Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1946-05-16
Need 10 Control
Business Rents
In D. T.. Denied
Real Estate Bourd
Director.Soys Law
Would Bring Turmoil

IcuL COuLrOl Is unnecessary ana
would cause confusion, turmoil
difficulties and hardships far more
exasperating and injurious to both
tenants and landlords" than any
condition existing today, Raymond
M. Taylor, a director of the Wash
ington Real Estate Board, told a
House District Subcommittee today
Testifying before the Healy SUBJ
committee, Mr. Taylor said that
complaints of commercial rent
gouging received by the committee
represented only approximately one
quarter of / per cent of the number
of businessmen in the District.
Declaring that the overwhelming
majority of landlords and real
estate people have been innocent of
such practices, Mr.. Taylor said
passage of the proposed legislation
would be unfair to them.
Results of Survey Cited.
Citing a survey made recently by
the board of 1884 business units
which have been in operation from
January l, 1912, through December
81, 1945, Mr.. Taylor said it showed
that only 1925 increases in rent were
levied, with the increases amount
ing to only $50 per cent for the
four-year period. During the same
period there were 80 decreases in
rent, Mr.. Taylor said.
1.-THE results of this survey def
nitely prove there is no need for
a commercial rent control BILL" he
declared.
Another witness, Rufus S. Lusk,
secretary of the Building Owners
and Managers Association, offered
statistics showing that the overs all
percentage increase in Office rentals
from January, 1943, to January,
1916, was IL per cent. During this
time, he said, building operating
costs increased 14.8 per cent.
Mr.. Lusk acknowledged that
there are some cases that have
not been so sweet. But why penalize
1900 people for the sins of not
more than 100," he asked.
Warns Of Shift to Suburbs,
Earlier. Mr.. Taylor had asserted
that he had asked the president of
the Federation of Business Mems
Associations to report cases of rent
gouging to the board for action, but
not a single case has been turned
over to him. j. M. Heiser, president
of the association, previous wit
ness, sought to answer Mr.. Taylor
but Chairman Healy said under the
rules of procedure he could file a
written statement at the conclusion
of the sessions.
Mr.. Taylor warned that enactment
OF the Barry bill might force builders
to construct commercial establish
ments in nearby Maryland and Vir-
GINA where there is no such law.
With the war ended the num-
Der of governmental control regu-
lations should be reduced rather
than increased especially where
definite conclusive proof has not
been presented to justify such legis-
lation, but on the contrary where
1t has been shown that hardship
and injustices will be placed on
over $4,000 commercial property
owners and taxpayers" Mr.. Taylor
said. He added that commercial
rent law would necessitate setting
up cumbersome and complicated
machinery with accompanying in
crease in personnel and salaries, to
handle "the complex administrative
problems"
Cites Higher Assessments.
In arguing that the Barry law
was not needed, Mr.. Taylor stressed
that the Healy committee had not
received more than 60 complaints
regarding rent gouging, although
there are more than 10000 com
mercial establishments in the city
Mr.. Taylor cited a number of rea-
sons why owners of commercial
properties are entitled to some in
creases in, rental, some of which
were:
l. Increases in real estate assess
ments.
2. Substantial increases in op-
Grafton and maintenance costs, such
as fuel, supplies, materials and
labor.
3. Volume of practically all ten
ants business has increased ma
terially since Pearl Harbor and has
increased substantially since the end
of the war.
Mr.. Taylor, vice president of Shan
non & Luchs, real estate company,
reminded the committee that the
Washington Real Estate Board had
favored control of residential rents
and had given assistance in draft
ing the law now in effect govern
ing rent regulations.
Opposed to Rent Gouging.
The current situation, Mr.. Taylor
added, does not justify the need for
the Barry bill. 1--WE admit there
have been some cases of unreason-
able hikes in rent, but these have
been the exception, not the rule -
the witness declared. 1--WE are op-
posed to this practice and we pledge
our continued efforts to prevent
such practices"
At one point during the session
Representative Beall, Republican, of
Maryland asked Mr.. Lusk whether
policing by real estate groups could
prevent commercial rent gouging
Mr.. Lusk answered that most of this
could be prevented, but added, ITO
be frank, there are few operators
that we couldn't do anything about.
He added, however, "but it would be
most unfair to penalize the vast
majority by this legislation just to
get at this handful of operators"
Still to be heard when the hearing
was recessed until 10 am. tomorrow
were representatives of the WASH
ington Board of Trade and indi-
vidual businessmen. During today's
session Mr.. Taylor brought up as
witnesses several businessmen who