The Waterbury Democrat., 1936-03-17


 one will. The senator wants ad- ministration support and the ad- ministration is divided, vague, and cloudy minded.
 Roosevelt recently complained that his advisers couldn't agree and those who know the inside of the housing issue insist that's just like bemoaning the lack of agreement between Italian and Ethiopians as to the future of Abyssinia. |
 Just What the Jam Is
 A background sketch of the problem may help you understand the current jam:
 A growing housing shortage finds the building industry constructing homes which only IS per cent of families can afford. About 70 per cent of city wage earners have an- nual incomes below $1,500, with a medium of $950.
 Practically everyone agrees that dwellings should be provided for the $500 to $15OOO income group. The only attempt at that now be- ing made is through few subsi- dized and experimental -demon- stration projects of the Resettle- ment Administration and the PWA Housing Division, which hope to show what can be done to reach groups between $90O and $500. Recognized housing experts agree that adequate housing for the lower income groups requires subsidies of from 40 to 50 per cent, depending on location. A 50 per cent capital grant for housing is equivalent to about a 25 per cent subsidy on rent. Reasons Given for Plan
 Any kind of public housing pro- gram means redistribution of in- come -- through diversion of tax funds to rent subsidies. Public hous- ing advocates assert it's @ much better means of redistribution than the dole and usually advance these reasons why the federal govern ment should go in for housing in a big way:
 Il It's the most economical, ef- f1cient long-range method of reduc- ing unemployment and stimulating the building and other heavy indus tries.
 ?. It opens a huge new field for investment of private funds in pro- ductive enterprise.
 3. It can effect large savings for communities through reduction in crime and disease.
 1. It would avert the continuing and increasing housing shortage which affects everybody and makes us all miserable by causing increas- es In rents to the gouging point. Opposed by Big Interests
 The last point is significant. The financial real estate interests, in- cluding banks and insurance com- panies, have good reason to oppose public housing programs. If renters are made to pay 30 per cent of their incomes for rent instead of an aver age 20 per cent, the pleasant bene- fits to such groups are obvious.
 The more acute housing short age, the more rent you can get from an old shack or @ slum tene- ment.
 Those groups appear to have been represented in the presidents galaxy of housing advisers. Im- portant among the advisers are treasury heads, Peter Grimm-the New York real estate man-Allie Freed of New York's Paramount Taxi firm, and Chairman Jesse Jones of REC.
 These and others paraded to Wagner and seem to have got the worthy senator, not to say the pres- ident as well, all mixed up. Ends in a Mixup
 A central housing committee was appointed and it labored for months to agree on 8 plan for recommends tion to Roosevelt. Its members rep resented Federal Housing Adminis- tration, HOLC. REC, Treasury, Re- settlement, PWA, and the National Resources Board.
 It finally presented two reports to the White House, disagreeing as to extent of subsidies and of fed- eraI participation in 8 program. Representatives of PWA, Resettle- ment, and HOLC favored a strong federal program creating perma- nent U. S. housing authority with power to issue guaranteed bonds, make capital and annual grants, and permit federal construction where localities were not set to handle the building themselves.
 The net result to date is that everyone concerned agrees he or she is "for housing," but that we just aren't having any.
 And MT. Roosevelt. who is watch ing his budget, apparently won't be happy until he can have a house. ing program which won't involve subsidies.