Evening star., 1941-03-06
Rent Control


controversial Rent Commission plan
Of World War days for governmental
control of rents in Washington seems
to be based largely on fears of a
recurrence of housing ills that
afflicted the city in 1917 and the
years Immediately following that dis
jointed era Chairman Randolph of
the House District Committee, in
sponsoring a bill to freeze rents and
to set up Rent Commission to eX-
ercise rigid control of the rental
business in the District of Columbia,
cited two principal reasons for seek
ing this legislation: First, the i'm
mediate prospect of widespread rent
increases in the District, due to the
I aggravation of the housing shortage
by the advent of workers in the ma
tional defense program, and, second,
the general housing shortage and
the excessively high rents in the Dis
trict as compared with other cities in
the United States"
444OOC VIII 4CCdlI GA1C 4CNCIlo41y
overnight expansion of Washington
upon Americas entry into the World
War will find it difficult to see any
close resemblance between the hous-
ing situation then and now. Between
1915 and ArmiStice Day, 1918, ap-
proximately $4,000 war workers de-
scended upon Washington, causing
an increase of 1874 per cent in the
number of Federal employees. Many
of the employees brought families.
The net result was the addition of
more than 100000 persons to the
city's normal population, at that
time, of about 365,000. A serious
housing shortage developed and, in
all too many instances, rents sky
rocketed to eXorbitant levels. To
protect the workers against such
abuses Congress, as temporary"
measure, hastily enacted the Sauls-
bury resolution to prevent rent in
creaSeS and prohibit evictionS. This
resolution later was declared uncon-
stitutional. 1t was nearly a year
after the war had ended that Con-
gress created the District Rent Com
mission on the assumption that an
emergency still existed. The COM
missions life was extended far be-
yond the two-year provision of the
original Ball Act, finally expiring in
May, 1925, after it's effectiveness had
been crippled by court decisions
questioning that the emergency"
which spawned it still existed. Opin-
ions always have varied widely as to
the good which the commission
accomplished.
In 1885 a vain attempt was made
to re-enact rent control legislation,
using the influx of temporary en-
ployes for the war against the de-
preston" as an argument. Validity
of the 1885 proposal, which would
have empowered rent commission
to set aside landlord-and-tenant con-
tracts, was questioned in the light of
the Supreme Court decision in the
N. R. A. case. That decision held
that while extraordinary condi-
tions may call for extraordinary
remedies" there is no justification
for action which lies outside the
sphere of constitutional authority"
The Ball Rent Act was upheld by the
Supreme Court by a five-to-four de-
cision in 1921 on the ground that
restriction of property rights with
out compensation was proper in a
public emergency, but three years
later the Supreme Court, in sending
case back to lower courts for a
trial on its merits, commented that
from its own knowledge of the sit
uation, without additional data, it
would be inclined to declare the law
no longer operative.
Opinions differ as to the extent of
the housing crisis in Washington
today. Real estate authorities dis
pute Mr.. Randolph's contention that
rents are excessively high" They
are convinced that the emergency
public housing program and private
industry can solve any immediate
problems. Certainly full opportunity
should be given to develop, along
with the pros and cons of govern
mental control of rents, the facts
concerning the emergency on
which such control would be based.
It seems clear that in order to justify
a return to Rent Commission control
of ord-and-tenant relations in
Washington, Congress must satisfy
itself that there exist today-not
that there may exist some time in
the extraordinary condi-
tions" that call for extraordinary
remedies"