Keyword
in
Collection
Date
to
Facts Forum News, Vol. 5, No. 4, April 1956
File 040
Citation
MLA
APA
Chicago/Turabian
Facts Forum. Facts Forum News, Vol. 5, No. 4, April 1956 - File 040. 1956-04. University of Houston Libraries. University of Houston Digital Library. Web. November 17, 2019. https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/1119/show/1089.

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

Facts Forum. (1956-04). Facts Forum News, Vol. 5, No. 4, April 1956 - File 040. Facts Forum News, 1955-1956. University of Houston Libraries. Retrieved from https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/1119/show/1089

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

Facts Forum, Facts Forum News, Vol. 5, No. 4, April 1956 - File 040, 1956-04, Facts Forum News, 1955-1956, University of Houston Libraries, accessed November 17, 2019, https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/1119/show/1089.

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

URL
Embed Image
Compound Item Description
Title Facts Forum News, Vol. 5, No. 4, April 1956
Series Title Facts Forum News
Creator
  • Facts Forum
Publisher Facts Forum
Date April 1956
Language eng
Subject
  • Anti-communist movements
  • Conservatism
  • Politics and government
  • Hunt, H. L.
Place
  • Dallas, Texas
Genre
  • journals (periodicals)
Type
  • Text
Identifier AP2.F146 v. 5 1956; OCLC: 1352973
Collection
  • University of Houston Libraries
  • Facts Forum News
Rights No Copyright - United States: This item is in the public domain in the United States and may be used freely in the United States. The item may not be in the public domain under the copyright laws of other countries.
Item Description
Title File 040
Transcript Most individuals in America will not voluntardy open their own homes for use as public-housing projects. A man will rush downtown every workday morning to open his place of business to the public; yet he wants a certain amount of privacy in his own home. All of us know of residential areas which are zoned against business use — the presumed objective being privacy, exclusion of the public, restriction of noise and traffic. Judging from the petitions of protest from nearby residents whenever a Housing Authority announces consideration of a site for a public-housing project, it appears that many homeowners don't even want to live close to such a project. Now, this seems to be a strange reaction from people who are supposed to believe that public- housing is a fine thing for their community! But the fact is that the erection of a public-housing project tends to drive down the market values of nearby homes. It is as though a new and continuing tax burden is being imposed upon the property which adjoins a public-housing project. In fact, that may be precisely the situation. Suddenly the community "needs" additional water, sewage, road, school, police, and other facilities of a public service nature. The project which necessitates this increased cost to local government is not arranged to bear its share of the burden of these services. The difference turns out to be a levy against other property in the community, a continuing burden which capitalizes itself into a reduction in the market value of such adjacent property. Yet people will vote — or wire their congressman to vote — to do this to their fellow citizens in other communities. CREATING SLUMS BY FORCE When such a thing happens to any community, the tendency will be for the present residents to look elsewhere for homes. Homes and grounds which had been tended w ith pride will begin to show signs of neglect. The community will deteriorate by reason of the added burden of government which is imposed upon it. This is the manner in which new slums are created — by force. What the government takes from an individual as taxes is no longer available to that individual for use as he might please toward the care and improvement of his own home and his own family. It is true, of course, that a new housing project might afford a growing volume of trade to merchants and Page 38 others who serve a community in a business sense. Local salesmen of building materials and workmen in construction industries may look upon the project as a source of new revenue. But . . . what might have seemed to a businessman to be a good idea when he was plugging for a public-housing project for his community may turn out to be the cause of his own downfall as the deterioration of the community follows its natural course. Any individual who would live beyond his means, voting himself into a home which he cannot afford, is not a desirable