Senator DIRKSEN. Then how many areas have been decontrolled since the present act, with its amendments, went into effect, and what areas they are. Mr. WOODS. Yes. Senator DIRKSEN. You might just refresh me on that. What areas, if any, have been decontrolled since this act became effective? Mr. Woods. I've got that with me, but I can also insert it in the record. Senator DIRKSEN. It would be just as well if you just insert it in the record. Mr. WOODS. All right. Senator DIRKSEN. Then the number of areas and what areas were recontrolled since the effective date of the present act, with its amend ments. Mr. WOODS. Yes sir. (The information requested will be found on pp. 1866 and 1932.) Senator DIRKSEN. In that connection, I would just like to ask you about two, because they have been brought to the attention of the committee. The first one is in the chairman's area, down in Charleston. I think Mr. Fitzgerald gave us some testimony. Would you like to tell the committee a little something about that situation in Charleston? Mr. Woods. The only two I saw in the testimony, Senator, where Mr. Fitzgerald spent some time, were Norfolk, Virginia, and Colorado Springs. I didn't see Charleston mentioned. The CHAIRMAN. Charleston hasn't been. Senator DIRKSEN. It wasn't so much a case of whether Charleston had rent control as it was whether or not you were trying to reimpose rent control. I am just curious, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Those charges have been made to me, and I have talked to Mr. Woods and he has never suggested doing it. Some real estate people down there have been making these charges. I happen to know Charleston, I happened to have been there, and I called him on the phone. Did I telephone you, Mr. Woods? Mr. Woods. You telephoned me. The CHAIRMAN. And it was denied. Mr. Woods. There were two mentioned critically, Senator: Norfolk and Colorado Springs, by Mr. Fitzgerald. Senator DIRKSEN. And then, in supplemental data that has come to my attention, the question of whether or not there has been an effort to reimpose rent control in the Dallas area. I think you attended a meeting there this year, did you not? Mr. WOODS. Yes, Senator, and I was asked that question while in Dallas practically every hour, and I remember my answer because I had to give it so much. It was that we were not in Dallas because we were interested in Dallas, and Dallas was not under consideration because, as far as we could determine, it had not met the criteria for a critical area. Senator DIRKSEN. Would you amplify that for the record and tell that Dallas story-not now, but in connection with your statement? Mr. WOODS. Yes sir. (The information requested follows:) I have been asked to give more specific details to the committee regarding my visit to Dallas, Tex., on February 28 and 29, 1952. A series of six regional meetings have been scheduled this spring for the benefit primarily of new members of rent advisory boards and new agency employees in critical areas which have been certified during the past few months. Three of these meetings have already been held, and three more are scheduled for the next 5 or 6 weeks. The meeting at Dallas was the first in this series. This meeting was attended by representatives of the following communities: Arkansas: Benton, Camden, El Dorado, Pine Bluff. Louisiana: Lake Charles, Leesville, DeRidder, New Orleans, Hammond, Shreveport. Oklahoma: Ardmore, Pauls Valley, Lawton. Texas: Belton, Big Spring, Borger, Freeport, Kingsville, Mineral Wells, Weatherford, Mount Pleasant, San Marcos, Hondo, Wichita Falls. The meeting was held in Dallas because that city is a convenient central point for persons residing in these localities, and because the regional office having supervision over these States is located in Dallas. During this meeting no discussion or attention whatsoever was devoted to the question of whether the rent stabilization program should be brought to the city of Dallas. I was asked by newspaper representatives whether my visit to the city had anything to do with the possibility of bringing the rent stabilization program to the city of Dallas, and I answered definitely in the negative. Senator DIRKSEN. Mr. Woods, I suppose you are familiar with the observation made by Mr. Fitzgerald in his testimony that reads as follows: Deliberate attempts by the Rent Director to influence the acceptance of rent control by communities through misrepresentation of the law and its effect on such communities. He points out, on page 3 of his testimony, that your informational office issued a bulletin that is styled GPO-O-ORS-1584, which says, among other things, the following: The following conditions must be found to exist before certification as a critical defense housing area: 1. A new or reactivated defense plant or installation exists or will be put into operation in the area, or its operation substantially extended; 2. Substantial migration of defense personnel is needed; 3. A substantial shortage of housing exists or impends for workers or military personnel, and such shortage threatens to impede the activities of the defense plant or installation. Now, they point out that on page 31, in section 204, that in the third item that I read there is included in the act itself the words "which has resulted or threatens to result in excessive rent increases,' and that that portion did not appear in your release at all. But it is a requirement, I think you will admit, as laid down in the law? Mr. Woods. That is