The Waterbury Democrat. [volume] (Waterbury, Conn.) 1917-1946, 1944-06-08

has been confined to war housing.
g.. To require that all ,federally
built war housing not meeting local
building codes be torn down, in the
same manner that all temporary
war housing must by law be torn
down within two years after the
President shall declare the end Of
the national emergency.
3. To reduce real estate taxes so
las to allow home owners to deduct
depreciation on owner occupied
homes and on privately financed
housing developed for low income
lgroups.
4. To force liquidation Of the
federal governments Home owners
Loan Corporation and force sale OF
Hole mortgages to private finance
companies.
5. To raise rent ceilings where
they were frozen at depression
levels or below cost Of mainten-
ance.
8. To get rid of War Production
Board restrictions on buildings as
fast as materials requirements for
war production permit.
7. To turn slum clearance over
to private capital, ending direct
federal rent subsidies for low
!, income family housing projects.
Some private builders assert they
could take over the housing of low
income families by using the old
public charity rent certificate" idea
of depression days.
LOBBY WORK GOING ON
What these combined pressure
groups can do Is perhaps best illus
trated in what they have attempted
to do to stop development of public
housing in Washington, D. g. by
lobbying against activities Of the
National Capital Housing Author
|ity whose executive officer is
John Ihdler, for many years a
champion of slum clearance and
decent housing for low income
groups. In 10 years, Ihlder's NCHA
has built $3.50 units Of permanent
Stun reclamation, low rent and war
housing, 2,84l units of temporary
war housing. Half are for Negroes.
There has been opposition to pub
Lie housing in Washington all this
time, but the battle has been rag
ing in the open since last January,
principally before q Senate sub
committee header by working
Harold H. Burton of Cleveland.
Out Of the Washington publicity
kicked up by the Burton investi-
cations have come three proposed
bills, applicable to District of Co
lumbia housing only but repre-
sentative of the three principal
points of view on the future of
public housing in the entire coun-
try:
McCARRAN BILL ASKS SEQ, ZOO. 900
l. The McCarran bill. providing
$40 100000 to continue public hous-
ing for low-income groups in the
District 2. The Tydings-Randolph
free enterprise" bill providing for
Stun clearance by public purchase,
resale of sites to private enterprise
for housing construction by private
capital, payment of rent subsidies
from public welfare funds for low
income tenants unable to pay full
cSd4C ACAiIo yACAAAAA6 q 4oAA ACCu4 IL
to the owner. 3. The Capper bill,
which would permit private bidding
on housing projects but would re-
serve to the government all low
income housing involving any pay
|ment of rent subsidies Of any kind,
to builder or tenant.
Not yet reduced to legislation is
another proposal which bears
watching: plan announced by
President John w. Gailbreath of
the National Association of Real
Estate Boards calling for financing
of private built low rent housing
by sale of tax exempt bonds and
income tax exemption for any cur
rent income invested in such hous-
ing or bonds.
1t is along these lines that the
battle of private VS.. public housing
will be fought to the finish =
though probably not till after the
Nov,aV,ahovs a1aofiNvae