neighbor for those who adhere to the concepts of private ownership tind control of property. A person who will swallow his self-respect in order to live in subsidized housing may be expected to evade his other obligations and responsibilities in a similar manner. HIGH-COST PUBLIC HOUSING Public housing is sometimes thoughtlessly, or maybe willfully, described as "low-cost government housing." Though it may be low-rent housing to the subsidized tenant, it is not low-cost by any acceptable method of accounting. The late Senator Taft said: "I have not any doubt that as a general thing it probably is more expensive and usually does cost the government more to build than a private person."3 And he might well have added that the costs to the government are always assessed in one way or another as taxes to be paid by private persons. ... A Senate subcommittee study of public housing in Washington, D. O, revealed that private enterprise can build at a cost of from 25 per cent to 40 per cent less than the public housers.4 It stands to reason that private builders, who must bear the cost and responsibility of their own mistakes, would be more efficient than those who plan and then keep changing their plans at the taxpayer's risk and expense. It is not that private industry doesn't perform the actual construction job on a public project: the difference is that they do the job under the added handicap of governmental aU. S. Congress, Senate, Housing unit Urban /te- development. Hearings before Subcommittee on Housing and Urban Redevelopment, Tilth ( •■■ 1st Session, p. 2100. 'Piihlic rv. Private Hotteing, National Industrial Conference Board, Match, 1945: also The Answer tn I'uhlic Housing, Home Builders Vw,,1.1,1 , Metropolitan Washington, Washington, I). C, I'll" p. 8. rules and regulations, with the add overhead of governmental supervise and inspectors of supervisors. Aim the rules laid down by the govefj ment is one which discriminates jf favor of unionized laborers, a wel known method of boosting the cost of housing construction. . . . Some citizens of Los Angeles fe cently took the trouble to look in" the total costs which might be &. volved in a proposed ten-thousan<; unit public housing program in tW community. The cost of constructi"' was to have been eleven thousaO" dollars a unit. Their conclusion *i that "the taxpayers would be m" better off . . . to build ten thousn" houses costing eleven thousand 4 lars each and give them away than build and subsidize the ten tJlOUJi unit public housing program."5 It must be recognized that any L tempt to compare the costs of p""^ e versus private housing can never " ia *!1K tl more than an estimate. When the g"] J^blie h insist ar*1 Ppolistic io' a ma ■»gs; it i Pernativ subject t( of nieasui PPerates : held resp, frvernme Jho want I, °ver t P be I, g0vernmei fcialized Plars-an, er,ence w ftls can n lJ* mark, ^ans of Jammer hinetior eminent goes into business it docs "■> t abide bv the rules of exchange & n,..er to cl .11,1.1. L.J, ll»\* ■ in.. V1 .,,,.,.,. ^- accounting which tire observed by dinary citizens. In the first place. P eminent housing projects are sel* * Ced' di! ocated according to the market "3 <„;}y unfit AAA^%AAKAAA tl^v.l'iu.l.^ ... v,.^ ...»..-- j. mand for housing. Public housing ffl ects often spring up on land "hj c|(1,,'nK>, 't private citizens would reject as a ^ k^ !°n thai for a new home. And once the site ™ H^Provi been determined, the government iui . Parei . fleets. might have been determined by ^L not bound by ordinary methods <" quiring title from present owners "just compensation" to an own seldom the same as the price w .Despite B(r 1!>t th, M,, ie cl undi %,; "in, ol petitivc bargaining between buyers and willing sellers. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTING METHODS The payment which the govern^ may offer in lieu of local pi"l'| ( taxes is not calculated accord'"' the usual tax formula. The '■'!,, interest which the government "' i( on funds invested in such a prOJ»' i not necessarily related to the !-,,< market rate. And, finally, it can GJ be known just what part ol tl" j pense of central planning and slly vision is properly chargeable t" particular local housing project. ., In other words, the govern'1^ j which so concerns itself with 1 maintenance of "fair" competit"'^ the world of business and fj conducts its own operations in ' /t,iv,- //,//, Report, Monterey Woods '\^r ment Association, 4400 Sinova Street, I-"s ( ill,,,,ni.i. I.ii,,,,i,v. 1953, I). 11. EL1"0" "V rea Cu lave y v'sion S ' ■ • Nu I- vi is Fori \i News, ApH s loin v
File Name uhlib_1352973_v005_n004_040.jpg