State Housing Agencies 9780231891233

Citation preview

STATE

HOUSING

AGENCIES

STATE HOUSING AGENCIES BY D O R O T H Y

SCHAFFTER

N E W YORK : M O R N I N G S I D E

COLUMBIA

HEIGHTS

UNIVERSITY I 9 4 2

PRESS

This study was made possible in part by funds granted by Carnegie Corporation of New York. That Corporation is not, however, the author, owner, publisher, or proprietor of this publication, and is not to be understood as approving by virtue of its grant any of the statements made or views expressed therein. Publication was also made possible in part by the Lucy Maynard Salmon Fund for Research established at Vassar College in 1926.

Copyright 1942

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS, NEW YORK FOREIGN AGENTS: Oxford University Press, Humphrey Milford, Amen House, London, E.C. 4, England, and B.I. Building, Nicol Road, Bombay, India MANUFACTURED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

ACKNOWLEDGMENT to express my sincere thanks to Vassar College, to the Carnegie Corporation of New York, and to the Columbia University Press for financial assistance in connection with the preparation of the present study and with its publication. In the twenty-one different states in which the study was conducted so many men and women, both in public and in private life, have given their help that individual mention is quite impossible. The names of these persons are recorded in the bibliographical references for each state, and my deep gratitude is extended to each one of them. To complete the roll of those to whom indebtedness is acknowledged, mention must be made of those persons who worked on the manuscript in its various stages of development. I wish to express my appreciation to the several women whose technical skill was thus used. I WISH

DOROTHY

Vassar College May 20, 1942

SCHAFFTER

CONTENTS I. II. III.

Introduction

3

Massachusetts

9

California

94

Commission of Immigration and Housing (95); The Veterans' Welfare Board of California (180) IV.

New York

238

Ohio

377

Delaware

392

New Jersey

405

Illinois

451

IX.

Indiana

495

X.

Georgia

508

Pennsylvania

519

Inactive Housing Agencies in Eleven States

551

V. VI. VII. VIII.

XI. XII.

North Dakota (552); Arkansas (567); Florida (569); Kansas (569); Maryland (571); North Carolina (576); South Carolina (583); Texas (589); Virginia (591); Oklahoma (595); New Mexico (597) XIII.

Summary and Conclusions

602

Plans for State Administrative Agencies (603); The State Administrative Agency (626); The Functions of State Housing Agencies (636); Summary Statement of Administrative Personnel, Appropriations, and Expenditures (669); Recommendations (674) Bibliography

689

Index

785

TABLES A N D CHARTS

TABLES I. II. III.

IV. V. VI. VII.

Administrative Costs, State Housing Agencies, 1911-39

73

Membership of State Board of Housing

74

Requests, Recommendations, Appropriations, and Expenditures of the Massachusetts State Board of Housing, 1933-42

78

Itemized Expenditures of the Massachusetts State Board of Housing, 1934-41

80

Summary Statement, Lowell Homesteads

86

Positions under Civil Service, 1916 Employees of the Commission of Immigration Housing, 1921

164 and 165

VIII.

Data Concerning Civil Service Commission Examinations for Positions with the Commission of Immigration and Housing (October, 1919, to December, 1925) 166

IX.

Civil Service Status of Employees of Commission, and Division, of Immigration and Housing, 1913-41 170

X.

Personnel, Salaries, Administrative Expenses, Division of Immigration and Housing, as Shown in Executive Budget, 1941 174

XI.

Expenditures of Division of Immigration and Housing, as Released by Department of Industrial Relations, 1939-40 176

XII.

California Commission of Immigration and Housing Appropriations and Expenditures, 1913^1 178

XIII.

Status of Applications, June 30, 1928

196

TABLES AND XIV. XV. XVI.

CHARTS

Status of Applications, July 1, 1930

200

Status of Resale of Repossessed Properties. June 30, 1930

200

Status of Applications, June 30, 1932

202

XVII.

Status of Resale of Repossessed Properties, June 30, 1932 202

XVIII.

Causes of Failure to Meet Terms of Purchasers' Contracts 203

XIX.

Status of Applications for Farm and Home Purchases, from J a n u a r y 1, 1921, to July 1, 1934 207

XX. XXI. XXII. XXIII. XXIV.

Status of Resale of Repossessed Properties. June 30, 1934

207

Status of Applications, June 30, 1936

213

Bonded D e b t , Veterans' Farm and Home

Building

Fund, December 31, 1940 224 Balance Sheet (summary) of Veterans' Farm and Home Building F u n d , June 30, 1941 225 Veterans' Welfare Board and Veterans' Farm and Home Building Fund Statement of Profit and Loss, June 30, 1941 226

XXV.

Status of F a r m and Home Purchases, June 30, 1941

227

XXVI.

Expenditures and Revenues, 1939-40 and 1940-41

227

XXVII.

Actual Expenditures (Cumulative), Veterans' Welfare Board of California, 1921 -41 228

XXVIII.

Status of Employees, Veterans' Welfare Board of California, 1920-41 231

XXIX. XXX.

Expenditures for Administrative Purposes, 1939-40

232

Vote on Proposed Housing Amendment, 1938

300

XXXI.

Comparative Analysis of Provisions for State Administrative Agency in Five General Housing Bills, New York State Legislature 1939 Session 304

XXXII.

Finances of State Housing Agencies of New York, 1923-41, Including Budget Requests, Appropriations, and Expenditures 340

TABLES A N D CHARTS

xi

XXXIII.

Appropriations for Administrative Personnel, New York State, 1923-41 343

XXXIV.

New York State Housing Agencies Appropriations and Expenditures for Maintenance and Operations, 1923-41 346

XXXV. Appropriations and Expenditures, Personal Services, 1938-39, 1939-40, 1940-41 355 XXXVI.

Charges for Fees, Fiscal Year Ended November 30, 1935; as Shown in 1936 Report of State Board of Housing 358

XXXVII.

Receipts, Division of Housing; Fiscal Years 1939, 1940, 1941 360

XXXVIII.

Charges and Payments, Limited Dividend Projects to Division of Housing, 1934-41 361

XXXIX.

Charges Paid, Limited Dividend Projects to Division of Housing, to August 31, 1939 362

XL.

Receipts and Expenditures from Spelman Fund Grant, 1932-33 363

XLI. XLII.

Expenditures Charged against Spelman Fund Grant, April, 1933-May, 1934

365

Expenditures, Division of Housing, 1933-34, 1934-35

366

XLIII.

Bids Submitted, New York State Housing Serial Bonds, March 11, 1941 369

XLIV.

Receipts and Expenditures from the General Fund; Division of Housing 370

XLV.

Receipts and Expenditures from the State Housing Fund, Division of Housing 371

XLVI.

Receipts and Expenditures from the State Housing Debt Fund, Division of Housing 372

XLVII.

Ohio State Board of Housing—Appropriations and Expenditures, 1935 to 1940, Inclusive 386

XLVIII. XLIX.

Appropriations and Expenditures, 1933-39

401

Delaware State Board of Housing, Actual Administrative Expenditures, 1933-39 402

TABLES AND

XU

L.

CHARTS

Itemized Administrative Expenses. 1933-42, of the New Jersey Housing Authority

426

LI.

Federal F u n d s for Frojects Supervised by New Jersey S t a t e Housing Authority, 1934-36 429

LII.

S u m m a r y Financial Statement, New Jersey State Housing Authority, 1933-42. Inclusive 430

LIII.

Employees of New Jersey State Housing Authority, 1934-41 432

LIV.

Classified Employees in the New Jersey State Housing

LV.

Authority, July, 1935

437

P a r t s of Civil Service Examination of 1935

439

LVI.

Appropriation for Illinois State Housing Board, 1935-37 464

LVII.

S t a t e m e n t of Receipts and Expenditures of the Illinois S t a t e Housing Board, 1935-37 467

LVIII.

I t e m s in Appropriation Act of May 21, 1937 (House N o . 528)

LIX. LX. LXI. LXII.

469

Appropriation for Illinois State Housing Board, 1937-39 469 Request for Appropriation for State Housing Contained in 1939-41 Executive Budget

Board 479

I t e m s in Substitute Bill for House No. 243 (as Shown in T a b l e L X ) 479 Items

in

Original

Appropriation

Changes M a d e by 1939 Legislation

for

1937-39

and 480

LXIII.

Appropriation for Illinois State Housing Board, 1941-43 483

LXIV.

M e m b e r s h i p of Illinois State Housing Board, 1933 to Present 483

LXV.

Administrative Appropriations and Expenditures of the Illinois S t a t e Housing Board, 1935-41 486

LXVI.

Appropriation for Illinois State Housing Board, 1939-41, in Final F o r m 487

LXVII.

Details of Administrative Expenses, 1 9 3 7 ^ 3 , I n d i a n a S t a t e H o u s i n g Board 499

LXVIII.

Itemized Expenditures of the Indiana State Housing Board, 1937-41 500

TABLES A N D CHARTS LXIX.

Analysis of Pennsylvania Housing Laws of 1937

xiii 531

LXX.

Pennsylvania State Board of Housing Expenditures, 1937-41 543

LXXI.

Value of Services Rendered to State Board of Housing by the State Board of Health, 1937-39 544

LXXII.

Organization of the Original Staff of State Board of Housing 544

LXXIII.

Number of Permanent, Full-Time, Paid Employees of State Housing Agencies, 1933-40 670

LXXIV. Appropriations for Administrative Purposes of State Housing Agencies, 1933-40 671 LXXV.

Expenditures for Administrative Purposes of State Housing Agencies, 1933-40 672 CHARTS Processing of a Typical Application to Purchase Involving a Request by the Veteran for a Conditional Commitment 211 Organization Chart, New Jersey State Housing Authority, December, 1938 434 Organization Chart, New Jersey State Housing Authority, October, 1939 436

STATE

HOUSING

AGENCIES

I. INTRODUCTION

O

NE OF the major problems of the American type of federal government, and one which is far distant from final or satisfactory solution, lies in the recurring necessity of devising a working separation of responsibility for the administration of the social functions of government. With a strong central government, forty-eight active and important states, and numerous cities and other local units, we are at least never faced with the problem of insufficient structure. The difficulties arise, rather, in determining to which one, or two, or three, of these types of government we shall entrust the carrying out of each separate new function which we desire to have administered by government. It is hardly necessary to observe that rarely do we approach the solution of a problem of this sort from a completely objective standpoint. Ideally, if government were to assume the administration of a new function, a careful analysis of the inherent constitutional, legislative, and administrative characteristics of the function would first be made, and the delegation of authority would be based on the results of such study. This might conceivably mean that either the national government or the state or the local government would, in the long run, be discovered to be the outstandingly competent unit of government for the administration of social functions, but if we were solving the problem from an entirely detached and academic viewpoint this would not be a disturbing consideration, and we should in most cases act upon the basis of our findings. Nothing could be farther from the actual situation than such a process as the one just described. Historically, our American programs of public education, public welfare, public health, and so forth, have been initiated and have reached a degree of more or less development long before any careful consideration has been given to the question of which unit of government can best carry them out. Typically, a new social function is undertaken in a single city or county; soon the state legislature gives similar powers to other local units; next the cities and counties and towns

4

INTRODUCTION

ask for state aid, and the state assumes more or less control over the administration of the function; eventually the state itself takes over all, or a part o f , the actual administration; then the state asks for federal aid, which is granted, together with federal control; and, finally, the national government assumes certain positive functions. Over and over again this pattern has been drawn. It has been followed in developing our programs of public assistance in the fields of education, welfare, recreation, health, and similar social functions. T h e merits of the process just described are fairly apparent. Experimentation on a small scale at local expense under local control precedes experimentation on a larger scale by the state, a more powerful unit with more adequate funds. If the program then encounters problems which are nation-wide in scope and which cannot be solved by the state and its subordinate units, the over-all national government takes a part. In the final stages of development it will be observed that two tendencies have been operating at all times. While a process of increasing gain in power and responsibility by the state has lessened the importance of the work of the local unit, the state itself has been losing its importance through continual accessions of power by the national government. A continuous process of centralization has been going on. But, at the same time, each one of the three governmental units has actually gained in power and responsibility through the continual increase in the scope of the function itself. Consequently, it can be truly said that the administration of social functions in America is constantly becoming more centralized and, with equal truth, that each function itself has been growing so rapidly that there is no lack of work for nation, state, or local unit. T h e pattern of developing governmental control over a social function, described above, is inevitably subject to great variation as to details, but that there is such a recognizable pattern is certain. It may be argued that it is highly desirable to develop standardized techniques to be used in the operation of an extremely complex government, such as the American federal system, and that these practical and workable methods should be adapted for use in the case of the assumption by government of new functions of a similar nature. A sound basis of administrative experience has been established in the United States during the century or more within which our various governments have assumed more social functions and have increased their scope of control of each function. The burden of proof appears to rest upon one who proposes wide deviation

INTRODUCTION

5

from a well-tried and reasonably successful method of establishing and developing governmental control of social functions, although this must not be construed as an impassable barrier to variation which is based upon fundamental differences between existing social functions and a function newly brought under governmental control, if those differences clearly indicate the necessity of altering the established pattern. Accepting the statements above as valid, for purposes of argument, let us proceed to examine the public housing program in the United States as it has been developed since the early 1930's. Prior to the beginning of the Great Depression, interest in public housing was confined to a very few individuals and, aside from Massachusetts, California, North Dakota, and New York, few state governments had even experimented in this field. Suddenly, the national government made provision for assistance in the financing of housing construction, not so much because of a primary interest or belief in public housing, but as part of a huge plan for relieving the unemployment characteristic of a major economic depression. In three of the four states named above there were housing agencies (the North Dakota agency was not in existence), but only the New York State Board of Housing had the necessary powers to enable it to use the new federal aid. A mild epidemic of state legislation followed, resulting in the creation of several state boards, copied exactly from the New York model, but in most instances no further action was taken. Without going into detailed explanation of the reasons for the failure of this plan, it may be said that the principal cause was its artificiality. It may be possible in a highly centralized, unitary government to institute a new program at the top and to carry it out successfully through the various administrative subdivisions, even though these subordinate units have had no previous interest in or experience with the new function. It may even be possible to accomplish such a feat in the partially decentralized federal government of the United States. In the present case, however, one state (New York) had a practical understanding of the new federal program and was able to make some use of its benefits; but in the other forty-seven states that program was entirely disregarded, or a futile gesture was made by the establishment of a new state agency, which was inactive simply because no one in the state was aware of the possibilities of the new program. The second attempt at public aid to housing resulted in the construction by the federal government of some fifty large-scale projects. As a part of this program, various cities in several different states established

6

INTRODUCTION

new agencies, called housing authorities, under power granted to them by state legislation. In most cases these authorities acted in an advisory capacity only, and there were even instances of open antagonism between the federal agency which was building a project and the housing authority in that community. There was, nevertheless, a recognition of the fact that local understanding and advice and support were of sufficient value to warrant the creation of a local agency with the single function of cooperating writh the national agency. T h e third, and current, national public housing program is highly centralized in operation, but far larger scope is given to the participation of the local area than had been the case in the two preceding attempts. More than six hundred local authorities have been established, and many of them are competent and active and well qualified to cooperate with the national agency on a basis of approximate equality. Other authorities are, in fact, figureheads and are quite willing to do exactly as the national agency suggests. T h e national and state laws and the public statements of officials indicate a larger degree of local autonomy than actually exists in a majority of the communities operating under the present plan of federal aid to local housing authorities. T h e most striking characteristic of the three plans briefly described above is the marked deviation from the typical situation existing in governmental control of other social functions. In the case of the public housing program the movement began with activity on the part of the federal government, which itself was forced to stimulate participation by local areas. T h e state governments, forming a fundamental part of the structure of our federal system and performing such extensive and important duties in connection with social functions similar to public housing, have been almost entirely omitted. The result, if it were to be reduced to a drawing, would resemble a pyramid with its base (the local governments) at the top, balancing on its apex (the national government) , and—if it can be imagined—with gaps in the sides connecting the apex and the base, to represent the absence of the states. As was indicated previously, there is nothing necessarily wrong in substituting a new pattern of control, with the central government occupying the role of initiator and chief administrator of a program to be carried out by local units of government in a subordinate capacity. In fact, the present system, based on this principle, is giving fair satisfaction in many cases. B u t it is the considered opinion of many competent critics, and I concur in the opinion, that a very large number of the diffi-

INTRODUCTION

7

culties which have been encountered could have been avoided, and can even yet be remedied, by a complete reorganization of the entire structure and interrelationships of the various housing agencies. A problem as extensive as the public housing situation in the United States can probably not be solved without the participation of the national government, the states, and the cities and rural government, in addition to private industry. At present, the conspicuous gap occurs in the case of the states. If one examines the impressive contributions which are made by the states to the furtherance of programs of public education and public health, it will be possible to imagine how valuable it would be if the states were to participate in the public housing program to the same extent. Each state within the United States is a powerful, competent, and wealthy unit, and no possible reason, except one, can be offered to justify its exclusion from the housing program. There are highly respectable Americans who believe that the states are an unnecessary encumbrance and who wish to substitute, insofar as it is possible, a direct federallocal relationship for our traditional and constitutional federalism. This is at least a debatable proposition. I would choose in such a debate to defend the federal, rather than the unitary, principle, because of a firm belief that the extent and the character of our governmental problems clearly indicate that the existing system is more democratic and more efficient than a unitary one would be. But, if this is an open question, it should be discussed as the major, not the minor, proposition. It should not be made a collateral issue in deciding the case of a proper public housing administrative structure. The latter issue is, in fact, of far less importance than the larger issue of fundamental constitutional law. There appears to be little desire to open that question, and it may consequently be assumed that there is no serious or widespread movement to amend our form of government by obliterating the states. Assuming that we wish to continue their existence—and this is a fair assumption— there can be no adequate reason for failing to make full use of them, as we do without question in carrying out all social functions except public housing. The states have not, in fact, been entirely crowded out of participation. Twenty-one states have enacted laws to establish housing agencies, and in half of them the agencies have been more or less active. Xew York, in particular, has taken action which gives evidence of her appreciation of the need for state participation, and in New York City there are projects

8

INTRODUCTION

which are under federal-municipal control, state-municipal control, and exclusive municipal control. I f a composite picture is made of the legal powers and the actual performance of all existing state housing agencies, strong indication of their potential value is furnished. For several years I have carefully followed the fortunes of all state housing agencies, largely through personal contact with members of state boards and their principal executive officers. For an even longer period of time, I have been a student of the federal-state-local administrative pattern used in carrying out all other social functions. T h e various federal housing programs have been observed, especially in order to understand the new federal-local administrative pattern. T h e result of this extensive and long-continued study is the unqualified belief that immediate steps should be taken to insure full state participation in the public housing program. As a contribution to the furtherance of this change the following chapters offer a detailed, concrete description of the whole history of state housing agencies. Such a complete description is the necessary first operation preliminary to a reorganization of the present system of furnishing governmental aid to housing. T h e final chapter presents a statement of conclusions drawn on the basis of my understanding of the American type of federal government; of my study of the administration of social functions under that government; and, particularly, of my specific study of the proper roles of the nation, the state, and the local government, respectively, in the various public housing programs which have been devised in the United States. This chapter also contains definite recommendations based upon the belief , expressed above, that the state must become an active participant in future programs if public housing is to approximate the success of other social programs. This proposal is not offered as a panacea. There are probably many suggestions for improving the public housing program that are of equal value, and of equal necessity, but my experience in the field of the administration of social functions in the American federal government makes clear to me that the omission of the state as an agent in the public housing program is of major importance and that its prompt inclusion would be a valuable reform.

II. M A S S A C H U S E T T S

T

of Massachusetts appears to have been the first state to undertake the function of providing homes for its citizens as one of the duties which it is suitable and proper for an American state to assume. More than thirty years ago, in 1908, the first steps were taken, and since that time Massachusetts has never ceased to progress in carrying out the general principle involved in the movement which culminated, in the early 1930's, in a widespread public housing program in the United States as a whole, the separate states, and the various local areas of government. The particular concrete method of solving the housing problem proposed in the early 1900's differs entirely from presentday methods, but the underlying principle has not changed—namely, that the state owes something to its citizens with respect to their social needs and that one of these needs is adequate housing. Massachusetts asserts, and the assertion has not been disputed, that it was the first state to recognize this principle by legislation, the creation of administrative machinery, and the appropriation of public funds to carry it into effect. The story of the public housing movement in Massachusetts during the period from 1908 to the creation of the present State Board of Housing, in 1933, is full of interest, and it is to be regretted that considerations of space will necessitate only a brief description of the events of those years. The annual reports of the Homestead Commission (1913 to 1919, inclusive), of the Division of Housing and Town Planning (1920 to 1933, inclusive), and of the Division of Town Planning (1934 to 1937, inclusive) are well worth careful reading by students of public housing. In the 1908 legislative session a most interesting bill for a resolve (House No. 640) was introduced, but it was later withdrawn from consideration. The bill provided that the governor and the council should appoint a special commission to consider the advisability of establishing a state department H E COMMONWEALTH

to represent and protect the interests of the home—the home being the workshop of humanity—the object to be the improvement of the general conditions

IO

MASSACHUSETTS

of the home and the people and the reduction of taxation of the home and the people, and to help the people, individually and collectively, to develop naturally, and to prevent and ultimately overcome all feebleness and deficiency which is now costing the people, through the government, such great strain and expense.

The membership of the commission was to include a woman, "a wife and mother—who is interested from a non-sectarian and humanitarian standpoint in home and child culture," a physician "with like interest," and a trained nurse, and the other commissioners were to represent the Police Department, Humane Education Society, and such other departments of law and education as might be considered advisable. All commissioners were to be persons who "from practical interest and work in, with and for the home, understand its real and present conditions and needs." The bill provided an appropriation of $2,000 to cover the administrative expenses of the commission. The strong sociological tendency in the bill described does not obscure the fact that the author realized the effects of taxation upon the home, and the effects upon the costs of government of undesirable conditions in homes. The definition of the field of investigation of the proposed commission was drafted in broad, loose terminology, and if such a commission had attempted to make full use of its powers no one can tell what sort of report it might have made. The bill was important chiefly because it recognized a public interest in an institution customarily considered to be entirely private in its nature. Having conceded that there was a social interest in the home as an institution, nothing could have been interposed as a barrier to extending this interest to the physical structure surrounding the persons making up a "home." The same bill was introduced again in 1909 and was once more withdrawn from consideration. The first law dealing with public housing was enacted in 1909. A petition for a resolve to create a Homestead Commission (House No. 688) was sent to the House Committee on Ways and Means, and this committee suggested a new draft (House No. 1723) which was enacted as Chapter 143 of the resolves of 1909. Because of the historical importance of this act, the full text is quoted herewith: Chap. 143. Resolve to provide for a Homestead Commission. Resolved, That the governor, with the advice and consent of the council, may appoint a commission, to be known as the Homestead Commission, which shall consist of five persons, citizens of the Commonwealth, who shall seive without compensation, but may incur such expense, not exceeding one

MASSACHUSETTS

il

thousand dollars, as shall be approved by the governor and council. It shall be the duty of the commission to consider whether it would be expedient for the commonwealth to acquire or open for settlement lands in country districts with the view of aiding honest, industrious and ambitious families of wage earners to remove thereto from congested tenement districts of the various large cities and towns of the commonwealth, to the end that such lands may ultimately pass into the possession of the families settling upon them. The commission shall report statistics showing the probable expense to the commonwealth of the undertaking and any plans which it may recommend for adoption together with any recommendations for legislation which the commission may deem proper. The commission shall report to the next general court on or before the fifteenth day of January, nineteen hundred and ten. Approved

June 19, 1909

E a r l y in J a n u a r y , 1910, the commission appointed under the resolve just quoted reported its findings (House No. 198), and a minority report (House No. 258) was also filed. T h e House Committee on W a y s and Means reported out a bill based upon the majority report, recommending that it be not passed (House No. 1687). In spite of this recommendation, the bill was passed in amended form (House No. 1735) by the house by a large majority. T h e senate, however, voted to refer the bill to the next session for consideration, and the house concurred in the senate action. Most unfortunately, it is impossible to secure a copy of the majority report of the Homestead Commission. The minority report gave no indication of opposition to the majority viewpoint, but appeared rather to be the expression of the opinions and beliefs of one member, Freeman M . Saltus, on the subject of a proper housing program for the state. It presented strong arguments in favor of state aid for suburban homesteads to be sold to persons living in the overcrowded industrial cities of Massachusetts, and its basic principles were identical with those underlying the bill (House N o . 1735) which the house passed, but which was finally left to the consideration of the 1911 legislature. A bill to encourage the establishment of suburban homesteads was introduced in the 1910 session, but was withdrawn from consideration. A second bill, authorizing cities and towns to expend money for homesteads, was deferred to the next session for consideration. In 1911 the General Court gave careful and thorough consideration to the two matters which had been referred to it by the session of the preceding year. Four bills (Senate No. 28 and House Nos. 214, 742, 1326), after preliminary consideration, were sent to the Senate Committee on Public Health, and this committee reported favorably a new d r a f t

12

MASSACHUSETTS

(Senate No. 550) which was passed as Chapter 607 of the laws of 1911. Apparently this was the first law enacted in any American state creating a permanent state agency in charge of some aspect of public housing. The four bills cited above presented more far-reaching plans for action by the state than the one which was finally adopted by the legislature. Senate No. 28 authorized a city or a town to make an annual appropriation, not exceeding one dollar for every thousand dollars of taxable valuation, to purchase land in the suburbs of the city and to build homesteads on the land. A Homestead Board, made up of three state officers acting ex officiis, was empowered to approve such land purchases and to adopt rules, binding upon the city or town, with respect to all aspects of the building of homes and the financial transactions involved in selling them to individuals. House No. 214 set up a Homestead Commission of state officials and members appointed by the governor and the council, authorized to purchase land in the suburbs of cities and towns and to build homes for sale. A state bond issue of $100,000 and one of the state's sinking funds would have furnished the necessary capital. One section set forth a most ingenious plan for the purchase of homes, based upon the purchase by the prospective owner of one hundred dollars' worth of the bonds of the commission combined with the monthly payment of fifteen dollars. The bond purchase actually counted as a down payment on the home. Only individuals could purchase bonds, and $500 was the maximum amount per person. The price of house and lots was fixed at cost plus 5 percent, and, insofar as it was practicable, bonds were to be sold only to persons intending to purchase land for their own occupation. The commission was authorized to exercise the right of eminent domain to acquire land which could be sold not only for suburban homesteads but also for factories, stores, or other purposes, provided that no land was sold for less than cost and that all money for such sales should be made a part of the fund provided in the bill. House No. 214 and House No. 742 were exactly alike except that the former contained a provision concerning interest rates on the bonds of the Homestead Commission which was omitted from the latter. House No. 1326 was designed to "encourage industrious and moral widows and mothers with dependent children and unmarried women of industrious and moral character to establish homes on suburban lands by furnishing them an opportunity to be self-supporting and independent." The principal means chosen to effectuate this purpose included the

MASSACHUSETTS

13

creation of the Homestead Commission, made up of three state officials, and the provision for a $50,000 state bond issue, the proceeds from which were to be used to make loans to persons to erect dwellings or make other permanent improvements. The maximum loan was one thousand dollars, and it was to be repaid within twenty years. It is perhaps not surprising that the legislative committee, having considered these bills, reported out a substitute (Senate No. 550) which was almost entirely different in its purpose. No state had previously had any experience along the lines marked out in the bills described above, and the General Court was apparently convinced that there was a housing problem calling for the establishment of a permanent state agency to handle it, but that the solutions presented needed rather more careful study than the legislature itself could undertake. The full text of Senate No. 550, which became Chapter 607 of the laws of 1911, read as follows: A commission is hereby established, to be known as the Homestead Commission, and to consist of the following persons:—the director of the bureau of statistics, the bank commissioner, the president of the Massachusetts Agricultural College, one member of the state board of health, to be selected by the board, and three other persons to be appointed by the governor, with the advice and consent of the council. The three members of the commission last named shall be appointed in the first place for terms of one, two and three years, respectively, and thereafter their successors shall be appointed for terms of three years. Of the persons so appointed by the governor, one shall be a woman, and one at least shall represent the laboring class. The commission shall report to the next general court, not later than the tenth day of January, nineteen hundred and twelve, a bill or bills embodying a plan and the method of carrying it out whereby, with the assistance of the commonwealth, homesteads or small houses and plots of ground may be acquired by mechanics, factory employees, laborers and others in the suburbs of cities and towns. The members of the commission shall serve without compensation, but shall be allowed such sums for their expenses as may be approved by the governor and council. SECTION 2. This act shall take effect upon its passage. Approved June 30, 1911

In Chapter 749 an appropriation of $500 was made to the newly established Homestead Commission, which actually expended only $120.99 of the amount for its expenses under Chapter 607. The governor made the appointments named in the act, the first meeting was held in September, 1911, and in January, 1912, the commission made its report (House No. 441) and sent to the legislature a bill embodying its proposals (House No. 442).

14

MASSACHUSETTS

The report was only five pages in length. It summarized the method of work, the interpretation placed by the commission upon the legal definition of its powers, and a defense of the proposed bill based largely upon the experience of European countries. The commission concluded, from the language of Chapter 607 of 1911, that it was intended to be a permanent agency; that the commonwealth had committed itself to a policy of assistance in the work of increasing the supply of wholesome suburban homes; that the only present duty of the commission was to draft a bill under which such work could be undertaken; and that the General Court intended the commission to undertake the work, if the bill met legislative approval. The commission stated that, although lack of sufficient time and the small administrative appropriation prevented thorough study, each member had tried to collect information and that the Bureau of Statistics had made a study of similar work in foreign countries (Bulletin No. 88). The commission had tried to draw a short, workable act, giving the necessary power to make a "careful, conservative experiment in creating suitable suburban homes for working people." Attention was called to previous experience in various European countries to prove that the General Court was not being asked to enter upon a "new or radical policy." In fact, the method suggested was the one most favored by those having experience abroad. The commission called particular attention to the plan for permitting the use of certain amounts of money uncalled for in savings banks. "It seems especially fitting that money thus accumulated by laboring people in past years should be used to aid the workers of this generation in acquiring homes. . . ." The bill (House No. 442) accompanying the report of the commission authorized the commission to purchase land to provide homes for wage earners, and it was given complete power to build the homes and to control the entire property. Each person holding any property was required to own at least five shares of stock (par value, ten dollars) before being permitted to occupy or acquire title to the property. The commission was empowered to issue the stock to a total amount not in excess of the amount loaned to the commission by the commonwealth. The commission could declare dividends based upon net earnings beyond amounts sufficient to cover specified fixed charges. The loan from the commonwealth to the commission, mentioned above, was made by the treasurer and receiver general, upon written request of the commission, from funds deposited by savings banks in the treasury under an act of 1908. These funds were the unclaimed deposits which the commission mentioned in

MASSACHUSETTS

15

its report. The commission paid annual interest of 3 percent, and the notes had to be repaid within thirty years. These notes constituted a first lien on all real estate in the name of the commission, but not on real estate which had passed to an individual purchaser. The fund constituted a revolving fund, although there was a maximum of $300,000 set for the total amount outstanding at one time. A most interesting section foreshadowed our contemporary "tenant organizations." When there were, in the judgment of the commission, enough occupants of a given tract of land, the commission was ordered to call a meeting of the occupants "for the formation of an association to promote their common interests." Each member was allowed one vote, and by-laws and regulations could be adopted. The last section dealt with powers and duties of the commission. It was authorized to investigate plans for housing wage earners and to publish information. An annual report of its work was required. N o member of the commission could be held individually responsible for its debts, nor could a member profit by its transactions. The governor and the council were authorized to fix the compensation of members, and a member serving in another state government office was permitted to receive additional compensation. Finally, the commission could employ assistants within the limits of a legislative appropriation. Although this bill was introduced early in January, postponement of its consideration was repeatedly moved by the house, and late in M a y it was recommitted to the Committee on Ways and Means. The chief reason for the delay was that the constitutional power of the legislature to enact such a bill was questioned in the house. On May 6 the justices of the Supreme Judicial Court were asked to render an opinion. This opinion, received on May 28, declared that the act proposed would be unconstitutional and made it necessary for the house to recommit the bill, which it did on May 29. The opinion of the justices (Opinions of the Justices, 211 Mass. 624) is worth reading in its entirety. In summary, the justices said: The substance of it is that the Commonwealth is to go into the business of furnishing homes for people who have money enough to pay rent and ultimately to become purchasers. It is not a plan for pauper relief. The question is whether this is a public use. . . . The dominating design of a statute requiring the use of public funds must be promotion of public interests and not the furtherance of the advantage of individuals. . . . The leading case is Lowell v Boston, 111 Mass. 454, where a statute was considered authorizing the city of Boston to issue bonds for the raising of money to be lent to owners

i6

MASSACHUSETTS

of real estate whose buildings had been destroyed in the devastation wrought by the Boston fire of 1872. T h e act referred to in the opinion had been declared unconstitutional. The justices continued: The question, in its last analysis is one of taxation . . . notwithstanding the provisions . . . which authorize the treasurer and receiver-general to lend to the commission, from funds deposited in the treasury of the Commonwealth by the saving banks under a state law which requires payment to the treasurer of all deposits in savings banks whose owners are unknown, which has remained untouched for thirty years. . . . This bill does not contemplate a mere investment of funds in such form that they may be available for payment to the real owner when he appears. . . . On the contrary its manifest purpose is a permanent investment not subject to repayment for at least six years, and thereafter only in instalments. . . . The Commonwealth holds the entire fund as trustee and must be ready to pay it to the owners on demand. So far as the Commonwealth by a permanent investment renders itself unable to make such repayment on demand, it must be ready to repay out of other funds. But these can be raised only by taxation. In any event, therefore, the question is one of taxation. T h e court then reviewed those cases in which particular expenditures had been declared "public" and consequently constitutionally repayable from taxation and those which had been declared unconstitutional as involving the use of public funds to aid private interests. The most important opinions in the second category were the one in which the justices concluded that it was beyond the power of the legislature to authorize cities and towns to engage in the business of furnishing fuel to the public and that in which they concluded that it was unconstitutional for the legislature to authorize the taking of land outside the limits of streets for the purpose of being leased or sold under such restrictions as would insure proper development of industrial and commercial facilities. In both cases, the purpose was said to be primarily for the aggrandizement of individuals and only incidentally for the promotion of the public weal. We are unable to distinguish the purchase, development, rental, and sale of land in the manner provided by the present bill from the principles announced in these decisions and opinions and many others . . . In the concluding paragraphs of the opinion the justices stated that European experiences offered no guide, since they had occurred in countries "where the people have established either no bounds or fragile ones

MASSACHUSETTS

17

to the absolutism of governmental powers by a written constitution," and they called attention to the use of the police power as a means of suppressing many of the evils of slums. John I. Robinson, in an article entitled "Public Housing in Massachusetts" appearing in the Boston University Law Review (Vol. X V I I I , 83-101) said: " T h a t opinion is the one judicial decision in this country expressly denying the right of public assistance to persons of low income forced to live under unsafe, insanitary and demoralizing conditions." In view of this judicial advisory opinion the House Committee on Ways and Means reported out a bill (House No. 2344) which did not contain a single provision taken from the original bill presented by the commission (House No. 442). Both houses passed the substitute bill, which became Chapter 714 of the laws of 1912. The law merely authorized the commission to continue investigations and to report its recommendations to the legislature in January, 1913. An appropriation of $2,000 was made for this work. Early in the 1912 session a bill (House No. 541) was introduced which was referred to the next General Court for consideration. It provided for a three-member commission to investigate housing conditions in factory and other congested communities, to determine the relationship between improper housing and the prevalence of tuberculosis, and to report its recommendations in January, 1913. A maximum appropriation of $10,000 was provided. The proposals for housing legislation introduced in the 1913 session and the two laws passed were much less comprehensive in nature than the bills that were introduced in 1912. In view of the opinion of the justices of 1912, this marked conservatism can be understood. The opinion appeared to stop any actual building of homes for rent or sale, and, if a housing program was to go on, its scope was obviously limited to investigation, planning, recommendation, and similar functions of a less positive nature. Two bills were introduced in the 1913 session, each providing for local planning boards in cities and towns with populations of ten thousand or more. One bill was not acted on, but the other (House No. 1202) was enacted as Chapter 494 of the laws of 1913. A planning board was to study the community, particularly with respect to injurious conditions near dwellings. Its annual report was to be made both to the local government and to the Homestead Commission. The commission was directed to call the attention of city mayors and town selectmen to the

18

MASSACHUSETTS

provisions of the law and to assist the local governments in carrying out these provisions. Finally, the local governments were authorized to enact ordinances and to appropriate money for the work of the planning boards. The bill and the act were very much like the proposed bill which the Homestead Commission included in its report (House No. 2000) as a recommendation to the legislature. The commission also recommended passage of a bill (House No. 1203) to enlarge its own membership, define its duties, and appropriate money for its administrative expenses. The bill was sent to the House Committee on Ways and Means, which recommended enactment of a substitute bill (House No. 2281). The substitute was passed without amendment, becoming Chapter 595 of the laws of 1913. The act authorized the commission to continue its investigations of bad housing and of attempts to remedy its evils, to study the operation of building and tenement house laws, to encourage the creation of local planning boards, to gather information relating to city and town planning for the use of these boards, and to promote the formation of organizations intended to increase the supply of good housing. The membership was increased by the addition of an attorney and a "recognized expert in the planning of cities and towns." The commission was required to make an annual report to be printed as a public document of the state, and it was authorized to expend such sums as the legislature might appropriate annually. No additional appropriation was made in 1913 for the investigative work of the commission as originally defined in the acts of 1911 and 1912, but the legislature appropriated $1,500 for administrative expenses to be incurred under Chapters 494 and 595 of the laws of 1913, under which acts the commission was placed on a permanent basis with concrete functions to perform (Chapter 757 of the laws of 1913). The 1913 report of the commission (House No. 2000) was a brief statement of the reasons of the commission which impelled it to recommend enactment of the two bills described above. The commission reported in January, 1913, on only one phase of its legal duties, the "investigation of the need of providing homesteads for the people of the Commonwealth." In regard to the second aspect, the "study of plans already in operation or contemplated elsewhere for housing wage-earners," the commission had begun a most ambitious study. In order to secure late and accurate data, questions calculated to secure the information desired had been sent to the secretary of state, Philander

MASSACHUSETTS

19

C. Knox, with the request that they be submitted for answer to diplomatic and consular officials in certain countries. The secretary had granted the request, and the commission awaited receipt of the information. At home the commission had been studying the relationship between infant mortality and bad housing, and the bulk of the report contained their findings. Its conclusions were that existing housing was causing undesirable conditions; that these conditions were to some extent the result of the haphazard, unsystematic development of cities; and that each city and town should make a thorough study of its own situation. On the basis of its conclusions the commission recommended the creation of city and large-town planning boards, and the encouragement by the commonwealth and the community of the formation of associations to plan and construct low-cost suburban homes. The First Annual Report of the Homestead Commission, 1913 was a most extensive report to have been made by a new agency with an appropriation of only fifteen hundred dollars. An Appendix reporting on the materials collected through the help of the secretary of state made up 250 pages of the total of 336 pages in the report. In the opinion of the commission this Appendix constituted the most complete available collection of information on foreign housing programs. The single edition of the report was soon exhausted, and the commission prepared a brief summary of the Appendix, including it as an Appendix in the second annual report. I t is impossible at the present time to get any copies of the first three annual reports (1913, 1914, 1915) of the commission. All members of the commission, with one exception, signed the first report. Augustus L. Thorndike, the state bank commissioner, disagreed with his fellow members in a separate covering letter in which he said that he could not concur in their recommendation of two bills (House Nos. 121-22, described below) with regard to planning boards and the establishment of residence districts. He continued, I also dissent from any inference that might be drawn from the report, advising the passage of a constitutional amendment empowering the Commonwealth to use its credit to provide homes for a particular class of individuals. It certainly seems to me to be a new function of government to provide homes for able-bodied people. However beneficent the plan, it appears to be too paternalistic, and carrying out this scheme would tend to interfere with the right of personal freedom and initiative, and would appear in many ways opposed to the natural law of supply and demand and of trade.

