In the beginning, the proponents of rent control claimed that it would expedite housing. Instead, it has accomplished exactly the reverse. Rent control never has built a house, neither has it furnished one. Instead, countless thousands of good owners have withdrawn their housing from the rental market in preference to being subjected to tyrannical dictatorship imposed by rent control. Owners refuse to build new housing, and refuse to furnish or improve old housing, wherever rent control either is in effect or where there is a possibility that it might be imposed. The only possible exception to this last statement being the few Socialist-inclined people in this country who are willing to trade their freedom for socialism in the hope that in this way they might make a few filthy dollars for themselves. This last statement is particularly applicable to those who build rental housing under excessive loans subsidized by the Government.

In order to return this country to the status of a free democracy, the Government should get out of private business both from the standpoint of subsidies and of controls. Furthermore, I predict that, if the ballot remains free in this country, the Government will take its fingers out of private business before much longer. The people are tired of these tax-spend-elect programs which are driving this great Nation into bankruptcy and destroying the freedom of the people. Either the Congress must withdraw the Government from private business, both as to subsidies and controls, or I predict that the American people will take the initiative toward forcing such withdrawal through the medium of a constitutional convention.

Rent control has been the choicest plum of the tax-spend-elect philosophers in this country, and we think it should be eliminated now. Not only has rent control not accomplished any worth while purpose in this Nation, but neither has it accomplished anything but disastrous results in any other nation which ever adopted it. The records of England, France, Germany, Austria, Belgium, Australia, and all the other nations which have had rent control, adequately sustain this point.

The proponents of rent control now are asking that it be renewed and extended all the way to June 30, 1954. It is plain to see that they want rent control as an ax to hold over the heads of every United States Senator and Representative every election year. That is nothing short of criminal coercion.

Certainly, this vicious, freedom-annihilating cycle must be stopped sometime. So, why not now? We implore you to let this communistic plank, rent control, die a belated but not lamented death on June 30, 1952.

I thank you.

STATEMENT BY MINNEAPOLIS RENTAL PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION,
M. A. RASMUSSEN, PRESIDENT

Mr. Chairman and committee members, I am writing this statement in behalf of the Minneapolis Rental Property Owners Association and as National Apartment Owners Association's regional vice president for Minnesota, Wisconsin, North and South Dakota.

I wish to inform this committee that both of these associations have voted unanimously that we go on record as opposed to rent control. The reasons being that it seems regardless of how Congress writes the law, the administration interpreters interpret it to mean landlord control. I would like to point out the facts that prove this.

First, in Minneapolis, we have at least a 5 to 7 percent vacancy and have ample proof of same, such as the enclosed clipping from the January 13 issue of Minneapolis' only newspaper. This shows that we are placing more for-rent ads in the Minneapolis paper today than we did in 1942. The same is further proved by these advertising costs from the owner of 28 rental units starting with 1945.

The 1950 census shows that we had a population increase of 29,000 persons over 1940 in the city of Minneapolis, and, as of December 1951, the office of building inspector shows that we have built 15,687 brand new units since 1940.

This does not take into account the conversions of from 8,000 to 10,000 units during this same period. In other words since 1940 the population has increase29,000 and we have created roughly 25,000 additional units. Almost one for every person. The census survey of 1950 shows that in the Minneapolis area, we were 2 percent less overcrowded than the Nation as a whole. Twice during the past year, we have asked our local rent advisory board and the rent office for decontrol of housekeeping units and the rent boards' own survey showed that 7 landlords owning 1,234 units had 60 vacant units or a 5-percent vacancy. Through unethical methods, such as saying that because this unit was short a floor lamp it was not ready for occupancy, thereby disqualifying this vacancy. In this type of units, it is customary to withhold some of those items, as the majority of the time the tenant wants to use his own, and the operator would have to carry his back down to the storeroom. By this type of tactics they have refused to give us decontrol.

