Minneapolis spokesman. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1934-2000, 1954-10-01

Inc MNlHehpDllA 'ltY iohn'Hs
unthlnklngly or unwittingly, put
Itself on record last Friday an be-
ing In favor Of race and religious
discrimination In the matter ~ the
sale and conveyance Of business
and Industrial tax paycrsdcveloped
property and against such dis
elimination in the matter Of hous.
Ing units,
The councils position Ii ambig"
ulous because u brands aa sinful
the action Of discriminating
housing developer and approves
discrimination when committed by
an Industrial developer,
The Council was placed In this
position because A. &. Godward
housing and redevelopment direct.
or limited 10 the Council nj public
hearings Thursday on the Glen
wood fedevelopment program that
II would bc difficult Ia get buyers
for Industrial property II such
buyers and the mortgage concerns
were restricted by non -diacrimina.
tory clauses from discriminating
against some Americans
Actually the city council did no.
thing binding on the housing Hu-
thority 10 prevent race or religious
discrimination IN any area Of the
program. whether housing or In
dustriAi. because II refused to or.
der the authority TO place the non
discriminatory clauses In the plans
which were TO be submitted 10
Washington housing authorities
for approval The council simply
passed a resolution urging tho To-
cal housing authority TO admins.
trativcly ban discrimination In
the housing rcdeveiopment
Six aldermen withstood great
pressure 10 vote to return the
authority their program with In
atrIction TO rework the wording
Of tho plan 20 that conveyance
and deeds would have non .discrim-
inatory clauses Ia protect Ne
groes. Jews and other minorities
who are the usual victims Of dis.
elimination by real estate develop
ers Of both housing and Industrial
districts This was the position
urged by the Mayors Council on
Human relations and 10 other
Minneapolis groups who were re-
presented by speakers
The aldermen who voted 20 or.
der the authority 10 take q stand
against discrimination which
would have force and validity In
tho courts were
Alderman Glen Wallace who
au,horcd the resolution and Alder.
men Frank wolinsl,I. George Mar.
tens. George Johnson, Fart John.
son and Eugene stokowski Gu.
Eens should remember these
names
Tho aldermen who voted against
having the matter SO back to the
authority to strengthen the plan
10 u would protect the rights Of
minorities were
Aldermen Robert Short, " =.
Christensen. Romeo Riley, Frank
Moulton, Jack Jorgenaon and
Jerry EgRn. Tho latter Tough, all
attempts to send the matter back
because he commended that the ~.
submission would delay the rede-
veiopment for possibly months
The human relations groups
made good case for resubmittiug
the matter 10 the local authority
At Thursdays public hearing y. A.
Stolie. chairman ~ the authority
aaid II rebuttal. the authority had
proven record Of non -dlscrtmtna-
ton and that by resolution II had
n stated policy prohibiting race or
religious discrimination That this
IL 80. ~ y credit 10 the housing
authority but the fact remains
that there Is doubt whether the
authority resolution stating = pol.
icy Of non discrimination would
stand up in any court especially
~ It applies to property deeds
snw convcyancrs
We have right TO believe, he.
cause Of past performance that "a
long az the present Minneapolis
housing authority serves and 81.
reefs the program Of the staff,
every administrative effort pos