Imágenes de páginas

Senator Ervin. Do you have any questions?
Senator Javits. Yes, I have.

Mr. Keith, is it not a fact that 20 percent of the housing has been similarly regulated by the President's Executive order?

Mr. KEITH. That is true, as far as new construction is concerned.

Senator Javits. And in the experience of your organization, have you heard any large outcry over that from owners or renters or real estate people

Mr. KEITH. No, definitely not, Senator. It has been quite evident that the functioning of that order in new FHA housing and housing developed in urban renewal projects and so on, new public housing projects, has proceeded without any serious problems.

Senator Javits. It is a fact, is it not, that those premises described as public accommodations in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are also privately owned real estate, are they not?

Mr. KEITH. That is true.
Senator Javits. Like a store or a moving picture theater?
Mr. KEITH. That is true.

Senator JAVITS. And is it not a fact that this regulates the ability of the owner of that property to decide who will enter his property?

Mr. KEITH. That is correct.

Senator Javits. Do you see an analogy between that and renting the whole property! If you cannot prevent somebody from coming on your property, this is not too different from an unrestricted license to decide to whom you are going to rent or sell to. Would you say that is correct?

Mr. KEITH. That would seem to me the same principle.

Senator Javits. The Supreme Court has sustained as constitutional, has it not, the fact that by law we have denied the right to the owner or occupier of that property, if it is a public accommodation, store, motion picture theater, et cetera, to decide who will come on it and we have forbidden him from barring people because of their color, is that correct?

Mr. KEITH. That is correct.

Senator JAVITS. Your organization has been active in the housing field a long time, has it not?

Mr. KEITH. It has.
Senator JAVITS. How many years!
Mr. KEITH. Thirty-six years.

Senator Javits. What has been the general activity in which it has been engaged during these 36 years?

Mr. KEITH. Our focus has been on the problems of housing overall, but with particular attention to the problems of housing for the disadvantaged and the people of poor and moderate income who have not been

Senator Javits. When you speak of the disadvantaged, you are not speaking of the physically disadvantaged?

Mr. KEITH. No, I am speaking of economically and socially disadvantaged.

Senator JAVITs. Your organization has been one of the outstanding advocates of government-aided housing !

Mr. KEITH. Correct.
Senator JAVITS. At all levels of government !

Mr. KEITH. At all levels.
Senator JAVITS. Local, State, and Federal !
Mr. KEITH. Correct.

Senator Javits. In all these 36 years, have you adopted a policy with respect to making this housing available without discrimination on grounds of race, creed, or color?

Mr. KEITH. That has been our consistent policy.

Senator Javits. In this work, you have cooperated, have you not, with literally thousands of owners, renters, and public authorities; is that correct?

Mr. KEITH. Correct.

Senator Javits. Now, how much mischief do you predict a Federal law against discrimination in housing will cause !

Mr. KEITH. Based on the current experience with the President's Executive order, it would be our expectation that this kind of regulation against discrimination would not exert any upsetting effect on the overall real estate and housing problem.

Senator Javits. What is your reason for recommending administrative rather than judicial means for enforcing this statute?

Mr. KEITH. Well, primarily, Senator, because the principal burden of present discriminatory practices in the field of housing rests on persons of low income and primarily on persons of racial minorities of low income. Consequently, it seems to us that for persons in that segment of our society, the necessity for undertaking their own initiative and action to protect their rights would tend to vitiate their use of the protections intended by this law.

Senator Javits. So that your advocacy of administrative means is intended, is it not, to lessen rather than increase the burdens involved in the administration of this law, is that right?

Mr. KEITH. Correct.

Senator Javits. You feel it would be easier on all parties concerned if the means were administrative rather than as prescribed in title IV?

Mr. KEITH. Yes.

Senator Ervin. It would also tend to keep people from having the right to adjudicate their controversies in courts of law, would it not? Mr. KEITH. I did not quite understand that.