20

MASSACHUSETTS

The report consisted of an introduction, a forty-page description of the activities of the commission, a brief discussion of the need for better homes, ten pages containing the recommendations of the commission included in the form of bills (House Xos. 119-23, inclusive), and, finally, the long Appendix containing a description of the housing programs of foreign countries. It was very well written, and one can understand the immediate demand for copies. The commission, in discussing its activities in the preceding year, reported that it had begun to work with the city and town planning boards (created under Chapters 494 and 595 of 1913). Salem set up the first board, and its annual report, in December, 1912, was believed to be the first of its kind in New England. In all, twenty-four cities and towns had established planning boards, and they had met in the first Massachusetts City and Town Planning Conference. The commission had been studying European methods by which private capital was used to furnish homes, and it concluded that there were three underlying fundamentals of improved housing finance: (1) the limitation of dividends, (2) wholesale operation, and (3) individual participation, insofar as possible, in responsibility for the property. Four elaborately developed plans, based upon these principles, were included in the report. One plan was an application of current cooperative banking methods in Massachusetts, the second was a limited-dividend type of company, the third was a co-partnership, and the fourth a homestead company selling individual homes on the installment plan. A most valuable part of the report, which unfortunately cannot be summarized briefly, was a six-page statement of ten arguments for public housing. The last one of them was based on the serious industrial condition in New England. The commission believed that the creation of numerous home owners was a step toward ultimate industrial peace. "The revolution was fought by colonies of home owners. The endurance of the republic can safely be confided only to a nation of people with a direct interest in its welfare." As was mentioned above, the Homestead Commission had drafted several bills (House Nos. 119-23, inclusive, which were introduced with a covering recommendation (House No. 118) containing a brief explanatory statement of the purpose of the bills. House No. 119 dealt with providing agricultural instruction for families, which seemed to the commission to be a desirable part of a program of rehousing city slum dwellers in new suburban homestead communities.

MASSACHUSETTS

21

The bill permitted cities and towns to institute schools for such instruction, and they were allowed to acquire land, to erect school buildings, and to "make provision for temporary housing and the use of a plot of ground by such families as have not access to land necessary to give proper effect to the instruction of the school." School officers were to fix reasonable rentals, and they were authorized to receive or reject applicants and to fix the length of time for which the house and garden plot could be rented to a particular person. The bill was defeated in the house. House No. 120, embodying the recommendations of the commission with respect to the establishment of a commission on public improvements and the assessment of betterments, need not be considered in the present connection, inasmuch as it was not specifically a public housing bill. The legislature considered this bill and another one on the same subject and passed a substitute drafted by the House Committee on Ways and Means (Chapter 100, "Resolves, 1914"). House No. 121 and two other bills dealt with the local planning boards. Two of the bills were not considered by the legislature, but a substitute for the third one was passed (Senate No. 447). Omitting discussion of differences between the various bills, the provisions of the act (Chapter 283) simply extended the law of 1913 (Chapter 494), which had applied to cities and towns with a population of more than ten thousand, making the establishment of planning boards optional in smaller communities. No action was taken on House Nos. 122 and 123, both of which related to planning rather than to housing. The last bill dealing with housing submitted in 1914 was House No. 1871, which was withdrawn from consideration. This bill authorized cities or towns to acquire sites and to erect tenement houses to provide rental dwellings. Maximum rentals were established, and regulation was based upon the locality and character of the building. Reductions not exceeding one-half of one percent for each child under sixteen years of age could be made. The bill would become law in any community upon approval at a referendum election. This bill differed entirely from all preceding housing legislation, whether merely proposed or actually enacted, in Massachusetts. It would have operated to build new housing for city dwellers in the city, and the entire previous tendency, with this single exception, had been to remove city dwellers to suburban or rural dwellings. Perhaps the most important legislative action in 1914 was taken in

MASSACHUSETTS

22

connection with constitutional amendment designed to meet the objections to public housing raised in the opinion of the justices rendered in 1912. The bill for the amendment (House No. 946) was introduced, accompanied by a petition from the secretary of the Homestead Commission, in the following form: The General Court shall have power to authorize the Commonwealth to take land and to hold, improve, sub-divide, build upon and sell the same, and to do any other lawful act in relation thereto, for the purpose of relieving congestion of population and providing homes for citizens: provided, however, that this amendment shall not be deemed to authorize the sale of such land or buildings at less than the cost thereof.

A senate amendment striking out the phrase "and to do any other lawful act in relation thereto" was adopted by both houses, and the bill was passed. The Massachusetts constitution required that two-thirds of the members of the house and a majority of members of the senate, present and voting thereon, must vote in the affirmative. The General Court meeting the next year had to adopt the proposal in the same way, and the amendment was finally to be submitted to a popular referendum. In the 1915 session of the General Court the resolve of 1914 was taken from the files and, after some delays while under consideration in the senate and the house, it was enacted (Senate No. 369 of 1915). Only one petition was received by the legislature on the subject of the amendment—a petition urging its adoption, accompanied by a resolve (House No. 946) from the Legislative Bureau of the Progressive Party. Senate No. 572 was a resolve for submitting House No. 369 to a referendum, and it was passed without incident. The Third Annual Report, 1915, of the Homestead Commission contained a comment on the very encouraging votes on the amendment which had been ratified on November 2, 1915, becoming Article 43 of the state constitution. The affirmative vote of 284,568, as contrasted with the negative vote of 95,148, represented a three-to-one favorable vote. The total vote cast was approximately 75 percent of the vote cast for candidates for the governorship in the same election. Of the 253 cities and towns in the state, only 23 small towns, with a total vote of 1,670, showred negative majorities. The legislative votes were even more impressively affirmative: 1 9 1 4 SESSION Yeas

Senate House

33 191

Nays

3 2

1915 Yeas

28

193

SESSION Nays

7 14

MASSACHUSETTS

23

Before considering other legislation of the 1915 session, mention must be made of the Second Annual Report of the Homestead Commission, for 1914. A brief introduction was followed by sections on city and town planning and on betterment assessments for public improvements. The report contained a most interesting description of a cooperative housing company, which was incorporated in 1914 in Billerica, and which was the first American company like the English ones. The Homestead Commission had sent questionnaires to twenty-six housing companies, mostly of the limited-dividend type, asking nine questions concerning their organization and operation. The commission announced its plan to collect similar information in the coming year from companies providing one-family houses, built at not to exceed fifteen to the acre, like the English garden suburbs. The commission described three pamphlets, two on city planning and one on the teaching of agriculture, which it had published during the year. Finally, the commission set forth its recommendations to the General Court meeting in 1915. Since the opinion of the justices in 1912 had held unconstitutional all forms of direct assistance, the commission realized that it could suggest only indirect measures, described in a general way in the report. The full text of the legislation drafted by the commission (House Nos. 635-39, inclusive) was included. All members of the commission signed the report, except Mr. Thorndike, who stated in a separate note that he thought that the initiative for new legislation should come from the legislature or outside sources, but not from the commission itself. Appendix I contained a separate report from each local planning board; Appendix II, a report of a conference between the Homestead Commission and the local planning boards, called by the governor; and Appendix I I I was a condensed version of the long report on foreign governmental aid to home building which had appeared in the First Annual Report. The movement for constitutional amendment continued in the 1915 session with the introduction of House No. 72, upon the petition of the Massachusetts State Branch of the American Federation of Labor. The proposal was to extend to all cities and towns in the state the powers given to the commonwealth itself in the newly adopted Article 43 of the constitution. The bill was referred to the next session of the General Court. Two special commissions, each working on particular aspects of the housing problem, reported to the legislature in February, 1915. The Report Relative to the Construction, Alteration and Maintenance of

24

MASSACHUSETTS

Buildings was referred to the next annual session; and the Report Relative to Taking Land for Public Purposes was received, and the legislature voted to continue the work of the commission. The most important housing bills in 1915 were drafted by the Homestead Commission (House Nos. 636-39, inclusive) and transmitted to the legislature with a covering recommendation (House No. 635). House No. 636, granting additional optional powers to local planning boards, and House No. 637, authorizing the commission to hold an annual planning conference and making it the duty of local planning board members to attend, were not enacted. House No. 638 (enacted as Chapter 129 of the laws of 1915) corrected a technical omission in the legal provisions for the membership of the commission. The commission continued to emphasize the necessity of providing for agricultural education for urban families desiring to avail themselves of rural or suburban homes. House No. 639 outlined the plan advocated by the commission. Briefly, it included acceptance by any city or town of an agricultural school, under the supervision of the State Board of Education, the local school committee, and the city or town government. In addition to securing land and erecting school buildings, the local school committee could provide, on terms that would not involve loss to the city or town, "for houses and plots of ground for the temporary use of families attending the school and complying with its regulations, who have not access to other land suitable to give proper effect to the instruction of the school." This bill, and two others on the same subject, were referred to the next annual session of the General Court. The Third Annual Report of the Homestead Commission, for the year 1915, consisted chiefly of a description of two bills drafted and recommended by the commission, and of the reasons of the commission for supporting its program of suburban homesteads and agricultural education. Acting under the new constitutional amendment, the commission desired to carry out a "moderate, conservative, carefully conducted experiment or demonstration, in order that experience may show what the Commonwealth may do along these lines with safety to itself and benefit to the public" (see description of House No. 513, below). If such an experiment was to be successful, the city dwellers moving into the new suburban homesteads would need agricultural education, and the second bill (see description of House No. 514, below) made provision for furnishing it. In line with the best European practice, the commission wished home-

MASSACHUSETTS

25

stead projects to be self-supporting. Conditions in the state were concededly bad, both from an individual and social standpoint, and experience in every country proved the inability of private enterprise to meet the housing needs. T h e commission said, Two alternatives only seem to be possible,—increase the income, or build enough government houses to meet the need. This Commission admits its reluctance to accept the latter alternative in its entirety, and therefore but seeks the means and opportunity to make a careful experiment for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not it is true that suitable low-cost homes for low-paid workers may be profitably built; and we hope that if it can be shown that there is a reasonable profit in the construction of such homes, there will be but little difficulty in securing enough private capital for such enterprises. T h e commission continued with proof that government aid in European countries had not discouraged building by private enterprise, b u t had rather encouraged it, although not in sufficient amount to meet all needs. Concretely, the commission planned to build homesteads outside some manufacturing city other than Boston. Maximum costs of a homestead were not to exceed $2,000, since they were built for people receiving from seven to fourteen dollars per week in wages. T h e monthly payment of fifteen dollars would amortize the original cost plus interest, taxes, and insurance, in twenty-seven years. Five-room houses would be built, in some cases on small areas (1,000 to 2,000 square feet) sufficiently large for vegetable garden, and in other cases on small farms (one to five acres). T h e commission considered that it was not the province of the commission to consider the possibility of better tenement buildings in cities. Governor Samuel W. McCall, in his annual message in J a n u a r y , 1916, recommended careful consideration of the recommendations of the commission (House No. 512) as embodied in the two bills (House Nos. 513-14). House No. 513, as d r a f t e d by the commission, authorized the commission, with the consent of the governor and the council, to t a k e or purchase land to provide homesteads and to construct and manage homes. T h e commission was also empowered to sell parts of the land acquired for homestead purposes, either with or without the buildings, subject to conditions and restrictions imposed by the commission. N o land and buildings could be sold for less than actual cost. Finally, the commission was granted 550,000 for the purposes of the act. In the

26

MASSACHUSETTS

House of Representatives there was an attempt to substitute a bill which merely provided that the commission should investigate a plan for carrying out the purposes of Article 43 of the constitution. After amendment and considerable disagreement between the two houses the bill was adopted by the house, but it was rejected in the senate by a tie vote. House No. 514, to provide agricultural instruction, also had a rather difficult course through the two houses before its final enactment as Chapter 185 of the laws of 1916. Upon its introduction this bill was exactly like House No. 639 of the 1915 session. One important change was made by house amendments, which restricted the operation of the act to cities rather than to cities and towns. After its passage by both houses the senate requested the governor to return the bill, and the senate then amended it further by altering two sections dealing, respectively, with the process of acquiring land and erecting buildings and with the submission to referendum of the question of providing agricultural education. In its 1916 report the commission stated that "authority for the school boards to teach agriculture was accepted by large majorities in each of the cities of the state." The bill (House No. 1443) permitting the Homestead Commission to appoint a paid secretary who might be a member of the commission, was withdrawn from consideration. The Fourth Annual Report of the Homestead Commission was devoted almost entirely to the presentation of arguments supporting its program of suburban homesteads and to a detailed description of its plans for developing such projects. As the commission said, the case for building surburban homesteads had been presented many times in the preceding years (House Nos. 441-42 in 1912; House No. 2000 in 1913; and the annual reports for the years 1913-15), but the general statement concerning concrete plans had not been developed so fully in any previous publications of the commission (see pages 9-76, inclusive, of the Fourth Annual Report). One reason for the presentation of such detailed plans was, in the words of the commission, as a direct response to the apparent desire of the General Court. They are intended to be a statement . . . of the general policy and course of action, and the things the Commission would do in case the appropriation asked for is made. . . . The Commission repeats that it is not recommending that the Commonwealth enter the real estate business for the purpose of supplying wholesome homes for low-paid workers, no matter how great the social or individual need may be. It only recommends an appropriation for a single experiment, or demonstration, to learn whether it is financially possible to

MASSACHUSETTS

27

supply such homes for such workers, what are the principles or policies upon which such an undertaking should proceed, what are the dangers and what should be the limitations. The bill drafted by the commission (House N o . 3 1 1 ) was enacted, in spite of considerable opposition, in a revised form (House N o . 2 0 8 3 ) , becoming Chapter 310 of the laws of 1917. This act is so important that the text is quoted in full: Section 1. The homestead commission is hereby authorized, with the consent of the governor and council, to take or purchase in behalf of and in the name of the commonwealth, a tract or tracts of land for the purpose of relieving congestion of population and providing homesteads, or small houses and plots of ground, for mechanics, laborers, wage earners of any kind, or others, citizens of this commonwealth; and may hold, improve, subdivide, build upon, sell, repurchase, manage and care for such land and the buildings constructed thereon, in accordance with such terms and conditions as may be determined upon by the commission. Section 2. The commission may sell land acquired hereunder, or any parts thereof, with or without buildings thereon, for cash, or upon such instalments, terms and contracts, and subject to such restrictions and conditions as may be determined upon by the commission, but no tract of land shall be sold for less than its cost, including the cost of any buildings thereon. All proceeds from the sale of land and buildings or other sources shall be paid into the treasury of the commonwealth. Section 3. The homestead commission is hereby authorized to expend a sum not exceeding fifty thousand dollars for the purposes of this act. Chapter 310 of 1917, Chapter 350 of 1919, and Chapter 121 of 1932 are the direct predecessors of the present state housing law of Massachusetts, Chapter 364 of 1933 and later acts amending it. T h e act of 1917 is further important in being one of the very few direct grants of funds for housing purposes which have been made by the various American states. Other housing bills of the 1917 session were relatively unimportant. T h e Fifth Annual Report of the Homestead Commission, in 1917, opened with the statement, "So far as this Commission is aware, the first appropriation made in the United States for government funds to aid workers in acquiring homesteads" was approved by Governor Samuel W. McCall on May 25, 1917. Briefly, the report outlined the history of the housing program in Massachusetts from its beginning in 1909 to existing conditions in 1917. Approximately twenty pages were devoted to description of the Lowell Homesteads project, which the commission had started to develop under the authority of the act of 1917. The

28

MASSACHUSETTS

method of amortization, the selection of a location for the project, the description of the houses, and the restrictions established for use and upkeep were dealt with in this descriptive section. Considerations of space prevent inclusion of even a brief summary, but the 1917 report is well worth careful reading. The remainder of the report contained general sections about the critical post-war housing conditions in the state, the probable public benefits of a housing program, the progress of the local planning boards in the state (there were more than fifty such boards in 1917), and the recommendations of the commission for legislation in the 1918 session of the General Court. The chief recommendation was that an additional grant of $50,000 be made to complete the project undertaken with the appropriation for the same amount made in 1917. Of the numerous housing bills introduced in the 1918 session of the General Court, House No. 231, containing the recommendations for an additional appropriation to the commission, was the first. The Senate Committee on Ways and Means proposed an amendment so extensive that the nature of the bill was completely changed (House No. 1447), and this substitute was enacted as Chapter 204 of 1918. This act increased the powers of the commission concerning the sale of land by adding, in section 2 of Chapter 310 of 1917 (full text above) a grant of authority to the commission to "take mortgages upon said land with or without buildings thereon for such portion of the purchase price and upon such terms as it shall deem advisable." A series of bills provided that the cities of Worcester, Lawrence, and New Bedford should be authorized to acquire or purchase land, build homesteads, and sell land and buildings and in each case should be permitted to spend $50,000 of municipal funds for the purposes of the act. The effect of such legislation would have been to permit cities to construct projects like the Lowell Homesteads project of the Homestead Commission. Three additional bills would have authorized the Homestead Commission to expend $50,000 in each of the cities of Holyoke, Worcester, and Haverhill, to acquire land and build homestead projects. These bills were attempts to extend the housing program by means other than increasing the general appropriation, as requested by the Homestead Commission. All six of them were withdrawn from consideration, and no legislation was enacted in 1918 to give the commission any additional funds to develop projects. Senate No. 87 was introduced upon the petition of the Massachusetts

MASSACHUSETTS

29

State Branch of the American Federation of Labor. The bill had some most unusual features. Any citizen with dependent children, who owned less than $1,000 worth of property, could secure a small house or homestead from the city or town in which he lived. Real property sold for nonpayment of taxes could be taken by the city for such use, and indebtedness incurred could exceed the legal debt limit, provided it did not constitute more than an unspecified percentage of total valuation of property in the city. Plans and specifications of the dwellings were subject to approval by the Homestead Commission and the governor and the council, and the maximum cost of a house was fixed at $2,500. A substitute (Senate No. 392) added a section providing that, during "the existence of war, public exigency, emergency or distress, the several cities and towns of the commonwealth are hereby authorized to provide shelter for their inhabitants in the manner hereinafter provided." The qualifications of a person making application for a homestead were increased. Other changes related to the method of acquiring property, and fixed the total debt limit at one-quarter of one percent of total taxable value, without stating that the indebtedness was to be considered as being outside the local debt limit. The final draft (Senate No. 410) introduced two additional changes. The action of the city or town under the first two drafts had been compulsory, but the third draft made it optional. The second amendment provided that debts incurred under the act must be repaid in not more than five years from the date of the loan. The bill was passed by the senate, but was rejected by the house. During the years 1917 and 1918 a constitutional convention was in session in Massachusetts. The volumes of debates are a most important source of information, because fortunately there is a verbatim record of all transactions, including the speeches of the members of the convention. Chapter X I I in Volume I, entitled "Necessaries of Life," Chapter X X X V , "Homes for Citizens," and Chapter LVI, "Loaning the Public Credit" (the two latter chapters are in Volume III of the published debates) are particularly valuable in the present connection. John I. Robinson's article, "Public Housing in Massachusetts," to which reference was made above in discussing the adoption of Article 43 of the constitution in 1914-15, is the best recent commentary on the entire problem of constitutional questions involved in public housing in Massachusetts. It is obviously impossible to summarize the debate in the three chapters mentioned above, inasmuch as there are nearly three hundred pages

jo

MASSACHUSETTS

in t h e m . T h e t a s k would b e p a r t i c u l a r l y difficult, because, as the m e m b e r s of t h e convention t h e m s e l v e s realized, t h e y were dealing with m u c h t h e same s u b j e c t in c o n s i d e r i n g two a m e n d m e n t s , one to m a k e provision f o r so-called necessaries of life a n d the other f o r h o m e s alone. T h e ultim a t e result was t h a t the c o n v e n t i o n a d o p t e d a n a m e n d m e n t on the f o r m e r s u b j e c t (which w a s ratified in a p o p u l a r r e f e r e n d u m on N o v e m b e r 6, 1917, as Article 47 of the c o n s t i t u t i o n ) , b u t failed by f o u r votes to a d o p t t h e a m e n d m e n t d r a f t e d a s a result of the convention's consideration of h o m e s for citizens. A close comparison of t h e a m e n d m e n t which was a d o p t e d as Article 47, with the a m e n d m e n t to a m e n d Article 43 which the convention rejected, a n d with t h e original Article 43, is m a d e easier by c o m p a r i s o n of the full text of all t h r e e . Article 4 7 : The maintenance and distribution at reasonable rates, during time of war, public exigency, emergency or distress, of a sufficient supply of food and other common necessaries of life and the providing of shelter, are public functions, and the commonwealth and the cities and towns therein may take and may provide the same for their inhabitants in such manner as the general court shall determine. F i n a l d r a f t of a m e n d e d Article 43, rejected by the convention, follows: The General Court shall have power to make laws whereby the Commonwealth or the cities and towns therein, for the purpose of relieving congestion of population and providing homes for citizens, may take land and hold, improve, subdivide, build upon and sell the same; but such land or buildings shall not be sold for less than the cost thereof. T o complete t h e m a t e r i a l s necessary for an u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the constitutional questions involved, Article 43 is q u o t e d : The general court shall have power to authorize the commonwealth to take land and to hold, improve, sub-divide, build upon and sell the same, for the purpose of relieving congestion of population and providing homes for citizens: provided, however, that this amendment shall not be deemed to authorize the sale of such land or buildings at less than the cost thereof. I t does not a p p e a r t h a t t h e power of the s t a t e itself, as distinguished f r o m cities a n d t o w n s , its i n s t r u m e n t a l i t i e s , was m a t e r i a l l y a l t e r e d in 1 9 1 7 - 1 8 , either b y f a i l u r e to a m e n d Article 43 or b y the a d o p t i o n of Article 47. T h e i m p o r t a n t c h a n g e which the rejected a m e n d m e n t to Article 43 would h a v e m a d e involved the g r a n t to the cities a n d towns of a power t h a t the s t a t e h a d possessed since 1915. Article 4 7 a p p e a r e d

MASSACHUSETTS

31

to be a second delegation of power to the state, in different terminology, and, again, the chief significance of this amendment lay in the grant of power to cities and towns. The constitutional questions arising from Articles 43 and 47 were, possibly, further complicated by Article 62, also the product of the convention of 1917 and 1918. In summary, it prohibited the state from extending credit to private individuals or corporations; it permitted the state to borrow for a few specified purposes; it provided that loans for purposes other than these could be authorized only by an extraordinary majority vote of both houses; and it limited the expenditure of borrowed money entirely to the purpose for which it was borrowed. Several pages of the article on public housing in Massachusetts by John I. Robinson which appeared in Volume X V I I I of the Boston University Law Review were devoted to discussion of the amendments of 1915 and 1917. In the absence of any advisory opinions or judicial decisions relating to the amendments, Mr. Robinson was unable to arrive at definite conclusions. He said, in part, that while the constitutional issues are not altogether free from question and an advisory opinion of the Justices may be desirable to determine the extent of Articles 43 and 47, there does not seem to be much doubt that power exists in the legislature to provide for the creation, directly by the state or through its municipalities, of local housing authorities to engage in slum clearance and the building of low-rental housing projects. From the standpoint of the state, the following questions are the most important. If the State Board of Housing, for example, desired to take land and build a housing project, Article 43 appears to authorize only the sale, not the rental, of these homes. Under the same article, the board could not sell the homes for less than cost, but whether or not a federal subsidy to the project would be considered part of the cost can only be a matter of speculation. But if the board chose to depend upon Article 47, it would have to decide what constitutes "public exigency, emergency or distress," and whether power exercised originally under conditions clearly describable in those constitutional terms could be used to authorize building a project to be amortized over a period so long that it extends beyond the original public exigency, and so forth. The other important constitutional questions relate to the powers of cities and towns, rather than of the state. The 1919 session of the General Court, like its predecessor in 1918,

32

MASSACHUSETTS

witnessed the introduction of numerous bills attempting to legalize various forms of state and local aid to suburban homestead projects, none of which was adopted. In his first address to the General Court, in 1919, Governor Calvin Coolidge expressed in very general terms his belief that the Massachusetts program for improving housing and working conditions should be continued by the legislature, but he expressed no opinion as to specific legislation on the subject. The Sixth Annual Report of the Homestead Commission presented a statement of the current condition of the Lowell Homesteads project and reiterated at some length the principles and theories of the commission which were being worked out at Lowell. There was evidence in the report that the work of the commission was not well understood, and this probably accounts for the lengthy and emphatic treatment given to the explanation of the policy underlying this work. Briefly, the commission had purchased a parcel of land, in the industrial city of Lowell, upon which twelve small houses had been erected. These were sold to individuals at prices ranging from $2,400 to $3,100 (the commission had found it impossible to build the $2,000 houses which were originally planned), for a down payment of $50 or $100 plus monthly payments of from $18.00 to $22.88, which covered principal and 5 percent interest. The amortization period was sixteen years and four months. The houses had been sold immediately, the garden plots were being used successfully under the direction of an expert garden supervisor employed by the commission, and repayment of individual loans was beginning. The commission regretted that the legislature had not seen fit to give them an additional $50,000. Regarding the success of the Homestead Commission work, it is not possible for the Commission or any person to hazard any opinion worth while at this time. The only value of a small project of thirty or forty houses would be as a demonstration of the ability of the state to finance and sell houses meeting the demand of the workingman, giving him decent living accommodations in a house, with land adjacent for a home garden, for which he shall pay the cost without profit to builder and on terms that make it possible for him to purchase the same even though his capital and wages are small. In a strict sense the particular tract of this type cannot relieve congestion because it is too small to justify such large claims, but it may be most valuable in pointing the way to relief of congestion and the substitution of a better type of house than the tenement house or multiple dwelling which private capital has up to this date supplied for urban population. Certainly the building of twelve small houses on a tract which requires about fifty for a unit development can

MASSACHUSETTS

33

prove little either way. There must be a completion of the building up of the tract. In addition to asking for $100,000 to build thirty-three houses to complete the Lowell project, the commission asked the legislature to permit the appointment of a paid secretary, with the approval of the governor and council. The only important legislation enacted in 1919 relating to the Homestead Commission was an act (Chapter 350) which effected a complete reorganization of the executive and administrative departments. The Homestead Commission was abolished, and all its powers and duties were transferred to the Department of Public Welfare, established by the act. The specific recommendations of the Homestead Commission (House No. 1152) accompanied two bills, House No. 1153 (which authorized expenditure of $100,000 for building homesteads) and House No. 1154 (which empowered the commission to employ a secretary). The committees considering these bills reported "no legislation necessary," and the recommendations were adopted by both houses. A bill authorizing the Homestead Commission to construct homesteads in Holyoke was referred to the next annual session. After amendment and passage by the senate, a bill which would have empowered the City of Boston to provide shelter for its inhabitants was defeated in the house by a vote of 13 yeas to 97 nays. A second bill on the same subject was referred to the next General Court. Senate No. 130 amended the Homestead Commission law (Chapter 310 of 1917) by giving war veterans preference in securing homesteads built by the commission. This bill was referred to the next General Court. Two bills, respectively, provided that cities and towns might deal in real estate to improve local housing conditions, and that they might furnish homesteads for their citizens. One of these bills was like Senate Nos. 87, 392, and 410 of the preceding session. Neither bill was acted upon by the legislature. House No. 823, which was referred to the next General Court, presented a new plan for the work of the Homestead Commission, under which the commission could make loans to individual citizens to provide homesteads. Such a loan would be secured by a first mortgage on the land, and the maximum loan could not exceed 60 percent of the value of the land mortgaged and 20 percent of the permanent, insured improvements. Values were to be ascertained by the commission. The smallest loan was for $100 and the largest for $10,000, and the interest rate

34

MASSACHUSETTS

was to be fixed by the commission at not to exceed 6 percent. Amortization plans were fixed by the commission. To finance this scheme the legislature was authorized to make annual grants. The Seventh Annual Report, the last made by the Homestead Commission, contained an excellent summary of the work of the commission during its brief existence. The legislation of the period from 1911 to 1919 was reviewed, and the membership of the commission was described. The work was summarized in sections dealing with publications, city planning, the Lowell housing project, and the information service and conferences of planning boards sponsored by the commission. As usual, the report contained several pages of reports from the numerous city and town planning boards. T h e commission recommended, as it had been doing for several years, that a sufficient appropriation be made to complete the Lowell project. In the interests of proper housing and city planning the commission recommended that legislation be enacted relative to districting cities with reference to height and use of buildings. Finally, the commission renewed its request for authority to employ a secretary. In concluding its final report the commission said: The department [that is, the Department of Public Welfare] should take an active interest in seeing that proper city planning and housing regulations exist, to encourage the better and prevent the worst kind of development. It should furnish a clearing house for information within the department, and keep constantly in touch with the conditions in every part of the Commonwealth and with what is being done in other parts of the country. This can be done only through a well-organized department of housing and city planning. Massachusetts led the way in this matter. Other States have followed the lead, organizing city planning departments with adequate appropriations and making larger appropriations for Homestead work. It would be unfortunate for us to lose the results of what we have accomplished by failure to progress. Because Calvin Coolidge, as President of the United States, is generally credited with having held a very conservative attitude toward the social functions of government, his statement headed "Humanize Government" in his 1920 annual address to the legislature is exceedingly interesting and is quoted in full: It is pre-eminently the province of government to protect the weak. The average citizen does not lead the life of independence that was his in former days under a less complex order of society. When a family tilled the soil and produced its own support it was independent. When it produces but one article, and that in a plant owned by others, it is dependent. It may be infinitely

MASSACHUSETTS

35

better off under the latter plan, but it is evident it needs a protection which before was not required. Let Massachusetts continue to regard with the gravest solicitude the well-being of her people. By prescribed law, by authorized publicity, by informed public opinion let her continue to strive to provide that all conditions under which her citizens live are worthy of the high estate of man. Healthful housing, wholesome food, sanitary working conditions, reasonable hours, a fair wage for a fair day's work, opportunity full and free, justice speedy and impartial and at a cost within the reach of all, are among the objects not only to be sought but made absolutely certain and secure. Government is not, must not be, a cold impersonal machine, but a human and more human agency, appealing to the reason, satisfying the heart, full of mercy, assisting the good, resisting the wrong, delivering the weak from any impositions of the strong. Massachusetts is committed to this and will strive consistently for its complete realization. This is not paternalism. It is not a servitude imposed from without, but the freedom of a righteous self-direction from within.