true, Senator, and I won't try to defend that release. It was issued, and the only thing I can see about it at this late date is that the information people, in the hurry to get something out, did not consult with the attorneys. We did it and it was unfortunate. All I can say is that it was not deliberate. But right about the same time the official interpretation of the act was issued, on August 6, which very clearly puts in that third requirement, and as soon as we found that this other document had been issued, we tried to pull in all the copies back and retract. But once out, of course, I admit we did it and it is unfortunate, and all I can say is that it was not a deliberate attempt to misinform the people of the community. Our official communication from the general counsel, which was issued on August 6, 1951, to all our regional directors and all area rent directors, as soon as we had had a chance to analyze the law, very carefully put out all of the steps. If I might, Mr. Chairman, I would like to have permission to have this inserted in the record. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection it will be entered. (The memorandum referred to follows:) OFFICE OF RENT STABILIZATION, Memorandum To: All Regional Directors. All Associate Regional Directors. All Regional Attorneys. All Area Rent Directors. All Area Rent Representatives. From: Ed Dupree, General Counsel. Subject: Analysis of Public Law 96, Eighty-second Congress, Insofar as it Relates to Federal Rent Stabilization and Veterans' Preference in the Purchase and Rental of Newly Constructed and Converted Housing Accommodations. Public Law 96, Eighty-second Congress, was approved by the President on July 31, 1951. This Act is divided into two Titles: Title I contains amendments to the Defense Production Act of 1950, Title II contains amendments to the Housing and Rent Act of 1947. This analysis deals with these latter amendments which extend and amend the Housing and Rent Act of 1947, as amended, pertaining to Federal rent stabilization and veterans' preference. RENT STABILIZATION 1. Federal rent stabilization under the Housing and Rent Act of 1947, as amended, is extended to June 30, 1952. 2. Rent stabilization is to be administered by the President through the Economic Stabilization Agency and provision is made for the liquidation of the Office of the Housing Expediter. 3. The President is directed to establish rent stabilization in any State which by law declares the need therefor and in any incorporated city, town, village or in the unincorporated area of any county (unless any one of such localities is in a State which is now controlling rents), on receipt of a resolution from its governing body based on a finding after a public hearing that there exists such a shortage in rental housing accommodations as to require Federal rent control. In establishing maximum rents in such States or localities, the President must give due consideration to rents prevailing between May 24 and June 24, 1950. Maximum rents cannot be established on housing accommodations specifically exempted under the rent control provisions of the Housing and Rent Act of 1947, as amended. 4. The President is directed to establish Federal rent stabilization in any area declared to be a critical defense housing area by the Secretary of Defense and the Director of Defense Mobilization, acting jointly. The President may establish maximum rents on all housing accommodations in such area including those specifically exempted under the Housing and Rent Act of 1947, as amended. establishing rents in such critical areas the President is directed to give due consideration to the rents prevailing from May 24, 1950, to June 24, 1950. In Provision is made for the termination of rent stabilization by local option in critical defense housing areas but authorization is provided for the reestablishment of rent stabilization in such areas after the expiration of 30 days, upon the further joint certification of the Secretary of Defense and the Director of Defense Mobilization. No area can be certified as a critical defense housing area unless the following conditions exist in such area: 1. A new defense plant or installation has been or is to be provided, or an existing defense plant or installation has been or is to be reactivated or its operation substantially expanded; 2. Subsequent in-migration of defense workers or military personnel is required to carry out activities at such plant or installations; and 3. A substantial shortage of housing required for such defense workers or military personnel exists or impends which has resulted or threatens to result in ex cessive rent increases and which impedes or threatens to impede activities of such defense plant or installation. 5. If an area is certified to be a critical defense housing area, real estate construction credit controls imposed under Title VI of the Defense Production Act of 1950 must be relaxed to the extent necessary to encourage construction of housing for defense workers and military personnel. The certification that an area is a critical defense housing area is not effective until such real estate construction credit controls have been relaxed to the extent necessary in the determination of the President. 