We appealed to what is called the Emergency Court of Appeals and found out that if the Emergency Court of Appeals found in our favor that they had no power to enforce their order. So, we had no method of appeal against the rent office's decision. I have been informed that Mr. Woods has told Congress that wherever there is a vancancy of 4 to 6 percent, he would decontrol, but we have. the evidence that in Minneapolis he has failed to do so.

Second, the rent office has been for too stringent in their requirements in filling out petitions for improvements. The average small property owners are no longer able to fill these forms out to the satisfaction of the rent office here in Minneapolis. It has always been that on a capital improvement, you put down the total cost of the improvement. Now, the local rent office seems to require that you itemize the items to such an extent that the only way you could honestly do it, you would have to employ someone to check on how many quarts of paint go on the north wall and how many nails go into this wall and how many fittings the plumber uses in the bathroom, how many in the kitchen. It is just impossible for the owner to do this. Therefore, they let their property become slums because there is too much red tape.

Third, under rent office regulations, it is impossible to evict undesirable tenants unless you can prove that the tenant has completely destroyed your property. It is also impossible to evict for remodeling unless you must remove the roof to do same. I know of one case where the landlord wanted to remodel two apartments in a building that under rent control had become unfit for occupancy. It was stated that the bathroom fixtures were to be removed for a period of 30 days, etc. Yet, the tenants stated that the landlord would not do these things. The result, the rent office said it could be done with tenants living there, so nothing was done until a year later when the tenants finally moved. This landlord spent 6 weeks with laborers working on these two units all that time. During this time, water for plaster and tilers had to be carried up from the basement and the bath was out for three complete weeks. Yet the rent office had the idiocity to say it could be done while occupied.

Fourth, under rent control the property owner has absolutely no control over his tenants, yet under the local law he is held liable for the tenants' doings.

Fifth, under rent control, small property owners depending on their rent income for a living have not received one red cent as a cost-of-living increase, but statistics show they have actually received a 29 percent cut in their buying power and their standard of living.

Sixth, in 1949, we succeeded in getting Mr. Tighe Woods to decontrol all sleeping rooms in Minneapolis, but to my surprise the rent office considers that only those sleeping room that were sleeping rooms on the decontrol day in 1949 are decontrolled. Thus, if you decide to rent out six sleeping room on second floor in your house, although sleeping rooms are supposed to be decontrolled, these sleeping rooms are not decontrolled. Therefore, neither the landlord nor the tenants of Minneapolis know whether they are decontrolled or not. So we are now in the position that we must again ask for decontrol of all sleeping rooms, although this was supposed to have been done in 1949.

Seventh, in conclusion, I would say that after reviewing all these facts, rent control just isn't fair to the owner of rented property, and should be abolished in all but critical areas, and then amended to take care of all loopholes by which the rent office is putting the owners of rental property out of business..

STATEMENT OF NORFOLK PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION

MEMORANDUM ON SUGGESTED CHANGES IN LAW IF RENT-CONTROL BILL IS PASSED FOR 1952

(1) We propose that; provisions are made in the law, demanding the Federal Government to hold a public hearing and produce evidence to prove that there is such a shortage of rental housing as to require the reimposition of rent control; before controls can be reimposed pursuant to decontrol by action of city council. The law should not require more formality to lift controls than to reimpose them. If in either direction, more evidence should be required to take from owners the control of their property than to give them back the control of their property.

(2) The right to reimpose rent control within 30 days after having been lifted by local law should be omitted from the bill.

Where the State or locality has investigated the matter and has found from evidence that there is no need for Federal rent control, then certainly the Secretary of Defense nor the Director of Defense Mobilization should not have the power to arbitrarily reimpose rent control within 30 days to satisfy the whims of the administration.

The 30-day provision is held over the heads of every city and State by Mr. Woods, who warns them that if you decontrol, we will recontrol within 30 days. It is not to be presumed that the administration in Washington is any more concerned over the country's welfare or would be any more honest and fair than the local people who make up our country.

C. R. HOLT,

Mrs. JOHN H. BIGGS,
Mrs. MAYON A. Cox,

Norfolk and Vicinity Property Owners Association, Decontrol Committee.

