Evening star., 1944-01-23
Housing Theory
CHALLENGED
BIZ Ben McKelDau.


| mittee Of the Senate District Commit
| tee, of which Senator Burton of Ohio
| is chairman, may generate lot Of heat
between the advocates and opponents
| of the National Capital Housing Au-
| thority. The Authority has been under
| attack recently and some of its critics
no doubt have supplied themselves with
| ammunition designed to discredit its
work. This criticism comes at a time
when elements Of the private building
| industry are expressing alarm over
what they see as a threat to private
enterprise in the postwar plans for low
cost public housing in Washington and
are anxious to discourage congressional
authorizations which would widen the
scope and strengthen the hand of the
| NCHA.
While criticism and defense Of the
NCHA will help to clarity the future
status of this agency, the far more in
teresting development which may re-
| suit from the hearings is sharper def
inition of the role which private build
ing can play in the reclamation Of
blighted residential areas in Washing
ton. The theory that only the Govern
ment can reclaim slum areas and pro-
vide low-cost housing for the lowest
| income groups-based on the conten-
ton that there is no profit incentive for
private enterprise in that fields being
challenged. The strength with which
that challenge is supported may go far
| to determine whether private enter
prise, with the encouragement and as
sistance OF the proper public agencies,
will provide slum clearance and low
cost housing; or whether this function
properly should be discharged by Gov
| ernment alone.
|
AS sharp argument is more colorful
than agreement, criticism and defense
of the NCHA may hold the spotlight.
But it Is significant to note the number
of points on which there seems now to
be little difference Of opinion. There is
wide agreement, for instance, on the de-
STABILITY of consistent large scale slum
reclamation and the fact that Wash
ington, with many other American mu-
inequalities, will by one method or an
|
down, insanitary and congested housing
by condemning it as a menace to health
and morals of the community and that
new housing will be provided There is
growing public consciousness of the de-
STABILITY of strict housing standards,
with penalties against owners and
tenants who willfully fail to meet them.
There is greater public recognition than
in the past of the necessity, in one form
or another, for subsidies to make up the
difference between a tenants ability to
pay and the lowest economic rent which
will liquidate public or private invest
ment in decent housing. And there
seems to be agreement that there must
be public agency, such as the NCHA,
for the selection and condemnation Of
areas to be reclaimed and for specifying
the future use of these areas.
Some of the groups adopt as their
major premise the argument that the
NCHA has failed to do the alley-clear-
ing job for which it was established, and
that it therefore should be abolished or
reorganized, with its powers limited to
the selection and condemnation of slum
areas, private enterprise supplying the
construction, management and owner
ship of the new housing.
The public housing group on the other
hand, is convinced not only of the excel
lent record of the NCHA but of the fu-
tiity of attempting slum reclamation
except through such a public agency,
contending that the slums of today are
the fruits of the failure Of private en-
terprise in the past.
And there is still third group which
sees value in what the NCHA has
accomplished, which credits it with
having done a splendid job OF plo-
neering but which believes on the
strength of new conditions and con-
ceptions, that private enterprise can
find the profit incentive to accomplish
the same results, at less overall cost to
the taxpayer and without accumulating
the inevitable headaches associated with
Government monopoly in any field.
John Ihlder, executive officer Of the
NCHA, has maintained that his slum
reclamation program (and none Of this
concerns temporary war housing) does
not compete with private enterprise;
that public housing merely supplements
private housing, dealing with an income
group which can expect no relief from
new housing built for profit When pri-
vate enterprise needs a Government
subsidy to build low-cost housing for
this group, he contends, legitimate
profit motive does not exist and a pub
lie agency should administer the sub
sidy.
Whether or not they can prove it on
paper or demonstrate 1t in practice,
however, at least one group of private
builders is prepared to argue that If the
NCHA condemned an area and sold it
(possibly at some initial loss) to a re-
sponsible builder or private corporation,
specifying the type of construction and
limiting the rate of return to a mu-
tually agreeable figure, the private
builder could do an economically sound
er job; the community would not lose
tax revenue from the property and
the tenant would be better off than
under Government ownership and
management of the property he occu-
pies. 1t is contended that private cap
ital is available for this type of long
term investment at limited, but rela-
lively sure, rate of return. Some rents
might have to be augmented by sub
| SidV Maid as relief bv nuhlic- -welfara