6. The authority to establish maximum rents in critical defense housing areas does not extend to housing accommodations in any State or locality in which State or local rent control is now in effect unless the rent component of the BLS Consumers' Index for such State or locality has increased more than the United States average of the rent component of such index during the last six-month period for which such index is available immediately preceeding the establishment of such maximum rents. 7. The President is directed to increase maximum rents which are currently in effect, upon sworn application of the landlord. The law provides for a 20% increase based on the maximum rent for the housing accommodation in effect on June 30, 1947, plus the amount of any increase allowed or allowable for major capital improvements or for increases in living space, services, furniture, furnishings, or equipment, and minus any decrease required or requirable for decreases in living space, services, furniture, furnishings, or equipment, or for substantial deterioration or failure to perform ordinary repair, replacement or maintenance. If no maximum rent was in effect on June 30, 1947, for the housing accommodation the maximum rent to be used is the rent then in effect for comparable housing accommodations. 8. Tenants and the United States are authorized to sue landlords for treble damages in unlawful eviction cases. 9. The definition of the word "person" has been amended to make it clear that rent control may be imposed upon rental accommodations operated by the United States or any agency thereof, or any other government or any of its political subdivisions or any agency of these. 10. The provisions stabilizing rental accommodations in residential hotels in the City of Chicago have been repealed. VETERANS' PREFERENCE Under the authority of Public Law 96, the President has delegated the administration of Title I of the Housing and Rent Act of 1947, as amended, including veterans' preference, to the Housing and Home Finance Agency. For your information, however, the following is noted: 1. The Veterans' Preference provisions of the Housing and Rent Act of 1947, as amended, are continued to June 30, 1952. 2. The Veterans' Preference provisions have been broadened so as to apply to parents of deceased members of the armed forces. 3. The exception provisions relating to veterans' preferences have been broadened to include persons engaged in national defense activities. Senator DIRKSEN. Mr. Woods, to what extent do you use radio through your regional and local offices, in telling the rent story to the public? Mr. Woods. We use it whenever they will give us any free time. Senator DIRKSEN. In Chicago you have been notably successful in getting free time, I take it, haven't you? Mr. WOODS. We have in almost every city, because anything concerning rent is of interest, regardless of which side it is on." Senator DIRKSEN. Are those scripts preserved that are used? Senator DIRKSEN. Could you supply for the record, say half a dozen or more? Mr. Woods. We can supply the ones actually used in Chicago. Senator DIRKSEN. And insert them in the record? Mr. WOODS. Yes, sir. (The information requested will be found in the appendix, p. 1932.) Senator DIRKSEN. How many advisory boards are functioning now for the whole country? Mr. Woods. 465. Senator DIRKSEN. Those are large areas and small, I take it? Mr. Woods. Yes, sir. Every place that there is rent control today there is a rent-advisory board. Some have more than one. Senator DIRKSEN. That would embrace how many people? Mr. Woods. Around 3,000, roughly. May I correct that? It is 2,600, actually, and the other figure, if I may correct that, Senator, is 419 actual boards. Senator DIRKSEN. The advisory boards are really designed to express a public-interest viewpoint as much as anything, aren't they? Mr. Woods. I would say, Senator, we use the words that the law used, that there should be representatives of the affected interests. That has been our basis in balancing them. In other words, we feel that the landlord's interest should be represented, the tenant's interest should be represented, but overwhelmingly should be the public interest. So in our basic board, in numbers, it is always one landlord, one tenant, and three public interest, so that they may have the weight of the opinion. Senator DIRKSEN. Who appoints the members of the advisoryboards? Mr. Woods. I appoint them on the basis of recommendations of each State governor. Senator DIRKSEN. You mean the advisory boards? Mr. WOODS. Yes, sir. Senator DIRKSEN. Does the regional director have any voice in recommending members of the board? Mr. Woods. The only place anyone in the agency would have any voice in it, Senator, would be where a State governor, after the required period of time, did not act. Then, in order to get the boards operative, we ask our regional people to go to the next local authority that they can-county officials or city officials-and get recommendations from them. Senator DIRKSEN. Have you heard the allegation that some of the advisory boards have been packed? Mr. Woods. Yes, sir. Almost with every decision we get an accusation that they are packed one way or the other, depending on the decision. Senator DIRKSEN. Could you insert in the record the names of the members of the advisory boards in Chicago? Mr. Woods. Yes, sir. I have them with me and I will be glad to put them in the record. Senator DIRKSEN. Indianapolis? Mr. Woods. Yes, sir. Senator DIRKSEN. Cleveland? Mr. WOODS. Yes, sir. Senator DIRKSEN. Cincinnati? Mr. Woods. Yes, sir. Senator DIRKSEN. Dayton, if you have one? Mr. WOODS. We do. Senator DIRKSEN. Louisville, Ky.; Des Moines, Iowa; Minneapolis and St. Paul; Sioux City and Omaha? |