Mrs.) JOHN H. BIGGS, To Whom It May Concern: OCEAN VIEW, VA., January 29, 1952. That rent control is not needed in Norfolk is evidenced by the following facts. I own and operate tourist apartments, and have a great number of Navy personnel who are waiting permanent housing stay with me. On December 1, 1951, I rented a furnished apartment to Lt. and Mrs. D. E. Vaughan and two children, they had rented an unfurnished apartment which was available on December 15. Lieutenant Vaughan's orders were changed which necessitated giving up this apartment. Another change in orders made his residence here permanently. They immediately started looking for permanent quarters. This they found without very much trouble, in fact they had a choice of three new houses, available on January 3. They rented and moved in one of these located at 1286 West Ocean View Avenue, on January 3. Case No. 2. This same apartment was rented to another party Chief W. C. Cross and wife, who had just arrived from California, on the same day that the Vaughans moved out. While the apartment was being made ready, they drove down to Chesapeake Beach, not really looking for a house, but they rented one while there and moved into it on January 15. These are only two of the many cases that have come under my own observation within the last 2 months. All any one has to do to find housing in Norfolk is to get out and look for it. (Mrs.) MAYON A. Cox. To Whom It May Concern: NORFOLK, VA., January 30, 1952. A Navy chief came to rent my apartment, asking me to reduce the rent, saying that he was expecting his wife for a stay of 2 weeks or perhaps longer, and wanted a nice place for her to stay, I reduced the apartment $5 per week and he rented it, leaving a deposit for same. The next day he came back and said that he had rented another place and asked me to refund his deposit, which I very kindly did. His wife arrived as planned, but did not like the accommodations which he had provided for her, and he came back to me and asked if I would rent the apartment to him again, at the same reduction. I had lost several days rent, because no one else had wanted the apartment, notwithstanding, I had been running an advertisement in the daily papers. I am sure this chief asked the other party for a refund of his rent also. This happened in September 1951, when housing was supposed to be so short. Very truly, To Whom It May Concern: (Mrs.) EDWIN A. VAUGHAN. JANUARY 30, 1952. On the subject of rent control I would like to state that I for one cannot see the need for it. I arrived in Norfolk on the first of November and had my choice of three places for rent on the very day I arrived. I also have assisted friends of mine in finding anartments and houses to rent, up until recently and there were, and still are, several places available. I cannot see where there is a housing shortage or a critical housing area here. Sincerely yours, P. S.-Husband still in Navy. To Whom It May Concern: (Mrs.) O. R. MARETT. Norfolk, Va., January 30, 1952. Having been transferred from San Francisco, Calif., to Norfolk, Va., in September of 1951, my family and I were able to find a comfortable house to rent at a reasonable price. We had a choice of several places at that time. I do not feel that rent control is necessary in this area. 97026-52-pt. 2- -35 D. S. THORP. |