RENT DECONTROL

At the outset members of the Norfolk Property Owners Association want to say we fully realize, that these are critical times. We are American citizens, contrary propaganda notwithstandg, and are represented in the various branches of military service by members of our families.

One of the most critical situations is brought about by the imposition of Federal rent control and we would be derelict in our duty if we failed to defend our heritage.

Therefore we advocate the end of Federal rent control in this session of Congress.

Reasons supporting our position are as follows:

(1) There no longer exists such a shortage of rental housing as to require rent control. Evidenced by statements and letters attached.

(2) Norfolk was decontrolled by action of city council in March 1950, based upon evidence which proved rent control was no longer needed. There has been a building boom since March 1950 which has more than kept abreast with the increase in population.

(3) Accoridng to the Labor Bureau survey there has been only a 7-percent increase in rents during decontrol. There is no evidence of threat to increase rents and could not be with vacancies existing.

(4) Federal rent control was reimposed in Norfolk November 1, 1951, which in final analysis is property control, and is a direct violation of property rights. (5) Norfolk is a strategic location, from a military and defense standpoint. Since housing has met the demand here it is indicated housing must have met the demand throughout the whole United States.

(6) Based upon these facts, you gentlemen should have the courage and fortitude to vote to end rent control, thereby restoring to the rightful owners full control of their propery.

Mrs. JOHN H. BIGGS,

Chairman, Decontrol Committee, Norfolk Property Owners Association.

SOME FACTS AND FIGURES ON THE QUESTION OF THE NEED FOR RENT CONTROLS IN THE CITY OF NORFOLK

The reason given for controls is to have adequate housing at reasonable prices (in line with the current living index). This can never be by rent control as stated by Mr. Woods. In his testimony before the Senate Banking and Currency Committee in June of 1951, Mr. Woods said, "The only way to get out from under controls is to encourage construction of new units, so we recommended no controls for new units." By this statement, Mr. Woods is saying that controls deter and discourage construction, and thus the longer it remains the greater the need for controls.

Facts and figures show that when controls are lifted there is a heavy upward swing in building and when controls are reimposed there is a definite decrease in building.

2. The lifting of current restrictions will bring about the building of all the needed units in any area. In any field of endeavor where there is an opportunity to make above the average return on your invested dollar, you will find the hundreds of investors crowding into the field until the return reaches the average level.

3. The issue of control should be an unbiased, fair, and a just determination of facts as to whether controls are needed and should be based on facts gathered in the community or city, by its unbiased citizenry after having heard its citizens on the issue. Certainly no one will admit the law to give favor to any group or class. If such is so, why not have a fair and open hearing to determine the issue.

4. In this area, it has been shown by spot checks that there was adequate housing available. Many hundreds of vacant units are for rent and many more for sale. A survey made by the census takers showed in 1950 that there were 56,122 dwelling units in the city of Norfolk and that 54,034 were occupied. The record further showed that there were 2,088 ready for occupancy and available and 989 withheld from the market. It further showed that there was an increase of 17,389 since 1941.

The census showed that in 1943, which was the peak year of the war, we had 305,127 people in Norfolk. All housed. In 1950, we had only 188,601. In 1943, there were 982 building permits issued; 1944, 1,015; 1945, 1,526; 1946, 2,003; 1947, 2,604; 1948, 2,412; 1949, 2,332; 1950, 2,684. This does not include the large housing developments just out of the city limits, built there because there was not sufficient space in the city. There was $40,723,095 spent in building activities in the area that included the heavy construction during 1950. In 1950, we spent $9,979,300. These facts can only leave one conclusion-we have no housing problem.

More houses will be built if the Government would release credit restrictions, which could be done under Public Law 139 which does not make rent control mandatory, as does Public Law 96.

On January 21, 1952, a committee of the Norfolk Property Owners Association took a spot survey extending from Princess Anne County to the end of Willoughby, checking on both sides of Ocean View Avenue and the results were as follows: 43 furnished apartments; 70 new apartments, about one-half will be furnished and one-half unfurnished, now available and ready for rent; 55 under construction, will be ready in approximately 30 days; undetermined number that will be ready from 60 to 90 days.