The following five bills introduced in the 1920 session were given little consideration by the General Court. A bill providing that certain low lands be surveyed for the purpose of promoting health and housing conditions and a bill for improving housing conditions in Holyoke were both referred to the next General Court. A bill to relieve congestion and to improve housing conditions in Lawrence, a bill to authorize Boston to provide homesteads for its inhabitants, and a bill dealing with a building code for Boston were all withdrawn from consideration. The attempt was made to secure a special commission to investigate housing conditions in the state. An order (no number, see p. 547 of the House Journal for 1920 for full text) was adopted by the house, but was rejected by the senate, and a bill (House No. 1642) was referred to the next General Court. The preamble to the order emphasized the intolerable housing conditions in the commonwealth and the urgency for securing a solution of this grave problem; and the Joint Committee on Judiciary was instructed to invite to a conference the governor, lieutenant governor, president of the senate, speaker of the house, chief justice of the Supreme Judicial Court, chief justice of the Superior Court, and chairman of the Commission on the Necessaries of Life. The house bill gave a housing shortage and excessive rentals as the reasons for empowering the governor to appoint, with the consent of the council, a housing commission of twelve members to study the housing situation and to make recommendations concerning increasing the number of dwellings and controlling rents. The special commission was also to study the expediency of proceeding, under Article 43 of the constitu-

36

MASSACHUSKTTS

tion, to take land and build homesteads, as the State Homestead Commission had been recommending for several years and as the legislature had been refusing to do, with the exception of the authorization of the small project at Lowell. One important act was passed in 1920, upon the recommendation of a Special Commission on the Necessaries of Life (established by Chapter 341 of 1919, as amended by Chapter 365 of the extra session of 1919). The first report of the commission (House Xo. 1500) was transmitted to the 1920 General Court, and the portion relating to housing was sent to the Joint Committee on the Judiciary. This committee reported out a bill (House No. 1759), which in its amended form (House No. 1773) was passed by both houses, becoming Chapter 554 of the laws of 1920. This act contained no provisions relating to the state, and it may be considered an evidence of a change of attitude on the part of Massachusetts legislators. Such housing legislation as had been enacted prior to 1920 had vested housing functions in the state, and all bills seeking to give such powers to local governmental areas had failed of passage. The constitutional basis of the act was Article 47 of the state constitution, adopted in 1917-18. Without going into the details of Chapter 554, it gave cities and towns in which "a public exigency or emergency or public distress exists because of an insufficient supply of shelter" the power to purchase land or acquire it by eminent domain and to improve or sell it, provided that the action occurred before February 1, 1922. The city or town might exceed its statutory debt limit, but not by more than one percent of its assessed valuation, and the bonds had to be repaid within ten years. The provisions of the bill indicated the situation existing in Massachusetts. The acute post-war housing shortage was causing as much distress and public concern in the cities in that state as in other large cities, and for several sessions in the early 1920's the General Court was flooded with rent-control measures and other bills designed to remedy the condition. Chapter 554 of 1920 is more accurately classified with this emergency legislation than with the housing laws enacted before 1920. Another act passed in 1920 (Chapter 628) continued the existence of the Special Commission on the Necessaries of Life, and one section made it the duty of the commission to make a survey of the housing situation throughout the commonwealth. This action of the legislature made less severe the defeat of the two proposals (discussed above) to create special bodies to consider the housing problem. It is impossible to con-

MASSACHUSETTS

37

sider the several acts of the 1920 legislature dealing with control of rentals, because of limitations of space. This method of governmental control of housing conditions is not closely related to a public housing program, as such a program is usually considered, and control of rentals is actually emergency legislation which merely remedies one symptom of a bad housing condition. The work of the Special Commission on the Necessaries of Life was carried to some extent beyond the immediate acute crisis, but in general the commission examined the existing housing shortage and the sharp increases in rentals as being of an emergency nature, and relatively little attention was given to a permanent, longtime program. The failure of the Homestead Commission to convince the legislature that the program of suburban homesteads should be continued and expanded, the "break" in interest in all forms of social legislation due to the World War, the acute housing problem requiring immediate emergency solution in the early 1920's, and the abolition of the Homestead Commission as a separate agency with the transfer to the Department of Public Welfare of the functions of the commission, served to mark the end of the first period of interest in public housing shown by Massachusetts as a state. The period from approximately 1918 to 1933, inclusive, saw little legislation on the subject, and during the last ten years of the period fewer bills were introduced and there was evidence of a general loss of interest in the subject. The work of the former Homestead Commission was handled in the Department of Public Welfare by the Division of Housing and Town Planning, 1919—34, and the division published an annual report throughout this period. The most striking information to be secured from reading these reports is the entire redirection of effort on the part of the new division as compared with the Homestead Commission. The major interest of the commission had been suburban homesteads under state control, and while the local planning boards had received adequate and sympathetic assistance from the commission they did not appear to rank with the homestead program in the interests of the commission. This situation was exactly reversed when the Division of Housing and Town Planning took over the work of the commission. The division continued to manage the project at Lowell, but, judging from the contents of the annual reports, this was its only housing work. For example, the first report of the division (1920) contained one page on the subject of the Lowell project and fourteen pages of reports from

38

MASSACHUSETTS

local planning boards. The report for 1921 had one-half page about Lowell, and the remainder of the forty-seven pages of the report dealt with various aspects of planning. In the years 1921-27, each report carried only one brief paragraph reporting the financial status of the Lowell project, and in no case was there other attention paid to housing. After 1928 even the report on Lowell was omitted. In fact, when the name of the division was changed in 1933 to "Division of Town Planning" it did not signify any actual change in function, but merely registered an accomplished fact. As mentioned above, the 1920 legislature extended the existence of the Special Commission on the Necessaries of Life and empowered the commission to continue its study of housing, as well as of food, clothing, fuel, lighting, and miscellaneous necessities. The 1921 report of the commission (House No. 1260) contained a statement of findings and four specific recommendations to the legislature. The commission described the rapidly increasing rentals, evaluated the operation of the emergency rent-control laws of 1920, and recommended continuation of state supervision of rents until the return of normal conditions. The commission found that one of the causes of increased rentals was not only the demand for mere shelter, but the desire for improved homes at a reasonable cost. This had resulted in increased vacancies in the poorer tenements. The causes of this situation were discussed, and several proposals for assistance to prospective home owners were made. Scant attention was paid to plans for state or municipal projects under the amended constitution (Articles 43 and 47), but the commission recommended that a state department be charged "with the duty of protecting and advising tenants in regard to rents, encouraging ownership of homes, obtaining facts concerning housing, and disseminating information to the public upon this subject." Governor Channing W. Cox, in his message to the 1921 General Court, considered the housing situation and stated his opinion that there was vital necessity for taking action to improve it. He recommended that a standing or special committee of the legislature be authorized to study the question, reporting to the 1921 session at the earliest possible date, particularly concerning the possibility of effectively prohibiting everything in the nature of extortionate rent and of enacting legislation to stimulate resumption of home building and to restore normal housing conditions in the state. In spite of the recommendations of the special commission and of the

MASSACHUSETTS

39

governor, no legislative action resulted. The Massachusetts State Branch of the American Federation of Labor supported a bill giving the Special Commission on the Necessaries of Life authority to prepare a bill compelling owners of dwellings not fit for occupancy to repair them immediately. A bill, which had been introduced in a preceding session, would have empowered Boston to establish a commission to provide land and construct homesteads. A third bill proposed to authorize the speaker of the House of Representatives to appoint a special committee of five members of the legislature to investigate housing conditions and report draft legislation on or before March 15 of the current session. These bills were withdrawn from consideration. The part of the report of the Special Commission on the Necessaries of Life relating to the building of homes by industrial corporations and to the cooperative ownership of apartment houses was sent to house and senate committees, which recommended that the proposals be referred to the next annual session. The work of the Special Commission on the Necessaries of Life was continued, and the commission reported in January, 1922 (House No. 1400). The section on "Shelter" described rental conditions, the status of home ownership and of cooperative ownership, discrimination shown against children, the condition of new construction and prices of building materials, the application of the emergency rent laws, and representative housing complaints handled by the commission. In conclusion the commission reported that all the surplus of housing of five years preceding was exhausted and that rents were still going up, while wages were coming down, resulting in individual hardship and social unrest. Building costs were slowly coming down, and some building operation was being resumed. The commission made four specific recommendations concerning the rent-control laws; renewed its recommendation that the building and sale of cooperative dwellings be placed under the jurisdiction of the bank commissioner; and, finally, since the work of the commission would soon be terminated, it recommended the establishment of a state agency to give information upon the housing laws and to act as adjudicator, in order to avoid the necessity for court action. It will be noted that the commission had lost interest, by 1922, in all aspects of housing except rent control. Three housing bills were introduced in the 1922 session, but they were either withdrawn or referred to the next session. One of these (House No. 969), sponsored by the Massachusetts State Branch of

4o

MASSACHUSETTS

the American Federation of Labor, embodied an attempt to revive the suburban homesteads program. A new Homestead Division was set up in the Department of Labor and Industries. The commissioner of the department and six members appointed by the governor and the council headed the division, which was empowered to purchase land in the suburbs of the larger cities and to build homesteads on the lots. Five hundred thousand dollars' worth of state bonds were to be issued for a twentyfive-year period at an interest rate of percent, and annual taxes were to be levied to meet annual sinking-fund requirements and interest payments. A person could purchase bonds (not less than $250 or more than $1,000 worth), and their cost counted as part of the purchase price of a home. The balance of the cost was paid in monthly installments. Bonds were to be sold only to individual purchasers who intended to occupy the property themselves. The price of house and lot was fixed at the actual cost plus 5 percent. Finally, the commission was granted the right of eminent domain and the power to sell land for commercial purposes, but no land could be sold for less than cost, and funds from sales had to be made part of the general fund established by the bill. The American Federation of Labor supported legislation similar to that proposed in this bill for several years, but legislative interest was rarely strong enough to secure any real consideration. The Massachusetts State Branch of the American Federation of Labor, not discouraged by lack of success, sponsored a bill (House No. 692) in the 1923 session which was somewhat like House No. 969, described above. The state agency set up in the 1923 bill was a State Building Commission, made up of the state treasurer, the receiver general, and four members appointed by the governor and the council, one of whom was to be a builder, one an architect, one an engineer, and one a representative of the laboring people. Necessary professional services could be employed to draw up plans for one-, two-, and three-family houses, "the parts to be standardized as far as possible and contracts made for them with sources of supply." Cities were required to purchase from the commission all materials for houses built under the act, and the materials were to be sold at actual cost, plus the expense of handling. Land could be purchased only where cash payments would permit of the most advantageous buying, and the commission could delegate temporarily to a municipality its power to purchase land. A local committee administered the provisions of the act, subject to control by the commission, if the community voted favorably in a referendum to adopt the plan and au-

MASSACHUSETTS

41

thorize a bond issue for the purpose of buying land and building homes. Houses were sold to actual residents, at cost, upon the payment of 10 percent of the purchase price. The city took a mortgage for the remainder, and for seven years the purchaser paid annually 5 percent of the principal, plus interest and taxes. This reduced the mortgage to 55 percent, and the city could then sell it to a savings bank, thus paying off its entire indebtedness and "profiting to the extent of the increased taxation both for land and buildings." This plan is interesting because of the attempt to devise a method of state control and assistance to a local housing agency, and because of the recognition of possible savings through standardization and central purchasing. The bill was referred to the next annual session. One bill, which was withdrawn from consideration, was not like any other bill introduced in the preceding legislative sessions. The general purpose was to educate working men in the values of home ownership, and the bill described in considerable detail the methods to be used in this educational campaign. No specific agency was designated to carry out the work, but provision was made authorizing the appropriation of "sufficient funds" for the purpose. In the 1924 session of the General Court, the Special Commission on the Necessaries of Life made a very brief report (House No. 558) accompanied by bills embodying its recommendations. With respect to housing the commission said that the probable continuance of a housing emergency led them to recommend that some state agency be empowered to take over the work of the commission after the expiration of its existence in May, 1924. House No. 562 proposed to continue the work of the commission for one year and to appropriate $10,000 for necessary expenses, but the draft bill left blank the name of the state agency to which the work was to be delegated in order that this matter might be determined by the legislature. Neither house gave the bill any consideration. An entirely new idea for solving the problem was presented in House No. 5, which was withdrawn from consideration. The bill proposed to assist persons who were without adequate shelter because of the housing shortage, which was declared to be a "public exigency" within the meaning of the state law. The Department of Public Welfare would have been given $10,000,000 to purchase land and to provide homesteads for "wage earners of any kind" on terms established by the department with the advice of the governor and the council. The bill is interesting prin-

42

MASSACHUSETTS

cipally as an example of an early proposal for state subsidy for housing entirely under the control of an administrative agency of the state. Two bills introduced in the 1925 session were withdrawn from consideration. House No. 168 was another of the numerous plans presented in the legislative sessions of the 1920's designed to authorize the Department of Public Welfare to purchase land and build homesteads. In this bill the number of such homesteads was limited to five thousand. An applicant whose assets did not exceed $1,000 and whose annual income did not exceed $2,500 had to be prepared to reside upon the land he purchased within six months after the passage of the act. He could be sold only one allotment, and the department could sell only to applicants of whose "responsibility" it was assured. No plot of land and house could be sold for more than $5,000, the initial payment had to be at least 5 percent of the total cost, and the balance had to be repaid within twenty years, together with 5 percent interest. No provision of the bill contained authorization for funds to carry out the program described. The second bill, in terms almost exactly like those of House No. 168, gave cities and towns the power to purchase lands and erect homesteads. In the entire period from 1908 to 1941 there was only one annual session of the Massachusetts General Court in which not one housing bill was presented for consideration—namely, the 1926 session. In 1927 one bill (House No. 810) was introduced and withdrawn without consideration. This was the first presentation in Massachusetts of the New York plan of a state board of housing in control of limiteddividend housing projects. The Massachusetts bill was very much like the New York law of 1926 (Chapter 823), with certain alterations adjusting its provisions to related legal provisions in Massachusetts and to local conditions, except that private limited-dividend companies were included in the New York law, but not in the Massachusetts bill. The same bill providing for a state board of housing and for public limited-dividend housing companies that had been introduced and withdrawn in 1927 was again presented and withdrawn in the 1928 session (Senate No. 168). A few changes were made in the 1928 bill, a particularly noticeable difference appearing in the amount of appropriation for administrative purposes. The 1927 bill appropriated $100,000, and the 1928 bill reduced this to $10,000. The Special Commission on the Necessaries of Life was ordered by the House of Representatives on April 16, 1928, to investigate the pro-

MASSACHUSETTS

43

moting and financing of the construction of apartment houses and other dwellings (House No. 1225). The commission reported at some length in December, 1928, but did not present draft legislation because the necessary changes in existing law were so intricate and technical that the commission believed that the legislature should appoint a special committee to write the necessary bills. No action was taken on the report. Another attempt was made in the 1929 session to assist cities and towns in the duty of relieving congestion and providing homes by increasing their powers of acquiring land. This bill and a bill for a resolve providing for an investigation by the Special Commission on the Necessaries of Life of the same general subject were not enacted. A single bill (House No. 896) was introduced and withdrawn in the 1930 session. In order to correct undesirable housing conditions in lowpriced dwellings, the bill provided for local ex officio housing boards to control the operation of large private, semipublic, or public corporations desiring to invest their funds in low-rental housing developments. The bill stated that the "apartments recently built in New York City by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and the amalgamated clothing workers is the type of building that it is hoped may be duplicated or bettered through this act." The plan was a variation of the New York state plan of 1926 comprising a state housing board and a system of limited-dividend housing companies. In 1931 the Massachusetts Civic League sponsored a proposed constitutional amendment (House No. 1153). The text read as follows: The general court shall have power to authorize cities and towns to take land and to hold and improve the same, to lay out and construct new streets, parks and playgrounds thereon, and to subdivide said land and construct buildings thereon, and sell the same, for the purpose of relieving congestion of population, and remedying housing conditions detrimental to health, safety and morals, and of adapting said land to the social and business needs of the community. The Senate Committee on Constitutional Law and its counterpart in the house recommended that the bill not be passed, and both houses adopted these reports. In addition to giving local areas broad powers to carry out housing programs, the amendment would have made adequate city and neighborhood planning constitutional in Massachusetts, and it went much farther than either Article 43 or Article 47 of the constitution in this direction.

44

MASSACHUSETTS

Senate No. 205, introduced and withdrawn in the 1932 session, contained the proposal to establish a state board of housing and to authorize the incorporation of limited-dividend housing companies, which had been presented in the 1927 and 1928 sessions. In his annual address to the legislature in 1933 Governor Joseph B. Ely included a brief recommendation for the enactment of legislation sufficiently broad in scope to permit the development of self-liquidating housing projects, financed by the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, both in urban and in rural communities. He also recommended permission to create such projects without federal aid. Several bills were introduced, carrying this recommendation into effect through different provisions, which, however, in all cases included some form of state body in control of a state-wide housing program providing for limited-dividend projects and, in some cases, for other types of housing agencies. Two bills introduced in the House of Representatives early in the session were referred to the next annual session. House No. 676 provided for a state board of housing, consisting of five unpaid commissioners appointed by the governor and the council for five-year terms of office. Ten thousand dollars for administrative expenses of the board was provided. The board was not placed in any of the state departments, as was done in the other bills providing for a state board. In its other provisions the bill was exactly like those authorizing limited-dividend housing corporations which were being introduced in numerous state legislatures in 1933 and which were copied from the New York state law in effect at that time. It met the request of Governor Ely, as expressed in his annual message, and would have made it possible to organize companies eligible to receive loans from the federal government. A second house bill, No. 1051, would have created in the Department of Public Welfare a State Housing Division in charge of a director, with seven advisers, one of whom shall be an architect, one an engineer with building experience, one a person experienced in the financing of public and private construction, one a person experienced in social service having a knowledge of housing conditions, one a realtor having experience in property values and home requirements, one a builder, having experience in the construction of home properties, and one a representative of organized labor.

The director and the advisory council members were to be appointed by the commissioner of public welfare, with the approval of the governor and the council, for five-year terms of office. The director was to receive

MASSACHUSETTS

45

a salary, but the members of the advisory council were to be unpaid. The advisory council was given the duty of advising the director on questions of policy and, on the matters definitely referred to in the bill, it was stated that all recommendations should be made formally, should be matters of record, and should determine the action of the division. The director was to be the chief executive, subject to the authority of the commissioner of the Department of Public Welfare, and in accordance with the recommendations of the advisory council. The director, subject to the provisions of the state civil service law and with the approval of the advisory council, could recommend to the commissioner for appointment the necessary technical and clerical assistants. These might include a statistician, a supervising architect to pass on plans and supervise construction, and an accountant or accountants. The bill included a section providing for an appropriation to cover the administrative expenses of the division, but the actual amount was left blank. The bill, aside from the sections described above, was the usual limited-dividend housing corporation act in its general aspects, but one difference may be mentioned. Usually such acts provide that the companies organized under their provisions are to engage in building dwellings for families of low income. This Massachusetts bill also authorized limiteddividend companies to reconstruct slum areas, as "slum reconstruction corporations." All provisions of the bill were applicable in the same manner to both types of corporations. One bill, which was referred to the following annual legislative session, provided that cities and towns might make annual appropriations to improve housing conditions in congested residential districts. A "housing betterment commission" in each municipality would have been authorized to acquire land, demolish buildings, and build new homes either for rental or for sale, at prices to be approved by the city council or the town selectmen. In June, 1933, Governor Ely sent a special message to the General Court. The National Industrial Recovery Act, appropriating $3,300,000,000 for federal assistance to public works, had just been enacted, and the governor urged the legislature to pass suitable legislation to make the state of Massachusetts and its various local subdivisions eligible to receive this aid. Only in the last paragraph of the message was direct reference made to housing. The governor stated his belief that funds would be more easily available for self-liquidating projects and that of such projects housing would receive early consideration. He therefore

46

MASSACHUSETTS

renewed his recommendation that a housing law be enacted providing for government-controlled corporations, with the power of eminent domain, empowered to secure funds under the new national law, to rehabilitate slum areas and areas characterized by greatly depreciated real estate values. Senate No. 471 carried out this part of the governor's recommendations. The bill was sent to the Committee on Ways and Means, which reported favorably a new draft (Senate No. 489 ). The senate took up the latter bill, and, after amendment by the house, it was passed as Chapter 364 of the laws of 1933—the basic housing law of the state. In its original form (Senate No. 471), an unpaid State Board of Housing was established in the Department of Corporations and Taxation, "but in no manner subject to the control of said department." The board had seven members, appointed by the governor and the council for sevenyear terms of office. The board elected its own chairman. Annual reports to the General Court were required, as well as additional reports to the General Court or the governor, as requested. The principal office of the board was established in Boston, but it could meet at any place in the state. Time and place of meeting were to be determined by the chairman. If hearings were held in cities other than Boston, the county commissioners were required to furnish suitable rooms. Adequate office space in the State House or elsewhere in Boston was to be furnished. Subject to the approval of the governor and the council, the board might appoint and fix the compensation of employees and make necessary expenditures to carry out its functions. Members and employees were entitled to necessary traveling expenses and subsistence expenses while working outside Boston. The general powers of the board (in section 3) included the right to inquire into housing needs to determine in which areas there were conditions which the board, or a corporation under its control, might remedy, to prepare plans, collect and distribute information, and assist in the preparation of legislation and rules and regulations, to cooperate with local housing and planning boards, to encourage cooperative housing and tenant ownership of dwellings, and to supervise the operations of corporations formed under the act. Particular emphasis was laid on cooperation with the local planning boards and with the city and town officials in working out housing programs. Section S gave to the state board far more extensive powers than those usually delegated to such an agency. The board, with the consent of the

MASSACHUSETTS

47

governor and the council, was authorized to approve the taking of property by eminent domain by a housing corporation. In addition, the board, again with the consent of the governor and the council, might "take by eminent domain or purchase in behalf of and in the name of the Commonwealth tracts of land for the purpose of relieving congestion of population and providing homesteads or small houses and plots of ground for mechanics, laborers, wage earners of any kind, or others, citizens of the commonwealth"; and might hold, improve, subdivide, build upon, sell, repurchase, manage and care for such land and the buildings constructed thereon, in accordance with such terms and conditions as it may determine. The board may sell such land or any parts thereof, with or without buildings thereon, for cash or upon such instalments, terms, and contracts and subject to such restrictions and conditions as it may determine, and may take mortgages upon said land, with or without buildings thereon, for such portion of the purchase price and upon such terms as it deems advisable, but no tract of land shall be sold for less than its cost, including the cost of any buildings thereon. All proceeds from the sale of land and buildings or other sources shall be paid to the commonwealth.

The intent of this provision was clearly to permit the continuance by the new state board of such projects as the Lowell Homesteads. Sections 4, and 6 to 12, inclusive, dealt with limited-dividend housing corporations exclusively, giving to the state board the customary forms of regulatory power found in such legislation in all states. The new draft of the bill recommended by the Senate Committee on Ways and Means (Senate No. 489) made certain changes in the composition and powers of the State Board of Housing. The house amendments, with one exception, were relatively unimportant. Therefore the following summary is based upon the bill as finally enacted (Chapter 364 of the laws of 1933). The State Housing Board was made up of five members appointed by the governor with the consent of the council, each serving for a five-year term of office. The board was placed in the Department of Public Welfare. Other provisions, summarized in the discussion of Senate No. 471, above, were unchanged insofar as they related to the administrative setup and powers of the board. The act contained a less extensive grant of general powers to the board than that included in Senate No. 471. It provided that the state board shall investigate defective housing, the evils resulting therefrom, and the work being done in the commonwealth and elsewhere to remedy them, study the operation of building laws and laws relating to tenement houses, gather

4

8

MASSACHUSETTS

information relating to town planning for the use of such boards, and promote the formation of organizations intended to increase the number of wholesome homes for the people, and shall supervise and control, as hereinafter provided, the operations of limited-dividend housing corporations formed under provisions of the act. The act did not contain important differences in the sections dealing exclusively with limited-dividend housing corporations, except that the house amendment, referred to above, added the clause, "nor shall anything herein contained be construed as granting to any such corporation any exemption from taxation." There were no other references in the bill or the act to this subject. The act was approved on July 22, 1933, and Governor Ely appointed the five members about two months later. The board was given a small appropriation of $2,000 to cover its administrative expenses during the remaining months of the fiscal year preceding November 30, 1933. A full discussion of the actual operation of the board will be found below. In the 1934 session of the General Court the first bills for a local housing authority act were introduced (House Nos. 770, 1555, 1603). The original bill (House No. 770) contained a section made up of fifteen provisions to be known as the "Housing Authority Law." House No. 1555 contained numerous amendments, and House No. 1603 also presented changes in these provisions. The final action of the legislature was to postpone consideration to the next annual session. A description of the bill in its final form follows. Upon determination of need the State Board of Housing could authorize the creation of an authority by a city council or a town board of selectmen. Two of the five members of every local authority were to be chosen by the state board, and the board could remove any one of the five members for stated causes if he were found guilty in a hearing conducted by the board. The local authority might have jurisdiction in one or more contiguous towns. The state board defined the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of the authority, which could be either increased or decreased by the board upon petition from the local authority or from any towns in its jurisdiction. If that authority had jurisdiction in two or more towns, the state board determined the procedure for joint action in appointing the local members of the authority. The state board was empowered to name each newly established local authority, but the name was required to contain the words "Housing Authority." If an authority desired to discontinue its operations, the state board had the right to

MASSACHUSETTS

49

grant or to refuse the petition. If dissolution was permitted, the board acted as receiver in handling the properties of the authority. Local authorities were empowered, subject to the approval of the state board, to determine what areas were unsanitary or substandard and to prepare plans for projects in these areas. They could also make, amend, and repeal by-laws, rules, and regulations not inconsistent with the Housing Authority Law or the rules and regulations of the state board. One section gave to the state board extensive powers of investigation into the affairs of local authorities; and it extended to the board the same general administrative powers relating to accounting, reports, regulations fixing standards, principles governing the planning, construction, maintenance, and operation of projects of housing authorities, and means of enforcing compliance with orders of the state board that Chapter 364 of 1933 gave to the board to be exercised in the case of limited-dividend housing corporations. All project plans were made subject to approval by the state board, and this approval was required prior to actual acquisition of the necessary land by the local authority. Maximum rentals were to be fixed by the state board. Each housing authority was compelled to make a complete annual report of its finances to the state board, which also approved the amount of funds necessary for an authority to set aside to cover repairs, depreciation, and reserves. The state board was given the power, subject to the approval of the governor and the council, to take by eminent domain, or to purchase, lands for the purpose of relieving congestion of population, providing homesteads, or redeveloping slum or decadent areas. The board could dispose of such properties at its own discretion, and if no other agency had been authorized to do so the board could supervise and control a project for rehabilitation through modernization, alteration, and repairing of existing properties. Governor James M. Curley, in his message to the legislature at the opening of the 1935 session, made several specific recommendations on the subject of housing. He called attention to the housing shortage in the United States and to the stimulating effects to all forms of industry and business that would result from a construction program. In order to remedy this shortage and to improve economic conditions, he recommended the passage of a municipal housing authorities law. Continuing the subject, he said that municipal executives in the state were unani-

50

MASSACHUSETTS

mously of the opinion that the provision of better housing facilities should be accompanied by the condemnation of substandard structures in congested areas, and that these executives were not in sympathy with having such work done exclusively by the federal government. Under the state law the commonwealth itself was authorized to engage in housing construction, and the governor said that such a project could be put into operation within thirty days. This would serve as an incentive for similar construction programs by private capital. The Department of Conservation owned four thousand acres of land near Fall River, and this land would probably not be needed for park purposes for many years. The Governor recommended that the site be used for a suburban homestead project. During the three weeks of January following the reception of Governor Curley's message numerous bills dealing with housing were introduced in both houses. They were sent to a committee in the house which recommended passage of a new draft (House No. 2097), and the House Ways and Means Committee reported a second new draft. The latter was passed by both houses (House No. 2212), and the governor then recommended an alteration (House No. 2296) which was also passed. The act became Chapter 449 of the laws of 1935. Later in the session, Governor Curley recommended passage of a new bill (House No. 2315), enacted as Chapter 485 of the laws of 1935. One of the 1935 bills which were sent to the House Committee on State Administration was exactly like House No. 1603 of the 1934 session without the senate amendments (described in full above). A second bill would have authorized the state board to purchase certain lands in Salem and to provide for a housing development under the powers granted in Chapter 364 of the laws of 1933; and the financing of this project would have been carried out under the National Industrial Recovery Act. A third bill proposed to authorize the governor to appoint a special Homestead Commission. This commission would have had three years in which to survey cities and towns to ascertain the wisdom of state expenditures for the provision of homes, either with or without farms, to aid low-income families who were badly housed. The fourth bill in the series proposed a Housing Authority Law which would have given to the state board considerably less power than was granted to it under other bills introduced in 1934 and 1935. The state board was to have no connection either with the establishment of a local

MASSACHUSETTS

51

authority or the appointment of its members, although the certification of appointment of such members was required to be filed with the board. The board was required to collect and distribute information relating to the administration of authorities and to the construction, maintenance, and operation of projects; and to suggest and assist in the preparation of legislation relating to the authorities. The board was authorized to prescribe accounting methods and forms, to require an authority to file periodical reports and to give answers to specific questions, and to submit other information to assist the board. Project plans were filed with the state board, which could make suggestions and criticisms, although the absolute power of disapproval was not granted. The board had considerable powers in connection with the dissolution of a local authority and the management of its property after dissolution. The last bill in the series submitted to committee in the house provided a complete housing authority law and also proposed several amendments to the State Housing Law of 1933. The bill included provision for salaries for members of the State Board of Housing and for the employment by the board of legal counsel. The powers of the board were increased to include the promotion of organizations to redevelop slum areas, and the board was authorized, with the consent of the governor and the council, to acquire land, provide homesteads, and redevelop slum areas. The state treasurer, upon request of the State Board of Housing, was empowered to borrow money for these purposes on the credit of the commonwealth. The bill authorized acceptance by the state of federal funds for housing under specified conditions. As stated above, all the bills just described were sent to the House Committee on State Administration, which reported out House No. 2097 on the basis of their study of the proposals. This bill contained few proposals which were not drawn from the bills reviewed above. In general the tendency of the committee draft was in the direction of increasing the powers of the state board; as, for example, by giving to the board the powers of disapproving the project plans of local authorities, of establishing maximum rentals for each project, and of appointing one member of each local authority. Under the regular procedure of the House of Representatives, House No. 2097 was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, which reported a substitute bill (House No. 2212), recommending its passage. It was this bill, in its amended form, which was enacted as Chapter 449 of the laws of 1935, the Housing Authority Law.

52

MASSACHUSETTS

Section 1 of Chapter 449 amended the State Housing Law of 1933 (Chapter 364) by permitting payment of the members of the state board. The chairman, under the amended provision (which was again amended in 1938) was entitled to fifteen dollars per day spent in performance of his duties, and other members were to be paid ten dollars per day. The total annual compensation of the chairman could not exceed $1,500, and that of other members could not exceed $1,000. A house amendment to give the chairman a regular annual salary of $5,000 and the board members salaries of $3,000 each was defeated by a roll call vote of 72 in the affirmative to 132 in the negative. Section 1A of the bill and the act caused a considerable amount of difficulty. As the bill came from the Committee on Ways and Means, it provided that the board might employ and fix the compensation of counsel with the approval of the governor and the council and of the attorney general. Both the house and the senate passed the bill without altering this section, and it was sent to Governor Curley for his approval. He returned the bill to the house with a special message (House No. 2296) expressing his sympathy with the proposed legislation, except for the single objection to the provisions relating to counsel for the board. The governor believed that all the law business of the commonwealth should be done by the attorney general's department. Both houses agreed to the governor's proposal that the provision of the bill giving to the state board the power to employ counsel, with the approval of the governor and the council, be amended to provide that the attorney general should furnish legal service. The State Board of Housing had supported the original bill and wished to employ its own counsel, and the alteration made at the suggestion of the governor represented the point of view of the attorney general. In one instance the state board had employed its own counsel as a "special investigator," but since that time the office of the attorney general has done the legal work of the board. In 1939, when the constitutionality of the state housing law in the case of the Holyoke Housing Authority was in question before the Massachusetts Supreme Court, one of the assistant attorneys general handled the case very ably, both for the board and the authority, and he won a favorable decision. Section 2 of Chapter 449 added slightly to the powers of the state board. The board had previously been authorized to "promote the formation of organizations intended to increase the number of wholesome homes for the people," and this power was increased by adding

MASSACHUSETTS

53

the phrase "and of organizations intended to redevelop slum or decadent areas that have become social or economic liabilities to the community." A new section was added to the State Housing Law, providing that the housing board, with the consent of the governor and the council, might accept and use grants of federal funds for carrying out the provisions of the act of 1933 permitting the board to acquire property for the purpose of relieving congestion of population and of providing homesteads. Section 3 of the act extended the purposes for which a limited-dividend housing corporation, with the approval of the state board, might expend balances remaining after the payment of certain fixed charges. Section S, consisting of subsections 261 to 26BB, contained the Housing Authority Law. On the whole this section resembled the bills, previously described, which gave the fewest powers to the State Board of Housing in connection with their relations to the local authorities. The local authorities were to be made up of five members, one of whom was to be appointed by the state board. After the other members were appointed or elected by the local government the certificates of appointment or election of all five members were to be filed with the state board, and in case of a change of membership, for any reason, the certificate was also to be filed with the board. The mayor and city council, or the board of selectmen, might prefer written charges of inefficiency, neglect of duty, or misconduct in office against the member of a local authority whom the board appointed. Details of procedure in removal proceedings were given in the act, and the board was authorized to remove the member if the charges were substantiated and if the removal of the member was "advisable." Upon entering into agreements with the federal government agencies furnishing aid to local authorities, the authority was required in each case to secure the written approval of the board. The authority was granted the right to make rules and regulations to carry into effect other powers granted in the act, but these rules could not be inconsistent with the act itself or with the rules and regulations of the State Board of Housing. The state board was given control over the project plans of the local authority. The authority developed such plans, submitting them with complete details to the state board. Within thirty days the board was required to give written notice of its approval if the plans were found to conform to proper standards of health, sanitation, and safety; if the

54

MASSACHUSETTS

financial plan was sound, and if the probable costs were such that it would be possible to rent the property within the maximum rentals established by the board for the locality within which the project was constructed. If the board disapproved a project, it had to state its reasons in writing. A local authority could not proceed to undertake a proposed project until the written approval of the board was secured. If a project were disapproved, the authority could submit it again with modifications necessary to meet the objections. Before approval of the board for a project had been received, the local authority might proceed to obtain control of the real property within the area, but actual acquisition could not occur until the project had been approved. Each authority was required to keep an accurate account of all its activities, receipts, and expenditures and to make an annual report in January to the state board. One section contained the provision, which had been included in practically all the housing authority bills, relating to the participation by the state board in the process of dissolving a local authority. The section defining the powers of the state board in investigating the affairs of authorities was also like the sections on the same subject in the bills introduced in the 1934 and 1935 sessions. Two other acts of the 1935 session (Chapter 475 and 485) related to housing. House No. 2315 was introduced in August, 1935, at the request of Governor Curley, contained in a special message. The message stated: The decision of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, holding that the Federal Government is not empowered to take land by eminent domain for the purpose of accomplishing the Federal housing program renders it necessary that the States in which housing operations have already been commenced or in which it is intended to commence such operations should secure the sites therefor, in order to enable the Federal agencies to undertake and accomplish this essential work. That the Commonwealth may be in a position to aid the Federal government in the cases of land takings, it will be necessary to amend the statutes in the manner and to the extent set forth in the accompanying bill, which, if enacted into law, will remove a serious obstacle which now prevents the accomplishment by the Federal Government of its plan to furnish adequate housing facilities . . .

Briefly, the two new sections gave to the state board and to the local authorities, respectively, the right of acquiring property by eminent domain for the purposes presented by the governor in his special message accompanying the bill.

MASSACHUSETTS

55

In its 1935 session the General Court passed an act (Chapter 475 of the laws of 1935) providing for "more economical and orderly development of the commonwealth through the creation of a state planning board." The new agency was to be under the supervision of the governor and the council, and six members of the board were to be appointed by the governor, with the approval of the council, for a sixyear term of office. In addition to these appointive members, the commissioner of public works, the commissioner of public health, and the commissioner of conservation were included as members, ex officiis. Elizabeth M. Herlihy, who had been secretary of the Boston City Planning Board for more than twenty years, has been chairman of the State Planning Board since its organization in 1935. In 1936 the legislature amended Chapter 475 of 1935 to make it possible for the board to choose its executive secretary from its own membership, and Miss Herlihy has occupied the position since 1936. The board has approximately twelve employees, and the National Resources Committee has, at different times, furnished the services of special consultants. The board operates on an annual budget of approximately $44,000. Neither the appropriation acts nor the annual reports of the Commission on Administration and Finance are broken down to give any indication of the relative amounts of these administrative funds which were expended upon housing functions of the board. The State Planning Board was given two major functions under the provisions of the act of 1935: to prepare, revise, and perfect a master plan for the physical development of the commonwealth, and to plan and assist in planning all projects, public or private, for which federal appropriations, grants, or loans were used to pay a part or all of the cost. A long paragraph amplified each of these delegations of power, and it is clear that the authors of the act intended that the interest of the board should include housing. Omitting description of the greater part of this law, the summary below includes those provisions relating it to the State Housing Law and the Housing Authority Law. In describing the master plan for the state the board was given a fairly specific list of the items to be dealt with, and among these were included the uses of land for "urbanization, trade, industry, habitation, recreation, agriculture, forestry," and other uses. The board was authorized to confer and cooperate with various agencies, including housing agencies, of neighboring states and of their local areas, and with the same sort of agencies within the state, for the

56

MASSACHUSETTS

purpose of promoting coordination between the plans of the housing agencies of these areas of government. The act amended a section of the Housing Authority Law (Chapter 449) enacted at the same session, which had, in turn, amended a section of the State Housing Law (Chapter 364) of the laws of 1933. This change was made necessary through the creation of the State Planning Board. The State Board of Housing, in the 1933 act, had been given the power to "encourage the creation of local planning boards" and to "gather information relating to town planning for the use of such boards." These functions were more suitable for exercise by the State Planning Board, and the section of the State Planning Board Law under discussion removed them from the jurisdiction of the State Board of Housing. Finally, the State Planning Board Law of 1935 amended a section of the State Housing Law of 1933 which had required the State Board of Housing to furnish information to city governments, by making technical changes to bring the section in line with new legislation. The practice of the State Planning Board, acting under legal provisions which might have made possible other interpretations, is well established insofar as it relates to housing. The State Board of Housing, established in the same year, is considered by the State Planning Board to possess the major responsibility for this function. Working relationships between the two boards seem to be most satisfactory, and their respective representatives report perfect cooperation. The first six annual reports of the State Planning Board (for the years from 1935 to 1940, inclusive) indicated that the work of the board has involved studies of problems involving land, water resources, power, industry, recreation, transport, public works, community planning, and flood control, and that the study of housing has been left to the State Board of Housing, which issues its own annual report. The State Planning Board published an extensive Progress Report on State Planning in 1936, which contained a twenty-eight-page section on housing. This section described, briefly, pre-war and post-war housing activities in the state, recent activities of public and of philanthropic housing agencies, a statistical analysis of housing conditions, and a discussion of certain special aspects of the housing problem. The State Planning Board might possibly have entirely disregarded the housing problem, on the grounds that a special state agency had been created to handle it. But state-wide planning cannot be undertaken from a practical standpoint without

MASSACHUSETTS

57

consideration of housing, and the planning board recognized this by its inclusion of a section on housing in the 1936 Progress Report. It is to be hoped that the existing cooperative relationships between the state planning and housing agencies will continue, because they appear to be logically correct and practical in operation. In the 1936 session of the legislature no legislation was enacted on the subject of housing, although several bills on the subject were introduced. Most of these bills related to the local authorities rather than to the State Board of Housing. Governor Curley devoted three pages of his annual message to the General Court to a general discussion of the housing situation, to the need for amending the Housing Authority Act of the preceding session, thus permitting local areas to contribute funds for the assistance of their housing authorities, and to a recommendation concerning the State Board of Housing. On the last of these three subjects he said: In many instances where there is need of slum clearance and low-cost housing, the municipal authorities prove unwilling to take the initiative, and in each case, however great the need, the State Board of Housing under existing legislation is without authority to take any steps to relieve the situation. I recommend, therefore, that in cities and towns in which no housing authority exists, or in which such authority as exists is inactive, the State Board of Housing be authorized to proceed under proper limitations with a low-cost housing project, whether it relates to new houses or the rehabilitation of sound but obsolete existing structures, and that State funds be appropriated to meet the cost of such projects.

