The Waterbury Democrat., 1938-12-19
THEORY IS GOOD, BUT PRAC. TICAL APPLICATION
 IS WEAK
December 16, 1888.

Editor, Waterbury Democrat:
 believe that careful considera- ton should be given by the people of Waterbury to the question of whether or not the specific pro- posals being made by the local Hous- ing Authority are desirable from the viewpoint of the taxpayers and the public in general. No one would question the desirability of elimi- ating "slums" of sub-standard dwell ings, but this project does not ap- pear to be in any sense slum clearance project. I cannot see that it does any more than to offer to an arbitrarily chosen group of two hundred and fifty families out of the approximately twenty thous- and family units in Waterbury a greatly reduced rental at the eX- pense of the taxpayers. The great majority of the rental tenementS in this town are owned by persons of small means and low income who occupy part of two,three or four family house and rent the remain ing tenements. Most of them have difficulty paying their taxes and the interest on their mortgages. Is it fair that they should be asked to contribute toward giving other per sons, in many cases better off than they are, a rental superior to that which they as property owners and taxpayers enjoy at a much smaller cost?
 All of the arguments offered in favor of this plan refer to the de- sirability of limiting sluIns, which nobody will dispute, as I have said. They refer also to the necessity of building new houses to take care of these present so-called slum dwellers. So far as I can see, the present .>lan does neither of these things. There has been no defi- nite information as to how the sub-standard dwellings are to be eliminated. I can see no reason why the public should be kept in ignorance on this point. If there are no definite plans, the authori- ties should say so. If there are such plans, 1t should be possible to say just what buildings are going to be torn down or remodeled and where the money is to come from for this purpose and how far the negotia- tions have progressed in connection with this part of the project. Ger tainly, if the arguments in favor of the project have been largely based on the desirability of eliminating these "slums," the public should not be expected to be satisfied with mere statements that these sub standard units twill be eliminated" If it is intended to. take care of this requirement. merely by taking credit for all the remodeling that may be done by private persons or institutions that may own rental property, then this should be clearly stated, since such improvements are in no way dependent on the Hous- ing Project and should not properly be claimed as one of the benefits to be derived from that project.
 The other principal argument, as have said, is to the effect that these new dwellings must be built to take care of the people now hv- ing in these b-standard dwellings which are to be eliminated. Again, we find no assurance whatever that the people who are now living in the least desirable tenements will be able to get into this new develop ment. On the contrary, it is under stood that no person who is re- ceiving relief or charity would be eligible. At least it is clear that the best possihIe tenants will be sought, and that these must give assurance of their ability to pay the rental which will be asked. Certainly no person who has ap- piled to the Welfare Department or to private charitable institutions, and has been able to demonstrate that he was not able to pay his living expenses without help or relief employment, can expect to se- cure one of the Housing Authority dwellings. In other words, there seems to be on evidence whatever that this project will either clear slums or provide better homes for the underprivileged. The argu- ments offered in its favor have bcen based entirely on desirable things