The union times., 1946-11-30
Kusterer Says Board Keeps Hands Of Policy On
 Foundation

The following letter, a copy of which was sent to THE UNION TIMES, is self-explanatory:
 MT. Vincent J. McGovern
 New Haven Central Labor Council 135 Goffe Street New Haven, Conn.
 Dear Sir:
 I have the letter of November 12, 1946, addressed by you and MeSSrs. Saul Kreas and James O'Kane to The New Haven Real Estate Board and regret that you saw fit to drag the New Haven Real Estate Board into public print when the object of your complaint is manifestly the recently organized New Haven Chapter of the National Home and Property Owners Foundation of which the Chairman IS Mr. Joseph Croog, whose address IS 9 Center Street, New Haven, Conn.
 The New Haven Real Estate Board has taken no official part in the for mation of this chapter and has no more control over it than any other property owner in this area. No ac- tion has ever been taken by the Board either approving or doing anything else with regard to the organization of the chapter as the minutes of the Board will clearly reveal. It is true that we have extended the courtesy of our office to the new organization in its formative stages.
 It is also true that several of our members as individuals, being prop erty owners themselves, have taken an interest in it and have become mem- bers, but it would be strange thing indeed if men in the real estate busi- ness did not take part in matters con nected with real estate. 1 understand that membership i'll the new chapter Is open to any property owner in this area so that the chapter cannot log ically be said to speak for any other group than the people themselves.
 Speaking entirely as an individual and not as an officer of the Board, 1 will say that I have some familiarity with the organization for which you intended your letter Its prospectus indicates fifteen different principles in which it is interested among which you will naturally find reference to the two matters to which you refer as the two basic objectives" An opinion on these points would necessarily be in cluded in the agenda of any organiza ton interested in the ownership of property.
 Such interest is not, as you state, opposed to governmental help in our slums in any such broad way as you indicate, but is limited rather to the handling of an important problem in a manner that does not take from one to give to another. Neither does such interest demand the immediate elim- ination of rent controls but would like to see an immediate alleviation of a situation in which the prices in other markets are allowed full swing while those in the rent market bear no rela- ton to the increased costs of produc- ing the product. Nothing that has been advocated in the group that you attack has been with any intention or expec- tation that rentals would immediately go up by 5090.
 1 regret that you choose to charac- terize as irresponsible statements" the of any opinion on what is best for the country that may be op- posed to your own opinion I can as- sure you that the opinions to which you object are based upon as deep seated loyalty to the servicemen and to the poor as are your own. 1 know of no general opposition to the Wag- ner-E -Ellender- Taft bill but believe rather that the main objection. to it is that it commits the Government to spend at least $60,000,000,000 over the next forty-fve years for governmental housing including the right to obtain scarce materials for their special groups instead of throwing open to all the opportunity to compete in free market in the construction of homes.
 These partial answers to what you have written are, of course, unofficial. I am sure that you can obtain more complete statements if you desire them by addressing the persons whom you intended.
 Sincerely yours,
 THE NEW HAVEN REAL
 EST ATE DnADD