Table of the 231 largest cities in the United States showing the ratio of available housing to the increase in population from 1940 to 1950, compiled from the latest Bureau of Census figures-Continued

The sole purpose of this alphabetical index of States and cities is to make it
possible for the reader to quickly find the numerical position of any city listed in
the foregoing exhibit.

New Jersey-Continued

Passaic..
Paterson
Trenton.

Union City.

Alabama (out):

Birmingham 1.
Gadsden 1.

Mobile 1.

Montgomery
Arizona (out):
Phoenix i

119

198

202

200

159 Kansas:

145

228

169

183

194

149

208

126

204

188

182

139

97

75

78

38

218

59

165

112

127

130

96

88

134

106

223

205

163

87

74
83

50

Iowa:

141

124

193

172

20

94

122

63

24

102

100

191

171

120

152

132

40

See footnotes at end of table.

Cedar Rapids.
Davenport 1.
Des Moines_.
Sioux City.
Waterloo

Kansas City.
Topeka 1
Wichita 1

Kentucky:

INDEX

9 Michigan:

Covington.
Lexington..
Louisville.

Bay City.
Dearborn.

Detroit.

Mr. SCHMIDT. If there is an increase in the purchasing power of
the population without an increase in rent, that undoubtedly will
create a greater demand for rental accommodations and the opposite
is equally true. In order to judge the adequacy of housing under such
conditions, we must compare the total available supply in relation
to the population in existence at the same period. The above-men-
tioned pamphlet does this in great detail, based upon the United
States Census report and covering 231 cities.

The result of this study can be compressed into the simple state-
ment that the American people have had available to them an in-
creasing amount of housing in proportion to the population in all
sections of the country and at all times during the past 11 years.
There never was any excuse for rent control. This is completely
and clearly demonstrated in the attached pamphlet and has been
apparent to anyone familiar with the facts.

Rent control has never benefited any section of our population and
the effect it has had is twofold.

Many dwellings that might be for rent today are owner-occupied
because of individual or cooperative sales.

Second, the construction of new rental dwellings throughout the
country has been a small fraction of what the construction would
have been if rent control had not destroyed all incentive of risk
capital to flow into this industry.

The majority of these rental accommodations that have been built
ave been financed under conditions where the United States Govern-
ment takes all the risk.

There seems to be a school of thought prevailing today that believes
hat we can legislate for the general welfare. In order to accomplish
is so-called social good, they think it is unimportant of what
comes of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Permit me to suggest to you that the first requirement of the gen-
al welfare is maintenance of our constitutional freedom and the
eservation of the individual rights of our citizens.

If legislation is intended to really benefit the people and improve
general welfare, it is possible to do so within the framework of
Constitution. You have taken an oath to uphold this Constitu-
n. Exercise the functions that have been bestowed upon you by
document and legislate, but do not abdicate. This placing of
retionary power in an administrative official to interfere with the
ividual life or the property of a citizen as he may see fit, is a

83762-51-pt. 2- -33