One bill introduced in 1936 provided for the appointment of a commission to study the housing of certain families in the state. A second bill carried into effect the recommendation of the governor that cities and towns be authorized to assist in financing housing projects of their local authorities. In May, Governor Curley sent a most urgent message to the General Court, dealing with their failure to enact the proposal. The first bill was referred to the 1937 session, and no action was taken on the second. Senate No. 265 was withdrawn from consideration. This bill authorized the treasurer of the state, upon the request of the State Board of Housing, to borrow on the credit of the commonwealth a maximum of $500,000, for the purpose of carrying into effect a power granted to the board under section 3 of Chapter 364 of the laws of 1933. This section authorized the board with the consent of the governor and the council, to acquire land for the purpose of relieving congestion of popu-

58

MASSACHUSETTS

lation and providing homes for "mechanics, laborers, wage earners of any kind, or others, citizens of the commonwealth." Late in the 1936 session a bill was introduced, dealing with the power of the local government to contribute funds to an authority to be used as a local contribution to secure federal aid for housing. The bill was defeated in the senate by two votes, with more than half the members not voting. In the 1937 legislative session the attempts described above were continued in an effort to secure legislation authorizing local governments to assist financially in the projects undertaken by local authorities, a law empowering the State Board of Housing to act as a local authority in areas lacking such an agency, and a law providing for a state-wide study of the housing situation. The bills aimed at securing the first two of these objectives were again defeated, but provision was made for the third. The State Board of Housing availed itself of one of its legal powers, to present recommendations to the General Court for legislation, and sent two bills (House Nos. 31 and 32) with a covering message (House No. 30). This message recommended enactment of legislation permitting the state board to act as a local authority in any city or town in which there was no such body, or in which the authority was inactive, and authorizing the board to proceed with a low-cost housing project. Such a project could be either for new construction or for rehabilitation, and the state could appropriate funds to assist in meeting the costs. House No. 31 contained these provisions. This bill was referred to the next annual session for consideration. House No. 32 embodied the second recommendation of the state board, relating to the granting of power to the governments of cities and towns to assist their respective local housing authorities in the financing of housing projects. Similar bills were introduced at the request of the Massachusetts State Federation of Labor, the Massachusetts State Building Trades Council, and the Housing Association of Metropolitan Boston. A substitute bill (House No. 1688), based upon all those dealing with the subject, failed of passage in the house and was not acted on in the senate. In 1935 the Massachusetts legislature created the Special Commission to Study and Investigate the Public Health Laws and Policies of the Commonwealth, and this commission made a lengthy report of its findings in December, 1936 (House No. 1200). The report was accom-

MASSACHUSETTS

59

panied by draft legislation embodying the recommendations of the commission. The members agreed that substandard housing conditions exerted a deleterious effect upon health and that the promotion of proper measures for the improvement of housing conditions was therefore a proper activity for health departments. The commission described the tenement house laws of the state, which had, however, been adopted by only nineteen communities. Since the commission had not studied these laws, it was unwilling to express an opinion as to whether or not it believed that they should be more widely adopted. It did believe that there should be certain basic requirements as to housing which should be applicable throughout the state, and it recommended the creation of a special commission to study the then-existing tenement house laws and to evolve, if possible, a code which could be recommended by the General Court as suitable for general adoption. House No. 1788 carried this recommendation into effect by providing for a special commission of five members, appointed by the governor, to investigate and study the problem of housing and the expediency and desirability of the establishment of a uniform compulsory code of laws with relation to the general problems of health, sanitation, and construction relative to housing. An appropriation was provided, and the commission was to report in December, 1937. House No. 1788 was sent to the House Committee on Ways and Means, and this committee reported favorably a substitute bill (House No. 1958) which was enacted as Chapter 64 of the resolves of 1937. The resolve ordered the State Board of Housing to carry out the duties which the special commission had suggested (see House No. 1788) and to include its recommendations and draft legislation in its annual report. Later in the session the legislature made an appropriation of $1,500 for use of the board in carrying out the duties prescribed in Chapter 64. In addition to asking for the study of housing conditions with particular emphasis on the health aspects, by the State Board of Housing, a second inquiry was authorized in 1937. Early in the session the legislature had created a Special Commission on Taxation and Public Expenditures whose functions are described in its name, and in May, Governor Charles F. Hurley sent a special message to the legislature recommending that the special commission be authorized to study the housing problem, particularly with respect to the question of taxation. The governor sent a bill (House No. 1951) for the consideration of the special commission in this connection, without asking that it be adopted.

6o

MASSACHUSETTS

This bill presented a revision of the Housing Authority Law, and only three provisions had important effects upon the State Board of Housing. A proposed new section would have given the local authority the power to acquire a project from the federal government, but the written approval of the state board was required. The second change, proposed in the bill, would have repealed the entire section of the law describing the process by which a local authority could dissolve and the state board could close its affairs after dissolution. A third new section described the powers of the local authority in fixing rentals in a project, and it stated the general principles which should be considered in establishing these rentals. The section further provided that the state board, in fixing maximum rents to be charged, was limited by these same principles. The message of the governor and House No. 1951 were referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, which recommended that a resolve be enacted to carry out the suggestion of the governor (House No. 1959). This recommendation was adopted by both houses, becoming Chapter 53 of the resolves of 1937. One bill, which was not passed, provided that the state board might investigate a housing project of the Westover Corporation in the towns of Norwood, Walpole, and Westwood. Resolutions memorializing Congress and the President to allocate to Massachusetts a reasonable proportion of the total revenues voted by Congress for social purposes, including housing, were adopted by both houses. Three housing bills were introduced in January and February of the 1938 session, but the most important housing bills were not considered and passed until May and June. Senate No. 285, relating to the salaries of the members of the State Board of Housing, was referred to the next annual session. One bill, which contained few proposals affecting the State Board of Housing, sought to amend the Housing Authority Law to make it conform to the United States Housing Act of 1937. The bill was not passed. Early in February the Special Commission on Taxation and Public Expenditures made the report on housing (House No. 1706) that it had been requested to make under Chapter 53 of the resolves of 1937. The three-page report of the special commission was accompanied by a longer report of a committee of interested citizens, appointed by the subcommittee on housing of the special commission, and by a d r a f t bill embodying the recommendations of the commission. A substitute bill (House No. 1965) was enacted as Chapter 484 of the laws of 1938.

MASSACHUSETTS

61

The report of the Special Commission on Taxation and Public Expenditures insofar as it related to housing was contained in Part VI. The commission stated that it had received the governor's message and the bill that he sent to the commission for consideration (House No. 1951 of the 1937 session), but that the draft had been prepared before the passage of the United States Housing Act of 1937 and consequently it did not provide for many of the requirements included in the new federal legislation. For this reason the commission had discarded the bill as a basis for consideration. The existing housing legislation of the state was declared to be inadequate to permit local authorities to secure funds from the United States Housing Authority, and a subcommittee had been appointed to draft legislation correcting these defects. Two objectives agreed upon by the members of the commission had formed the basis of the bill written by the subcommittee. The first objective is quoted in full: "It was felt by all concerned that the Federal authorities should not deal directly with the political subdivisions of this Commonwealth, and that the existing State Housing Board should be maintained intact as a clearing house for dealing with the Federal authorities." The second objective stated the belief that local governments or authorities should not be allowed to grant tax exemptions or expend funds for lowcost housing in excess of the minima required in order to secure federal funds. The bill drafted by the subcommittee was submitted to competent Federal authorities in order to ascertain whether the conditions set out thereunder would meet with their approval. It was obvious that this step was necessary, since the Federal authorities could dictate within the limits of the Wagner-Steagall bill [The United States Housing Act of 1937] just what form they felt state legislation should take before allocating any funds for projects within a given State.

The subcommittee report (Appendix A) and a suggested enabling act (Appendix B) followed. The commission said that in the suggested act "the provisions insisted upon by the Federal authorities, but not included in our first draft, are clearly pointed out." The commission concluded its report with this statement: We offer no formal recommendation in connection with this legislation. We do feel that the Legislature ought to have before it for such action as it may wish to take, a carefully drawn act which, if adopted, would permit of Federal allocations of money for projects in Massachusetts. Beyond this we are not prepared to go, for the simple reason that we are unfamiliar with such

62

MASSACHUSETTS

projects as may be contemplated in Massachusetts and are in no sense sufficiently expert in the matter of low-cost housing to be able to pass judgment. On the major matter of public policy involved there is always before us, however, the disagreeable feeling that the citizens of Massachusetts will be taxed very heavily for the cost of public housing developments elsewhere in the country, and that to refuse cooperation with the Federal government in its efforts in this direction would cut us off from any possibility of sharing in the Federal allocations.

The subcommittee report did not contain much discussion of its work as it related to the State Board of Housing. It constituted, however, a most interesting commentary on the details of transactions between a state and the United States Housing Authority. There is no space to retell this story, but one quotation from the subcommittee statement summed it up adequately: During the conferences with the attorney for the Administrator he was careful to abstain from threats, but he very frequently made it clear that if a statute satisfactory to the Administrator was not enacted, no Federal funds for housing would be allotted to Massachusetts. The committee has been obliged to recognize the soundness of the old proverb, "He who pays the fiddler may call the tune,'" but they believe that the bill as drafted adequately guards the interests of the people of Massachusetts.

The subcommittee called attention to nine different provisions of the bill which were aimed at preventing housing authorities or cities and towns from embarking on housing projects without adequate supervision and control. Four of these provided for action by the State Board of Housing, as follows: a housing authority could not enter upon an agreement with the federal government concerning funds for a project without approval both from the state board and from the mayor of the city or the selectmen of the town in which the project was situated; the authority could not undertake a project until the plans had been approved by the state board, after a public hearing if requested; the accounts of the authority were required to be submitted annually to the state board and to the director of the Division of Accounts; and, finally, the authority was made subject to the rules and regulations of the state board. It did not appear from the report of the subcommittee that these provisions had been points at issue in the consultations with representatives of the United States Housing Authority. Upon examination, the bill offered by the subcommittee was found to contain few changes in the existing law relating to the State Board of Housing. The commission's report and the bill were referred to the

MASSACHUSETTS

63

House Committee on Municipal Finance, which reported favorably the substitute bill House No. 1965. One member of the senate and one member of the house dissented from the committee recommendation. The entire process of consideration of the bill by the two houses was extremely complicated, involving amendment by both houses and the appointment of two joint conference committees to reconcile differences in the senate and house points of view. During this process, on June 6, Governor Hurley sent a special message (House No. 2092) strongly recommending passage of House No. 1965 substantially in the form in which it was introduced. He further recommended changes in the compensation which was being paid, under the law of 1935, to the members of the State Board of Housing. The Committee on Ways and Means in the house recommended for passage a substitute bill (House No. 2127), but the house preferred House No. 1965 to the substitute. After amendment the bill was passed in the house by a recorded vote of 153 yeas to 54 nays, and it was then sent to the senate. The senate passed the bill, after amendment. The original bill had not included anything on the subject of the salaries paid to the members of the state board, and one of the senate amendments provided for changing the law in order to give the chairman an annual salary of $4,000, and each other member a salary of $2,500. These salaries were to become effective as of July first of the current year, but only if an appropriation sufficient to cover them was made. The house refused to concur in this amendment, the senate insisted upon it, and a joint conference committee was appointed to consider this question, and other questions, not relating to the state board, upon which the houses disagreed. The conference committee recommended salaries of $3,500 per year for the chairman and $2,250 for each other member, and they recommended retention of the provision that the salaries described were to become effective on July first of the current year, if sufficient appropriation had been made. The report was accepted by the senate, but the house refused acceptance, and a second conference committee was appointed. This committee recommended that the entire subject of state board salaries be omitted from the bill, and both houses accepted the report and passed the bill, which became Chapter 484 of the laws of 1938. Although the Housing Authority Law of the state, as originally provided in Chapter 449 of the laws of 1935, was greatly changed in the 1938 version, few of these changes affected the state board. The

64

MASSACHUSETTS

power of the board to establish maximum rentals for various localities in the state, which limited the local authorities in fixing rentals for particular projects, was taken away from the board in the new law. The entire section (26x) of Chapter 449 of 1935 was omitted in Chapter 484 of 1938. This dealt with procedure in the case of an authority that wishes to dissolve and with the powers and duties of the state board in such a situation. Under the 1935 law the local authority had been empowered to enter into agreements and contracts with the federal government, "in each instance with the written approval of the Board." The 1938 law added to this phrase, "and of the mayor of the city or the selectmen of the town in which the project is situated." This might be regarded as a slight lessening of the power of the board. An addition was made in the new act to that section of the law which described the method by which an authority submits project plans to the board for its approval, by adding this sentence: The Board shall hold a public hearing upon such project, if requested in writing so to do, within ten days after the submission of the project, by the housing authority, or by the mayor or city council of the city or the selectment of the town in which the proposed project is located, or by twenty-five or more taxable inhabitants of such city or town.

A new provision of the 1938 law exempted from application of Chapter 31 (the state civil service law), and of the rules and regulations made under this chapter, all officers, agents, and employees of the State Board of Housing and of the local authorities. The principal reason for this exemption was that the board felt that it would be difficult to obtain properly qualified persons with special training if it were obliged to take them from the civil service lists. The 1938 law required "equivalent demolition" of substandard dwellings, to bring the Massachusetts law in line with the United States Housing Act of 1937, which had been passed later than the date of enactment of the first Massachusetts Housing Authority Law. Such elimination could, in the discretion of the state board, be deferred in any city or town for a period of not more than three years, if the housing shortage was so acute as to cause overcrowding among families of low income. Reference was made above to a message from Governor Hurley in which he recommended passage of the bill relating to local housing authorities, and in which he also called attention to the necessity for increasing the compensation of members of the State Board of Housing

MASSACHUSETTS

65

(House No. 2092). His reasons for the latter recommendation were that the board had not been receiving adequate compensation for its work under the Housing Authority Law of 1935, and that its duties would be further increased under the changes in that law under consideration by the legislature in 1938 (later enacted as Chapter 484 of the laws of 1938), making increased compensation even more necessary. As described above, an attempt was made to include such a provision in the bill for a Housing Authority Act, but it was impossible to secure an affirmative majority vote on the proposition in the lower house. Late in the session a separate bill on this subject was introduced (House No. 2187) and was passed by both houses, becoming Chapter 485 of the laws of 1938. This fixed the compensation of board members at $20 per day for the chairman, with a maximum annual salary of $2,500, and at $15 per day for each of the other members, with an annual maximum of $1,500 each. An attempt was made in the 1938 session to amend the insurance law of the state to permit insurance companies to purchase land and to construct low-rental dwelling houses. A series of four bills was the subject of consideration from January to May, but the proposal was finally rejected. By contrast with the immediately preceding legislative sessions, the 1939 session of the General Court gave relatively little attention to housing legislation. A bill authorizing life insurance companies to purchase land and to erect housing to be rented at not to exceed nine dollars per room per month, was referred to the next legislative session. The bill made no provision for any control of this type of housing project by the State Board of Housing, nor were any special advantages, such as the use of the power of eminent domain or tax exemption, given to life insurance companies as inducements to construct low-rental housing. A second bill, defeated in the House of Representatives, would have permitted the city of New Bedford to convey real estate purchased for a municipal hospital to the New Bedford Housing Authority, by act of the city council. A third bill, enacted as Chapter 26 of the laws of 1939, dealt with the bonds of local authorities and did not affect the state board in any way. In May, Governor Saltonstall sent to the legislature a recommendation recently submitted to him by the State Board of Housing (House No. 2313). In his letter of transmittal the governor said that the state

66

MASSACHUSETTS

h a d a real h o u s i n g and t a x i n g problem in the areas d e v a s t a t e d b y the recent hurricane and t h a t the s u g g e s t i o n s c o n t a i n e d in the board's reco m m e n d a t i o n merited the careful consideration of the legislature. T h e letter f r o m the b o a r d o p e n e d with a paragraph s t a t i n g that the r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s w e r e p r e s e n t e d in c o n f o r m a n c e with a request f r o m the governor m a d e at a c o n f e r e n c e a t t e n d e d by M r . Carroll, c h a i r m a n of t h e S t a t e B o a r d of H o u s i n g , and M r . Strickland, a m e m b e r of the board. T e n cities in M a s s a c h u s e t t s had earmarkings, totaling more than fifty

million dollars, f r o m the U S H A , and in four c a s e s the cities had

s i g n e d loan contracts. B u t the total program, with p o s s i b l e a d d i t i o n s t h r o u g h the creation of authorities in a f e w more cities, still l e f t approxim a t e l y 6 0 percent of the population of the state w i t h o u t direct b e n e f i t s of the U S H A program. T h e s t a t e board, in order to e x p a n d the b e n e f i t s of this program, p r o p o s e d to a m e n d the state law by g r a n t i n g further p o w e r s t o the board, c o m p a r a b l e t o t h o s e a l r e a d y p o s s e s s e d b y local h o u s i n g authorities. T h e remainder of the letter f r o m the board is q u o t e d in full: T h e housing problem in the smaller communities is no less acute, comparatively, than in the large cities. This condition was f u r t h e r accentuated by the tidal wave and flood of September 21, 1938, when there was a total destruction throughout the Commonwealth of 2,200 homes. T h e State Board of Housing contemplates in a program of this sort the erection of inexpensive homes on inexpensive land, where each house can have ample garden space for use in providing partial subsistence. T h i s f u r t h e r m o r e provides, we believe, one of the most helpful methods of self-help for the welfare classes, as well as for other families of a low income. It will permit t h e providing of greater comforts beyond what is now possible from the meagre advances m a d e b y the various cities and towns to people of this group. We are most anxious, however, not to constitute these entirely as welfare groups. T h e y are to be operated and erected for people of the lowest income, irrespective of the source of their income, who cannot afford a d e q u a t e housing in our towns and rural communities. W e believe that this program will lighten the financial burden of m a n y relief requirements in a number of our small communities. I t would also contribute much to the prevention of undesirable migration of people of low income, and the resultant erection of shacks which we see a d j a c e n t to our cities a n d along our highways, and which are detrimental to real estate values and to the credit of the communities. A blueprint showing suggested plans for individual homes which would be built with three to five rooms is attached. These homes can be built for from $2,400 to S3,000 per dwelling unit, while the total development cost would run from $3,300 to $3,500 each.

MASSACHUSETTS

67

The shelter rents for such houses will vary from $9 to $13 per month, or about $2 to S3 per family on a weekly basis. The construction costs indicated above include allowances for such items as the cost of land, site improvements, management space, movable equipment, preoccupancy cost, agricultural and engineering fees, administrative overhead, carrying charges during construction, and an allowance for changes and extras. With the passage of proper state legislation we will ask the United States Housing Authority for an initial loan of $1,000,000 to inaugurate this program. You will note from the items of cost included above that the State Board will be able to carry out such a program without any additional appropriation from the State above its normal budget. Furthermore, there is nothing in this entire program which obligates in any way the communities or the State to the expenditures of moneys. The studies and negotiations by the State Board with the United States Housing Authority have covered a period of several months, and were not concluded in time for presentation to the Legislature at the proper moment. Our final communication from the United States Housing Authority was not received until the first of this month. It is for this reason that we are calling to your attention the needed legislation, with the hope that you will concur with our proposal and see the desirability of sending it to the Legislature in a special message. From the time of the floods in the western part of the State in 1936 until the present day, we have received numerous requests for assistance from the smaller communities, without being in a position to offer assistance. A check of the various interests throughout the Commonwealth as to the measure of acceptance our program would receive indicated general approval. T h e draft of a bill to carry the board's recommendation into effect was sent with the letter just quoted (House N o . 2313). Briefly, the bill provided that the State Board of Housing should have all the functions, rights, powers, duties, and liabilities of a local housing authority within the area of operation, as defined in the bill. This area included all of the commonwealth except that portion thereof which lies within a city or town which has a housing authority empowered to transact business and exercise its powers in such city or town; provided, that if a housing authority of a city or town becomes empowered to transact business and exercise its powers in such city or town, the state board of housing shall thereafter have no power to initiate any further housing project within such city or town, and the state board of housing shall, if requested by such housing authority, convey all its right, title and interest in any housing project or projects in such city or town to such housing authority; provided, however, that any such conveyance shall be subject to all contractual obligations undertaken by the state board of housing with regard to such housing project or projects.

68

MASSACHUSETTS

The senate and the house accepted the report of the House Committee on Municipal Finance, recommending that the bill be referred to the next General Court. In December, 1940, the State Board of Housing presented its suggestion for necessary housing legislation, to be considered during the 1941 session of the General Court (House No. 69, accompanied by House Nos. 70, 71, 72, 73, 74). In early August of 1941 the legislature had not adjourned, but the first of the three bills had been enacted as Chapters 317, 269, and 291, respectively, of the laws of 1941. House No. 73 had been deferred to the next session of the General Court, and House No. 74 had been enacted as Chapter 71 of the "Resolves, 1941." The first recommendation of the state board related to the authorization of local housing authorities to engage in defense housing. Under the federal law (Public No. 849, 76th Congress, Chapter 862, Third Session) the expenditure of federal funds for housing for workers in defense industries, under the direction of the Federal Works Administrator, was to be carried out through local public agencies. The Massachusetts law of 1938 prevented the local authorities in the state from carrying out such a program, because the skilled defense workers received wages so high as to render them inadmissible to projects built under that statute. The board considered it important that as many as possible of the defense housing projects should be built with the cooperation of local authorities or, in cities where no authorities existed, with the cooperation of the State Board of Housing. Question had been raised as to whether Congress can confer upon local authorities any powers not granted to them by the state and, to resolve this doubt, the board recommended the enactment of legislation conferring upon the local authorities and the board the specific power to proceed with national defense housing so far as federal funds are available. Upon introduction, the bill (House No. 70) contained one section conferring the necessary powers upon local authorities, and a second section giving to the state board powers of regulation, control, and approval of the acts of local authorities taken under the first section. The bill also provided that in any city or town in which said board shall find that an acute shortage of housing exists or impends which would impede national defense activities and that such housing would not be provided by private capital, and in which no housing authority exists, or in which the housing authority refuses or neglects to take action to relieve such shortage, said board may exercise all of the powers granted to housing authorities by section one.

MASSACHUSETTS

69

The Joint Committee on Municipal Finance recommended enactment of the bill with the omission of the sentence just quoted (House No. 2216), and the legislature followed the recommendation (Chapter 317). A later section of the bill, and act, gave the power to the state board to determine the disposition of defense housing built under the act, when the President of the United States should declare that the defense emergency had ceased to exist. The second proposal of the board (House No. 71) was submitted to the Joint Committee on Municipal Finance, and both houses enacted, as Chapter 269, the amended bill as it came from the committee (Senate No. 634). This act brought the state housing law in conformity with federal housing legislation with respect to the eligibility of occupants of projects under the control of local housing authorities. The third proposal of the board (House No. 72), dealing with the means of egress from buildings erected by housing authorities, was enacted as Chapter 291. House No. 73 sought to amend the state housing law by adding the provision that bonds of housing authorities should be legal investments for savings banks, trust companies, insurance companies, and funds over which the commonwealth has exclusive control. Upon recommendation of the Committee on Banks and Banking consideration was deferred to the next session. The fifth bill (House No. 74), providing for considerable amendment in the limited-dividend housing corporation law of the state, had been very materially amended by the Committee on Mercantile Affairs (House No. 2402) and the Committee on Ways and Means (House No. 2669) before enactment as Chapter 71 of the "Resolves, 1941." The board proposed to give partial tax exemption and to extend the powers of eminent domain to limited-dividend housing corporations, under the control of the state board, in order to give reasonable encouragement to the investment of private capital in slum clearance and lowrental housing projects. Instead of enacting the bill proposed by the board, the General Court adopted a resolution to set up an unpaid commission to investigate the subject matter of Senate No. 484 and House No. 2402. Senate No. 484, introduced early in the 1941 session, provided for an investigation of housing and sanitation standards, and House No. 2402 provided for investigation of the advisability of extending the powers of limited-dividend housing companies. The special commission was given an appropriation of only $500, and it was required to report its investigations, recommendations, and draft legislation in December, 1942.

JO

MASSACHUSETTS

The long account of the constitutional and statutory history of state housing in Massachusetts, covering the thirty-year period from the early 1900's to the present, has not taken into consideration administrative and financial aspects. The membership of the various state housing agencies, the appropriations made for their work, and their methods of carrying out this work as shown by staff organization and an itemization of administrative expenditures are described below. In brief summary, the process of development and differentiation during the period from 1911 to the present has produced several different administrative agencies. The original Homestead Commission, from 1911 to 1913, was an investigating agency. The second Homestead Commission, from 1913 to 1919, followed by the Division of Housing and Town Planning, from 1919 to 1934, was in charge of the state's program of housing and planning. In 1933 housing functions were given to the State Board of Housing, leaving planning functions to the Division of Town Planning. In 1935 the State Planning Board was established, and, although the Division of Town Planning continued until 1939, the board actually has jurisdiction over planning. During the period of its legal existence, from 1911 to 1919 inclusive, the Homestead Commission had only three changes in membership. Chapter 607, enacted in 1911, provided for seven members, and legislation of 1913 increased this number to nine. Three of these members served ex officiis, namely, the director of the Bureau of Statistics, the president of the Massachusetts Agricultural College and the bank commissioner. A fourth member was chosen by the State Board of Health, later the State Department of Health. The law of 1911 provided for three additional members, appointed by the governor with the approval of the council, for terms of three years. One of the three appointees of the governor had to be a woman, and one "at least" had to represent the laboring class. The following members made up the original commission under this act: director of the Bureau of Statistics, Charles F. Gettemy; president of the Massachusetts Agricultural College, Kenyon L. Butterfield; bank commissioner, Augustus L. Thorndike; representing the State Board of Health, Clement F. Coogan; Mrs. Eva M. White, of Boston, head of the Elizabeth Peabody House (twoyear term); Warren Dunham Foster, of Boston, editor of The Youth's Companion (one-year term); and Henry Sterling, of Medford, a labor leader (three-year term). Chapter 595 of the laws of 1913 increased the membership by adding

MASSACHUSETTS

71

two new members, one an attorney, and one a recognized expert in the planning of cities and towns, and the governor, with the approval of the council, appointed these members for terms of three years. Cornelius A. Parker of Boston and Arthur C. Comey of Cambridge were selected to occupy the new positions. Professor George Chandler Whipple of Harvard University succeeded Clement F. Coogan in 1913. Mr. Sterling resigned in 1918, when he moved out of the state, and Walter L. McMenimen was appointed to fill the vacancy. In 1919 George A. Bacon became director of the Bureau of Statistics and, ex officio, a member of the Homestead Commission. The commission held its first meeting on July 22, 1913, in the State House in Boston. Permanent organization was effected in September of the same year, with the choice of Mr. Gettemy as chairman and Mr. Sterling as secretary. At the time of these meetings the commission had its full membership of nine, under the acts of 1911 and 1913. Mr. Gettemy retained the chairmanship until 1919, when Mr. Thorndike succeeded him. Mr. Sterling was secretary until 1918, and upon his resignation Mr. Parker was elected to the office. In the final report of the commission in 1919 the following statement appeared: "To Mr. Sterling . . . is due, perhaps more than to any other one man, credit for whatever of value the Commission has accomplished." The commission recognized the need for a permanent, full-time executive secretary, and in 1918 and 1919 the legislature was requested to authorize the employment of such an officer. In the 1918 report of the commission this request was made with the unanimous consent of the members. The executive work had been performed by a secretary, elected from the members of the commission, who gave part of his time to the work, at compensation based on the amount of time lost from his regular occupation at the rate received per hour in that employment. The homestead project was in process of construction, and there was need for a full-time executive. The Homestead Commission was abolished in 1919, and its functions were transferred to the Department of Public Welfare, established by Chapter 350 of the laws of 1919. The commission, in its final (1919) report, renewed the recommendation for a full-time secretary in charge of homestead and city planning work, at a salary of not less than $2,500, to be appointed by the Department of Public Welfare with the approval of the governor and the council.

MASSACHUSETTS

72

No appointment of such a secretary in the Department of Public Welfare was made until May, 1923. The functions, powers, and duties of the former Homestead Commission were given to a Division of Housing and Town Planning in the department by administrative act of the department itself, but apparently little was accomplished between 1919 and 1923. In the first report of the new division in 1920 this statement appeared: "Because no additional machinery was given to the Department for exercising these functions the work begun by the Homestead Commission has not developed satisfactorily since the reorganization." In the 1921 report the division stated that it should have a field agent to furnish expert assistance to the local planning boards. The 1923 report of the division announced the appointment of Edward T. Hartman as state consultant on housing and planning, as the successful conclusion of a long campaign for a field worker. Between May and November of 1923 the new consultant had had seventy conferences with representatives of forty-four planning boards, had given four radio talks, and had written many articles as part of a much-needed educational program. Mr. Hartman continued in this position until July, 1939. When the State Board of Housing came into existence, in 1933, the name of the division was changed to the "Division of Town Planning" by administrative act of the Department of Public Welfare. The administrative costs of the Homestead Commission and its successors, the Division of Housing and Town Planning and the Division of Town Planning, were extremely low. George E. Murphy, commissioner and comptroller of the Massachusetts Commission on Administration and Finance, reported on June 13, 1939, the materials which have been included in Table I. In summary, it is not possible to give an accurate figure covering the costs of administering the Massachusetts program before the creation of the State Board of Housing, but the following statement is approximately correct: Expenses of the commission which studied the housing problem and recommended the creation of the Homestead Commission ( 1 9 1 1 - 1 3 ) $ 1,446.72 Expenses of the Homestead Commission, the Division of Housing and Town Planning, and the Division of Town Planning ( 1 9 1 3 - 2 1 ) 23,146.00 Expenses special agent at Lowell Homesteads ( 1 9 2 2 - 3 3 ) 6,000.00 Total

§30,592.72

MASSACHUSETTS TABLE

73

I

ADMINISTRATIVE C O S T S , S T A T E HOUSING AGENCIES,

1911—39

(Exclusive of State Board of Housing) A. T H E HOMESTEAD COMMISSION (created under Chapter 607 of 1911) ACTS

1911 1912 1913

CHAPTERS

APPROPRIATIONS

607 714, 732 ...

$

Totals B. T H E HOMESTEAD COMMISSION

500.00 2,000.00

$2,500.00

PAYMENTS

$

120.99 908.26 417.47 $1,446.72

(created under Chapter 494 of 1 9 1 3 ) ; T H E DI-

VISION OF HOUSING AND TOWN P L A N N I N C (created under Chapter 350 of 1 9 1 9 ) ; a n d T H E DIVISION OF TOWN P L A N N I N G ( 1 9 3 4 to 1939) ACTS

1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921

CHAPTERS

494, 595, 757 305, 480, 734 175 30 36, 310, 376 106 153 225 203 Totals

APPROPRIATIONS

PAYMENTS

$ 1,500.00 3,200.00 3,200.00 3,300.00 3,300.00 3,300.00 3,850.00 2,300.00 2,210.00 $26,160.00

$ 1,499.22 3,292.31 3,286.39 3,280.64 3,288.02 2,340.15 1,954.28 1,938.60 2,266.39 $23,146.00

1922 to 1939, inclusive. During each one of these eighteen years, the division received no separate appropriation. The items covering general administrative expenses of the Department of Public Welfare included the expenses of the division, but there was no breakdown. Impossible to estimate, even approximately. C. T H E LOWELL HOMESTEADS P R O J E C T (created under Chapter 310 of 1917) ACTS

1917 1918 1919 1920 1921

CHAPTERS

36, 310, 376 ... .. . . ... Totals

APPROPRIATIONS

PAYMENTS

$50,000.00 ... . . . . ... $50,000.00

$18,278.44 23,426.34 664.62 172.41 713.72 $43,255.53°

" These appropriations and payments were not made for administrative purposes. Until 1922 administrative costs for the Lowell Homesteads were included in the Division of Housing and T o w n Planning administrative costs, shown in B , above. F r o m 1922 to 1933, inclusive, $500 per year were paid for the services of an agent at the project. T h i s made a total payment of $6,000. F r o m 1933 to the present the State Board of Housing has handled the work as a regular part of its duties, and it is impossible to estimate the administrative cost.

74

MASSACHUSETTS

In addition to this amount, unclassified additional administrative costs of a few thousand dollars were incurred by the Department of Public Welfare. Probably the total would not exceed $35,000. In addition to these administrative expenditures, the cost of Lowell Homesteads ($43,255.53) must be remembered, although almost the entire amount, plus interest, has been repaid by the purchasers of homes. The first appointments to the State Board of Housing were made in September, 1933, by Governor Joseph B. Ely. Four of the original members were reappointed upon the conclusion of their first term of office, and three new persons have been added to the membership. Table II shows the original appointments, the reappointments, and the new appointments. TABLE MEMBERSHIP ORIGINAL

MEMBERS

Fred J. Lucey J. Fred Beckett John Carroll Henry J. Ryan Sidney T. Strickland NEW

FIRST

OF

STATE

II BOARD

OF

TERM

HOUSING SECOND TERM

1933-34 1933-35 1933-36 1933-37 1933-38

1934-39 1935-40 1936-41 1938-43

MEMBERS

Joseph F. Higgins Philip Nichols Fred A. Dakin John I. Robinson Edward G. Lannon

1937-42 1939—44 194CM15 1941-45 1941-46

(succeeding (succeeding (succeeding (succeeding (succeeding

Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr.

Ryan) Lucey) Beckett), resigned, 1941 Dakin) Carroll)

Mr. Strickland was chairman of the board until 1937, Mr. Carroll succeeded him, and Mr. Dakin became chairman in 1940. The members have been chosen to represent real estate, labor, banking and insurance, architecture, publishing, and law, and most of them have been residents of cities other than Boston. Under the act of 1933 board members received no compensation for their services, but in 1935 an amendment (Section 1 of Chapter 449 of the laws of 1935) provided for payment of fifteen dollars to the chairman and of ten dollars to each other member for every day spent in the performance of his duties. An annual maximum payment of $1,500 for the chairman and $1,000 for each other member was established in the act of 1935. In 1938 a second amendment (Chapter 485 of the laws of 1935) was enacted. This increased the chairman's per diem payment to twenty dollars and that of other members to fifteen dollars and estab-

MASSACHUSETTS

75

lished the annual maximum salary for the chairman at $2,500 and for other members at $1,500 apiece. The individual board members performed a great amount of work during the period following their organization in 1933. A regular meeting was held every Monday, and there were numerous additional special meetings. Mr. Carroll, who was also a member of the Boston Housing Authority and president of the American Federation of Housing Authorities, spent a large part of his time in the work of the board. Mr. Strickland and Mr. Lucey were in the office of the board in Boston almost every day, and the other members were there very often. Mr. Nichols was a lawyer who was considered to be an authority on housing and taxation, and he spent a considerable amount of time on the legal work of the board. It is safe to state that the Massachusetts board was far the most active of the various state housing boards, judged on the single basis of actual participation in the work of the agency by board members themselves. In practice each of the five members has worked enough days in each fiscal year to collect the annual maximum salary to which he was entitled, and in fact two or three of the members worked many days in excess of the maximum. If the salaries were increased by law, probably the General Court would insist that members give up their private work, but the present incumbents would not want to do this. The employees of the board were not in the classified civil service (see Section 26BB of Chapter 484 of the laws of 1938). In 1938 the four employees on a permanent basis were the following: Charles P. Norton, clerk, $3,900 per year; Perry F. Nangle, director, $2,500 per year; Betty Barnett, housing statistician, $1,800 per year; an assistant clerk, $1,300 per year. In December, 1938, John Foley was added to the staff as accountant, at a salary of $2,500 per year. The titles of the offices listed above give no idea of the duties performed by the incumbents. Mr. Carroll actually served as the executive officer of the board, rather than as its chairman. Mr. Norton, who was one of the architects who worked on the Chicopee Falls project, acted as architectural adviser, and his time was divided between promotional work, making surveys and housing studies, examining plans and specifications sent in for approval, and supervising work under construction. Mr. Nangle resigned in July, 1939. Although he bore the title "director," he managed the office and engaged in promotional work. Mr. Foley succeeded to Mr. Nangle's duties, and in addition he handled the accounting and analyzed the finances of the authorities and their projects.

76

MASSACHUSETTS

Miss Barnett and her successor, Miss Emelda E. Gagne, acted as bookkeeper and secretary, and the assistant clerk did secretarial work. Mr. Norton has been a staff member since 1933; Miss Barnett was employed from 1933 to 1940; Mr. Nangle was employed from 1937 to 1939; and Mr. Foley was employed in December, 1938. At different times the board has employed temporary investigators, draughtsmen, and other technical assistants. The state legislature placed no limitation on the number of employees until 1939. The board had ten persons, including board members, on its pay roll early in 1939, but in that year the General Court limited the total number of employees to nine. The resignation of Mr. Nangle automatically brought the number of employees within the legislative limitation, which was operative during the 1939-41 and the 1941-43 biennial periods. In 1939 the board submitted to the Commission on Administration and Finance the following proposal for a permanent salary scale, which was adopted by the commission: clerk, $3,400 to 4,800 per year; director, $2,500 to 3,600 per year; housing statistician, $1,800 to 2,200 per year; assistant clerk, $1,300 to 1,600 per year; accountant, $2,500 per year. In June, 1940, the entire pay roll of the board was as follows: chairman of the board (maximum), $2,500; four members of the board (maximum per member), $6,000; Charles P. Norton, clerk, $4,200; John B. Foley, accountant, $2,500; Emelda E. Gagne, housing statistician, $1,320; Kathleen Kearns, assistant clerk, $1,360; total, $17,880. In October, 1941, this pay roll was unchanged. Two tables show the finances of the Massachusetts State Board of Housing from 1933 to the present. Table I I I (pages 78-79) includes complete information on the requests by the board, the recommendations by the governor, the appropriations made by the General Court, and the actual expenditures of the board. Totals are broken down to show personal services and other expenses. Table IV (page 80) contains an itemized statement of expenditures for the years 1934—41, inclusive, with totals and averages for each item. There was a steady increase in both the appropriations and the expenditures throughout the period until the fiscal biennium 1939-41. Prior to 1939 the General Court held annual sessions, and the budget operated on an annual basis; but in 1939 the constitution was amended to provide for biennial sessions and a biennial budget.