Senator ERVIN. Administrative enforcement would also have the tendency to keep people from having the right to have their rights adjudicated in courts of law?

Mr. KEITH. Well, I would assume that the function of such a commission would be to negotiate settlements in a number of cases.

Senator ERVIN. Now, has it not always been one of the proud boasts of our law that every man's home is his castle?

Mr. KEITH. Well, that is a principle, Senator, certainly.

Senator ERVIN. And you see no distinction between a law that compels a man to accept customers in a place of business he opens to the public and a law which compels a person to receive unwillingly renters in his dwelling house!

Mr. KEITH. I would say, Senator, that I think the principle is primarily the same. I would also point out again that with respect to housing that is now covered by the provisions of the President's Executive order, in effect, the same limitations proposed by this bill are now in effect.

Senator Ervin. Mr. Keith, do you not see any possible line of distinction between housing which is built with Government aid and housing which is built as the result of the endeavors of the individual who built it without Government aid?

Mr. KEITH. Well, most housing that is built is certainly built under the usual practices in the building industry. Some of it involves FHA insurance or GI-insured loans. Other involves loans made by commercial banks which also have a relationship to the Federal Government-not as direct, but there. Others, a very high percentage, are built by savings and loan associations that have the benefit of Federal insurance.

Senator Ervix. All they get from the Government is guarantee of deposits up to $10,000, for which they pay the Government a premium, just like you pay a premium on your personal insurance. Is that not true ?

Mr. KEITH. Yes, that is true. This is also true of FHA insured mortgages, that the money is advanced by private lenders.

Senator Ervin. Yes, but you have the Government guarantee and that is the only reason money is advanced, is it not? People put their deposits in banks and savings and loans before there was any guarantee of savings and loan deposits, did they not?

Mr. KEITH. I would say the depositor relies on the Federal guarantee as the lender relies on the FHÁ insurance.

Senator Ervin. Now, your organization has been in existence, you say, 35 years?

Mr. KEITH. Thirty-six years.

Senator ERVIN. And is not the housing situation worse today than it was when your organization started ?

Mr. KEITH. No; I would not say that, Senator.
Senator Ervin. 'It has not improved very perceptibly, has it?

Mr. KEITH. No; I would say there has been a considerable improvement in certain segments of the housing market. There still remains the fact that there is a great deal that still has to be done. But whereas in the mid-thirties, President Roosevelt could refer to the fact that one-third of the Nation is ill-housed, I think that percentage has now been cut down to about one-fifth. It is still too high. But there has been progress made.

Senator Ervin. But these residential sections where you have de facto segregation still persist, do they not?

Mr. KEITH. A great many of them.

Senator ERVIN. Is not Washington one of the strongest illustrations of it in this country? I believe your office is here in the District of Columbia.

Mr. KEITH. Yes; that is correct.

Senator Ervix. Has not a large part of the Caucasian population of Washington moved out of the District into the suburbs?

Mr. KEITH. That is true.

Senator Ervin. Now, up to the present time, residential patterns have been determined by the will of the people, have they not?

Mr. KEITH. Yes.

Senator ERVIN. And title IV contemplates that the people shall no longer have the right or the power to determine what the residential patterns of the Nation shall be, but that that power shall be assumed by the coercive force of Federal law, does it not?

areas, is it?

Mr. KEITH. Well, this proposal would certainly have an impact on the pattern of housing occupancy.

Senator Ervin. It would certainly have an impact upon the right that people have heretofore enjoyed as far as Federal law is concerned.

Mr. KEITH. It would certainly

Senator Ervin. Does not the destruction of freedom cause you any concern?

Mr. KEITH. Well, if I considered that this is a destruction of freedom, Senator, I do not believe I would support it.

Senator Ervin. Does it not destroy the freedom of everybody in the United States to sell or lease their property to whom they please?

Mr. Keith. Well, as Senator Javits has pointed out, that principle has already been accepted with respect to commercial property.

