| Transcript |
merely by comparing the number of
families or the number of people with
the number of dwellings or the number of rooms. The 1950 census reports
an average of 3.5 persons per occupied
dwelling unit in the United States,
compared with 3.7 persons at the end
of World War II, 3.8 persons in 1940,
and 4.8 persons in 1900. The total
number of dwelling units in 1950 was
2.3 per cent greater than 1940, whereas
the same period saw a population
increase of less than 15 per cent. These
figures certainly indicate that most of
the so-called housing shortage stems
from disruption of the market mechanism rather than from a decline in
dwelling facilities.
Such a comparison of persons per
dwelling, of course, tells nothing specific about the condition of the dwellings or the happiness or health of the
residents. It has been charged that
some Americans are now forced to live
in slums and substandard dwellings.
And it undoubtedly is true that some
Americans are living in homes which
other Americans would classify as uninhabitable. But it is equally true that
some Americans eat and drink food
and beverages which other Americans
consider unfit for human consumption.
Some farm operators till soil so unproductive that other farm operators
would classify it as unfit for farming.
Some persons dress in a manner seen
by others to be inadequate or positively indecent. Even the manner in
which some Americans worship God
is frowned upon by others. Who is to
determine which ones of us are living
in substandard fashion? And then
what?
is exercised by those who occupy more
stately mansions. Their idea seems to
be that force occurs or has been exercised whenever there develops the
least deviation from a condition of
absolute equality of material possessions. By such "reasoning" they conclude that it is a proper function of
government to provide a standardized
dwelling unit for every citizen. Any
individual who might attempt to disturb this dream of social equality by
improving his own unit would have
to be taxed back into line!
PARTIALLY EQUAL
The foregoing illustration will be
challenged by the majority of social
levelers as going beyond their objectives. They will say that their goal is
not absolute equality — that only the
lower 5 per cent or 10 per cent or one-
FORCED TO BE INDEPENDENT
Aside from the occupants of prisons
and other places of detention, how
many American citizens actually are
being forced to live in any particular
place? Just what is the nature of this
so-called force over those who dwell
in the "slums"? Am I being forced to
live in my own modest home just
because there are others living not too
far away in homes which are castles
by comparison? ....
There may be those who will say
that any person who eats an apple is
forcing all other persons to do without
that apple. And perhaps there are
some who then go on to conclude that
the eating of a single apple forces all
others to do without apples. At least
this seems to be the logic of persons
who say that people are being forced
to occupy slums and substandard
dwellings.'They imply that such force
Page 36
third of the population really deserves
to be equalized upward. A favorite
stunt of politicians who want to be
known as defenders of private enterprise is to argue that, of course, we
don't need one hundred thousand units
of public housing a year — we only
need eighty thousand units! But this
kind of a breaking point leaves no
stopping place in principle. If all the
people are to be taxed to build the
new homes which some of the people
cannot afford, this very tax will drive
others down into the eligible "substandard class." There will always be
a lowest 5 per cent, until absolute
equality is reached. And the disrupted
market place will not be allowed to
indicate by way of price changes just
who wants what.
If 5 per cent of the productive
efforts of individuals are diverted,
through the taxing powers of government, to the building of housing which
a free market would not justify, then
it must follow that something otb
than housing will not be made av*
able for consumption. . . . There
much to indicate that some persi" ^ ■ ,
live in the "slums" by choice rato ti,,,..
than necessity. It is conceivable th
these occupants consider other tlii"!
more important than improved ho"
ing, so far as their own spending
concerned. Streets filled with park' oyer a
automobiles and roof - tops jam°jj time \t ■
with television aerials suggest tJ tbe Dl,,-M„
possibility. And if a man wants in tj)(
spread his earnings by a formula so*
hi some
led-car 1
J"Pplv (.1
bnd •
""le us a
a better li
For pur
?ssitme th
|Be mav
i peri
it is
.'e buildei
jt"t,iu »"-> '-'"""'fe-j aaj a. i«x...u.« — ^ -(en sells i
what different from the average > Pect to se
the community, is that necessa" for aDout ■
wrong? If the majority, by way of gj "lent cost
ernment, is to prescribe the kind *
house in which a poor man is to IP,
#-l-**-fc»-i 4-rt 4-l-\*-* eniYin i I . -.t i i-/ ., ■ ^171 I I
then to the same degree wi
aid
majority prescribe how the we*
and even the citizens of ordii*
means are to live. If it is a new ho1! CtM
today, will it not be an adequate <J In 0t|10r
on every table, or a new car in csl jjttorrj onlv
garage, tomorrow? And, of course, "0,0oo or
of these things would be quite ^ i^Oiint' — t
^;i lie™- I,
%
new h
or inese tilings wouiu oe qtuiu - ,
derful, except for the fact that
government cannot thus provide ^ P*native
single item of goods or service^ *Jtl, rt,].lt]N
the
he hoi
text
«ntv
residc
NhJy'h
sixtv
Out'
yea
al
yea
these persons except by taking it "V TSttis
from someone else who has workc' ttj,|(. i)()^
produce it.
There is no denying that an **J
teet's drawing of the bright and en
ful new homes of a proposed hoi>*
project is more beautiful than a pn,
graph of the "slums." "And it *',
cost the community a cent," the) I
ally say. Such clever devices infl"e| L "
opinion in favor of the project- . t
these tire the things which CM
seen.
AN UNPLEASANT SIDE
a vj.this is ,
There is another side of this p>c™ if.^' do th.
however, an unpleasant side wh'c ,t \^ "W'ul ]{(
picture-painters prefer to keep t«\ t^ '" 195
the wall. It depicts the taxpayer ^ ers 0f p;
the "favored" community and °^ «l|^'lrul
entire nation whose property v/'.^ }'t;i'lrs in us,
taken to finance such housing P'"L *e| "hi. Tl
•at th,
ns reast
5f"nst c
*°*e of „
NO <
P" point
AvV1,ousc
v'rdi-
l.And as
quart
01
us
lb nev
* li
vel
thus taken mighty \
rtra household hel|
overburdened mother. Or it
The money tnus ttiKcn niig"-,. •■«.
hired some extra household help >'; |'Patroni.
conse
EC "f«
have brought the doctor in time> .
Johnny developed pneumoD'l
might have been invested in the
and facilities which provide i'1I
might have provided real empl"^
opportunities for those who are ■
put "on relief" instead. These ai'1',-
of the things which are unseen-
which cause "slum" conditions j
pand until they become unive'""^ Sii°yv,.,„ljc|<
developing as the unforeseen J ! f,'r:
quences of a public housing pr°'
Facts Forum News, A/"'"'
'Inowi
'"!»»<! fa,
Koiply b
fjfallfa,
Hi It
"I1IVI
|