MASSACHUSETTS

77

A large part of the increased administrative expenditure was due to the changes made in 1935 and 1938 in provisions for payment of salaries to board members, and to increased travel expenditure. Total salaries in 1934 were $5,584.05, and in 1939 they were $20,340.21. There was a slight decline in this item in the two years following. Travel costs increased from $1,067.12 in 1934 to $2,482.94 in 1938. Marked increase occurred in the annual expenditures for rental in 1939-41. Table No. IV contains an itemization of expenses for personal and other services. The first five items under "Other Expenses" show expenses for temporary, special services which might have been included under "Personal Services" except for the fact that they are included in "Other Expenses" under the budget and accounting procedure of Massachusetts. The largest items, as might be expected, are those for telephone and telegraph, office rent, and travel. The changing ratio between personal expenses and other expenses may be noted. After the act of 1933, which created the board, was amended in 1935 to permit compensation of board members, expenses for personal services almost doubled, whereas there was only a 25 percent increase in other expenses in the same year. By 1938 personal expenses had more than trebled, but other expenses had only doubled in amount. In 1940 and in 1941 approximately three-fourths of the total expenditures were incurred for personal services, in spite of the considerable expenditures for rent and for travel. Six annual reports, for the fiscal years ending November, 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937, 1938, and 1939, respectively, have been published by the board, and the work of the board since its creation can be followed in these reports. The 1940 report had not been printed in February, 1942, but the manuscript was available in the office of the board. The first report covered the period from September 27, 1933, at which time the original members had been appointed and had entered upon their duties, to November 30, 1934. In a brief foreword the board stated that their first work had been the establishment of relationships with the Housing Division of the Federal Emergency Administration of Public Works, for the purpose of securing funds for projects in Massachusetts. Ten projects, described in some detail, were submitted to the board, which approved six of them and forwarded them to the Housing Division. At the time of making the annual report the division had not accepted any of these projects. The Massachusetts situation was com-

78

MASSACHUSETTS

plicated by the absence of state legislation authorizing local authorities, and the board had presented a bill for such an act to the General Court in its 1934 session. The bill was not enacted, and the board stated its intention to request the introduction of the bill in the 1935 session. The board had been particularly active in gathering information and making surveys throughout the state, in the hope of formulating a comprehensive program to be carried out as funds should be made available. The board had met fifty-two times in the fourteen months covered by the report. Individual members had visited different cities to discuss housing with civic groups, and in many of the cities housing surveys initiated by the state board were carried on by local groups with the aid of Emergency Relief Administration funds. The report continued with a description of the various survey projects of the board, including the development of a map showing the areas in Boston and Cambridge which were most in need of rehousing; a plan for the rehabilitation of the south end of Boston; a report on the feasibility and desirability of a housing project in Charlestown; and an analysis of a substandard area in South Boston. The board included a two-page explanation of the state's housing experiment at Lowell and a financial statement of the project from 1917 to 1934. In the opinion of the board, this small experiment, consisting of twelve homesteads, TABLE REQUESTS,

RECOMMENDATIONS,

THE

MASSACHUSETTS

( A s s h o w n in t h e e x e c u t i v e b u d g e t s ,

FISCAL YEAR

1 2 / 1 / 3 3 - 1 1 '30/34 Personal services Expenses Total 12/1/34-11''30/35 Personal services Expenses Total 12/1/35-11/30/36 Personal services Expenses Total

III

APPROPRIATIONS,

STATE

BOARD

1933. 1934,

1935,

OF

AND

EXPENDITURES

HOUSING,

1936, 1937,

OF

1933-42

1938, 1939-40,

1941-42)

RECOM-

APPROPRIATED

REQUESTED BY

MENDED IN

BY T H E

EXPENDED BY T H E

T H E BOARD

T H E BUDGET

LEGISLATURE

BOARD

Not in budget N o t in budget

N o t in budget Not in budget

? 5.100.00 6.000.00

S 5.5S4.05 3,138.60

Not in budget

N o t in budget

$11,100.00

$ 8,722.65

$ 6.000.00 5,455.00

$ 6,000.00 3,500.00

$10.800.00 4.400.00

$10.230.16 4,346.75

Sll.455.00

$ 9,500.00

$15,200.00

$14,576.91

$17,700.00 7,235.00

$13,600.00 5,300.00

$13.107.00 5,050.00

$13,103.70 5,196.44

$24,935.00

$18,900.00

$18,157.00

$18,300.14

MASSACHUSETTS

79

TABLE III ( c o n t i n u e d ) R E Q U E S T S , RECOMMENDATIONS, APPROPRIATIONS, AND E X P E N D I T U R E S THE MASSACHUSETTS STATE BOARD OF H O U S I N G , 1 9 3 3 - 4 2

OF

(As shown in the executive budgets, 1933, 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937, 1938, 1939-40, 1941-42)

FISCAL YEAR

REQUESTED BY THE BOARD

RECOMMENDED IN THE BUDGET

APPROPRIATED BY THE LEGISLATURE

EXPENDED BY THE BOARD

12/1/36-11/30/37 P e r s o n a l services Expenses

$18,930.00 8,369.00

$14,900.00 5,000.00

$14,900.00 5,000.00

$14,899.67 5,211.06

$27,299.00

$19,900.00

$19,900.00"

$20,110.73"

$20,400.00 12,047.00

$15,900.00 5,700.00

$19,650.00 6,700.00

$18,823.40 6,629.12

$32,447.00

$21,600.00

$26,350.00

$25,452.52

$25,100.00 10,935.00

$24,400.00 8,000.00

$20,400.00 7,862.55

$20,340.21 7,633.08

$36,035.00

$32,400.00

$28,262.55

$42,100.00 12,435.00

$27,950.00 8,500.00

$19,850.00 7,087.65

$54,535.00

$36,450.00

$26,937.65

$20,950.00 8,674.00

$18,950.00 7,750.00

$18,450.00 7,000.00

$18,420.00 6,186.27

$29,624.00

$26,700.00

$25,450.00

$24,606.27

$21,880.00 9,374.00

$19,610.00 7,750.00

$19,110.00 7,000.00

$31,254.00

$27,360.00

$26,110.00

Total 12/1/37-11,-30/38 P e r s o n a l services Expenses Total 12/1/38-11/30/39 P e r s o n a l services Expenses Total 12/1/39-11/30/40 P e r s o n a l services Expenses Total 12/1/40-11/30/41 P e r s o n a l services Expenses Total 12/1/41-11. 30/42 P e r s o n a l services Expenses Total

b

$27,973.29

$17,911.29 6,939.21 b

$24,850.50

...

a A special appropriation of $1,500.00 was made for a special investigation. Actual expenditures from the fund were $1,219.55. This raises the total appropriation to $21,400.00 and the total expenditure to $21,330.28. Statutes cited in the budgets: 1 2 / 1 / 3 4 - 1 1 / 3 0 / 3 5 Laws of 1935, Chapter 364 1 2 / 1 / 3 5 - 1 1 / 3 0 / 3 6 "I 1 2 / 1 / 3 6 - 1 1 / 3 0 / 3 7 (.Laws of 1935, Chapter 364; Laws of 1935, Chapter 449 12/1/37-11/30/38 | 12/1/38-11/30/39 | 1 2 / 1 / 3 9 - 1 1 ' 3 0 / 4 0 [Laws of 1935, Chapter 364; Laws of 193S, Chapter 449; Laws of 1 2 / 1 / 4 0 - 1 1 / 3 0 / 4 1 r 1938, Chapters 484 and 485 12/1/41-11/30/42 J & Chapter 495, enacted in 1939, appropriated $8,000 for "expenses" in 1939, and $7,500 for "expenses" in 1940. A later act in the same session reduced the allowance for automobile travel by state employees by approximately 2 5 percent, and a corresponding reduction was made in the two "expense" items for 1939 and 1940.

FO O 4-M

Î ON

TÍ H U CFL

O

zL-H EN D O FFL

S 2 E «S

fa o

S

« 00

§§ m

O M

« Û. A»

H H < H EN

W (J M

< H

O TÍ -A ¿3 EN " » »

CA H H W CA & A O < EN UI


C Z

J>

¿

60 e»

ö l g U -S « 0 I-s^'SS « I ? M 'it D ^ -o >o O ^ "t N ^ LO < Ü Tt O o" ^ o^' C HN-t^ÛOONN^lT

I
s? S§ a H <

D

a D u D

H* Q S 3 M Ph X U H

D

H a> USH o 2« percent. Annual dividends on the stock could not exceed 6 percent, but the companies were permitted to accumulate a surplus equal to 12 percent of outstanding capital stock. For the money raised on mortgage bonds the companies were not permitted to pay more than 5 percent per annum. If the gross receipts of the company exceeded interest and dividend payments and the authorized transfers to surplus, the balance was to be applied to the reduction of rents within one year after it became available. If the company dissolved, any nondistributed earnings in excess of 6 percent reverted to the state of New York. Both types of companies were exempt from paying taxes or fees to the state; their bonds, mortgages, and the interest on them were also exempt from state taxation; and municipalities were authorized to exempt buildings and improvements from local taxation, although the property of a private limited-dividend company could be exempted only so long as it owned and operated the property. Condemnation could be used only by public companies, after specific authorization by the State Board of Housing. The corporation proceeded under the state condemnation law or, if the property was within New York City, under Chapter 21 of the Greater New York charter. In the latter case the city acquired the property as for a public use and then sold it to the corporation upon satisfactory evidence that the corporation had the necessary funds. The law provided that rents in apartments built under its terms should be limited to $12.50 per room per month in the County of New York (Manhattan), $11.00 in the County of Kings (Brooklyn) and the Bronx, $10.00 in other counties within New York City (Queens and Richmond) and first-class cities of the state, and $9.00 elsewhere. The state board was empowered to increase rentals above these figures, but only in case the board found that changes in economic conditions were such that the statutory rentals would be insufficient to meet annual charges and that the deficit could not be met by reasonable economies in management and operation. Procedure under the act was simple. Any three persons could effect incorporation, with the approval of the state board. Stock could then be issued, a site acquired by purchase or condemnation, and sufficient capital to complete the project secured by borrowing on mortgage. The corporation was required to manage the project for fifty years, and it could not dissolve within that period except with the approval of the

256

NEW

YORK

state board. Within the life of the corporation two-thirds of the cost of the project would be completely amortized. The State Board of Housing itself was established in the act as an agency consisting of the state architect, ex officio, and five commissioners, appointed by the governor with the consent of the senate. The first appointive members had terms of office of one, two, three, four, and five years, respectively, and their successors had five-year terms. No salaries were to be paid to the commissioners, but they were entitled to necessary traveling and other expenses incurred in discharge of their duties. The Board of Housing was in the Department of Architecture, as provided in Chapter 823, but, as explained above, Chapter 348 of 1926 made this department a division in the new Department of Public Works. The commissioners were empowered to choose a chairman and a vice-chairman, and to appoint other officers and employees, fixing their qualifications, duties, and salaries. In addition to the principal powers of the board (which have been described above) in connection with public and private limited-dividend housing companies the board was granted certain general powers in the following paragraph of the act: The state board of housing shall study housing needs and conditions throughout the state to determine in what areas there exist the conditions declared in section two of this chapter; shall prepare plans for correcting such conditions; collect and distribute information relating to housing and community planning and study means of lowering rents on dwellings by securing economy in the construction and arrangement of buildings; assist in the preparation of legislation and regulations in relation to housing, zoning and planning throughout the state; cooperate with local housing boards or similar bodies in cities and other localities; investigate monopolies of building materials and cooperate with federal and state prosecuting officers to end such monopolies; encourage cooperative housing and tenant ownership of dwellings; and make report from time to time to the governor and legislature with respect to matters within its jurisdiction.

An appropriation of $100,000 was made to the board for its administrative expenses, payable upon requests signed by the chairman of the State Board of Housing. Governor Smith appointed the five commissioners on July 1, 1926, and the board organized immediately and prepared the preliminary report, of December 15, 1926, to which reference has been made above. Later sections of this chapter contain complete information concerning

N E W YORK

257

the personnel of the board, its employees, administrative practices, and so forth. Governor Smith's annual message to the legislature in January, 1927, contained a brief reference to the emergency rent laws. The governor described the possibilities of investment of capital in the limiteddividend companies authorized by the law of 1926 and said: T h e r e is no apparent lack of money on first mortgage at five per cent for these undertakings; but it remains to be seen whether capital in sufficient amount to affect the situation can be enlisted for the one-third equity investment required by law at a limited dividend of six per cent. I am convinced we are sound in theory; but whether we have carried it far enough, only those with capital to invest and the public interest at heart can demonstrate.

T h e report of the State Board of Housing (Legislative Document [1927] N o . 85), sent to the legislature in March, dealt entirely with the study of conditions in N e w York City and Buffalo which the board had been conducting for the purpose of guiding the legislature in action on rent-control laws. There was no indication in the report of work by the board along the lines of development of limited-dividend housing companies. The governor also addressed a special message to the legislature concerning the emergency rent law, numerous bills on the subject were considered, and a partial continuation of the laws was enacted by the legislature. The 1927 legislature considered, but failed to adopt, a concurrent resolution (Assembly Int. N o . 386) to amend Article 7 of the constitution, relating to the purchase of land to relieve housing congestion and to provide homes. N o action was taken on a bill providing for an investigation, by the Bureau of Housing and Regional Planning, of housing conditions, prevailing rents, and available dwelling space in "certain cities." One bill (Senate Int. N o . 45 and Assembly Int. N o . 83) contained a section relating to the Bureau of Housing. The resulting law (Chapter 512), insofar as this section was concerned, changed the method of appointment of the five commissioners who were members of the State Board of Housing. Formerly they had been appointed by the governor and the senate (under Chapter 823 of 1926), but the act of 1927 gave the power of appointment to the superintendent of public works. The act of 1926 had included the state architect as a member of the Board of Housing, but Chapter 512 of 1927 omitted this provision. From

258

NEW YORK

1926 to 1939, when the board was abolished, its membership consisted of five commissioners, although the board was transferred to different state departments during its existence, and the method of appointing members was changed. Chapter 35 of the laws of 1927 reenacted the State Housing Law with amendments which made it conform to the State Departments Law. Governor Smith's last annual message to the legislature in January, 1928, contained a brief review of the accomplishments in the housing program during his administration. He said that the State Board of Housing was functioning and that plans for buildings in Brooklyn and in the old sections of Manhattan were under consideration. He warned that this was an enormous undertaking and that immediate results could not be expected, although workers' organizations were finding material aid in the law. He emphasized the fact, which he had mentioned many times before, that the financing of the housing undertakings was one of the principal cost factors, and he recalled his recommendation that a state housing bank be established as a part of the legislative plan for assistance to housing which the legislature had not adopted. Near the end of February, 1928, the State Board of Housing sent two reports to the legislature. Legislative Document (1928) No. 76 contained a summary of the board's work from its appointment in July, 1926, to the end of the year 1927. Legislative Document ( 1928) No. 85 dealt with the housing emergency in New York City and Buffalo and with the extension of the rent laws. After having operated under the State Housing Law of 1926 for eighteen months the board was able to state certain conclusions with regard to the effectiveness of the law, which it did in the following form: 1. The feasibility of practical cooperation under the law has been demonstrated. One housing project has been completed and others are being promoted. 2. The law is especially suited to the requirements of cooperative housing. 3. Certain provisions of the law, as they now stand, are too rigid and inelastic for the best accomplishment of its purposes. 4. To insure the maximum use of the facilities provided by the law, amendments are necessary.

The board had conducted investigations into the cost of acquiring sites in the congested areas of Manhattan and Brooklyn, with relation to effect of land costs upon rentals. They had been active in stimulating the interest of the public in general and of New York City bankers in

NEW YORK

259

particular. New York City had enacted a local law (No. 9 of 1927) limiting city taxation on the properties of housing companies organized under the State Housing Law. The most conspicuous achievement was the undertaking of the first project under the law. A private limiteddividend corporation organized by the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America had proposed to build a large project, costing $1,825,000, in the Borough of the Bronx in New York City. After a careful investigation of the proposed project the board approved the plans and appointed Aaron Rabinowitz, a member of the State Board of Housing, to represent the state board on the board of directors of the housing company. The financing of the project was assisted by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, which provided two-thirds of the necessary funds in the form of a twenty-year first mortgage loan at 5 percent. State tax exemption and municipal tax exemption were secured, the latter under Local Law No. 9 of New York City. The other one-third of the funds was secured by the sale of stock to tenants, and the project was operated on a cooperative basis. The state board felt that the project of the Amalgamated Housing Corporation demonstrated both the practicability and the value of the State Housing Law and its special availability for cooperative housing enterprises. Three other projects were under consideration by the state board early in 1928. Two were cooperatives, promoted in one case for the benefit of workers in a special trade and in the other case for federal, state, and municipal civil service employees. The third project was promoted by a committee appointed by the Brooklyn Chamber of Commerce. The state board also had under consideration plans for the reconstruction of five continuous blocks located in one of the worst sections of the lower East Side. The report of 1928 contained a half-dozen pages describing the actual operation of certain aspects of the State Housing Law and suggesting specific amendments which would improve the law. Appendix A contained a draft of an act to amend the State Housing Law generally, which incorporated the recommendations of the board. The second report of the board dealt with the so-called emergency housing situation which had existed in the state for years. Extensive legislation had been enacted in the form of emergency rent-control acts in the early 1920's, and the operation of these acts had been extended by later legislatures in the belief that the emergency continued to exist. As a result of its studies, summarized in the report, the state board

260

NEW

YORK

concluded that the temporary public emergency in housing no longer existed, but that did not mean that any permanent relief had been furnished to the great number of families in larger cities who were compelled to live in substandard homes. This condition was not temporary, it did not rise out of economic adjustments following the war, nor was it an emergency. Consequently, the board felt that the rent laws applicable to New York City and to Buffalo should be permitted to lapse on M a y 31, 1928. T h e bill proposed by the State Housing Board to amend the State Housing Law (Senate Int. No. 1193 and Assembly Int. No. 1644) was passed by both houses without amendment and without a vote cast against it, becoming Chapter 722 of the laws of 1928. T h e changes made in the State Housing Law were both numerous and important, but the function and powers of the state board itself were not altered. Amendments in provisions setting forth the technicalities of the operations of the limited-dividend corporations made up the great bulk of changes in the law. T h e Tenement House Investigating Commission, appointed in 1927, reported to the legislature in 1928, and its work was continued for another year. T h e commission reported again in 1929, but the bill to continue its existence was not acted upon. Although it did not relate to the work of the State Board of Housing, the Multiple Dwelling Law of 1929, based on the reports of the commission, was a most important piece of housing legislation. T h e 1929 report of the State Board of Housing presented the story of the very considerable amount of work accomplished during the preceding year. Applications for three new limited-dividend housing projects had been approved, one of the projects was completed and occupied, and the others were under construction. Preliminary plans had been submitted for two more projects, and a third project was under consideration. A large part of the report dealt with these housing projects, and it is regretted that limitations of space forbid summary of this most interesting portion of the report. T h e board had also made a preliminary study of housing conditions in the cities and first-class villages of the state, and one section of the report contained the findings. T h e board concluded that conditions in smaller communities might differ somewhat from those in large centers of population, but that they were not infrequently worse in some respects. N o improvement of these conditions would be possible without

N E W YORK

261

adequate local building and housing regulation, reinforced by proper zoning regulation. The board was preparing a model code for assisting the local areas. This work had been undertaken in cooperation with the New York State Department of Health and the New York State Conference of Mayors. Acting upon requests, the board had engaged in a number of local surveys, and it was prepared to assist the cities of the state in the adoption of housing, zoning, or planning ordinances. Finally, the board had continued its investigations in New York City and in Buffalo for the purpose of advising the legislature concerning continuation of emergency rent-control laws. The board repeated its statements of the preceding year to the effect that in its present aspects the housing problem in those cities could not be solved by an emergency type of legislation and that the emergency rent-control laws should be allowed to lapse automatically. The annual report of the board presented to the legislature in 1930 was divided into five sections. These dealt, respectively, with the limiteddividend housing projects under the control of the board; additional findings of the board in its study of housing conditions in New York City; the model housing code upon which the board, other state and local officials, and the New York State Conference of Mayors had been working and which had been completed; an explanation of the reasons for proposed amendments to the State Housing Law; and a draft of a bill to incorporate the changes in the law. This proposal, with a few changes, was incorporated in a bill (Assembly Int. No. 1377 and Senate Int. No. 1123) and was passed, becoming Chapter 872 of the laws of 1930. Although numerous important amendments were thus made in the State Housing Law, only a few provisions directly affected the state board. The board was given an increased power to cooperate with local areas; it was authorized to investigate extortionate, illegal, or unfair practices affecting the cost of construction of buildings; and the board's power to conduct investigations was extended to include a committee of the board as well as the board itself. Senate Int. No. 1621, passed by both houses and vetoed by the governor, would have created a new Department of Architecture and would have placed in that department the Bureau of Housing. The state architect. as head of the new department, would have had the power to appoint all officers and employees of the bureau. The bill contained an apparent error in that it did not provide for changing the manner of appointment of members of the board. The superintendent of public

2Ô2

N E W YORK

works possessed this power under the existing law, and the bill providing amendments left this provision unchanged. Governor Franklin D . Roosevelt, in the veto message, explained that, when the state constitution had been amended to set up a consolidated form of state government, the Department of Architecture was allowed to be a separate department, but in carrying the constitution into effect the legislature had placed this department as a division in the Department of Public Works. Since the time of the reorganization the total amount of public works under state construction had risen from a comparatively small amount to a great undertaking, and, while the actual administration of this work had not been wholly satisfactory at first, the progress by 1930 was far better, and delays in construction had been constantly reduced, as the experience of the past year proved. T h e governor did not want to make another change in administrative procedure, because it might slow up existing work and divide responsibility. T h e annual report of the State Board of Housing, made to the 1931 session of the legislature, contained four principal sections. Almost twothirds of the report was in Section I, "Construction under the L a w , " in which two limited-dividend housing projects under construction, three projects completed in 1930, and three projects completed prior to 1930 were described in detail. T h e total investment in these projects exceeded $9,000,000. The board stated that during the first two years in the administration of the law it had been impossible to induce commercial builders to take advantage of its terms, because they hesitated about accepting limitations imposed on capital return. As a result, the early projects were financed by cooperative organizations and by men of wealth who were satisfied with a conservative money return from an investment serving the public good. Recent developments, however, indicated that a satisfactory demonstration of the feasibility of operations under the law had been made and that commercial investors who had had long experience with N e w Y o r k realty were prepared to undertake operations under its terms. This conclusion was further evidenced by the fact that of the eight proposed projects currently under consideration by the board, a majority had been presented by commercial investors. The three remaining sections of the 1931 report of the state board consisted, respectively, of summaries of the board's studies of the standard of living of the four hundred families in the Amalgamated Housing Corporation project in the Bronx; of the maintenance costs of low-

NEW YORK

263

cost housing projects; and of the relation of rents to land prices, land coverages, construction costs, and room sizes. Two acts were passed in 1931 amending the State Housing Law, but neither act affected the State Board of Housing directly. The first four sections of the 1932 report of the State Board of Housing contained summaries of the studies undertaken by the board in various aspects of the housing problem in the state. These sections dealt, respectively, with the building industry and its relationship to low-cost housing, the actual operation of the State Housing Law in practice, the relationship of tax exemption to the State Housing Law, and the survey of the lower East Side of New York City. In the fifth section the status of all projects under the jurisdiction of the board was reviewed. During 1931 four projects had been completed, but at least $6,000,000 of new construction had been delayed, for two reasons. The constitutionality of the State Housing Law and the right of the city of New York to grant partial tax exemptions on improvements of housing board projects had been challenged in the courts by certain real estate interests in the Bronx, and the board had considered it better policy to await court decisions before approving further projects. Later sections of this chapter contain a discussion of all court decisions. When action favorable to the law was taken by the courts, a second obstacle appeared. The board stated that the desire for liquidity by insurance companies and savings banks had made it impossible to obtain mortgage loans on projects which had received the approval of the board. Section VI of the report presented summary tables showing the construction and maintenance costs of the individual projects, with summary comparative tables. A bill was introduced in the 1932 session to amend Article 8 of the constitution with regard to authorizing the use of the credit of the state, counties, cities, and villages to make provision for adequate housing (Senate Int. No. 1256 and Assembly Int. No. 1704). This resolution was not adopted. Chapter 507 (Senate Int. No. 1187 and Assembly Int. No. 1459) was the only important legislation of the 1932 session so far as its effect on the state board was concerned. A new Division of Housing was created in the Department of State, in charge of the State Board of Housing. All members of the board were to continue in office until the expiration of their respective terms, and their successors were to be appointed by the secretary of state, with the approval of the governor. Officers and

264

NEW

YORK

employees of the board were to be appointed by the secretary of state, who also determined their qualifications, duties, and salaries. The reports of the board, formerly made to the superintendent of public works, were in the future to be made to the secretary of state. Funds appropriated to the Department of Public Works for the Bureau of Housing and not expended were made immediately available to the Department of State for the Division of Housing. Finally, Chapter 507 contained an itemized appropriation for administrative expenses for the fiscal year 1932-33. The situation which caused the enactment of Chapter 507 in 1932 appears, some ten years later, to be obscure. On a few occasions there had been attempts to eliminate the board entirely, usually by omitting its appropriation in the annual budget bill. Without going into the details of unverifiable rumors, it may be said that the movement to abolish the board was caused because it had incurred the displeasure of strong political interests over matters of patronage. In 1932 the board's appropriation was entirely omitted from the budget bill, and a special appropriation (Senate Int. No. 889) was not acted upon. These difficulties were resolved later in the session, the agency was transferred to the Department of State, and its annual appropriation was restored in Chapter 507. One of the most interesting of the annual reports of the New York State Board of Housing was sent to the legislature in its regular session in 1933 (Legislative Document [1933 J No. 112), because by that time, the effects of the major depression of the early 1930's had become sufficiently important to have a marked influence on the housing program, which had been in operation for several years. The first section of the report, "A Review of the Year," contained strong indications of this new factor. The board stated that it had tried for five years to interest private enterprise in the job of constructing houses for families of low income. During the earlier period of prosperity the building interests had been too busily engaged in other affairs to explore a field which was "distinguished for the absence of the glamour of speculative profits." Not until 1930, the first year of the depression, had commercial operators begun to seek the benefit of the law. With the deepening of the depression, the mortgage market became frozen. The number of inquiries from commercial builders since that time indicated to the board that, had money not been lacking, a considerable amount of

N E W YORK

265

building could have been undertaken under the provisions of the State Housing Law. T h e Federal Relief and Construction Act of 1932, designed to furnish federal aid to projects of a self-liquidating nature, contained a paragraph in Section 201A which authorized the Reconstruction Finance Corporation to make loans to corporations formed wholly to provide housing for families of low income or to reconstruct slum areas. Such corporations must be regulated by state or municipal law as to rents, charges, capital structure, rate of return, and areas and methods of operation, and the projects aided under the plan must be self-liquidating. Although this provision was expressed in general terms, in fact it was applicable only to N e w York, because of the three states (Massachusetts, California, and N e w Y o r k ) having governmental housing agencies, only N e w Y o r k State gave to its housing agency powers of control over housing corporations such as those described in the federal act. Immediately following the passage of the Federal Relief and Construction Act a large number of applicants, from the five boroughs of N e w York City and other parts of the state, presented projects representing a total capital investment of more than $200,000,000. Five projects in four different boroughs of N e w Y o r k City had been approved by the board, and a sixth project had been tentatively approved. T h e first development to receive approval of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation was one proposed by the Hillside Housing Corporation in the Bronx. Immediately difficulties developed with the city of

New

Y o r k over the question of tax exemption, and no solution was arrived at until April, 1933. While the question was pending, a second project, Knickerbocker Village in Manhattan, had been approved. Fundamentally the objection of the city to the granting of any form of tax exemption was based on the existing city administration's desire to control the exercise of this power. T h e local law establishing such control was not passed in 1932, but it was reintroduced, passed, and signed by the acting mayor in April, 1933. Section 3 of Local L a w N o . 9, of 1927, was amended to read: " T h e buildings and improvements set forth in Section 2 hereof shall be exempted from local taxation only upon the approval of the Board of Estimate and Apportionment." For the information of those who are not familiar with the form of government in N e w York City, this board consisted of the presidents of the five

266

NEW

YORK

boroughs of the city, together with certain other officers chosen from the city at large. I t s functions in the field of finance were particularly important. T h e housing board report of 1933 stated that at the time of making the report in March six projects had been submitted to the Board of Estimate and Apportionment, but that tax exemption on improvements had been granted only to Knickerbocker Village. T h e 1933 report of the State Housing Board also contained a detailed description of new projects approved by the board, presented details of the financial status of all projects under the control of the board, made itemized statements of the operating and maintenance costs of these projects, and presented summary tables of the eleven housing projects under the state law. Four sections of the report were less statistical than the sections just mentioned, and taken together they constituted an account of the policy of the State Board of Housing, of the sources of opposition which had developed to the housing program, of the general problems which the board had encountered, and of the proposed solutions of these problems. Possibly these sections were the most valuable portion of the report, and it is regretted that the following summary must be brief. In one short paragraph the board stated the principal sources of opposition to its program as follows: It was argued that the plight of real estate was such that governmental aid in financing new construction would increase present distress; that rentals had declined to levels which would be competitive with the projects approved by the Board and financed by the Reconstruction Finance Corporation and exempted from taxes on improvements by the municipality; that vacancies, foreclosures and tax defaults were unprecedented; and that the city could ill afford any further exemption of properties from taxation. Almost ten pages of the report were devoted to answering these arguments, and the results of the special studies by the board were presented in statistical form to support the contentions of the board that the objections were not well founded. Section I V of the report was entitled "Speculation versus Investment." Based upon statistical information collected by the board, the customary real estate practices in New Y o r k were described and criticized adversely. T h e board attributed the plight of real estate to the "self-defeating character of the speculative method of operation." The sharp upward movement in the building industry had been based on financial structures that were top-heavy from reckless financing. Al-

N E W

Y O R K

267

t h o u g h the deflation of real estate h a d lagged s o m e w h a t behind the d o w n w a r d m o v e m e n t in m o s t o t h e r i n d u s t r i e s , its m a g n i t u d e c o u l d n o t be overemphasized. P a r t i c u l a r attention w a s called to the

fluctuating

c h a r a c t e r of t h i s i n d u s t r y . T h e rhythm of the building industry moves from periodic shortage to speculation in land, increasing volume of construction, increasing building costs, overcapitalization and ensuing surplus, followed b y declining rentals, deflation of values, defaults in interest and taxes, foreclosures and complete liquidation. W h a t does the real estate industry recommend? There appears to be only one answer and that i s — d o nothing. T h e only solution seems to be that of waiting for the housing shortage. . . . T h e failure of the industry to come to grips with the great social problem of housing during periods of prosperity should only warn us against counsels of despair. A state program that aims to promote a vital social objective with far reaching consequences for the civilized growth of our cities and the health of our people cannot be permitted to default because of the unimaginative grasp of the housing problem b y men who are controlled by fears and b y groups whose immediate interests are said to be affected, even though in reality there is little ground to support such fears. T h e c o n c l u s i o n of t h i s s e c t i o n e x p l a i n e d t h e m a n n e r in w h i c h t h e p l a n s e t f o r t h in t h e S t a t e H o u s i n g L a w s o u g h t to r e m e d y t h e d e f e c t s just

described.

T h e Housing L a w seeks to strike at the fundamental forces that are responsible for the violent changes in the building industry. I t seeks to introduce into at least a segment of the industry order and stability in place of reckless expansion and little concern for the future. I t aims to bring about a closer correlation between production and need, thus assuring a firmer basis for building operations. T h e law attempts to achieve these objectives in several ways. T h e c a r e f u l s c r u t i n y of p l a n s b y t h e b o a r d b e f o r e a p p r o v a l g u a r a n t e e d t h a t t h e b u i l d i n g w o u l d b e of h i g h s t a n d a r d , t h a t it w o u l d h a v e a b e n e ficial e f f e c t u p o n s u r r o u n d i n g p r o p e r t i e s , a n d t h a t it w a s so l o c a t e d t h a t the n e i g h b o r h o o d w o u l d n o t h a v e a n a d v e r s e e f f e c t u p o n t h e n e w b u i l d ing. T h e

financial

s e t u p h a d t o b e s u c h t h a t all t h e s p e c u l a t i v e f e a t u r e s

of c o m m e r c i a l e n t e r p r i s e w e r e e l i m i n a t e d . F i n a n c i n g c o s t s w e r e e l i m i n a t e d , l o w e s t r a t e s of i n t e r e s t w e r e s o u g h t , a d e q u a t e r e s e r v e s w e r e e s t a b l i s h e d , a n d r e g u l a r s t a t e m e n t s to t h e b o a r d f u r n i s h e d a c h e c k o n the e f f i c i e n c y of o p e r a t i o n . T h e best evidence of the stability of building operations under the Housing L a w is to be found in the financial statements of the corporations under the Board's jurisdiction. . . . In a year of great distress in real estate, reports of these limited dividend corporations make a most creditable showing.

