Evening star., 1947-07-09

and another made no commitment Ten
signed. That constituted the entire imme
diate encirclement. The sponsors felt that
10 to / or Z should assure approval Of the
rexoning.
At the hearing the opposition Of two led to
= postponement of the decision by the zpning
board. The two claimed that low-cost houses
returned relatively small taxes to the county
and overcrowded the schools; that the county
should not welcome a frame precut develop
ment; that Washington was dumping Its low
income families on an adjoining county and
they might become county charges. In fact,
the major objective and assets of the project
simple though attractive, low-cost houses to
be rented to veterans with low incomes-became
its most vulnerable liabilities. The opponents
said: I'VE want more fine developments in our
county-$15,0O0 and $4,000 houses not over
crowded with children and owned by the
occupants. Rented houses soon become slums."
At the zoning hearing the Planning Com
mission made a favorable report on the project,
which was also strongly supported by the
Washington director Of veterans housing, who
said this was the type of project he most
needed and the only one of its kind In pros
pect; that 800 rental houses would be only
drop in the bucket but might serve as guide
to others to duplicate 1t. The Federal Hous-
ing Authority made the same comment.
As the Zoning Board didn't meet again for
. month, an extension of the option on the
site was obtained. Answers were prepared to
the earlier objections The coming rehearing
was held 30 days later and II people appeared
at the rehearing petition had been circu-
lated throughout an area considerably detached
from the site-with at least rs names on it. all
taxpayers consulting architect, expert in
this field, had come from New York for the
hearing He made a strong case for the
project As one of which the county would be
proud But the names of the IS opposing tax
payers carried the day and denial OF the
project was voted by the board Of four men.
The Veterans Case Presented.
At the rehearing the veterans housing direc-
tor, q resident and taxpayer in the county,
said: Thirty five thousand veterans are
looking for homes in and around Washington.
They went to war to save the property you OF
the opposition own. And nowssyou deny them
the right to live near you. They have been
patient II this type Of project, planned by
private enterprise to meet their needs, Is de-
MED them the Government will have to build
for them"
While this situation was developing, an addi-
tional difnculty was being encountered. When
the requested estimates were presented. the
site development costs, based on the prelim-
mary plot plan which would be modified for
q more economical layout, were estimated at
SITS per unit. A site development cost OF that
amount was we'll out of line with the proposed
$1,000 unit cost. Construction estimates were
next tailed, and the average cost per unit was
s6,eO0 The estimated cost per one-story. one
bedroom unit representing 10 per cent OF the
number for the project was $3.50; two-story,
two-bedroom unit comprising rs per cent?,
So 500, and for the remaining Is per cent OF
two-story, hree-bedroom units, 500.
These estimates indicated that project
with such construction costs would require a
rental of 358.40 for the bedroom unit
S67 50 for the two-bedroom units and $3.50
for three bedrooms. The original objective OF
low-rent housing for veterans would not be
fulfilled at such rent levels Even with the
cost pared down to an absolute minimum, the
rents would still be too high.
Consequently these two barriers, high con-
structi6n costs and denial of the rezoning pc
tition, were such that 1t was decided ut the
next meeting of the group not to make an
appeal to the Board of Supervisors. The time
and effort the option payment and other incl
dentals were lost and 300 low-rent houses for
veterans will not be built until more suitable
site and lower costs sttainable.