ourts open to financial re DECEPTIVE SHORTAGE IN WORLD WAR II It is very important to remember that there was never a national housing shortage in the United States price to rent evorrol, and that the shortage devegislative proped within 1 year after rent control was bangusted ble. sales The law, as originally passed was intended to keep rents from skyrocketing in industrial war centers where mean increases in population vere contemplated e Gover the Disregarding the clear intent of the law, its purpose vis pucky expanded to the control of nearly every rental dwelling in the United States regardess of its connection with the var hinsITY cang increase in prgplatz After the war's end. Federal rat kati was extended irst, because of the houstno ste prage: next, to stro indata: next. because of a rental housing short age - there was de soi craze of bi mes fie sue ; and the last time in wis decis the Expediter daimed there was a shortge of rental units for the bow- and middle income groups. Regardless of statements made by the Expediter, laber groups, er social workers, the way authentie feines seemmately revealing the tre brosing situation are those issped by the United States Fuzean of the Census. The recent booklets issued by the United States Bareas of the Census completely over very pers & and dwelling in the United States for 150k. Using these figures along with those of 14) me see the afeet rear eeatro) has had on ver housing station timorbert the Nation It will surprise many to and tax(0) The mer of drei as pred 33.6 percent. the second smallest per (c) The number of vacant Aveling tenged from 25 mm to 3.4 million. (d). The amber of dwellings vergiled by owners increased 82 HİML (6) The number of dwellings vermoeid ha tetants decreased 05 2012 Che THIS decrease in cerquei rental dweithis added to the minds of thesands of vacant dwellings for rent in 199) reveals the tremend as Joss of rental dwellings available. (b) The population breased only 145 percent centage gain in the Natie's history.a (f) The increase in the amber of dwelling exceeded by 2 million the in crease in fam In 1950 there was the ast winding toral of 39 million dmalings oeenried by cely one person. This represents an increase of over $5 percent. These sizde occupancy dwellings ire heavily encontrated in the large cities still under weat Control We now have a vocal of 13 million drellings raam or occupied 25 only one persona A SIMPLE REVEALING PROBLEM These Goverment ferons are hand to hellere molass we tre shown enty what happened I at in undemanding this parabor ler's first consider a simple mathematistorem. When over 1000 or persons are taken out of their homes and injury or sent onersens, as was done during World War II. is there an inn i la maw in the birding for the balance of he people? In a free en pony there an evils the keval user. We onse he housing for the halone of the peace. How then was it possible to derelip 1 apparent natal bensing storage won qui ka dining Wind War Iit We arted with a dent le number of mind on and Youly we should have reased this vendidoning World War I. esky fired orkers per The answer is that this shortage came abct cox because of a controlled tomy. We froze rent at a low level in 162 and almost simcas rages to nearly double their former rate. We also added mi ehold which increased the parts op ver of many families. ith the larze s of money, the people saght to buy things they desired. ve stopped the ice and sale of m of these items and mamined everything else of intimane. The one ingemant thing we did now motio ental housing and the sad to the stemment may thinneled the serves into rental bugsing Is only a matter of months the people spread out ok up all of the metal asing amilahe Wirkins miris, bathelius, widows. rs, and fired people who shared overpants and divided rent each rock 1 individual dwellizz Married comples withi children also spread ont ger apartmenta by 1945 we had created a progressively false national shortaze the tore that went to war, the mire the remaining civilians id did spread out With torreased costs and friter rents, the owners more practial tease of wear and tear, to rent to the least number of very time a vacabey occurred. This added further to the false shortest Prior to rent control, great numbers of single dwelling structures were rental units. When rents were frozen on these dwellings it was not long before owners found it more profitable to sell them. Individual homes were the one type of rental units that buyers could get possession of by forcing out the renter. Hundreds of thousands of these rental homes were progressively sold and taken out of the rental market. Occupants renting them were evicted by the new owner. In many cases, the evicted renters, in turn, bought a dwelling and evicted another renter. This progressive buying, singly and by joint ownership of two- or threeunit apartment buildings, continues to take many rental units out of the market. HOARDING HOUSING Having seen how this great maldistribution occurred, it is readily understood that the most important figure to consider is the national figure of 3.9 million dwellings occupied by only 1 person. Surely this startling 3.9 million dwellings occupied by only 1 person was not due to their purchase of a dwelling. The tremendous increase in single occupancy was the result of single persons replacing families in dwellings. It is obvious that only under the protection of rent control have these individuals been able to spread out and cause this maldistribution of housing. These single people used to share apartments or private rooms and would quickly do so again in a free market. They are actually hoarding housing with Government protection. Remove rent control and, with a nominal increase in rent, our Nation will quickly create hundreds of thousands of vacancies. Additional thousands of rental dwellings now being held off the market only because of rent control would again be offered to the public. AMPLE HOUSING EXCEPT CONTROLLED Further considering the so-called housing shortage, we know that there is a great surplus of vacant houses for sale in nearly every large city in the United States. There