268

NEW

YORK

T h e section entitled " T h e Dual Aspect of a Housing Program" contained a discussion of the relative merits of building projects in slum areas, with the consequent demolition of substandard tenements, and of building new housing in the outskirts of cities. T h e following section, "Problems of Slum Clearance," was closely related to the questions thus raised. T h e large number of owners in the slum area considered by the board (the lower East Side of Manhattan), the extremely high price of land, the height of the buildings which would have to be constructed, the necessity for widening streets, and problems of financing made the problem of building in such an area almost impossible of solution under the existing housing law. Early in the 1933 session the senate adopted a resolution evidencing dissatisfaction with the work of the state board. After stating that many proposals for low-cost housing were before the board for approval, that money for such projects was available through the R F C , and that the "unnecessary delay" of the board was depriving people of the benefits of new housing, the senate requested the state board to furnish a complete list of all proposals which had been presented, together with the board's specific reason for refusal in each case. This list was transmitted to the senate early in February. No other proposed legislation relating to the State Board of Housing was enacted in the regular legislative session in 1933. One bill (Senate Int. No. 4 8 0 and Assembly Int. No. 7 0 8 ) was not acted upon by either house. The bill sought to amend the State Housing Law in relation to the State Board of Housing, the locations for building projects, tax exemptions, and public hearings. Only one of these proposals would have affected the board directly, by adding a provision that no member, officer, or employee of the board could own or control, directly or indirectly, any lands to be purchased for a project to be controlled by the board or could have any personal interest in the assets, credits, capital stock, or securities, of a housing corporation under the control of the board. T h e first bill providing for municipal housing authorities in New Y o r k was introduced in the 1933 regular session (Senate Int. No. 1 8 1 0 ) , was passed by the senate without a negative vote, but was not acted upon by the assembly. T h e bill provided for a system of municipal authorities having much closer relationship with the city governments than with the State Board of Housing. The board had the power

NEW YORK

269

of approval of several acts of municipal authorities, including the proposed plans for projects of the authorities. T h e first extraordinary session of 1933 was held in August. Governor Lehman called the attention of the legislature to the necessity of enacting a municipal housing authorities law in order that the cities of the state might secure assistance from the federal government under the provisions of the National Industrial Recovery Act. He believed that it was a primary duty of each city to provide livable conditions for its people and that the state should act merely in a regulatory capacity. Several bills carrying out the recommendation of the governor were introduced immediately, but, although one of them was passed by the senate, no municipal housing authorities act was passed during the first extraordinary session. The one bill (Senate Int. No. 55) which was passed by the senate made no provision for any control of municipal housing authorities by the State Board of Housing. Senate Int. No. 57, which was not reported out of committee, would have given the board certain powers in connection with the issuance of bonds of a local authority, the power of approving project plans submitted by an authority, and the power of fixing a reasonable reserve for protecting the indebtedness of the authority. The municipal authority was required to make regular reports to the city and to the state board. Senate Int. No. 76 and Assembly Int. No. 127 were much alike in their provisions concerning the relationships between the state board and the municipal authorities, although the former bill gave the board slightly more power than was delegated in the latter bill. In defining powers of the municipal authorities, each bill contained a paragraph specifying acts to be performed by the authorities on their sole responsibility. This was followed by a second paragraph defining acts of the authorities, subject to the approval of the board. These included the choice of site, preparation of project plans, the acquisition of a site, the construction, leasing, or operation of a project, the establishment of rentals, arrangements with the city for necessary replanning in the area of a project, borrowing money and securing loans by mortgages on the property or by pledging revenues, the investment of funds, the execution of contracts, and making of necessary rules and regulations. The senate bill contained provisions defining the supervisory powers of the board over a local authority to include the same investigatory

270

NEW YORK

and supervisory powers which the board was authorized to exercise over limited-dividend housing companies. The house bill contained a more detailed statement, providing that the board could investigate the affairs of local authorities, examine their property and records, prescribe methods of accounting and rendering periodical reports, and make regulations to fix standards governing planning, construction, maintenance, and operation of projects by authorities. Both bills contained provisions for the enforcement of the regulatory powers of the board. Remaining sections of the senate and house bills dealt in great detail with the specific powers and duties of the local authorities, and in many instances approval of the State Board of Housing was required. The chief interest in the numerous municipal authority bills introduced, but not passed, in the first extraordinary session in 1933 lies in the different ideas presented in the bills with respect to the fundamental problem of the proper relationship between a state and a local housing agency. It should be noted that in none of the proposed bills was there a suggestion of such extreme forms of control of the municipal authority by the state board as, for example, the appointment of members of the authority by the board. All the early New York bills were relatively conservative in this particular respect. Chapter 802 of the 1933 extraordinary session amended the State Housing Law with regard to expenses of projects, control of rentals, and financing of projects receiving federal aid. No fundamental changes were made in sections of the law relating to the State Board of Housing. A second extraordinary session of the legislature was held in October, 1933, and once more Governor Lehman recommended the enactment of a municipal housing authorities law. Senate Int. No. 6 on this subject was passed by the senate, but was not acted upon by the assembly. The bill contained no references to the State Board of Housing, and, like Senate Int. No. 55 of the first extraordinary session of 1933, it provided for close relationship between the city government and the local authority. In January, 1934, the legislature met in regular session, and Governor Lehman, in his annual message, again urged them to enact a municipal housing authorities law, reminding the legislature of his urgent requests for such an act in the three sessions held in 1933. The annual report of the secretary of state (Legislative Document [1934] No. 31) contained a two-page report of the Division of Housing. The work of the division during the preceding year was reviewed very briefly, and

NEW YORK

271

the most important part of the section was the recommendation for legislation. The increased work of the board, caused by the large number of new projects under construction, had required considerable increase in staff. A grant from the Spelman Fund and the employment of architects, engineers, and accountants paid by the Civil Works Administration had made this possible. An increased appropriation was recommended for the year 1933-34. The board had been authorized recently to assess fees against projects, and it was estimated that this income would be sufficient to reimburse the treasury for all advances to the division. A second recommendation was for the enactment of a municipal housing authorities law, and finally the board stated that it would also make specific recommendations for changes in the State Housing Law to strengthen its supervisory powers over limited-dividend corporations. The annual report of the state board (Legislative Document [1934] No. 41) contained a more detailed account of the work of the board and a more specific statement of its reasons for proposing legislation to create municipal authorities. The board stated that the necessary legislation had been drafted under the direction of the Slum Clearance Committee (which had been created at the instance of the Housing Division of the PWA) with the assistance of the state board, in accordance with suggestions previously made by the board and with the recommendations of Governor Lehman. The reasons of the board for desiring the passage of the municipal housing authorities law were important. Corporations organized under the State Housing Law had completed, or were then constructing, limited-dividend projects representing an investment of $30,000,000. The virtues of such a corporation as a means of constructing low-cost housing lay in "the encouragement offered to private enterprise to exercise its ingenuity in this financially unattractive field, in combining investment with responsibility for continued management, in the influence of its activities on prevailing real estate practice, and in its freedom from political domination." The increased employment given to various branches of the construction industry was an additional advantage. The board believed that in a permanent housing program limited-dividend corporations would continue to be useful. Six projects were located in the midst of New York City slum areas, but no corporation had been able to assemble a large slum area for reconstruction or to undertake a comprehensive plan for the reconstruction of any blighted area as a whole. The reasons for this failure were

272

NEW YORK

the magnitude of capital requirements and the terms essential to attainment of low rentals. Slum clearance was held by the board to be primarily a problem of public, rather than of private, finance. The availability of federal funds to the amount of $25,000,000 for New York City, and the additional federal grant of 30 percent of the cost of labor and material, offered the solution to the problem. The board had previously stated to the legislature that a comprehensive housing policy must be based upon a proper correlation of state and municipal functions. The proposed amendment to the State Housing Law recognized this theory and contained provisions for the creation of a local public body clothed with all powers necessary to the demolition and reconstruction of slum areas and the financing of its own operations. Also the proposal reserved to the state adequate powers of supervision and control over the activities of the local authorities. In spite of the fact that North Dakota had had a brief experience with state housing, and that Massachusetts and California had been engaging in state housing activity for considerable periods of time, the board report contained the following statement: "The provision of low cost housing under public regulation or directly by public bodies is a new field of governmental activity for which there is neither precedent nor experience other than that afforded in New York State under the terms of the Housing Law." Under the proposed legislation municipal housing authorities could issue bonds to finance their own projects. These bonds did not constitute an obligation either of the state or of the municipality, but the board was nevertheless of the opinion that the state should reserve sufficient supervisory control to protect the public. The legislature had consistently adhered to a policy of protecting housing standards and of supervising the financial operations of municipalities and their agencies, and the board thought that this policy should not be reversed. The bill as drafted did not fully accord with this principle, but since there was at the time little likelihood that any projects would be financed other than by the federal government it did not appear necessary to give immediate consideration to the matter. Prompt adoption of the bill by the legislature was strongly recommended. During January four bills were introduced in the assembly and one in the senate providing for the establishment of municipal housing authorities. The details of the relationships between the state board and the authorities in each separate bill need not be considered, because

NEW

YORK

273

the bills of the 1934 session were practically like those of the 1933 session in this respect. Assembly Int. Nos. 265 and 389 and Senate Int. No. 249 provided for more control by the state board than did Assembly Int. Nos. 47 and 491. In no case, however, did a bill propose that the municipal authority should be entirely independent of the state board, as had one bill introduced in the first extraordinary session of 1933. Senate Int. No. 249, after amendment by the senate, was passed in the upper house without a negative vote and was passed in the lower house with one vote cast against it, becoming Chapter 4 of the laws of 1934, the Municipal Housing Authorities Law. The act contained the following provisions dealing with the State Board of Housing in its relations to the municipal authorities created by the law. An authority in a particular city could be created by resolution of the local legislative body and by the filing by the mayor, in the office of the state board and in the office of the secretary of state, of a certificate setting forth the name of the authority, the names of its members and their terms (specifying which member to be chairman), and a copy of the resolution. A certificate of the appointment or reappointment of each member was also to be filed with the board. In event of the removal of a member, the mayor was to file in the office of the board a record of the proceedings, together with a copy of the charges made against the member and the findings on the charges. The municipal authority was required to file with the state board and with the city a copy of any by-laws, rules, regulations, or amendments to them which the authority adopted from time to time. Two sections of the law contained the greater part of the contents relating to the state board: The board shall collect and distribute information relating to the administration of housing authorities and to the construction, maintenance and operation of projects. The board shall suggest and assist in the preparation of legislation relating to housing authorities and their functions. The board may, in its discretion, prescribe methods and forms for keeping accounts, records and books to be used by an authority. The board may require an authority to file periodical reports not oftener than quarterly covering its operations and activities in a form prescribed by the board and may, from time to time, require specific answers to questions upon which the board may desire information. For the purpose of gathering information to enable the formation of suggestions for legislation, the board may require an authority to submit additional information relating to the condition and affairs of an authority, its dealings, transactions

274

NEW

YORK

or relationships. An authority shall file with the board a copy of each proposed project embodying the plans, layout, estimated costs and proposed method of financing. The board shall with reasonable promptness transmit to the authority its criticisms and suggestions. Any change made in the project shall be filed with the board by the authority. At any time, upon request of the authority, the board shall submit to the authority its criticisms and suggestions with reference to any change in the project. Finally, the approval of the board was required for the terms of the lease or sale to a public limited-dividend company of a project owned by a municipal authority. T h e certificate of incorporation of a public limited-dividend corporation might, with the approval of the board, empower the corporation to purchase or lease property from an authority and operate it, subject to the supervision of the board. T h e comment by the state board in its annual report for 1934 to the effect that the proposed Municipal Housing Authorities Law did not provide a sufficient degree of control by the state board to insure protection of housing standards and supervision over the financial operations of municipalities and their agencies can be understood after a careful consideration of the provisions of the act summarized above. I t should be noted that the board had no control over the establishment or membership of an authority, its exercise of the right of eminent domain and other acts in connection with the acquisition of property, or the issuance of bonds by the authority for financing a project. T h e power of the board in connection with the approval of project plans was merely advisory. Senate Int. No. 1843, passed by both houses, became Chapter 540 of the laws of 1934. I t provided that moneys payable to reimburse the board for its expenses applicable to the examination and supervision of a project of a limited-dividend corporation, during the period of construction of the project, should be paid to the Department of State which was authorized to use the fund for the payment of expenses, as provided in the act. Several other bills were introduced in the 1934 session, but were not enacted by the legislature. Beginning at this time, one particular type of housing bill has appeared in every succeeding session. Assembly Int. No. 986 would have authorized and directed the state board to prepare and execute plans for slum clearance and the construction of low-cost housing facilities in the 14th assembly district in Kings County and would have made an appropriation of $ 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 to defray the cost of the project. Not more than $25,000 of this sum could have been paid

N E W YORK

275

for the administrative expenses of the board in making the necessary preliminary study and survey. Such bills will not be described in detail for the years following 1934. In no case were they reported out of committee, and it is probable that they were introduced merely as a means of furthering the political interests of their respective authors in their various districts. The peak occurred in 1939, in which year requests totaling $91,000,000 were made for twenty-two different projects in specified areas in New York City. Five bills contained proposed amendments to the newly enacted Municipal Housing Authorities Law, but only one (Senate Int. No. 1815) contained any provisions relating to the State Board of Housing. The bill provided a new section setting forth in detail the method of public letting of contracts by a municipal housing authority, but the regulations were not made applicable to a contract financed in whole or in part by the federal government. The state board was given the power to make rules and regulations governing this action of a local authority. The bill was passed by the senate, but was not acted on by the house. In August, 1934, a special session of the legislature was held. One bill (Senate Int. No. 74), upon which neither house took action, would have added a new article to the State Housing Law to provide for the formation of real-property improvement districts for the unified improvement, ownership, operation, maintenance, and control of the real property located within them. The bill contained several provisions relating to the State Board of Housing, but it is somewhat difficult to determine the exact position of the board. The board or the municipal authority, if one had been established, was authorized to conduct necessary surveys and to establish a real-property improvement district by an intricate process involving the consent of a considerable number of property owners within the area. The bill would probably not have been particularly useful except in the larger cities of the state, and it is not reasonable to believe that these cities would have been in favor of the establishment within their jurisdictions of special districts under the control of a state agency. If the bill had been enacted, such an agency as the New York or Buffalo housing authority might have made use of the powers provided. Although its contents did not relate to the State Board of Housing, mention may be made of Governor Lehman's message to the legislature on August 17, in which he said that the President had recently approved the National Housing Act and that New York needed supple-

276

NEW

YORK

mental legislation to permit full cooperation. The governor recommended its enactment. The 1935 report of the State Board of Housing (Legislative Document [1935] No. 41) consisted almost entirely of materials relating to the work of the board with its limited-dividend housing projects, and there was little indication that much interest had been shown in the possibilities for action granted under the Municipal Housing Authorities Law of 1934. Conceding that the powers of the board in connection with the new program were slight, the fact remains that they were ample to have given the board a most commanding position if full use had been made of them. New York City had established a housing authority within a month after the governor signed the new law, and the assistance of the state board was, of course, not particularly needed there. Schenectady established an authority early in 1934, the Buffalo authority was created in October, 1934, and Lackawanna had established an authority. Six pages of the 1935 report of the board contained reports from three of these authorities. In the Foreword of the report the board stated that its work during the past year had included supervision of existing projects and projects in construction, planning new housing developments and assistance to cities of the State in connection with housing problems and the organization and preliminary work of Municipal Housing Authorities. . . . During the past year Municipal Housing Authorities have been created in N e w York City, Schenectady, Buffalo, and Lackawanna. In response to the active interest of municipal officials the Board has been able to render services looking toward the creation of authorities in other cities. A statement of the plans and work of existing authorities is contained in this report.

The entire remainder of the report of seventy-two pages, excluding the quotation above and the six-page report of the three city authorities, dealt with the work of the board in connection with its limited-dividend housing projects. One new project had been completed during the year, two projects were nearing completion, the board had been promoting the development of new projects to be financed with mortgage loans either from private sources or from the Housing Division of the PWA, and the board continued to exercise its usual powers of supervision over the finances of the eight limited-dividend projects completed prior to 1934. One statement in the annual report related to the administrative affairs of the board. The State Housing Law had been amended to

NEW YORK

277

permit the board to assess fees against projects under its supervision (Chapter 540 of the laws of 1934), and from the income due and collectible from that source the board had authorized repayment to the state treasury of all expenditures of the past fiscal year since the enactment of the law. All funds receivable would in the future revert to the treasury as reimbursement for the board's expenditures. One bill introduced in the 1935 session (Senate Int. No. 1617 and Assembly Int. No. 2085) amended the Municipal Housing Authorities Law and added new sections. These dealt with definitions of a project and an obligee, loans and payments by cities to municipal housing authorities, acquisition of property by authorities, the transfer of property to a government by municipal authorities, the making of agreements by cities and governments in connection with projects, the exercise of the power of eminent domain by authorities, bonds issued by authorities and remedies of obligees, tax exemption of property of authorities, and foreclosure of mortgages affecting their property. The bill was passed, becoming Chapter 310 of the laws of 1935. The 1936 report of the State Board of Housing (Legislative Document [1936] No. 41), like the 1935 report, was devoted almost entirely to the board's work in connection with limited-dividend housing projects. The three projects which had just been completed or were under construction when the 1935 report was published were completed and occupied. One new application for a limited-dividend project had been approved during the year, and the PWA had allocated a mortgage loan, subject to final approval of plans. The board stated that it had continued cooperation with the federal housing agencies in matters relating to standards and methods of procedure and that it had participated with voluntary organizations in expediting federal and local housing programs in New York. Two new municipal housing authorities had been created in Yonkers and in Syracuse, and the annual reports of the authorities in these two cities and in New York City, Schenectady, and Buffalo were summarized. The State Board of Housing and the New York State Conference of Mayors had sponsored a three-day conference on housing and slum rehabilitation, in Schenectady. The conference had particularly considered the problem of cooperation between federal, state, and local housing agencies. The report next dealt with the federal housing program during the three and one-half years since its beginning. Emphasizing the need for

278

NEW YORK

a clear definition of federal policy, with assured continuity both as to aims and methods, the board was awaiting enactment of federal legislation initiating a permanent federal housing policy, before submitting recommendations for changes in the State Housing Law. During the year difficulties had occurred in connection with relations between the management and the tenants in one of the limited-dividend projects, and the board was concerned with the respective jurisdictions of the public agency (the State Housing Board) and the private agency (the limited-dividend company) in connection with supervision of projects. A clear-cut difference of policy had resulted in a suit in the state courts, in which the decision was adverse to the right of the board to formulate or to regulate management policies of corporations under its jurisdiction. Three cases involving housing law had been commenced in New York, and the state board, through its counsel, had filed briefs amicus curiae in each case. None of the latter cases involved the power of the state board. The Foreword concluded with a statement concerning the markedly successful operation of the eleven corporations organized under the State Housing Law. More than one-half the total annual report for 1936 consisted of detailed information about the limited-dividend projects. There was little evidence in the report that the board had expended particular effort on other aspects of work in the state, and one gains the definite impression that the major interest of the board had been concentrated on the promotion, construction, and supervision of the one type of project. One bill (Assembly Int. No. 1290), on which no action was taken by the legislature in 1936, would have given the state board the power to establish zones in all abnormally congested areas where in the opinion of the board conditions existed warranting the application of special emergency rent laws. After proper investigation the board would have had the power to submit proposals for such laws to the legislature. A concurrent resolution, adopted by the assembly, but not by the senate, stated that the mayor of Buffalo, acting under the authority of the Municipal Housing Authorities Law and an ordinance of the city of Buffalo, had appointed a housing authority on the theory that that body was to obtain federal assistance for the elimination of bad housing in slum areas. Approximately one year later, without consulting the Buffalo housing authority, the Housing Division of the PWA had

NEW YORK

279

purchased a large tract of undeveloped land from interests closely allied with the mayor of Buffalo and had allocated $4,600,000 to build a project. The chairman of the authority had publicly disavowed any responsibility and had charged that the mayor alone had sponsored the project. Inasmuch as no slum clearance would result, the Congress was requested to stop expenditures on the project and to investigate the situation and fix responsibility, taking immediate steps toward slum clearance. This resolution has been described in detail, because it illustrates the close connection between the federal government and a city housing authority, as contrasted with the very loose relationship between the state board and the local authority. The annual report of the State Board of Housing for 1937 contained, in the Foreword, a half dozen pages of description of the work of the board, the situation confronting the municipal housing authorities in the state, the need for constitutional amendment to authorize state financial aid to the authorities, and the advisability of amending the State Housing Law to bring it into harmony with national housing legislation and to permit a continuation of the policy of exemption from local taxation. Section I I contained brief reports from each of the seven municipal authorities; a long section followed, devoted to reports of the limited-dividend housing corporations; and Sections IV and V contained further data on the costs of operation and maintenance, the vacancies, and so forth, of the fourteen projects operated under the control of the board. The board expressed complete approval of the unanimous belief of the municipal authorities in the state, as it was expressed at a conference called by the board in March, 1936, that future financing of large-scale low-rent housing projects at low rates of interest would both require and justify the use of state credit on the basis of complete repayment without loss to the state. The sum of $133,500,000 allocated to fifty-one cities by the Housing Division of the PWA was exhausted, and no money from any other source—federal, state, or municipal—was in sight. The board continued to urge the creation of municipal authorities in the state, but under the circumstances no particular hope could be held out to the authorities of assistance in building projects in their respective communities. The method of providing state aid for housing was discussed. The governor advocated passage of a constitutional amendment, but other persons believed that an act of the legislature to be approved at a

28o

N E W YORK

referendum was the proper procedure. As the board said, the method of constitutional amendment had the defect of resulting in a considerable delay, and no funds could be made available until 1940, but, on the other hand, there would be no possible question of the validity of such bond issues by the state. If a legislative act were passed and submitted to referendum, possibly funds could be available in 1938, but the question of validity of bond issues would then have to be submitted to the courts, and a decision of unconstitutionality would mean that valuable time had been wasted. Furthermore, since in N e w Y o r k only one referendum on a bond issue can be submitted at any particular election, the legislature might decide that precedence must be given to a relief proposition or general public works proposition, and it might be that a referendum on the housing bond issue would be delayed one year or even longer. Finally, the board expressed its approval of the governor's recommendation of a constitutional amendment and suggested that the legislature might think it advisable to pass both the act to be submitted to referendum and the constitutional amendment. T h e former could be submitted promptly to court tests, and if it was declared unconstitutional the legislature could without loss of

time

proceed with the process of adopting the constitutional amendment. Governor Lehman, in his 1937 annual message to the legislature, offered his reasons for recommending two constitutional amendments, one to enable the state to issue bonds to procure funds for loans to municipal housing authorities and another to m o d i f y debt limitations and restrictions upon cities to permit them to participate financially in low-cost housing. H e stated his belief that the national, state, and local governments would need to cooperate in a sound long-range program of housing reform. Assembly Int. N o . 129, introduced on January 13, 1937, contained the proposal for a state law to be submitted to a referendum, as described above. A f t e r amendment the bill was recommitted, and no further action was taken. The state was authorized, by provisions of the bill, to create a state debt of $100,000,000, to borrow this amount through a bond issue to be amortized within fifty years, and to expend the proceeds through loans to municipal authorities during a period of ten years. T h e bill, if enacted by the legislature, was to be submitted to a referendum at the general election in November, 1937, and its approval required a majority of all votes cast for or against it. T h e bill contained detailed provisions concerning the use of the state

NEW

YORK

housing fund resulting from the bond issue. If a loan of state funds were made to a municipal authority, the board was required to appoint a member of the authority. The amount of a loan was left to the discretion of the board, although detailed provisions were included specifying conditions precedent to making a loan, and no loan could be made until the board investigated the certification of the authority to the effect that the conditions had been fulfilled. Rentals in projects financed by state loans were based upon annual incomes of tenants. The board was authorized to investigate wage levels in a city in which a project was located, and if these levels varied by more than 10 percent from levels existing at the time of the passage of the act the board could change the requirements relating to the income of occupants of the project. Alterations in rentals could also be made by the board if sufficient changes in construction costs occurred in the city. Loans to an authority were to be made at a rate of interest sufficient to reimburse the state for the interest payable by the state on the moneys, plus the direct cost of the borrowing. Loans were to be secured by a bond and first mortgage on the land, buildings, and improvements constituting the project, and the maximum period of amortization was fifty years. In the event of default the state board was to assume complete control of the property. One section of the bill granted to the state board additional powers, as follows: to investigate into the affairs and dealings of an authority, in accordance with the procedures provided in the section; to order necessary repairs of a project; to order the authority to carry out provisions of the law, rules and regulations of the board, and the terms of any project approved by the board; to inspect the property of an authority and to examine its books and papers; during the operation of state projects by an authority, to approve all contracts of the authority; to have all the powers of a local authority to operate a project acquired through surrender or purchase; and to make rules and regulations for carrying into effect the provisions relating to state projects. On March 23 Governor Lehman repeated his recommendation that the legislature approve two constitutional amendments, the text of which he submitted with the message. These were introduced in the senate and the assembly on the same date. Senate Int. No. 1565 (Assembly Int. No. 2 1 4 5 ) provided changes in Section 10 of Article 8 of the constitution, dealing with limitations on indebtedness of all local areas in the state. These amendments would

282

NEW

YORK

have enabled cities to participate financially in slum clearance and lowcost housing and to give aid to public corporations for the same purposes. Bonds could be issued by the city to an amount not exceeding 2 percent of the assessed valuation of real estate subject to taxation, unless the question of incurring indebtedness in excess of this amount had been approved at a local referendum. All bonds issued by the city under this provision were exempt from the existing constitutional limitation, which prohibited the incurring of a total municipal indebtedness exceeding 10 percent of the assessed valuation of real estate subject to taxation. The final section of the proposed concurrent resolution provided that if the resolution were passed by the required constitutional majority in both houses of the legislature in 1937 it should be referred to the legislature to be chosen at the next general election of senators —that is, in November, 1938—as provided in the amending clause of the constitution, in Article 14. This would have meant that the legislative session meeting regularly in January, 1939, would have considered the proposed amendment, and if it had been adopted at that time it would have been submitted for popular approval at the general election in November, 1939. Assuming a favorable vote in the referendum, the cities would have been in a position immediately thereafter to proceed under the amendment. The senate approved the concurrent resolution provided in Senate Int. No. 1565, without a dissenting vote, but the assembly took no action on it. The second amendment suggested by the governor ( Senate Int. No. 1566 and Assembly Int. Nos. 2144 and 2164) contained a proposal for a concurrent resolution amending Article 7 of the constitution by adding a new section. A state revolving fund was established by the resolution, and loans could be made from it to public corporations, that is, to municipal housing authorities. The legislature was authorized to designate a state agency to administer the fund and to determine the terms and conditions of the loans. The legislature was further empowered to issue $100,000,000 of bonds without popular referendum and to exceed this amount upon the approval of the people at a general election. The bond issues under the proposed amendment were to be amortized in not more than thirty years. Provisions for approval of the proposed amendment were like those summarized above in the case of the amendment included in Senate Int. No. 1565. The senate adopted the resolution without a negative vote, and it was passed by the assembly by a vote of 107 ayes to 40 noes.

NEW YORK

283

The entire question of the proper legislative provision of state funds for housing aroused considerable interest and resulted in marked differences of opinion throughout the 1937 session. In part, these differences corresponded to political alignment. The Republicans, under the leadership of Abbot Low Moffat of New York City, chairman of the Assembly Ways and Means Committee, sponsored Assembly Int. No. 129, referred to as the "Moffat bill." This bill was, in fact, an evidence of the sincerity of the pledge of the Republican Party of New York, contained in the state party platform: "We recognize the need for slum clearance initiated and executed by state and local authorities. Within the limits of a sound state financial policy, we favor public aid to provide homes for families now living in slum areas and unable otherwise to afford decent, safe, sanitary housing." The bill was drafted by the Legislative Advisory Committee of the New York County Republican Committee, under the chairmanship of Harold Riegelman, a Republican lawyer from New York City. Numerous competent legal and housing experts had been consulted by the committee. The New York Times, on February 1, 1937, carried a news item to the effect that such lawyers as John W. Davis, Charles C. Burlingham, George W. Alger, Laurence Arnold Tanzer, and H. H. Nordlinger had examined the bill and were of the opinion that its constitutionality would be upheld by the New York courts. In general the Democratic members of the senate and the assembly supported the constitutional amendment which Governor Lehman sponsored (Senate Int. No. 1566), and they attacked the "Moffat bill" on the grounds of alleged unconstitutionality. The situation was further complicated by the introduction of several other bills proposing large bond issues to be submitted to popular referendum. In addition to the "Moffat bill," proposing a housing bond issue of $100,000,000, Governor Lehman urged the enactment of the "Alterman bill," providing $60,000,000 for the general purpose of construction, works, and improvements for the state; considerable support was given to the "Lo Re bill," providing $200,000,000 for public school construction; and, finally, the "Mercier bill" for a $10,000,000 bond issue to construct a World War memorial was advocated by a strong legislative group. In New York only one proposal for a bond issue can be submitted to the voters at any one election. This constitutional provision inevitably placed the supporters of each of the four bills in opposition to the supporters of the other three bills. The Minutes oj

284

NEW YORK

Hearing, February 24, 1937 before the Ways and Means Committee of the assembly (published for use of the committee only) contained a clear statement of all the points at issue. It is impossible to simplify so complicated a situation in limited space. The final legislative decision against the "Moffat bill" and in favor of the Lehman constitutional amendment was the result, in large part, of purely political considerations, but also, in part, of honest doubt as to the constitutionality of the former measure. Public housing as a public purpose for which public funds can be expended without express constitutional provision is a new idea, and judicial decisions on this general subject in American courts are few. The New York Court of Appeals might have construed the legislature's powers with sufficient liberality to permit such an expenditure, but competent constitutional lawyers were to be found who doubted that such a decision would be rendered. If an adverse decision were to be made, then the entire process of constitutional amendment would have had to be carried out, and to many legislators it appeared preferable to use this method in the first place, avoiding the undesirable effects on public opinion which would be produced by an adverse judicial decision. A third constitutional amendment (Assembly Int. No. 2159) was introduced, but not acted upon, in the lower house. The constitution of the state provides in Section 9 of Article 1 that no lottery may be allowed within the state, and the amendment would have added the following phrase, "except that lotteries may be conducted by or under the auspices of the state government or a state agency if the net proceeds thereof are earmarked and utilized exclusively for slum clearance purposes." A bill to amend the State Housing Law, enacted as Chapter 207 of 1937, extended the tax-exemption provisions of the law to 1947. Certain provisions of the State Housing Law which related to projects aided by the federal government were amended by Chapter 738. Neither of these acts contained provisions directly affecting the state board. One bill, on which no action was taken (Assembly Int. No. 8), was exactly like Assembly Int. No. 1290 of the 1936 session. It dealt with the application by the state board of special emergency rent laws. Assembly Int. No. 1528 contained a proposal for five new sections to be added to the State Housing Law. One section defined the term "low-cost housing" as used in the law to mean housing that shall rent at not to exceed six dollars per room per month. A second section pro-

NEW YORK

285

vided that "it is hereby declared the policy of the State of N e w York to annually contribute and pay as a subsidy at least so much of the carrying charges of Federally constructed, planned or financed housing projects in the State of N e w York as shall make them come within the definition of low-cost housing." Succeeding sections appropriated $2,000,000 to pay interest on any loans made by the federal government for low-cost housing projects in the state during the years 1938 and 1939. If a housing project was under the supervision of a municipal housing authority, as much of the money appropriated by the act as was necessary to pay the interest on the federal loan for the project was to be paid, in a manner provided by law, on requests signed by the chairman of the authority. If the project was not under the control of an authority, payments were to be made upon the request of the chairman of the State Board of Housing. N o action was taken on this bill. Governor Lehman's annual message to the legislature in 1938 contained recommendations for several different acts to improve the housing legislation of the state. During the housing emergency of the 1920's insurance companies had been authorized to use a limited portion of their assets in constructing low-rental dwellings, and the largest lowrental housing project ever undertaken in the United States had been built under this law. The governor recommended that life insurance companies again be authorized to invest their funds in this way, for a limited period and in a limited amount, under any restrictions necessary to insure the nonspeculative and socially desirable character of the developments. The governor further recommended that the act of 1934 which authorized the creation of municipal housing authorities be amended to make it applicable to counties, towns, and villages in addition to cities. Finally, the governor recommended certain specific constitutional amendments, including one authorizing the state to establish a revolving fund from which loans could be made to municipal housing authorities and to limited-dividend public housing companies. The governor further suggested that the legislature be empowered to grant subsidies to municipal housing authorities and that cities and other local areas be empowered to make loans and to grant subsidies to local authorities to construct low-cost housing. Indebtedness for this purpose would be exempt from the constitutional debt limit. About a month later the annual report of the State Board of Hous-

286

NEW

YORK

ing was presented to the legislature. The report opened with an excellent description of the current situation in the state, as it had been developed under the various federal and state housing laws. A brief report of the activities of each of the eight municipal authorities followed the more general opening section. As a conclusion the board presented six concrete proposals for legislative action, most of which were enacted in the 1938 session. The first three recommendations made by the board necessitated constitutional amendment. In 1937 the legislature had adopted a resolution proposing an amendment to create a state revolving fund for slum clearance and housing, from which the state could make loans to public housing corporations. The board recommended the adoption of a proposal, introduced in the 1938 session, identical with the 1937 resolution except that it authorized loans to limited-dividend companies as well as to municipal authorities. Since the 1937 resolution would have had to be reenacted by the legislature elected at the 1938 election before it could be submitted to a referendum in November, 1939, no time would have been lost by adopting the board's recommendation. The board did not, however, approve the short amortization period of thirty years included in the original bill in the 1938 session, and recommended that this be lengthened to fifty years. The board renewed the suggestion which it had made in 1937, namely, that the legislature should pass both a constitutional amendment and a statute on this subject. If the latter were sustained by the courts, the municipal authorities could proceed without waiting for the adoption of the constitutional amendment. The board recommended adoption of a second amendment to make an exception to the constitutional restriction on the use of state credit in aid of a corporation. This would then permit the legislature to make loans to public corporations and public limited-dividend housing companies and to grant subsidies to public corporations for slum clearance and the construction of new low-rent housing. A third proposed amendment would have permitted municipal aid to public corporations and public limited-dividend housing companies, and would have permitted municipal indebtedness for this purpose in addition to the constitutional limitation. The board also recommended the enactment of three statutes. The first bill (Assembly Int. No. 129, enacted as Chapter 218 of the laws of 1938) authorized counties, as well as cities, to establish housing au-

NEW YORK

287

thorities. The second bill (Assembly Int. No. 1433 and Senate Int. No. 1149), which was not enacted, would have enabled private limiteddividend companies which were not granted exemption from real estate taxes by a municipality to charge higher rentals than the maximum fixed in the law and would have relieved the corporations from the requirement that any surplus must revert to the state on dissolution. This change would have made private limited-dividend housing companies in New York eligible to obtain assistance from the FHA. Finally, the board endorsed the statute (Assembly Int. No. 326, enacted as Chapter 25), which Governor Lehman had recommended, to permit life insurance companies to use their funds for construction of low-rent housing projects. The statute, as enacted before the board made its report, gave the life insurance companies wide discretion in the type of housing to be built, and the board expressed the opinion that, if these companies were to be given the right to invest in housing on a permanent basis, there should be more statutory restriction on the character of the development and the rental of the buildings and such regulation as would insure that the projects accorded with the objectives expressed in the State Housing Law. The three concurrent resolutions proposing constitutional amendments (Assembly Int. Nos. 31, 32, 33 and Senate Int. Nos. 31, 32, 33) were introduced early in January, amended and adopted by the assembly on March 15 and by the senate on March 17. No negative votes were cast against them in the assembly, and in the senate four members voted against Senate Int. Nos. 31 and 32 and three voted against Senate Int. No. 33. All amendments to the bills were made in the assembly, and the senate concurred in all of them. Governor Lehman supported the three proposed constitutional amendments. Senate Int. No. 31 proposed a new section to be added to Article 7 of the constitution. It created a "State Revolving Fund for Slum Clearance and Housing," from which fund an agency or officer of the state designated by the legislature was authorized to make loans to public corporations and public limited-dividend housing companies, by purchasing securities or otherwise, for purposes of slum clearance and the construction of housing for persons of low income. The legislature, or an agency designated by it, was given the power to administer the fund. In order to provide funds the state was authorized to incur limited indebtedness without popular approval. The original bill provided that indebtedness of less than $100,000,000 could be incurred without refer-

288

NEW

YORK

endum, but this was changed to $ 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 by an assembly amendment. Indebtedness in excess of this amount could be incurred with popular approval expressed at a general election by a majority of persons voting on the proposition. T h e original bill provided for amortization within thirty years, but an assembly amendment changed this to fifty years, as had been recommended by the state board in its annual report. The amendment did not mention the state board, but it is possible that the legislature might have designated it as the agency to administer the revolving fund. After the legislature had made some progress in consideration of the three concurrent resolutions proposing constitutional amendment, Kenneth F . Simpson, chairman of the New York County Republican Committee, transmitted to the legislature a report prepared by the Legislative Advisory Committee of the County Committee, under the chairmanship of Harold Riegelman. T h e advisory committee, it may be noted, included on its membership several Democratic and nonpartisan members. T h e committee report (for a summary see the New York Times, February 16, 1938) included a recommendation for a $300,000,0 0 0 revolving fund instead of the $ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 fund provided in the amendment which was advocated by the governor (Senate Int. No. 3 1 ) ; and the committee also approved the alternative plan for a $ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 fund as provided in the bill introduced by Assemblyman Abbot Low Moffat, chairman of the Assembly Ways and Means Committee. Mr. Moffat's bill did not require a constitutional amendment to authorize such a fund, but was based upon the belief that the legislature had the power to raise money for aid to housing by submitting a bond issue to popular referendum. T h e Legislative Advisory Committee also recommended a fifty-year amortization of housing bonds rather than the thirty-year period provided in the governor's plan (Senate Int. No. 3 1 ) . T h e second amendment, contained in a concurrent resolution, Senate Int. No. 32, did not affect the state board. It authorized the legislature to make loans to public corporations and to public limited-dividend housing corporations and to grant subsidies to public corporations for slum clearance and construction of low-rent housing. An assembly amendment to the resolution added the restriction that an agency receiving state or local aid could not discriminate against any tenant applicant on account of race, color, or creed. Senate Int. No. 33, a third constitutional amendment, dealt with the powers of local subdivisions in the state to assist public corporations

NEW YORK

289

and public limited-dividend housing companies. The New York constitution, in Section 10 of Article 8, prohibited the extension of local credit to a corporation, and the amendment made an exception to this provision in order to permit aid for purposes of slum clearance and the building of low-cost housing. The assembly made numerous amendments to the bill, the most important of which reduced by one-half the amount of indebtedness which the local area could incur for these purposes. The amendment contained no provisions relating to the State Board of Housing. As the state board had suggested, bills for statutes, as well as those for constitutional amendments described above, were introduced to authorize the state to furnish funds in the form of loans to municipal housing authorities. One bill (Assembly Int. No. 796 and Senate Int. No. 658) was amended and passed by the assembly, but was not acted upon by the senate. A second bill (Assembly Int. No. 1926) was introduced later in the session, but was not reported out of the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means. A third bill (Assembly Int. No. 2322) which differed in certain respects from Assembly Int. No. 1926, but which was, on the whole, essentially like the latter, was sent to the Assembly Committee on Rules, remaining there without report. Assembly Int. No. 796 provided nine new sections as amendments to the State Housing Law. One section was subject to the referendum provision contained in the section, as noted below. The state board, as agent of the state, was authorized to make loans to a municipal authority from a special fund known as the "housing debt fund," and the bill contained a description of the various sources of payments into the fund. A state debt of $100,000,000 was authorized to be available for a period of ten years for loans to municipal housing authorities, and the state comptroller was empowered to issue state housing bonds, to be amortized within fifty years, under regulations provided in the bill. The proceeds of this bond issue were payable into the state housing fund. The section of the bill providing for the bond issue was not to be effective until approved at a general election. If the state board made a loan to a municipal authority, the board was required to appoint a member of the authority, who held office at the pleasure of the board and had all the powers and duties of the other members. Under numerous and detailed restrictions and conditions stated in the bill, the board was authorized to make loans to authorities. In general, Assembly Int. No. 796, and its companion bill Senate Int.

290

NEW

YORK

N o . 658, were like Assembly Int. Xo. 129 of the 1937 session (described above). It should be noted that the bill just described differed in one important respect from the proposed constitutional amendment in Senate Int. No. 31. T h e latter provided for loans of state funds both to public corporations and to limited-dividend housing companies, whereas the former provided for loans to public corporations only. Assembly Int. No. 1926 furnished a different plan for extending state credit to municipal housing authorities, included in fourteen new sections amending the State Housing Law. For purposes of administering the provisions of these sections, a new agency was to be created in the form of a Division of Housing Loans in the D e p a r t m e n t of State. T h e head of the division was to be a director, appointed by and holding office at the pleasure of the governor. The salary of this officer was fixed at $10,000, and he was required to devote his entire time to the duties of the office. Among the powers delegated to him were the power to appoint all necessary employees and assistants and to determine their duties and compensation and the power to make contracts and adopt rules and regulations. The remainder of the bill was essentially like Assembly Int. No. 796, except that in all cases in which the hitter bill had delegated powers of administration to the State Board of Housing, Assembly Int. No. 1926 gave them to the director of the Division of Housing Loans. Assembly Int. Xo. 1926 provided for a bond issue of $500,000,000, no time limit was set within which the funds had to be used, and the amortization period was sixty years. The director could not make loans to municipal authorities in excess of $100,000,000 in any one year, so that the minimum period within which the fund could be used was five years. T h e bill did not provide for any representative of the state to be a member of a municipal authority to which a state loan had been made, but the director of the proposed Division of Housing Loans was given a considerable amount of authority in connection with supervision of the finances of a project for which a state loan had been granted. N o action was taken on Assembly Int. Xo. 1926. Assembly Int. No. 2322, except for the provisions noted below, was like Assembly Int. No. 1926. The state comptroller, rather than the director of the Division of Housing Loans, was authorized to issue the housing bonds; the amortization period was fifty, instead of sixty, years; and a minor change in phraseology was made in the section prescribing procedure for the sale of the bonds. The bill was not reported out of committee in the assembly.