In addition to that, 14 houses for rent and 14 houses for sale.

The total of 196 houses and apartments that we found as of that date. On December 4, 1951, at an organization meeting, we took a spot check and found 75 furnished apartments available as of that date.

The results of these surveys would indicate that housing is available any and every day a survey or check might be made.

To Whom It May Concern:

MAYON A. Cox.
Mrs. JOHN H. BIGGS.

That rent control is not needed in Norfolk is evidenced by the following facts: I own and operate tourist apartments, and have a great number of Navy personnel who are waiting permanent housing, stay with me.

On December 1, 1951 I rented a furnished apartment to Lt. and Mrs. D. E. Vaughn and two children. They had rented an unfurnished apartment which was available on December 15. Lieutenant Vaughn's orders were changed which necessitated giving up this apartment. Another change in orders made his resi

dence here permanently. They immediately started looking for permanent quarters. This they found without very much trouble, in fact they had a choice of three new houses, available on January 3. They rented and moved in one of these located at 1286 West Ocean View Avenue on January 3.

Case No. 2. This same apartment was rented to another party, Chief W. C. Cross and wife, who had just arrived from California, on the same day that the Vaughns moved out. While the apartment was being made ready, they drove down to Chesapeake Beach, not really looking for a house, but they rented one while there and moved into it on January 15.

These are only two of the many cases that have come under my own observation within the last 2 months.

All anyone has to do to find housing in Norfolk is to get out and look for it. Mrs. MAYON A. Cox.

To Whom It May Concern:

A Navy chief came to rent my apartment, asking me to reduce the rent, saying that he was expecting his wife for a stay of 2 weeks or perhaps longer, and wanted a nice place for her to stay, I reduced the apartment $5 per week and he rented it, leaving a deposit for same. The next day he came back and said that he had rented another place and asked me to refund his deposit, which I very kindly did.

His wife arrived as planned, but did not like the accommodations which he had provided for her, and he came back to me and asked if I would rent the apartment to him again, at the same reduction. I had lost several days rent, because no one else had wanted the apartment, notwithstanding I had been running an advertisement in the daily papers.

I am sure this chief asked the other party for a refund of his rent also. This happened in September 1951, when housing was supposed to be so short.

Very truly,

To Whom It May Concern:

Mrs. EDWIN A. VAUGHAN.

On the subject of rent control I would like to state that I for one cannot see the need for it. I arrived in Norfolk on the 1st of November and had my choice of three places for rent on the very day I arrived. I also have assisted friends of mine in finding apartments and houses to rent, up until recently and there were, and still are, several places available. I cannot see where there is a housing shortage or a critical housing area here.

Sincerely yours,

To Whom It May Concern:

Mrs. O. R. MARETT.

NORFOLK, VA., January 30, 1952.

Having been transferred from San Francisco, Calif., to Norfolk, Va., in September of 1951, my family and I were able to find a comfortable house to rent at a reasonable price. We had a choice of several places at that time. I do not feel that rent control is necessary in this area.

To Whom It May Concern:

D. S. THORP.

Every other day since January 1, 1952, I have been phoning all persons who advertise in Norfolk newspapers under "Wanted to rent, apartment or house." I have found that 80 percent of those who advertise find what they desire within 2 days after their ads first appear.

A majority of them find suitable quarters the first day they advertise.

Both those who have secured quarters and those who have not, within 2 days, state that they have received many calls from landlords with vacancies within the price range their ads prescribe.

In today's (January 24, 1952) Norfolk Virginian-Pilot there are 33 furnished and unfurnished apartments and houses for rent, plus 14 smaller units for rent. Many ads state, "They have several vacancies."

In same paper there are only eight individuals who advertise for housing. It is also noted that as a rule those who advertise as wanting to rent desire expensive housing, while the large majorities of vacant units for rent are reasonably low priced; several at $40 and $50 a month.

As to the shortage of housing in the Norfolk area, the above facts speak for themselves.

C. ROY FOLTZ.

(NOTE.-Advertisements submitted will be found in the files of the committee.)