The Waterbury Democrat., 1942-02-04


 EdsOn and Congress has Just appropriated another $300 mill Ion for still more war housing.
 Some of this housing may be of the wrong type, and, viewed by what the postwar standards and require ments are to be, d lot of this hous- Ing may be badly situated. Tn that connection, some housing authorities point to an interesting parallel. We are building, they say, a lot of tanks No one has yet suggested that those tanks be built so that they can be used as tractors to pull blows after the war is over. To do so would make them absolutely no good as tanks.
 Apply that principle to housing, and what do you get? Should houses for war workers at shipyards and munitions plants be built so they can be used as permanent homes after the war is over? Or should they be built as mere adequate shel- ter for the duration of the emer- gency?
 Should they be government owned or privately owned?
 Argument and indecison among federal administrators in Washing ton over what the governments pol icy would be on these and other fundamental questions have sabo- tagged the housing program for war workers more than strikes, priorities, lack of money or slow motion in Congress. But out of this confusion has come one idea which may meet some of the demands for a housing project which shall be adequate fer WartimeS and can still be taken over by private capital after the war. This is what's known as the 'Mu- tual Ownership Plan"
 OCCUPANTS
 BUY STOCK Two federal housing projects have been completed under this mutual | ownership plan as a practical test Largest is the 800 dwelling unit Au- dubon Village at Audubon, N. J built for the Camden ship-yard workers. The other is Avion Village of 3C0 units at Grand Prairie, Tex, built for workers in the new North Amer Ican aviation plant near Dallas Nine other Mutual Ownership pro- JectS are under construction or have ben assigned for construction. i Mutual Ownership is not cooper ative ownership in the sense that under the old co-op apartment or ganization the occupants built and managed their own project. Instead, the government builds and manages the property, though private capital might do 1t just as well.
 The occupants buy stock" No down payments are required, q big advantage to the $1 200 to 2,50O-a- year war worker. The occupants make monthly payments equivalent 10 rent but which really cover in- terest on the investment, insurance, maintenance and repairs vacancy reserve, taxes, administration, con- urgency reserve and amortization For an average four-room unit cost ing $3,000, the monthly payments have been computed at $29, little under the realtors rule of thumb Il per cent a month"
 LIKE MUTUAL
 INSURANCE
 From the occupants point of view, the beauty of the plan is that he acquires an equity in his home The longer he lives ill the unit the larger his stock interest but--and this is important-the participants can change from smaller to larger units as vacancies occur or as the :. family's demands change, and if an occupant is forced to move out of the community he can cash in his equity. In an emergency he could borrow against it. The whole thing is good bit like mutual life in- surance policy. Each participant owns an undivided interest in the whole and he can surrender or transfer that interest.
 In the case where the occupant is paying $29 month, if the fam fly had to move out of the com munity after living there two years 1t would get back stock interst of over $l20-a third of the yearly rent providing the dwelling unit had been well maintained and another family could move in immediately.
 From the governments point oi view, the beauty of the plan is that Uncle Sam stands to get back about 90 per cent of his investment-With interest, The remaining 10 per cent could be secured with slightly higher payments, or if charges were made fer streets, walks and other externa and utilities improvements. This 1t per cent is now charged off as de fenSe expenditure.