NEW YORK

291

Chapter 270 ( Senate Int. No. 1629) provided for the transfer of the Division of Housing to the Executive Department. T h e state board was continued, b u t thereafter appointment of its members was vested in the governor rather than in the secretary of state. T h e state board was given the power, subject to the approval of the governor or pursuant to rules made by him, to appoint its employees. This power had formerly been exercised by the secretary of state, without approval by the governor. T h e board was required to report to the governor rather than to the secretary of state, and all moneys payable to the board were to be paid to the Executive Department instead of to the D e p a r t m e n t of State. Books, papers, and funds of the state board were transferred from the Department of State to the Executive Department. Chapter 489 (Assembly Int. No. 1542 and Senate Int. No. 1209) made a change in the existing disposition of funds paid to the state board by the limited-dividend companies to reimburse the former for expenses incurred in the examination and supervision of projects during construction. Such funds had previously been paid to the Department of State and the department kept the funds for use in paying certain expenses authorized by the act. T h e amendment of 1938 continued to make these funds payable to the Department of State, but a new section provided that after July 1, 1938, all moneys credited to the fund for the reimbursement of the Board of Housing for its expenses of inspection, supervision, and auditing should be paid into the general fund of the treasury. One bill (Senate Int. No. 969 and Assembly Int. No. 1272), which was not passed in either house, provided a new article of the State Housing Law. Upon the verified petition of a citizen of the state, filed with the State Board of Housing, the board was authorized to institute an inquiry in a n y city or village to determine whether groups of citizens were being discriminated against in violation of the statement of policy contained in the first section. If the board discovered discrimination resulting in the impairment of health or morals, this fact was to be certified to the mayor. T h e city was thereby empowered to acquire by purchase or by condemnation such dwellings as were necessary to house the group against whom the discrimination was being exercised. If the city neglected to perform this duty, the state board was given the power to acquire necessary dwellings in the city, at the expense of the city. T h e remaining sections of the bill dealt with the administration and management of the dwellings, and, as might be expected, strict require-

292

NEW YORK

ments were provided to prevent discriminatory practices in renting them. The State Board of Housing, as was mentioned above, had recommended the enactment of an amendment to the State Housing Law in relation to nontax-exempt projects of limited-dividend companies. Senate Int. No. 1149 (Assembly Int. No. 1433) contained this amendment, but it was not acted upon by either house. In brief, it provided that if in any city tax exemption were not granted to limited-dividend housing company projects, the state board could permit the company to charge rentals higher than the maximum rentals provided in the law. No other effect would have been produced, insofar as the state board was concerned, by the passage of this act. A bill (Assembly Int. No. 163) exactly like Assembly Int. No. 8 of the 1937 session was introduced, but was not acted upon. This related to the establishment by the state board of special zones in which emergency rent laws should be made effective. In April, 1938, the question of state participation in public housing was transferred from the legislature to the Constitutional Convention. The convention, meeting from April to late August in 1938, had been preceded by a Constitutional Convention Committee, made up of a nonpartisan group of representative citizens. Governor Lehman appointed this committee and assigned to it the important task of preparing preliminary studies for the use of the convention. These studies were published in several volumes under the title Reports and Studies, and approximately 130 pages in seven different volumes were devoted to a description of the legal problems involved in public housing, as they were affected by the state constitution. Although apparently no members of the preliminary committee were chosen by the governor primarily because of their knowledge of housing, they were certainly competent to express to the convention the considered opinions of important interests in the state and the information acquired from experience. Charles Poletti, a justice of the State Supreme Court and later lieutenant governor of New York, acted as chairman of the Constitutional Convention Committee. A few of the most important contributions to be found in the Reports and Studies of the committee may be summarized. Volume I I , entitled Amendments Proposed to New York Constitution 1895-1937, contained a brief statement of the subject matter of every amendment on the subject of housing introduced in the legislature during the forty-

NEW YORK

293

two-year period, together with a statement indicating what disposition was made in each case. During the period from 1921 to 1927 eleven amendments to Article 7, Section 1, of the constitution were introduced, but in no case was one of them adopted by both houses of the legislature. These proposals all provided for the extension of state credit or the issuance of state bonds for housing purposes. Between 1920 and 1925 fifteen proposed amendments sought to change Article 8, Section 10, of the constitution, in order to give municipalities the power to incur indebtedness for housing. None of these bills was even reported out of committee. N o further attempts at amendment occurred for several years. In 1932 two new sections to be added to Article 8 were proposed, but not acted upon; and in 1937 two amendments to Article 8 and three new sections to be added to Article 7 were introduced. Only one of these (Senate Int. No. 1566), described above, was passed by both houses. Obviously, this summarized information concerning previous attempts at amendment was valuable to the convention. In Volume VIII of the Reports and Studies the committee presented an entire chapter to the convention, setting forth the proposal of the committee that a new state administrative agency be established to handle all real estate functions. The committee suggested that the new department should have ten different functions, as follows: real estate brokers and salesmen; subdivided lands; research and statistics; the liquidation and reorganization of certified mortgages; real estate appraisers and contractors and abstractors; outdoor advertising; public lands; and housing. In describing the functions under the last heading, the committee recommended that the housing division of the department be empowered to integrate and supervise all local housing authorities; to perform all the functions of the present State Housing Board; to furnish authoritative data and charts showing real estate trends, sales, construction volume, and current prices of material and labor; to supervise enforcement of the multiple-dwelling law; to act as arbitrator in all major labor disputes affecting real estate; to cooperate with municipalities for elimination of slums; to encourage all types of new construction, for low-income groups and for all other classes of the population; to encourage capital to participate in low-rent housing by encouraging labor to change its basis from hourly rates to yearly rates and by regulating material prices; to receive grants from the federal and state governments and to acquire real estate with the funds so obtained; to make studies of housing facilities and congestion in

294

N E W

YORK

cities; and to construct model communities for low-cost housing in suburban areas near industrial centers. One chapter in the volume of convention committee reports which dealt with problems of taxation and finance was probably of great value to members of the convention. In order to present an explanation of the constitutional problem involved in establishing state and municipal financial aid to housing, the three stages of governmental relationship to housing in New York were reviewed. T h e stage of restrictive regulation (1625 to 1929), the stage of encouragement to private enterprise (1874 to 1934), and the stage of direct governmental participation in housing construction and operation (1934 to 1938) were considered as offering the historical background for the efforts in the 193 7 and 1938 legislative sessions to enact constitutional amendments, or statutes, permitting the use of the credit and the funds of the state and local governments for a housing program. This chapter contained a discussion of the problems arising from the existing constitutional restrictions on lending state or municipal credit, the restrictions on the debtincurring power of the municipalities, and the restrictions on the application of excess condemnation to housing. Four documents were appended to the chapter. Particular attention is called to Appendix A, a memorandum on the state constitutional aspects of housing prepared by I r a S. Robbins, counsel to the State Board of Housing, as an expression of his own views. Copies were sent to members of the convention and to numerous organizations and individuals, and the memorand u m was of very considerable influence in determining the action of the convention in shaping the contents of the housing amendment. In the present study of state administrative agencies Mr. Robbing's proposals cannot be summarized, inasmuch as they did not contain suggestions as to the administration of the plans which he proposed. Nevertheless, the interest and the value of his memorandum should not be minimized. The convention membership, from the standpoint of party affiliation, consisted of ninety-two Republicans (largely from '"upstate" New York ), seventy-five Democrats (chiefly from metropolitan area districts), and one American Laborite—giving the upstate Republicans unquestioned control of the convention. T h e president of the convention, Chief Judge Frederick E. Crane of the Court of Appeals, appointed thirty-four standing committees, thirty-three of which had Republican chairmen. One of the delegates who was most competent in the field

NEW YORK

295

of housing legislation, Harold Riegelman, a Republican from New York City, was given the chairmanship of the Committee on Cities, and he was made a member of Committee No. 15 on Housing. The chairmanship of the latter committee was given to Joseph Clark Baldwin, a former member of the state senate, a member of the New York City Council, and a Republican. The Housing Committee consisted of ten Republicans, six Democrats, and one American Laborite. All the Democrats, the American Laborite, and three of the Republicans came from districts in the New York City metropolitan area; one member came from Buffalo; and the remaining six Republican members came from small cities and villages in the state. It is possible that the residence of the individual members of this particular committee was of more importance than party affiliation. New York City, with ten committee members, had control of the committee, and this city is far in advance of most other parts of the state in its participation in the federal housing program and in its interest in public housing. Insofar as any evidence was available in the form of speeches before the convention or votes on particular housing amendments, neither party could claim to have been the particular sponsor of housing measures, but New York City members did appear more enthusiastic in their support than were the upstate members. There were, of course, notable exceptions to be made to this general statement. The Housing Committee was assigned a clerk, at a salary of ten dollars per day, and a stenographer, at seven dollars per day. All the twenty-two proposed amendments relating to housing were assigned to this committee, except five bills which were sent to other committees (Int. Nos. 5, 224, 414, 520, and 529), because their major emphasis was on finance, taxation, or some subject other than housing. No provisions of these bills related to the creation of a state housing administrative agency. Early in June the committee held a public hearing in Albany to which, it was reported, more than sixty persons were invited, and which was attended by very many more than that number. The persons who attended and expressed their views to the committee included Fiorella H. La Guardia, mayor of New York City; Robert F. Wagner, United States Senator from New York; Louis H. Pink, chairman of the New York State Board of Housing; Alfred Rheinstein, chairman of the New York City Housing Authority; Langdon W. Post, representing the American Labor Party; Thomas Holden, representing the New York

296

NEW

YORK

Merchants' Association; Mrs. Mary Simkhovitch, representing the National Public Housing Conference; Mrs. Frances Donaldson, president of the New York State League of Woman Voters; and more than fifty representatives from various social, civic, and political organizations. The overwhelming majority of speakers favored the adoption of a housing amendment, but a small group of representatives of real estate organizations dissented. This group included Clarke Dailey, president of the New York Real Estate Board, and James Felt, a member of the same organization. The committee, in a further effort to inform itself of actual housing conditions in the state, made trips to New York City and Buffalo. In both cities the members visited slum areas and also the new housing projects built with federal aid. The importance of the question as to a housing amendment was demonstrated by the attention paid to it by all parties in the convention. Within a few days after the opening of the convention, the Republicans, the Democrats, and the American Laborites had introduced proposals. Harold Riegelman, as one of the most experienced Republican members in this field, supported a series of proposals resembling the amendments which Governor Lehman had sponsored and which had been adopted by the legislature in 1938. The proposed amendment advocated by Mr. Riegelman in the convention asked for a larger state revolving fund ($300,000,000) than the amendment adopted by the legislature ($100,000,000). Charles Poletti presented the American Labor Party proposals, which differed in some important details from the Republican plan. Senator Wagner, for the Democrats, submitted a plan calling for a $200,000,000 revolving fund. These plans contained little or no reference to any state administrative agency. The New York Times, on April 18, 1938, carried a news item describing the entire constitutional revision program of the American Labor Party, and this included the establishment of a Department of Housing. Two days later the Times in an editorial said, There is more immediate hope for an agreement as to a public housing policy, which has support in proposals submitted by Harold Riegelman, a leading Republican; by Senator Wagner, and by Judge Charles Poletti, spokesman for the American Labor party. The plans differ in detail, but all endorse the principle of loans and grants. An acceptable compromise should be possible. Inasmuch as few of the proposed housing amendments contained any provisions for administrative agencies, only a brief review of their contents will be necessary.

NEW YORK

297

Int. No. 224 (Pr. Nos. 231, 319) introduced by William S. Bennett, a Republican delegate from New York City, was referred to the Committee on Governor and Other State Officers. Article 5, Section 2, of the existing constitution provided for the major state administrative departments, including a department of architecture. Mr. Bennett proposed to substitute a department of real estate and mortgages, and the convention amended this proposal by substituting a department of real estate, mortgages, and architecture. The amended bill was not reported out of committee for further action. The Committee on Housing, having received seventeen bills, used Int. No. 145 (Pr. Nos. 146, 792, 815, 827, 840, 859, 891) as the basis for the amendment which was finally adopted by the convention and approved by the voters. This bill was introduced by Joseph Clark Baldwin, the chairman of the committee, and it contained the proposals which were approved, in general, by an influential group of housing workers in New York City. Other bills were introduced by Messrs. Rossi, Poletti, Riegelman, Wagner, Montana, Schiff, Bennett (J. J.), Eder, Hooper, and Weinfeld, seven of whom were members of the Democratic Party. On May 23, 1938, the Citizens' Housing Council of New York, Inc., published in mimeographed form a comparative chart of the provisions of fifteen of these bills, prepared by a subcommittee of the Committee on Laws and Administration of the council, under the chairmanship of George A. Boehm of New York City. The provisions relating to state aid were summarized under three subheads, entitled "State Fund," "State Loans," and "State Grants." Local-aid sections were included under the subheads "Local Loans" and "Local Grants." The third main section summarized provisions dealing with powers of condemnation. It will be noted that the amendments contained so few provisions relating to administrative agencies that the chart contained neither a main head nor a subhead on that subject. In fact, only one bill of the entire number contained more than a single phrase relating to state housing administration. Int. No. 645 (Pr. No. 673), introduced by Francis D. McGarey, a Democratic member from Kings County, provided that the legislature should have power to establish a department of housing and vest it with the power to acquire real estate, to permit local areas to make loans or grant subsidies, to establish local housing authorities, and to permit state or local housing departments or authorities to license private individuals

298

NEW

YORK

or corporations for the development of housing or slum-clearance projects under the control of the department or the authority. It did not appear that consideration was given either by the Committee on Housing or the convention to the provisions relating to a department of housing. Int. 316 ( P r . No. 335), introduced by M r . Poletti, provided that the state housing fund was to be expended by the "state departm e n t , " but no such department was set up in the bill. Five bills ( I n t . Nos. 18, 26, 33, 214, and 228) merely gave the legislature the power to expend state housing f u n d s through such administrative agencies as it might designate. T h e omission of provision for a state administrative agency characterized the amendment which the convention finally approved, and it was probably a desirable omission. T h e convention appeared to be willing to leave this decision to the legislature as a more suitable agency for determining the proper administrative structure of state government. A careful perusal of the debates in the convention on the housing amendment revealed that no attention was given to the subject. T h e bill finally approved by the convention was submitted to popular referendum as Amendment No. 4, and was adopted in November, 1938, becoming "Article X V I I I Housing" of the New York constitution. T h e article is very long, containing more than 2,000 words, and many of its supporters regretted that so much detail had been included in the text. They would have preferred a single paragraph granting to the legislature in simple, general terms the power to regulate slum clearance and low-rental housing as permissible public purposes for which public f u n d s could be used. T h e legislature could then have added the necessary detailed provisions. In fact, the amendment was so specific that bills proposing to amend it were introduced as early as in the 1940 session. An excellent brief summary of the new article was published in M a r c h , 1939, by the Citizens' Housing Council of New York. T h e text of the summary follows: For the purpose of providing for low rent housing for low income persons or for the clearance, replanning, reconstruction and rehabilitation of sub-standard and unsanitary areas, or for both purposes, and for recreational and other facilities incidental thereto, the Housing Amendment authorizes the Legislature to provide for: I. The creation of a state debt not exceeding $300,000,000.00. II. State loans to cities, towns, villages or public corporations (e. g. housing authorities), or to housing corporations regulated by law as to rents, profits,

N E W YORK

299

dividends and disposition of their property or franchises (limited dividend housing corporations). I I I . State loans or subsidies may be made only for a project which is in conformity with a plan or undertaking for the clearance, replanning and reconstruction or rehabilitation of sub-standard and unsanitary areas. I V . State capital or periodic subsidies to cities, towns, villages and public corporations, payable only out of moneys appropriated from the general fund, provided that such periodic subsidies shall be paid for no longer than the life of the project and in any event for not more than sixty years, that no contracts for periodic subsidies shall be entered into in any one year requiring payments aggregating more than $1,000,000.00 in any one year, and that there shall not at any time be outstanding contracts for periodic subsidies requiring payments exceeding in the aggregate $5,000,000.00 in any one year. V. T a x exemption by the state, but for not more than sixty years. V I . Cooperation with and acceptance of aid from the Federal Government. V I I . T h e creation of indebtedness b y cities, towns or villages not to exceed 2r/< of the assessed valuation of the real estate subject to taxation, over and above existing debt incurring power. V I I I . Loans by cities, towns or villages to public corporations, to housing corporations regulated by law as to rents, profits, dividends and disposition of their property or franchises, and to owners of existing multiple dwellings, but to the latter only for the rehabilitation for occupancy by low income persons. I X . Capital or periodic subsidies b y cities, towns or villages to public corporations, payable only with moneys locally appropriated from the general fund. X . Guarantees by any city, town or village of the principal or interest or both the principal and interest of any indebtedness contracted by a public corporation. X I . T h e Legislature may not authorize cities to contract indebtedness in excess of present legal limitation unless the cities shall be required at the same time to levy taxes other than ad valorem taxes on real estate, to an extent sufficient to provide for payment of the principal and interest on such indebtedness, but cities may nevertheless pledge their faith and credit for the payment of such indebtedness and have recourse to ad valorem taxes on real estate if such other taxes provide insufficient revenue in any year. X I I . T a x exemption by cities, towns and villages but for not more than sixty years. X I I I . T h e exercise of the power of eminent domain by cities, towns, villages and public corporations and housing corporations regulated as to rents, profits, dividends and disposition of their property or franchises. X I V . In the exercise of the power of eminent domain for the purposes specified in the Amendment, any agency of the state or any city, town or village or public corporation may be authorized to take property necessary for such purposes, but in excess of that required for public use after such purposes have been accomplished, and may improve and use the same for any other public purpose, or lease or sell the same with restrictions to protect the improvement ( E x cess condemnation).

N E W YORK

3°° T

XV . The state or any city, town, village or public corporation may acquire by eminent domain, or otherwise, such property as may be deemed ultimately necessary for housing purposes, although temporarily not required for such purposes (Reserve Lands). XVI. Occupancy preference in state aided projects is to be given to persons who live or have lived in the cleared area. XVII. The legislature is empowered to make all laws deemed necessary and proper for carrying into effect the foregoing powers. I n spite of numerous objections to particular parts of the amendment, it attracted widespread and active support. No organized political group and no individual candidate for state office in the 1938 campaign was openly opposed to its acceptance, and in general the parties and candidates gave affirmative support. Among its advocates may be named the Welfare Council of New York, United Neighborhood Houses, Inc., Citizens' Housing Council of New York, the National Public Housing Conference, the New York State League of Women Voters, the New York Citizens Union, the New York Building Congress, the New York State Board of Housing, Borough President Stanley Isaacs, of M a n h a t t a n , Newbold Morris, president of the New York City Council, Mayor Fiorella H. La Guardia, of New York City, Edward F. McGrady, Alfred E. Smith, Senator Robert F. Wagner, D r . H a r r y Emerson Fosdick, Lewis E. Lawes, Mrs. Anna M . Rosenberg, R a b b i Phillip Bernstein, Austin H . McCormick, Sanford Bates, and M r s . M a r y K . Simkhovitch. Among the opponents of the amendment were the Real Estate Taxpayers Federation, Inc., the Real Estate Board of New York, the Real Estate Association of the State of New York, and James L. Dowsey, of Nassau County (chairman of the Committee on Counties and Towns of the Constitutional Convention). Of nine amendments submitted to referendum in November, 1938, the housing amendment ran third in popularity, with 1,686,056 votes cast for it, and 936,279 in opposition to it. The New York City voters contributed largely to the affirmative vote, and a very large number of voters cast no vote on the amendment. TABLE

XXX

VOTE ON PROPOSED HOUSING AMENDMENT, YES

Outside New York City New York City Total

1938

NO

B L A N K AND VOID

TOTAL

2,393.001

607,713

594,777

1,190,511

1,078^343

341,502

894,483

2,314,328

1,686^056

936,279

2,084^994

4,707,329

N E W YORK

301

After the adoption of the amendment, in November, 1938, and before the meeting of the legislature in January, 1939, a considerable amount of work was done in connection with drafting proposed legislation to be considered in the 1939 session. At this stage the problem of a suitable administrative agency arose, and numerous suggestions were made. The New York City Housing Authority proposed a fivemember board to be appointed by the governor. Four members were to be unpaid, and the fifth, designated as chairman by the governor, was to be a full-time officer with an annual salary of $12,000. The bill which was sponsored by the State Board of Housing contained the same proposal, and the board, in its annual report for 1939 (Legislative Document [1939] No. 60), offered the following reasons in support of the recommendation: The Board makes this recommendation because the State program authorized by the Housing Amendment was not contemplated at the time of the appointment of the present members. While we are strongly opposed to needless duplication of administrative effort, we do not believe that the State supervising agency should act merely in the capacity of banker. Rather, the State, for the very reason that it supplies 90 per cent of the development costs, should assume leadership and responsibility in establishing adequate standards for new housing in order to safeguard its considerable investment. This responsibility will involve new fiscal duties on the part of the State agency. In addition there will be many fact-finding and administrative problems relating to the field of housing throughout the State as well as co-ordination of the work of the various housing authorities, all of which will require both housing and fiscal experts. . . . In any event the recommendation of the Board will enable the Governor to appoint a personnel which he believes best suited to carry out the functions of the State agency.

In order that the governor might have a free hand in appointing a board to carry out the new state program, the state board advocated the termination of the appointments of its own members on June 30, 1939. Robert Moses, commissioner of parks of New York City, in an address on November 22, 1938, proposed a plan for legislation to implement the new housing amendment. The plan aroused very considerable discussion. Speaking of a suitable agency, Mr. Moses said: I believe that in place of the present State Housing Board there should be a board with the functions normally discharged by a bank or banker in private financing. This board should consist of State officials, ex officio, including the State Superintendent of Insurance because of his supervision of corporations

302

NEW

YORK

with large funds which may be loaned for low cost housing and because he has been Chairman of the present Housing Board and knows the problem, the Commissioner of Architecture because he knows building plans, and the Commissioner of Taxation and Finance. This group would pass upon all requests for loans and grants and would keep an eye on the work done by the municipalities with State funds. This new board would not, however, have anything to do directly with construction and its present function of sponsoring limited dividend projects would be turned over to the municipalities.

Three days later an editorial in the New York Times contained a brief summary of Mr. Moses's proposal and made the statement that he must expect to meet with opposition. The Times disapproved the plan for an ex officio agency on the ground that the officials proposed as members were already overburdened with administrative duties. The Citizens' Housing Council of New York expressed disagreement with many proposals in the Moses plan and stated that the substitution of boards made up in whole or in part of ex officio members was opposed by the council because "special boards composed of officials who have other major responsibilities have generally proved unsatisfactory administrative devices." Before the opening of the 1939 legislative session and during the earlier part of the session, while the housing bills were under consideration, valuable advisory assistance was rendered by a committee called together by Mayor La Guardia. This committee was made up of housing experts and representatives of various organizations, under the chairmanship of Mrs. Dorothy (Samuel I.) Rosenman. The program of bills finally enacted was based on a draft prepared by this committee. On January 4, 1939, Governor Lehman addressed his annual message to the legislature. In discussing housing he said that New York had once more made history in the field of housing, and that "no other state in the nation provides in its Constitution for a long-range plan." He recommended that a new state agency be established in the Executive Department to take the place of the existing state board. He proposed that the new agency be empowered to examine project plans of local agencies to determine whether they met conditions under which loans and subsidies might be granted by the state. In 1934 Governor Lehman had recommended that cities be authorized to establish housing authorities which would construct and operate projects financed by national, state, and local funds. In 1937 and 1938 he had urged the adoption of an amendment to the state constitution to

NEW

YORK

303

make possible a housing program predicated upon a partnership between the three governments. H e concluded by saying, It is my firm belief that all three must participate; that all three must assist financially. Hence, I most earnestly submit for your consideration that any appropriation that may be authorized by your Honorable Bodies at this session be contingent upon the development and continuance of this financial partnership between the federal, state and local governments. The State Board of Housing presented its 1939 report to the legislature in January (Legislative Document [1939] No. 60), concluding the series of such reports begun in December, 1926, with a preliminary report to the governor, and in March, 1927, with the first annual report. The 1939 report contains a description of the need for new housing, the recently adopted constitutional amendment, the recommendations of the board for legislation needed to put the amendment into effect, the existing public and limited-dividend housing projects in New York, housing legislation and legal decisions in 1938, and the state-wide conference of municipal housing authorities held in the preceding November. The 1939 report also contains digests of reports of municipal authorities and statistical statements concerning all limiteddividend projects under the jurisdiction of the board, including the fourteen limited-dividend projects and the public housing projects in New York City, Buffalo, Lackawanna, Schenectady, Syracuse, Utica, and Yonkers. As might be expected, several different bills were introduced in both houses of the legislature to set up a systematic structure for carrying the new housing amendment into effect. In every case the bills were detailed and long, and it was only after very considerable difficulty that there was final agreement on a series of four bills sponsored by Senator Thomas C. Desmond, Assemblymen Abbot Low Moffat and MacNeil Mitchell. The best source of information concerning the five different proposals is a most comprehensive chart prepared by the Citizens' Housing Council of New York, which is available in mimeographed form under the title "Comparative Analysis of the Principal General Housing Bills, New York State Legislature—1939 Session." The complexity of the bills mentioned above was due to the necessity of establishing the complete machinery of state and local agencies, as well as the entire system of state and local financial aid. Obviously, in the present study consideration can be given only to those provisions of the bills which related to the state administrative agency, al-

[/> p) h) M pa o z H» in S O « 1 > S i " to

s» S3 ac

cçc > B a a u j¿ ' " 'S " a o t: J ^••>*» / I> sot; 55 fe Wl s « .to O > ^ «S aâ è « e* fe. O U) z
.

m 2 X«

"ii.Ë c ^ J : U co3.\S.90

1927-28»

2.792.54

1.632.98

1.588.35

192X 29

2.Ooo.iiO

326.43 81.85 1.407.71 1,389.$2 1.036.33 f 687.68' 782.02 c 579.14 ' 495.59 ' 3.56 c 1.876.89

1929-30 1930-31 1931-32 1932-33 1933-3-1 193-1-35 1935-36 1936 37 1937-38 1938-39 •
X J

8 S

«

«A-

50.00

a « < o

8

¿

s * ; ? •S^-s-i s 3: o » ? i s s : -o _ s U ° of g g o.'S ^ * - oT * O O O S S'S 2 . u i-. 5 ti V 9 e V ra «n w ^ Û. û. 3 3 rt rt V ç o £ X .C.C EÏÏwUUH

500

INDIANA

board continued to be held in Indianapolis, generally in the State Board of Health building, and that city continued to be considered the official and legal residence of the board. The working office was transferred to Gary. Chapter 207 of the laws of 1937 provided for a S10.000 annual appropriation for the administrative expenses of the board. In the first fiscal year the board was not in operation for more than nine months, and it received its total annual appropriation for the fiscal year from July 1, 1937, to June 30, 1938, in a lump sum. Each month a report is filed with the Budget Department showing cumulative expenditures since July 1 preceding, and the financial practices of the board are subject in all respects to the same regulations as the other state agencies. In 1939 and in 1941 the board submitted its requests for administrative f u n d s directly to the budget director, to form a part of the regular biennial appropriation bill for the fiscal periods 1939—41 and 1941-43. T a b i c No. L X V I I , on page 499 contains a statement, for the period f r o m 1937 to 1943, inclusive, of all available information concerning the finances of the board. In addition to this information, an itemized statement of the expenditures of the board is shown in T a b l e LXVIII. TABLE

LXVIII

I T E M I Z E D E X P E N D I T U R E S OF T H E I N D I A N A S T A T E H O U S I N G

1037-38

1Q3S-39 $ 5,359.44 1,093.60 639.09 4.50 187.04 10.00 40.00

BOARD,

1937-41

1939-40

1940-41

$5,880.00 1,080.48 521.06

$6,000.00 960.94 615.93

140.44 10.00 40.00

145.02 16.00 30.00

Salaries Traveling Communication Printing Office supplies Insurance bond Association dues Equipment and repairs

S 4,095.62 Lump sum for all operating expenses $ 1,416.51

893.37

48.40

1.50

Total Unexpended

$ 6,405.50 3,594.50

? T 3 82.07 2,617.93

$7,673.48 476.52

$7,761.29 388.71

Appropriation

? 10,000.00

$10.000.00

$8,150.00

$8,150.00

Rent, including heat and light, is furnished free in the State House. T h e State Board of Housing is in the Executive Department of the Indiana state government. Under the law governing administrative organization the governor determines the location of such a newly created

INDIANA

501

agency unless provision is made in the legislation which establishes it. It is suitable in the present instance to place the board in the Executive Department, inasmuch as the governor himself, or his representative, is a member of the board. The composition of the board, which is made up in part of ex officio and in part of appointive members, was discussed and determined upon before the bill was introduced. The State Planning Board had prepared a draft, and the PWA Housing Division bill was suggested by the Washington office. The governor and the steering committees of the legislature, using these two proposals as a basis, prepared the bill which was introduced, and with respect to the provisions concerning the state board the legislature made no changes. This type of board appears to be satisfactory to many correspondents in the state. One ex officio member of the board says, I am of the opinion that a Board made up in part of ex officio members and in part of appointive members with an executive secretary selected by the Board, is the best administrative set-up. The ex officio members usually represent departments which are very close to the problems of housing. The appointive members representing the public at large, are valuable from the standpoint of representing the public and as a check upon the ex officio members who possibly could become over-enthusiastic regarding the program. This plan prevents investing too much authority in one person and also prevents a top-heavy Board which might go too far in either direction.

The board works in close relationship with other state administrative agencies. The budget goes directly to the state budget director, and all requisitions for supplies are transmitted to the Purchasing Department. The reports which the State Board of Housing requires from the various local authorities are rendered on forms prepared by the board and are transmitted to that agency. These reports deal principally with the activities of the particular local authorities. Furthermore, the State Board of Accounts has the same powers over local housing authorities that it has over the more than 1,500 municipal corporations in the state, and under these powers the Board of Accounts prescribes accounting forms for the housing authorities and acts as a general auditing agency in connection with their financial affairs. The Board of Housing works in close cooperation with the state fire marshal, who enforces the state fire and safety codes, with the State Board of Health, which enforces the state sanitary code, and with the State Planning Board in its program of long-range municipal planning.

502

INDIANA

T h e S t a t e B o a r d of H o u s i n g is more closely c o n n e c t e d with the l o c a l authorities than with the s t a t e agencies m e n t i o n e d above, both in l a w and in practice. T h e legal p o w e r s of the board are, up to the p r e s e n t , more e x t e n s i v e than its actual functions. Although the board is e m p o w e r e d to order the creation of a local h o u s i n g authority, this a p p e a r s to be t o o extreme a m e a s u r e to be workable, and it has been s a t i s f i e d to stimulate c o m m u n i t i e s to create their o w n authorities. T h i s p r o g r a m h a s resulted in the e s t a b l i s h m e n t of t w e n t y - e i g h t authorities ( a s of N o v e m b e r , 1 9 4 1 ) . M a n y of t h e s e are inactive, but M r . Stanton, the e x e c utive s e c r e t a r y of the board, is not willing to e v a l u a t e the u s e f u l n e s s of a local authority s o l e l y on its ability to d e v e l o p a project and to secure federal f u n d s to build it. T h i s is in contrast to the belief of the s t a t e boards in s o m e other s t a t e s that a housing authority should not b e established unless and until a project can actually be built. On this s u b ject M r . Stanton said: A concrete analysis of the functioning of any governmental agency is extremely difficult unless its activities are of a character which are susceptible to mathematical dissection. A State Housing Board which is limited by statute to advisory and supervisory jurisdiction is in no such h a p p y position. It cannot, like the Athletic Commission, report the number of wrestling matches which had been held in the state within a specified time and which had resulted in an enumerated tax return to the state of so m a n y dollars. Neither can it, like the Public Service Commission, report the rate reductions achieved in utilities costs, nor, like the T a x Board, announce the number of hearings held and the amount of lowered assessments and taxes which followed. I t cannot even recite the number of housing facilities which it has initiated or constructed, since it has legal authority to do neither. I t s value, based on present state legislation and current federal activity, must of necessity be considered and determined as a stimulative co-ordinator of state-wide municipal housing activity, acting as a continuing balance wheel between existing housing a p a t h y and possible f u t u r e public housing zealotry. It seems clear to me t h a t the initial demand for the existence of local public housing agencies engaged in the housing business did not arise, as did the demand for governmental assistance in the construction of schools, roads, hospitals, parks and recreational facilities, from the people at large who wished to be served b y such facilities. R a t h e r , it came from those at the top of the governmental and social ladder, who realized that at least one-third of the people of our country were destitute for decent homes and t h a t our country was one of the last to do a n y t h i n g about it. As a consequence, the serious and immediate problem in public housing is to develop the weight of public opinion so t h a t it is in balance with the conclusions of the more advanced social thought, as well as with existing state and federal enabling legislation. I m p o r t a n t as it may appear to be to construct thousands of housing units for persons of low

INDIANA

503

income, it is even more important that the public generally be convinced of the extent of the need and the efficacy of the proposed solution. A state housing board or a local housing authority which takes action with greater rapidity than is approved by the public opinion behind it, in our opinion, invites public distrust. Our State Housing Board therefore prefers an informative, co-operative and soundly progressive role, rather than one in which it holds itself out as an oracle from which the solution of all our public state housing problems must emanate. T h e board has the power to investigate the affairs of an authority, but no use has been made of it. This, of course, is in no way remarkable, inasmuch as the programs of the local authorities are, as yet, in the earliest stages of development. T h e board requested the State Board of Accounts to set up for the use of the local authorities a report form that would accord with the reports which the authorities make to the United States Housing Authority, and this was done in 1939. T h e principal work of the board is performed under paragraph (d) of Section 24 of Chapter 207, which requires that the local authority shall transmit to the board for its approval a copy of each proposed project. As a matter of administrative policy each request of this sort is sent to the state fire marshal, the State Board of Health, and the State Planning Board, although paragraph ( d ) states that no approval of any state agency other than the board shall be required. It may be worth while to call attention to one power which the State Board of Housing does not have in Indiana. I n most states the state board was established primarily, or even solely, to administer the provisions of an act dealing with limited-dividend housing corporations. There is no provision in Indiana law for such companies, and apparently the opposition to tax exemption will be sufficient to prevent the passage of such an act in the near future. The administrative budget of the state board has been small, and it has not been possible to carry out any extensive program of surveys and housing studies as the board is authorized to do in Section 23 of Chapter 207. Some assistance is given to the local authorities in the form of sending speakers for public meetings, preparing mimeographed forms to be used by the city or county in the creation of an authority, and sending various government bulletins on housing for the use of the local authorities. Different correspondents in Indiana have expressed reasonable satisfaction with the existing powers and functions of the board. One member of the legislature, within a year after the board became operative,

504

I N D I A N A

s t a t e d t h a t n o p a r t i c u l a r c r i t i c i s m h a d b e e n l e v e l e d a t it a n d t h a t

it

w a s f u n c t i o n i n g s u b s t a n t i a l l y a s w e l l a s s i m i l a r b o a r d s in o t h e r s t a t e s . H e d i d n o t a d v o c a t e a n y i n c r e a s e in t h e p o w e r s , f u n c t i o n s , o r b u d g e t of the b o a r d , although additional personnel m i g h t be needed from t i m e t o t i m e . H e c o n t i n u e d w i t h t h e s t a t e m e n t t h a t it h a d b e e n the u n i f o r m practice in I n d i a n a to m a k e m u n i c i p a l and other public c o r p o r a tions s u b j e c t to a d e q u a t e state control. Final a p p r o v a l of housing projects w h i c h c o n t e m p l a t e t a k i n g p r o p e r t y used for housing purposes off of the tax d u p l i c a t e s h o u l d be scrutinized b y some a g e n c y other than the federal g o v e r n m e n t , w h o a c t s as the banker, and the local a u t h o r i t y , w h o is the borrower. T h i s is particu l a r l y true inasmuch as the t a x e s of a p a r t i c u l a r corporation constitute b u t a small portion of the taxes levied b y the state and other governmental subdivisions. T w o m e m b e r s o f t h e b o a r d a g r e e d t h a t in t h e e a r l y s t a g e s of o p e r a t i o n t h e r e w a s n o m a r k e d n e c e s s i t y f o r c h a n g e s in t h e i r

their

organi-

z a t i o n o r d u t i e s , a n d t h e y m a d e n o s u g g e s t i o n s f o r a m e n d m e n t of

the

state housing laws. One board member, recognizing that there had been d i f f i c u l t i e s e n c o u n t e r e d in t h e h o u s i n g p r o g r a m ,

said:

M y c o m m e n t s are influenced b y the k n o w l e d g e t h a t it has been extremely difficult for the State H o u s i n g B o a r d to arouse s y m p a t h e t i c interest in m a n y of the political subdivisions w h e r e housing for those in the low income b r a c k e t is needed b a d l y . A l s o b y the f a c t that realtors, b o a r d s , civic associations, etc., h a v e in these areas bitterly opposed the f o r m a t i o n of municipal housing a u t h o r ities a n d further b y reason of the fact t h a t the U S H A itself h a s caused a loss of interest through delays. S e v e r a l m e m b e r s of t h e l e g i s l a t u r e , o f t h e S t a t e B o a r d o f

Housing,

a n d o f l o c a l h o u s i n g a u t h o r i t i e s e x p r e s s e d t h e i r o p i n i o n s in r e p l y t o t h e q u e s t i o n as to t h e u s e f u l n e s s a n d a d v i s a b i l i t y of p r o v i d i n g state f u n d s f o r loans and g r a n t s to local authorities. T h e general belief w a s

that

n o s u c h p l a n c a n b e c a r r i e d o u t . T h e s e c r e t a r y of o n e m u n i c i p a l h o u s i n g authority

said,

A t this stage of our public housing p r o g r a m , a n d until the people are further e d u c a t e d , I feel sure that there would be m u c h opposition to state loans or state subsidies. T h e difficult thing is to k e e p housing in the public mind as a social rather than a political issue. A similar opinion follows: I t is m y belief that politics are less l i k e l y to e n t e r into the picture if the local authorities do not h a v e to a p p l y to state g o v e r n m e n t for funds. Our |a municipal a u t h o r i t y ' s ] experience to d a t e h a s been t h a t the U S H A has proven to be

INDIANA

505

absolutely aloof from the question of local political developments but I doubt that this would be the case if the state government itself were supplying funds to local authorities. I further believe that should politics enter into the housing program it would soon deteriorate in quality.