Senator ERVIN. Because it has been destroyed in certain areas is not a good and valid reason for destroying it in all other remaining

Mr. KEITH. In the field of FHA housing and GI housing, the same kind of limitation has been in effect for several years now, the same way in the public housing program, in urban renewal projects. I have seen no evidence of any real problems created by the effects of that order.

Senator ERVIN. We have a tremendous problem in this field right now. Is that not the occasion for this proposed legislation?

Mr. KEITH. Well, true.

Senator Ervin. And does not this proposed legislation say in effect that all American people, everybody in America, shall be denied the right to select the persons to whom they shall sell their dwellings or rent their dwellings? Do you not consider that a very drastic destruction of freedom?

Mr. KEITH. It would certainly limit the freedom to discriminate.

Senator Ervin. Of course, you would substitute Government standards and let the Government regulate it, but I am at a loss to understand how any man enjoys any freedom unless he has a right to act, what you might call, in a foolish way as well as in a wise way. If the Government is going to direct his action, he has no freedom.

I want to thank you for your appearance and giving us the benefit of your views and those of your organization.

Senator Javits. Mr. Keith, just one other question. By what authority does a person buy or sell a house in any State in this country? By law, does he not? Mr. KEITH. Certainly. Senator JAVITS. Is that not correct? Mr. KEITH. That is right.

Senator Javits. Some State or Federal law-generally State, of course—under which he acts, registers his title, and transfers his title?

Mr. KEITH. Correct.

Senator Javits. So there is the possibility of owning and enjoying ownership only by virtue of law; is that not so?

Mr. KEITH. Correct.

Senator Javirs. That is what assures uninterfered-with possession; is that correct?

Mr. KEITH. Correct.

Senator Javits. So that the law should have the right, if it does sanction possession and protect possession, to have something to say about whether other elements of the law are being observed in connection with possession; is that true?

Mr. KEITH. That is true.

Senator Javits. Are you well aware of the fact that owners of property must comply with codes of sanitation, health, and the like?

Mr. KEITH. That is true.

Senator Javits. Would you say as a person engaged in the housing field that there is an untrammeled right to own and dispose of property in this country without any restraint whatever?

Mr. KEITH. No, sir.

Senator ERVIN. And you can say by the same power of reasoning, since law guarantees property ownership, that law should abolish property ownership in the interest of the great majority. That is, you can

say that, if you do not believe in freedom, can you not! Mr. KEITH. I'would not say this abolishes the right of ownership.

Senator Ervin. It abolishes one of the great attributes of private property, which is the right to sell to whom one pleases.

Mr. KEITH. It puts a limitation on the rights of ownership, along with many other limitations.

Senator Ervin. If the Government is going to assume the power to tell you how you can use your property, what you can do with it, and leave you merely the naked legal title, property does not mean very much, does it?

Mr. KEITH. Well, many of the States have already done this, Senator, as you know.

Senator ERVIN. Seventeen of them. But not as drastic as this bill.

And, incidentally, according to testimony adduced here the other day, one of the witnesses said New York has laws of this nature, and some of these public housing developments are partly vacant because they hold the rooms for rental to white people and white people do not move in.

Mr. KEITH. I am not familiar with that. Senator Ervin. Thank you for coming and expressing the views of your organization.

Mr. KEITH. Thank you.
Senator ERVIN. Call the next witness.

Mr. AUTRY. Mr. Chairman, the next witness is Harry G. Elmstrom, president of the New York State Association of Real Estate Boards, whose appearance is scheduled at the request of Congressman Carleton J. King.

Mr. Elmstrom, would you care to introduce your associate?



Mr. ELMSTROM. Yes, my associate is William R. Magel, from Albany, N.Y., the executive vice president of the New York State Association of Real Estate Boards.

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Harry G. Elmstrom, of Saratoga County, N.Y. As president of the New York State Association of Real Estate Boards, I speak in be

« AnteriorContinuar »