Evening star., 1936-09-16


ment, the less revenue from rents is
needed.
Here i: how the type of amortization
plan affects rents: If the administra-
ton decreed repayment of the entire
cost Of the project-the entire ST.
SOC, ,000-over a 40-year period at 8
per cent, monthly rents would neces-
sarily be about $50 more per fam
lily than under the repayment of 55
per cent of revenue-producing items
cost. That is the relationship between
rents and amortization. Tat Is why
the type of repayment set-up adopted
is so vital to the Greenbelt resident.
Tugwelltown was built with relief
labor. All its unskilled workers were
taken from relief rolls. Resettlement
estimates that this emergency provi-
sion, to absorb dole receivers under
the now defunct transient program,
added at least 100000 to the prof.
ect's cost.
Arguments for Set-Up.
Proponents Of the IS per cent grant
plan, which would return only IS per
cent of the cost to the Government,
base many Of their arguments for this
set-up on the relief labor provision.
The point out certain losses c.ncom-
liant with this provision-los' of 20
per cent efficiency, loss Of 100000 in
transportation and subsistence of
workmen, lack of continuity + labor
action due to the maximum hour re-
quirement Cforcing employment in
shifts. since laborers could be on the
| job only limited time each month";
and delays in construction occasioned
by the difficulty Of securing sufficiently
qualified labor from relief sources.
Other items also increased Green
belts cost. 1t was necessary. because
Of the emergency character of the
project, in the need to rut men to
work as quickly as possible, to start
actual construction during a period
which should have been devoted solely
to planning. This brought excess over
hea'. retarded construction and hin
dered negotiations for the most eco
nomical purchase of property from
the 168 individual landowners.
Considering these factors, one
financing planner said:
IT'S hardly fair to make the Green
belt resident pay for items existing
only because of these exigencies. A
commercial project, built by private
industry. could have been constructed
for at least $500, 900 less"
This same argument applies also to
the proposed plan Of basing repay
ments to the Government on revenue
producing items only. Why, say some
resettlement officials, should the ten
ants pay for these utilities extensions
from which they reap no direct bene-
fit? And why should they pay for
any more land than they use? The
Government could hold these extern
sions and this surplus land as assets
for future expansion, they declare.
The taxpayer would perhaps not
agree with proponents Of these
schemes who do not bring a full re-
turn on the $7,500, 900 investment. Re-
settlement, however, always empha-
sizing the experimental character of
the project, declares that Greenbelt
cannot serve as an accurate yardstick
for future planned communities ur-
less all conditions are reduced to nor
malcy, unless extra costs for relief
slabor and excess land and improve
ments are knocked of the final cost
figure serving as the basis of repay
ment.
Problem Of Taxpayer.
The taxpayers problem, then, Is
this: Am I willing to pay for this
experiment? Does the experiment JUS
tify the expense?
These possible amortization plans
ranging from full to partial re-
payment to the Government for rents
collected in Greenbeh-presume deed
ing of the town to the corporation.
There Is. however, another plan un-
der consideration: A long-term lease,
Of perhaps 90 years, to the corpora
ton. This alternative is highly favored
by some resettlement executives.
Under this plan, no amortization
would be charged, since the prop
erty would remain on Government
books as an asset. In other words,
there would be no attempt to repay