is also a surplus of hotel accommodations and private rooms for rent. There are also many new and decontrolled apartments for rent. Vacant apartments built before 1942 are still scarce, and always will be, while they are being sold at a false low price as compared to any of the above housing accommodations which are priced in a free market. Everyone looking for housing will continue to try to get one of the bargains under rent control. Only those frozen out will rent or buy in the free market which is abnormally high only because of rent control. How can we ever accumulate vacancies in the bargain, frozen units? Millions of vacancies have occurred during the last 7 years, but the Government has forced the owners to offer these vacancies at false bargain prices. Fortunately for the owner, he could pick the tenant to give his bargain to and so, naturally, he picked the smallest family with the greatest wealth and influence. Large families without money or influence really need rental units, but they are frozen out and forced to rent decontrolled units or buy homes on an unsound basis. We will always have this so-called housing shortage under these controls and the middle- and low-income groups can never expect to get frozen rental units under the law. MILLIONS UNFAIRLY TREATED Any check of the treatment of owners under rent control will show that this law has been the most unfair law ever enforced in this country. The records show clearly that until the 1949 act was passed, no owner could even claim a hardship unless his net-dollar income was substantially less than it was in 1942. In the meantime, because the general price structure had almost doubled, the owners' dollars would buy only half of what they would in 1942. Thus, the owners' purchasing power was frozen at a maximum of one-half of what it was prior to rent control. The Expediter's formula for the 1949 Fair Net Income Act is unfair and ridiculous. No attention whatever is paid to the figures on the owners' sworn income-tax returns. Not even the most rabid advocates of low rates for public utilities have ever dreamed of figuring net returns so low as does this plan of the Expediter's. Under his method, no consideration whatever is given the value of the property and no interest on the mortgage is allowed to be used in calculating operating costs. Is it good for our Government to make millions of good, frugal citizens suhsidize others who may be rich, indolent, or otherwise? That is what we are doing. Was it fair to single out owners and say to them: "Your net dollar income be the same or less than it was in 1942, while all others shall have no limit eir income?” ay we help labor and farmers get higher than a free market price and let one else, except owners, sell their labor or products at the highest price r history. If an owner leases to a renter willing and anxious to pay a fair e slightly higher than the frozen rental he is brought into the Federal court tried for his great crime like a kidnaper, bank robber, or dope peddler. s this sound like America? UN-AMERICAN THINKING AND PROPAGANDA For the last 3 years the Housing Expediter's office and his allied pressure oups have filled the records of the congressional hearings with the prediction dire things that would happen if rent control was removed (mass evictions, ots, etc.). On checking the records, we find that many of these groups who sere for rent control have been expelled from the main body, because of Comunist leadership. These Communists believed in socialized housing and were, and still are, desperately trying to carry on rent control. The proponents of this unnecessary, unfair, and un-American law know that it can only endure under a strong, central-powered police state where recourse is far removed from those enshackled. These same groups cry out against the use of Federal injunctions to stop riots and civil commotion in labor troubles, but highly endorse reducing the dignity of Federal injunctions to that of parking-arrest slips by requesting and getting Federal injunctions for petty overcharges of rent. It is hard to understand how these groups can insist on collective bargaining between labor groups and employers and, at the same time, favor a law making it a Federal offense for individuals to voluntarily enter into personal contracts on housing without the provisions, rules, and prices laid down by a Federal dictator. At no time has the Expeditor suggested that an owner's net dollar income should give him the same purchasing power he had in 1942. At no time has he suggested that owners and renters (even the rich ones) be allowed to make a mutually agreed lease. He says he must protect the lower-income group, but actually, he wants to control all housing. cates low as de whaterers allowed to b I citizens. what we t doilar in PERPETUATING HIMSELF Each year owners have suggested that vacancies being held off the market and those that come on the market be decontrolled. They have also suggested that all single-occupancy dwellings or large dwellings that are not properly occupied be decontrolled, thus curing the maldistribution and the so-called shortage. These suggestions have all been vigorously opposed by the Expediter. Under the local-option rule he has used every technicality to avoid having cities terminate rent control, but in spite of him, over 40 percent of the 231 largest cities in the country have freed themselves of his control. Twenty-four of these two hundred and thirty-one cities have lost population but gained housing; nevertheless, they are among those still under Federal control. It is crystal clear that the Expediter has at all times been interested only in perpetuating himself. In spite of having the greatest amount of housing in the history of the country in comparison to its population, the Expediter's present position is that we still need more but at a price lower than private industry can furnish it. This means that the owners of rental housing built before 1942 must continue to subsidize the renters (including the rich and indolent) until enough Governmentowned public housing is constructed to give all the renters exactly what they desire at someone else's expense. Few, if any, legislators in Washington could approve such a financially impossible socialistic housing plan. SOUND LOGICAL LEGISLATION Legislators should carefully consider the dangerous evils of continuing this law. They should realize that people, when in fear of shortages and rising prices, will buy and store more than they need of food, clothing, household goods, appliances, tires, and other articles that are consumed or quickly worn out. People will not buy or rent more housing than they need except when rent controls make it a rare bargain compared with the balance of the price structure, If these are serious times and if we are honestly trying to unify the people in an efficient use of our labor and resources, Congress should kill rent control, eliminate the Housing Expediter, and allow the people to mutually enter into free contracts on rental housing. This will automatically and speedily bring about a large extra supply of housing without the use of any new material or labor. What could be a more efficient manner of aiding in our defense effort? Any fair-minded legislator will agree that the owners of rental property should have had the same position as all other citizens with reference to frozen incomes. Their rents should have been based on parity or the price index. Scores of cities that have had the greatest gains in population in comparison to their gains in dwelling units have been decontrolled for a considerable length of time. The Bureau of Labor Statistics have issued figures on many decontrolled cities and they show that rents have not risen to anywhere near their former relative position in comparison to all other items. RESULTS OF COURAGEOUS LEGISLATION The Expediter said publicly that it would be a miracle if rents did not double if controls were removed. The facts today show that he was trying to perpetuate himself by spreading fear. The courageous legislators who decontrolled these many cities have completely exposed and disproved the Expediter's statements. Decontrol of these cities has brought about the following results: No sign of mass evictions, riots, etc. A modest increase in most 1942 frozen rents. No increase in many rents which had formerly had increases over the 1942 freeze. A reduction in rents on many of the new and decontrolled units. Sharing of single occupied units by one or more additional people, creating thousands of vacancies for families and actually reducing the rents of these individuals. Married couples without children vacated large apartments and moved into smaller ones vacated by single occupants, thus making available large rental units for large families needing them. Bringing back on the market thousands of rental units that had been held off because of rent control. You can pick up the paper and find housing for rent and for sale in every section of these cities. No more begging, buying furniture, black-market bonus, etc. The renewal of closer relationship between the owners and renters and the freedom to work out mutually beneficial matters without the interference and propaganda of the Housing Expediter. An increased value of the rental properties, thus justifying increased realestate taxes so badly needed by these cities. (Under rent control the small-home cwner has been taking most of the added tax burden, while the renter has taken none.) Thousands of apartments were vacated by tenants who could well afford to own property. When their rent subsidy terminated, they quickly bought homes. These vacated apartments were then available for those families who had to rent. ENEMY IN WAR AND IN PEACE Rent control is an arch deceiver. It froze out the veterans and those who most needed rental housing. It turned class against class. It killed freedom of contract. It made honest renters and owners dishonest. It took ample housing and quickly created a great maldistribution to fool and confuse the American people and make them believe they had a true shortage. Rent control has been an enemy of our Nation in both war and in peace. INDIVIDUAL CITIES ANALYZED A comparative study of the 1940-50 Bureau of Census figures for the 231 largest cities in the United States shows how impractical even local option has been in the operation of this law. A table listing these cities is shown hereinafter. s them arranged in their proper order as to the number of avatt in comparison to the increase in population during the last to is Scranton, Pa., which is in the most favorable housing position to its change in population. The last two effiew are Madison, and Wichita Falls, Tex., No. 231, which are in the least favorable hey are the only two cities on the list that did not have more hone for the increase in population than was being used by their inhab ). Ironically, both of these cities have been decontrolled for some 7 of the other illogical situations revealed in this table of United u of Census figures are listed hereunder : first 25 cities on the list, all have lost popoulation and gained hous heless, 24 of these cities are still under Federal rent control The s on the list show the least proportionate amount of available housing hese are completely decontrolled. These two extreme examples in pattern throughout the table. ese 231 cities, 95 are no longer under Federal rent control (13 of these d in the State of New York which has its own rent control inw). The 136 are still under Federal rent control although some of these effies the process of voting for decontrol, 82 cities entirely free of any rent control gained an average of 81 4 population. 136 cities still under Federal control gained an average of only $5 n population. e 13 cities still under New York rent law gained an average of only 47 in population. In Duston, Tex. (No. 156) gained 209,807 or 74.6 percent in population ison to Houston. Chicago (No. 8) za ned 20% 82% but only 62 percent in tion. Chicago's net increase in dwelling units wwe over Ty peren greater was Houston's. Nevertheless, Houston is decontrohed wine Cantagh is der control. ity is still under rent en***6. The greater the comparative sonsiz of boneng, the more lety 14 de Abwe ** & cow,m,able bonding agerpold, |