A member of the legislature replied: I believe that most people would uniformly agree that neither the people nor the Legislature of Indiana are prepared as of the present time to make available state funds collected from taxes to be used for loans or grants to local public housing agencies.

A particularly strong expression of opinion came from a member of the State Board: I am firmly of the opinion that the State of Indiana should not make available state funds for loans and subsidies in addition to funds furnished it by USHA. Such a proposal would, in my opinion, be political suicide to either of the proponent political parties. The electorate, if such a proposal were submitted to it for a referendum, would vote against such proposal by an overwhelming majority.

Two correspondents, discussing the possibility that the state board might develop a program of small-town and rural housing, agreed that there was no plan of this sort at that time. One of these persons thought that the state board could help materially, if and when funds were made available, but that actually the problem in the urban areas is more acute than in the rural areas. In conclusion, it is rather difficult to evaluate the work of the Indiana State Board of Housing. The 1937 legislature appears to have considered it possible for the board to become an active and influential agency, if we may judge by the delegation of powers made in Chapter 207. The same law contains provision for such a small administrative budget that it must have been apparent to the authors of the bill that the board could actually do very little, whatever its legal authority might be. There was no opportunity in the 1937-39 biennium to secure an additional appropriation, later appropriations have been small, and the board has probably done as much as can reasonably be expected under these circumstances. Neither the members of the board nor its secretary nor the authorities nor members of the legislature seem to be particularly critical of this limitation upon the board's activity. Apparently the interested persons in Indiana view the board as an agency capable of giving some advisory service to local housing authorities and of exercising a degree of control over their functions through the power

506

INDIANA

to approve projects. There seems to be little desire to increase the functions of the board even to the point of exercising all its present legal powers. In 1939 the only bill (House Xo. 421) relating to the state board was the one seeking to abolish it entirely. Although this was introduced by some of the majority (Republican) members of the lower house, it was reported out of committee for indefinite postponement, and apparently the idea of destroying the board was not supported by a n y considerable number of legislators. T h e appropriation for the board was reduced, but this cannot be interpreted as a sign of hostility because the Budget Committee recommended approximately the same rate of reduction for all state departmental appropriations. In November, 1940, it appeared that the board might be entering upon an important new function in connection with the housing problems arising from the national defense program. A munitions plant at Charlestown, with a normal population of eight hundred, a powder storage plant a t a crossroads, Union Center, and the large-scale defense industries at South Bend and Gary were creating serious problems. The State Defense Council selected the State Housing Board as the housing arm of the council. The council employed a state defense planning coordinator, his assistant, and a stenographer, and placed them at Charlestown. These employees were paid from the governor's emergency contingent f u n d , but they were placed under the State Housing Board for record purposes. A less hopeful situation for the board was produced by the action of the legislature in its 1941 session. House No. 7, which was not reported out of committee, contained a repeal of the entire 1937 housing law. Several important amendments to the housing law were contained in a bill which was passed by the senate, but none of these changes affected the state board. T h e governor included a request for fairly adequate administrative funds for 1941-43 in his budget, but the legislature reduced them drastically, leaving an appropriation of only S3,000 for 1941-42, and $50 for 1942-43. Mr. Stanton stated in August, 1941, that the board was being operated on a curtailed basis, with the same membership, and t h a t he was continuing as legal advisor and executive secretary. It was obvious that activity in 1942-43 would have to be on a voluntary basis. T h e working office of the board was removed to Gary, and the secretary continued to perform all the obligatory statutory duties. He planned to continue to do this in 1942 without compensation, at least until the legislature should meet.

INDIANA

507

T h e party in control of the legislature in 1941 (Republican) made very extensive cuts in appropriations for 1 9 4 1 - 4 3 , and the reduction in funds for the Board of Housing was a minor incident in the whole program. Certain other departments were, however, more fortunate than the board, because their appropriations contained a clause permitting additional expenditures from their revenues. Since the Board of Housing has no revenues, no such advantage could be secured. Mr. Stanton said that the political complexion of the next legislature would probably have an important effect upon the future of the board. The 1941 legislature showed no hostility to the board, and attempts to curtail the program by drastic amendment and outright repeal were defeated. In fact, at the time of enactment of the budget bill the legislature was actually passing, by unanimous vote, a bill that would place additional duties upon the board.

X. GEORGIA

P

to 1937 no housing legislation had been enacted in Georgia. T w o acts passed in t h a t year (Chapter No. 411 and Chapter No. 499) provided a Housing Authorities Law and a Housing Cooperation Law which formed the legal basis for the housing program in the state until very considerable amendments were enacted in 1941. Upon introduction the two bills had no unusual features, and no provisions were included for a state housing agency. T h e bill for a Housing Authorities Law (Senate No. 241, House No. 410) did, however, include a delegation of power to the governor of the state which was retained in the law in its final form. After the local governing body had created an authority, the mayor (in the case of a city) or the governing body (in the case of a county) was required to appoint five persons as commissioners of the authority. Such appointments were to be made by and with the consent of the governor. T h e mayor of a city or the governing body of a county was empowered to remove a commissioner, with the consent of the governor. RIOR

T h e most remarkable alteration was produced in both bills (Senate Nos. 241 and 242) by the amendment, in identical terms, which the House of Representatives attached to each of them, and in which the senate concurred. H a v i n g set up municipal housing authorities with defined powers and having permitted cities to assist them in carrying out their respective programs, the legislature proceeded to alter the situation completely in the following terms: There is hereby created a State Housing Authority Board consisting of five members, to wit: The State Treasurer, State School Superintendent, Secretary of State, Chairman of the State Planning Board and the Governor as an exofficio member. The authorities in the municipalities or counties authorized to be established under the terms of this Act, after the adoption of the resolution provided for herein concerning the various subject matters of this act, shall forward a copy of said resolution to the State Housing Authority Board together with a complete analysis of the projects to be undertaken, in such manner as may be prescribed by said State Housing Authority Board and none of the local subdivisions of this authority shall be permitted to exercise any of the duties

GEORGIA and privileges, or do any of the acts or things authorized herein, without first securing the approval of the State Housing Authority Board. No project shall be undertaken without such approval of said State Housing Authority Board and said Board shall have the right of refusal and the ultimate power to veto any act or project of any public body or local Housing Authority Board as defined in this Act [Section 4 of Senate No. 241 and Section 7 of Senate No. 242]. A more sweeping delegation of final, supreme control can scarcely be imagined, and there could be no doubt as to the preeminent position of the state agency under these acts. Apparently no other similar housing body in the United States, with the possible exception of the one in New Mexico, has a comparable position. Legally, the two acts altered the relationship existing between the United States Housing Authority and the local authorities, as the former agency had been working out this relationship since its creation. The fact that the Georgia board worked harmoniously both with the national authority and the Georgia local authorities produced a result in that state which, in actual operation, did not differ in appearance from the working program in other states. This appearance did not, however, alter the legal status of the board. It was entirely possible in theory for the United States Housing Authority and a Georgia local authority to agree perfectly concerning a project developed by the latter and for the state board to issue an ultimate veto. There were, to be sure, several important powers which were not granted to the state board in the 1937 laws. They could not create or compel the creation of a local authority or force its dissolution, although the governor had a certain amount of control over the appointments to membership on local authorities. The board never had an appropriation for administrative purposes or any administrative staff. The board had no power to raise money or to loan or grant it, after legislative appropriation, for housing projects constructed by local authorities. The board itself could not build projects. The acts creating the board gave it no authority to study housing conditions in the state, to draft plans, and to produce reports and surveys. But, in view of the fact that the most important activity in the housing field in the period from 1937 to 1941 lay in the joint program of the United States Housing Authority and the local housing authorities, the very complete power of the Georgia State Housing Authority Board over the local authorities in that state was potentially more valuable than all the powers which it did not possess. The legislation of the 1939 session resulted in one change in the housing laws passed in 1937. Two acts (Nos. 240 and 241) contained provi-

GEORGIA sions limiting the powers of the state board as they were defined in the 1937 legislation. In each case the sections quoted in full above ( Section 4 of the Housing Authorities L a w and Section 7 of the Housing Cooperation L a w ) were amended by the addition of the following p a r a g r a p h : Provided that when the said State Housing Authority Board has given its approval in writing or by resolution to any projects or contracts in connection therewith, including contracts with the Federal Government for loans or annual contributions, it shall have no power thereafter to veto or disapprove such project or such contracts. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, where the local authority has entered into contracts or entered upon a course of action which has been approved in writing or by resolution by the said State Housing Authority Board, the said State Housing Authority Board shall have no authority by any veto power or power of disapproval to prevent the local authority from carrying out such contract or course of action. A request was made b y the board for an appropriation to cover its administrative expenses for the biennium 1 9 3 9 - 4 1 , but the 1 9 3 9 legislature enacted no appropriations for any state agencies, and the board continued to operate through meager grants from various miscellaneous funds in the regular departments. T h e secretary prepared and presented to the legislature in 1939 a five-page report on the operations of the state board. I n this report he described the

financial

restrictions under which the

board had operated. T o the end of the fiscal year 19.38 the board had expended $ 1 , 1 0 2 . 7 5 , all for traveling expenses. T h i s amount had been transferred from the stabilization fund to the treasury appropriation and paid out of the maintenance fund of the treasury. F r o m J u l y 1, 1938, to D e c e m b e r 3 1 , 1 9 3 8 , the expense for traveling was $ 7 7 5 , which amount was advanced from the maintenance fund of the treasury. T h i s made a total expense of $ 1 , 8 7 7 . 7 5 to D e c e m b e r 3 1 , 1938. T h e report states: The work of this Board has been the formation of the Local Housing Authorities of the municipalities of Georgia and the coordination of their needs with the requirements of the United States Housing Authority in Washington. This board has succeeded in consummating with the United States Housing Authority commitments for moneys to be expended for slum clearance within the State of Georgia to a total amount of $22,400,000.00. Of this amount $13,757,000.00 is in the form of actual loan contracts executed between the local Housing Authorities and the United States Housing Authority and approved by the State Housing Authority Board. A total of $8,683,000.00 is in the form of earmarkings by the United States Housing Authority for the benefit of local Housing Authorities in Georgia awaiting completion of final details by the local Housing Authorities so that same can be covered by actual loan contracts. Two

GEORGIA

511

projects with a total cost of one and a half million dollars are actually under construction in the City of Augusta. The report continues with a brief statement of the status of each of the twelve local authorities in existence at the end of January, 1938. In conclusion the report states that the housing board felt that its work had made a real contribution to the bettering of housing conditions in the state, in spite of the fact that a lack of funds had constituted a handicap. Tribute was paid to the mayors, city councils, and housing authorities for their interest and cooperation in the housing program. Interviews with members of the board in July, 1938, brought out several interesting points. Governor E. D. Rivers suggested a conference with George B. Hamilton, the state treasurer, as the person able to express the governor's ideas about the board and its functions. Both John B. Wilson, the secretary of state, and M. D. Collins, the state school superintendent, said that Mr. Hamilton had been almost entirely responsible for the work of the board. R. C. Job, director of the State Planning Board, acting for his chief, Henry T. Mcintosh, chairman of the State Planning Board, was the only major state officer, besides Mr. Hamilton, who was taking an active part in the state board work. Conferences held with Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Job are consequently the principal sources of information about the board and its operations during its earliest period. The peculiar characteristics of an ex officio board as an administrative agency were well illustrated by the Georgia State Housing Authority Board during the administration of Governor Rivers. The governor himself did not appear to do any actual work as a board member, although by his own statement and by report he was sincerely in favor of its program. Any state governor will be too busy with the work of his major office to spend much time and attention on the work of agencies of which he is an ex officio member, and a governor who, unlike Governor Rivers, was hostile to the program of the housing board might actually harm its work. It is doubtless true that a popular governor whose name had been attached to the work of the board, regardless of his actual inability to perform any of this work, would lend prestige to the board and would promote its cause, particularly during the earliest years of its existence. Thus it may appear that more good than harm was done by this particular provision of the Georgia law, during the four-year period following its establishment. But the entire board in Georgia was made up of major state officers,

512

GEORGIA

and the question inevitably arises—Who would do the work if all five members disregarded what was actually a merely optional function? If the Georgia board had exercised fully the extremely broad grants of power made to it in the two acts of 1937, someone would have had to spend a very considerable amount of time in day-by-day administration. Both Mr. Collins, the state superintendent of schools, and Mr. Wilson, the secretary of state, expressed themselves as being entirely in favor of the program of the board, but just as definitely opposed to the ex officio nature of its membership. Mr. Collins called attention to the short term of office (two years ) of Georgia officials and to the complete breaks in continuity of policy and effort which are possible if control of the state government alternates between the factions of the Democratic party which, at present, in Georgia disagree rather fundamentally upon matters of policy. Both Mr. Wilson and Mr. Collins stated that they had left the work of the board almost entirely to Mr. Hamilton. Although it was not possible to discuss the work of the board with its fifth member, Mr. Mcintosh, it appeared that he, too, had taken the position of the other members in permitting the treasurer, Mr. Hamilton, to become, in fact, the board itself. Again, attention must be called to this characteristic of the Georgia board as having certain important implications. In other states certain individuals, actually opposed to the idea of having the state assume a position in the housing program, but unable or unwilling to express this opposition openly, have advocated the ex officio state board as an administrative agency on the grounds that its members will have little interest or time to devote to the housing board. This type of agency is almost universally unpopular with groups advocating active state participation, and they usually oppose its inclusion in legislation. The discussion of the Georgia board has shown that this evaluation of an ex officio board, both by its advocates and its opponents, is almost, but not entirely, true. In this particular case, one ex officio member, the treasurer, offered evidence that this type of member of a state housing board cannot be absolutely depended upon to remain uninterested and inactive and that even the duties of such a major state office as that of treasurer do permit time for activity on a housing board. Mr. Hamilton began active work when the board started to function in December, 1937. Although the legislature had made no provision for administrative funds for the board, Mr. Hamilton financed bills of more than $1,800 from the treasury maintenance fund, which was later reim-

GEORGIA

513

bursed from the governor's contingent fund. This money was used during 1938 for travel and incidental expenses in connection with the establishment of the numerous local housing authorities and with the securing of United States Housing Authority grants for projects. Mr. Hamilton received the cooperation of the Georgia Chapter of the American Institute of Architects, of the Building Trades Council, and of numerous local organizations and individuals in his effort to secure maximum participation by the state in the program of the USHA. Early in 1938 numerous nonpartisan meetings were held in the principal cities, and Mr. Hamilton personally addressed many of them, explaining the national program and urging the creation of local authorities. His aim was to hold such a meeting in every city in the state which was qualified to establish an authority (that is, in every city with a population in excess of five thousand persons), and he worked energetically with the interested groups in each city in arranging these meetings. In the matter of acting as an intermediary agency between local housing authorities and the United States Housing Authority, Mr. Hamilton was active and successful. Probably his assistance was most valuable in securing grants for authorities in the smaller cities. He was definitely of the opinion that a state agency of some sort is a necessity if the housing program is to be unified and complete for the state as a whole, and in order to develop such a program he believed that authorities in smaller communities would have to receive some state assistance to put them on a basis of equality with cities such as Atlanta, for example. Mr. Hamilton discussed his plan for a southeastern regional meeting of housing authorities, to consider common problems and common solutions, as a possible means of stating a program for an area with housing problems occurring chiefly in rural communities, villages, and small cities. He felt, as do many persons living in states with few large cities, that the metropolis will be able to present its case without much aid from the state and that, at least in the early stages of the American housing program, a disproportionate share of federal funds will go to large metropolitan areas. Obviously a strong state board, attempting to analyze the housing needs of all types of communities and to present a complete and unified program on a state-wide basis for meeting those needs, could offer a most valuable counter-force against the pressures exerted by the housing authorities of the large cities. A concrete example of the sort of assistance which a state board can give to the housing authorities of small cities was found in the local sur-

GEORGIA veys which were carried out in Georgia by the State Planning Board. It is entirely proper that the United States Housing Authority should insist upon housing surveys and that it should consider an adequate technical staff to be an essential part of the personnel of a local authority. It is equally evident that surveys and technical staffs are expensive luxuries for small cities. The solution in Georgia is worth consideration. As mentioned above, the chairman of the State Planning Board was one of the members of the Housing Authority Board. This bond of union between the two agencies led naturally to actual cooperation in the housing program. The planning board, under the direction of its executive officer, R. C. Job, worked out projects for housing surveys in several cities and, in cooperation with Works Progress Administration, the Georgia State Housing Authority Board, and the governments of the individual cities, accomplished several of these surveys. The city handled its own sponsor's agreement with Works Progress Administration and furnished materials, light, heat, office space, and similar services. The projects were set up to include relief workers to perform clerical work, and the State Planning Board furnished the technical staff and paid their salaries. For several reasons Mr. Job and Mr. Hamilton thought that it was desirable to have a centralized state agency conduct these surveys. The plan was more economical than it would have been if each local housing authority had employed a sufficient number of competent technical men to conduct a survey. Since such a job was necessarily temporary, and the employees would not have been needed after it was finished, it might have been practically impossible in a small city to employ a competent technical staff at any price. Furthermore, there was a degree of similarity in the conditions of all cities, and basic techniques worked out by a state agency could be used in all of them with resulting economy. The surveys, having been carried out in the same manner, would produce results which could be compared, and this probably would not have resulted if each city had conducted an entirely individual and independent survey. Finally, surveys could be conducted in many cities too small to perform such a function under any circumstances. Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Job were most enthusiastic about the operation of this plan. In reply to an inquiry as to the status of work, in February of 1940, J. Edward Hedges, the state-wide supervisor of the Real Property Survey replied as follows:As regards low cost housing the State Planning Board has considered its function to be cooperation with the State Housing Authority for the following purposes: (1) to encourage local communities to take action leading to slum

GEORGIA clearance; ( 2 ) to assist in the accumulation of essential basic information through sponsorship of Works Projects Administration projects (strictly local for the larger cities, statewide for the smaller cities, in all cases the cities to be tied in through local sponsorship); ( 3 ) to advise cities regarding the subsequent steps necessary for securing earmarkings of federal funds and ultimately loan contracts. I have been in charge of the Statewide Real Property Survey since September, 1938, and local surveys have been carried out under my supervision in nine cities in Georgia as follows: Albany, Athens, Brunswick, Cedartown, Columbus, Marietta, Milledgeville, Rome and Thomasville. T h e Act of Congress creating the United States Housing Authority made it possible for the first time for small cities to secure loans for slum clearance and low cost housing work. In the past, Real Property Surveys had been made in none of these cities and, accordingly, basic information as to housing conditions was not available. I t was virtually impossible, therefore, for an analysis to be made of the potential market for low cost housing, indicating the proper unit sizes, customary rentals, rent paying ability and other essential characteristics. In fact, the Real Property Surveys which had been made in larger cities were deficient in information regarding some of these items. Accordingly, the technique for a Real Property Survey which has been worked out over a period of years by T h e Central Statistical Board, and certain agencies interested in housing, was expanded to provide for securing all the information necessary to provide the basis for an analysis of the housing market. T h e technique worked out called for the services of numerous skilled people, including those familiar with engineering, drafting, appraisal, statistical and research techniques, et cetera. People with these qualifications, of course, are not likely to be available generally in smaller towns and cities. Since Works P r o j e c t s Administration workers were to be relied upon for the bulk of the work, the officials of Works Projects Administration worked out a procedure which, it was believed, would make it possible to carry on surveys in the smaller towns. T h e procedure called for setting up a Statewide project to be supervised from one central point. Field work was to be handled in each community by local workers under the direction of a local supervisor who was to be a nonrelief person. Upon completion of all schedules in the field, they were to be sent to the central headquarters where they would be tabulated, where all mapping and drafting work would be carried on, and where final reports would be prepared. This would make it possible for the work to be carried on with a minimum of skilled personnel which would be drawn, however, from a larger community where the proper type of workers could more likely be found. T h e general procedure outlined above has been followed in Georgia. I t is my understanding that this is the first state in which an arrangement of this type was made effective, but it has since been put in operation in several other states, Florida and North Carolina, to my knowledge. I may say that it has worked satisfactorily here, although in some cases it has been necessary to return to the field to correct errors in enumeration. In Georgia, the first local project was opened in September, 1938, the ninth in February, 1939, and all

5.6

GEORGIA

enumeration was completed early in December, 1939. Tabulation was begun as soon as the first schedules were received from the field and is now almost completed. The preparation of presentation maps is about two-thirds completed. Work has just been started on final summary reports and it is expected that all work will be completed by May 30, 1940. For the larger cities, including Atlanta and suburban towns, Savannah, Augusta and Macon, separate official projects have been established. The field work in all of these cities has been completed and some of the tables have been prepared and released. Final summary reports have not yet been made for any of the larger cities, however. In all cases special tabulations have been made for the use of local housing authorities in making preliminary applications for funds to the United States Housing Authority. Subsequently additional special tabulations have been made to assist the United States Housing Authority in making market analyses. Meanwhile the full tabulations have been carried forward as rapidly as possible. On the basis of the information thus furnished market analyses have been completed, funds earmarked and finally, in most cases, loan contracts approved by the United States Housing Authority. At the time at which M r . Hedges was writing (February, 1940), twentytwo projects in ten different cities had been approved, and total commitments for the state approximated $30,000,000. In January, 1941, Governor Rivers was succeeded by Governor Eugene Talmadge, and the new executive was assured of success in carrying out his program by the presence in the legislature of a large majority of members who belonged to his wing of the Democratic party. He immediately used all available means to secure complete control of all administrative offices, including the State Housing Authority Board and the local housing authorities. In order that the first purpose might be accomplished, it was necessary to eliminate Mr. Hamilton from membership. H e had been reelected in 1940, and as a member of the Rivers wing of the party and the only active member of the board he presented a distinct hindrance to control by Governor Talmadge. Senate No. 9 (House No. 11) of the 1941 legislative session, which was promptly enacted and signed by the governor on February 6, abolished the Housing Authority Board established by the acts of 1937 (No. 14 of the laws of 1941). A new agency of the same name was created. T h e membership was identical with that of the original board, except that the state treasurer was omitted and the chairman of the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia was included. All the previous powers of the original board were given to the new agency; the

GEORGIA

517

governor immediately assumed the chairmanship, and his personal control was insured. N o legislative appropriation has ever been made for the Housing Authority Board, nor has the board, as such, been charged with actual expenditures. The governor has a contingent fund for travel and incidental expenses and the expenditures of the board, paid from this fund, have never been charged off to the board. The board has never had an actual office or any employees. Mr. Job, who is director of the State Planning Board and executive secretary of the State Defense Council, acts as the executive officer of the Housing Authority Board by appointment of the governor. He receives no extra compensation for this work, but he is reimbursed for his actual expenses by the governor from his contingent fund. Mr. Job does not have extensive duties, although he occasionally meets with the local housing authorities. Requests for information addressed to Governor Talmadge during the early months of his administration received no acknowledgment, and Mr. Wilson, the secretary of state, and Mr. Job furnished very little information. Mr. Hamilton did not reply to requests for information addressed to him after Governor Talmadge took office. In short, there is every indication that the board has practically ceased to function. Project applications which are sent to the Washington office of the USHA carry the signatures of the five members of the board, which indicates at least the possibility of control of local authorities. The opinion of competent observers is that Governor Talmadge has succeeded in insuring his control of this agency as a part of his general program of centralizing all powers in his office and that in practice he will use the powers of the board to perpetuate his own personal political machine. This could be done easily, if such is actually his purpose, through the power to approve or disapprove the projects presented by the numerous local housing authorities in the state. The Georgia counties and cities have hastened to establish authorities, and the USHA has cooperated with them to build a very large number of projects. In November, 1941, there were sixteen municipal authorities, three rural housing authorities consisting, respectively, of eleven, twelve, and seventeen counties, and eighty-one county authorities. Eighty-nine projects were either under construction or had been completed in the cities and in the counties included in the three regional rural authorities. The relationship between these local bodies and the state housing agency is a matter of interest and importance, but it is

51B

GEORGIA

being developed by actual practice and cannot be understood and evaluated by a person who is not closely connected with the administration, in view of the marked unwillingness of that group to furnish information. Obviously, if the members of the Housing Authority Board had been appointive, with fixed terms of office expiring in rotation, no such change in control would have been possible. Whether this is a good, or a bad, characteristic of the Georgia agency is entirely a matter of opinion. T o the individual or party or faction which has won a state election, the ability to control the various administrative bodies almost immediately is highly advantageous. If, however, one is primarily interested in a relatively nonpolitical, fairly continuous, housing program, the Georgia situation presents alarming possibilities of political control.

XI. P E N N S Y L V A N I A

T

in Pennsylvania for the establishment of a state housing board in control of limited-dividend housing companies began some two years earlier than the similar movement in several states in 1933. New York had had such an agency for a few years, and Pennsylvania's attention was attracted to this program in a neighboring state particularly because in New York a small number of limiteddividend housing companies had been incorporated and their projects had actually been built. In fact six projects were completed and two more were under construction by 1931. Under these circumstances it is natural that the bill which was introduced and passed by the Pennsylvania legislature in 1931 and which was vetoed by Governor Gifford Pinchot should have resembled the New York law very strongly. Nathaniel E. Jaffe, one of .the representatives from Philadelphia in the lower house, introduced House No. 1929 on April 27. The sponsors of the bill in the senate (Senate No. 1346) were Samuel W. Salus and Max Aron, both from Philadelphia. After very considerable amendment by both houses, the bill was passed on May 28, only to be vetoed by Governor Pinchot a month later (Act No. 254). The bill provided for incorporation of limited-dividend housing companies, described their powers and duties, and proposed to set up a State Board of Housing as the administrative agency in control of the companies. The greater portion of the bill was devoted to the work of these companies in constructing, financing, and operating their projects. Sections 1,2, and 3 related to the state board, describing its membership, officers, employees, and its general powers. Sections 4 to 31, inclusive, dealt with the housing companies and the powers of the state board over their work. Section 32 provided an appropriation for the administrative expenses of the board, and the remaining sections were a saving clause and an effective clause. For present purposes interest centers in Sections 1, 2, 3, and 32, which are discussed below. The upper and lower houses of the legislature had some difficulty in HE MOVEMENT

520

PENNSYLVANIA

agreeing upon the membership of the State Housing Board, as well as upon its compensation and powers. In its final form the bill provided for five members, to be appointed by the governor, and the board was to be constituted an administrative unit in the Department of Welfare. The secretary of the department was to be given the power to appoint all employees of the board and to fix their compensation, except that the board was empowered to choose its own secretary. Section 3 of the bill, providing for the general duties of the board as distinguished from the more specific duties with respect to limited-dividend housing companies described in the remainder of the bill, closely resembled the usual powers in the limited-dividend housing bill of the New York type. Section 32 appropriated $100,000 for the ensuing biennium, to be used for administrative expenses. In a message dated June 27, 1931, Governor Gifford Pinchot vetoed the act (No. 254), after expressing full sympathy for its laudable purpose as set forth in the title. In the opinion of the governor the act violated the state constitutional provision that "no bill . . . shall be passed containing more than one subject which shall be clearly expressed in its title" (Article III, Section 3, Pennsylvania constitution). In his opinion the incorporation and regulation of housing companies was a subject entirely distinct from the elimination of bad housing conditions. The title of the bill indicated that the board would have as its function encouragement and assistance in the construction of sanitary dwellings, but examination of the bill indicated that this would be but a minor part of its work and that consequently the title of the bill was grossly misleading. The title also gave no indication of the grant of the right of eminent domain to corporations organized under the act, nor was the special court procedure (of extremely doubtful constitutionality, in itself) given mention in the title. There were so many unconstitutional provisions in the bill, in the opinion of the governor, that it would be impossible to declare it unconstitutional in part and to permit the remainder to become effective. The governor concluded with the statement that the bill was modeled after the New York housing law, without due regard to provisions of the Pennsylvania constitution which do not appear in that of New York. A somewhat complicated situation surrounding the housing law of 1931 indicates that Governor Pinchot may have had reasons other than those stated in his veto message for his disapproval of the act. The bill was sponsored by a group of Philadelphians and was sent to the gov-

PENNSYLVANIA

521

ernor with several other bills of a more controversial nature. The governor and the city of Philadelphia were not on good terms at the time, and he vetoed most of the legislation which the city representatives supported. The governor is reliably reported to have regretted his action in vetoing the housing law, and he supported the bills in later sessions. Ironically, the result in 1933 was the defeat of housing bills by the legislature because they formed a part of the governor's program. Bernard J. Newman, managing director of the Philadelphia Housing Association, who was actively interested in securing proper housing legislation in Pennsylvania for many years, described several important incidents in connection with the legislative history of these laws from 1931 to 1937. The following quotations from his letter are particularly valuable because they describe the influence which was exerted upon housing legislation by such organizations as the Philadelphia Housing Association, the Pittsburgh Housing Association, and the Pennsylvania Housing and Town Planning Association. Mr. Newman wrote that House No. 1929 of the 1931 session was the forerunner of the later bills. The three associations named above had been working on a housing law, but House No. 1929 was presented to the legislature by a group of architects in Philadelphia who called themselves The Associated Housing Architects. The bill as this group prepared it was simply a copy of the New York limited-dividend housing law. The members of the legislature who were requested to introduce the bill asked whether it had been approved by the Philadelphia Housing Association, stating that they did not care to sponsor the bill without such approval. The Associated Housing Architects then consulted the association, and after the advice and assistance of the other two associations had been received, many changes were made in the original bill, resulting in a version which was satisfactory to the four interested groups. Mr. Newman wrote that Governor Pinchot examined the bill and directed the attorney general to put it into form for the inclusion of the State Board of Housing as a departmental administrative board under the Administrative Code. The sponsors of the bill understood from what was said at the time that the measure, as revised by the attorney general, complied with the governor's suggestions and that if the legislature passed it he would approve it. The governor, although he had promised to discuss the bill with the groups supporting it before making a final decision, vetoed it, to the great surprise of Mr. Newman and the other persons who had been working for its passage. It was

522

PENNSYLVANIA

reported to them that the attorney general had said that if he had known who was supporting the bill he would have advised the governor to sign it, because the next legislature could have amended it to meet the governor's objections. Although the remainder of Mr. Newman's letter dealt with legislative action from 1933 to 1937, it is quoted here because of its relationship to the history of House No. 1929 of the 1931 session. When the next session of the Legislature met the three housing associations revised bill No. 1929 so as to meet the alleged unconstitutional provisions both as to substance and to title. Bills Nos. 975, 976 of the 1933 session constituted such revision. No. 977 is an advance in the scope of the legislation we desired and was drafted so as to permit corporations to be set up to do slum clearance. I felt that such work could be done by the limited dividend housing companies, but John Ihlder, who was then director of the Pittsburgh Housing Association, believed that more specific legislation was needed. Hence we all got in back of his idea. As you know, these bills failed. The next session of the legislature brought us into the period when the President put the government into the housing construction field. Bills Nos. 1337, 1338, and 1339 were drawn by our group with the assistance of the Housing Division of the P.W.A., but these failed also. When the 1937 Legislature came around our three housing associations and the Division of Housing, P.W.A., again worked on the bills. With the aid of Governor Earle, Judge Ladner, whom the Governor had assigned to work with us, a committee appointed by Mr. Kelly under the direction of Francis Biddle, Esq., and yeoman work on the part of Representative Patterson, we finally succeeded in obtaining their passage. We received splendid assistance from the Pittsburgh municipal authorities, the City Solicitor's office of Pittsburgh and particularly Mr. Evans, Chairman of the State Board of Housing. Returning to a discussion of the 1931 session, one more housing bill (Senate No. 675) was introduced, but no action was taken on it. It provided for a housing commission, made up of members appointed by the governor, senators, and representatives, and the duties of the commission were to investigate housing conditions in Pennsylvania, to examine the housing laws of other states, and to present draft legislation to the 1933 legislative session. Governor Pinchot, in his call for a special session in June, 1932, recommended the enactment of a limited-dividend housing company law, and he explained that such an act had been passed in 1931, but that "defects in form made its approval impossible." Carrying out the recommendation of the governor, several bills were introduced in the 1932 extraordinary session. House Nos. 40 and 41

PENNSYLVANIA

523

provided, respectively, for the incorporation of limited-dividend housing companies and for the establishment of a State Board of Housing, in the Department of Property and Supplies, as a regulatory agency. No action was taken on these bills. Senate No. 42 (companion bill to House No. 238) and Senate No. 43 (companion bill to House No. 239) dealt with the same subjects. Although both houses adopted the bills, there was failure to agree on certain amendments, and consequently no acts resulted. The fundamental difference of opinion between the senate and the house was based upon the means of control to be established in connection with limited-dividend housing companies. The senate plan provided that the Department of Welfare should be the controlling agency and the housing board was to be merely an advisory body. The house was committed to the New York plan of a relatively independent housing board exercising control over the housing companies, and the house desired to have the board placed in the Division of Property and Supplies. The senate proposed an ex officio board made up of five state department heads, acting in advisory capacity, and the house insisted on five appointive members acting as an administrative agency. In view of the wide difference of opinion it is not surprising that the two houses were unable to agree on a compromise bill. The General Assembly met in regular session in 1933, and Mr. Jaffe, the Philadelphia member who had introduced the limited-dividend housing company law in 1931, introduced three bills (House Nos. 975, 976, and 977) in the lower house. These bills had the same purpose as that underlying House No. 1929 in the 1931 session. House No. 975 contained provisions for a board of housing in the Department of Property and Supplies, and arrangement was included for the appointment of a full-time, qualified, executive secretary. The general powers of the board were less extensive than those proposed in the 1931 bill, and the appropriation for administrative expenses was only $25,000. House Nos. 976 and 977 did not relate to the state board directly, but provided variations on the fundamental plan of the limited-dividend housing corporation. The various types of such corporations authorized in the three bills were all to be subject to the control of the State Board of Housing described in House No. 975. A special session of the assembly met on November 13, 1933, and two days later John J. Kane, a member of the House of Representatives from Pittsburgh, introduced three bills (House Nos. 26, 27, and 28)

524

PENNSYLVANIA

which, taken together, set up a complete system of limited-dividend housing companies of various types (as "public," "semipublic," and "reconstruction" corporations), together with a State Board of Housing exercising control over the companies. The first bill contained the greater part of the proposed legislation relating to the state board. A certain amount of opposition to the bills appeared in the house, but they were finally enacted and sent to the senate, in which house no action was taken on them. While the bills were in the senate committee the Philadelphia Chapter of the American Institute of Architects petitioned the legislature, urging the passage of the bills. In the 1933 special session the first bill to provide for local housing authorities in Pennsylvania was introduced (Senate Xo. 91), but was not reported out of committee. The State Board of Housing was given very considerable powers over the local authorities. Whenever the state board determined that there was need for a housing authority in one municipality or in two or more contiguous municipalities, it was required to authorize the creation of the authority and to define its territorial limits. The members of the authority were chosen through local appointment without action by the state board. In describing the powers of the local authority, the bill provided that it might determine what areas are unsanitary or substandard, subject to the approval of the state board. The state board was given certain general supervisory and regulatory powers. It could investigate the affairs of authorities, examine their properties and records, and prescribe methods of accounting and of making periodical reports in relation to their projects. From time to time the board could make, amend, and repeal rules and regulations to fix the standards and principles governing the planning, construction, maintenance, and operation of projects of housing authorities. Compliance with provisions of the law, rules and regulations of the board, or the terms of a project approved by the board was to be enforced by the board as provided in the act dealing with regulation of limited-dividend housing companies. After an authority had prepared plans for a project, these plans, together with the estimated costs of the project and the proposed method of financing it, had to be submitted to the board for approval. No amendment to a project plan could be made without approval of the board. An authority was permitted to obtain control of real property upon which to construct a project, and after the board had approved the project the local authority might proceed to acquire the real estate by purchase,

PENNSYLVANIA

525

lease, the exercise of the right of eminent domain, or otherwise, as prescribed in House No. 28. After completing a project and having received the board's approval of the rental scale, the authority was required to secure the approval of the board if increases in rentals were proposed. Authorities were required to keep financial records and make annual financial reports to the board. When a housing authority desired to discontinue its operations, application for dissolution had to be made to the board. If the application was granted, the state board was required to take possession of all the property of the authority and, after paying its debts and the expenses of administering the dissolution, to pay the balance into the county sinking fund. The high degree of centralization of control over local housing authorities in a state board of housing, as provided in this bill, has rarely been established in law in any state. To be sure, New Jersey set up a state-wide authority, an even more centralized administrative agency, and in Ohio the state board had some of the numerous kinds of control described in the Pennsylvania bill, but the most effective of these were soon taken from the Ohio board. The state board in Georgia has complete legal control over local authorities. In other states bills like the Pennsylvania proposal of 1933 have been introduced, but the state legislatures, made up of representatives of small local areas desiring as much home rule as possible, have not received such proposals with enthusiasm. There is undoubtedly a feeling that the state board would be dominated by the largest cities in the state, and the small cities and towns do not like this idea. On the other hand, the large cities are even less anxious to be placed in the position of having to clear any local affair with a state board. These reasons undoubtedly explain the greater popularity of the more decentralized systems of local authorities. Among the agencies which were active in sponsoring housing legislation in Pennsylvania during the 1931-34 period was the Pittsburgh Housing Association. In the three-year report of the association entitled Housing in Pittsburgh there is a statement describing the efforts of the association. In 1931 the association, in cooperation with other Pittsburgh and Philadelphia agencies, assisted in drafting the bills introduced in the 1932 special session. The report states that the bills were defeated "by hostile Philadelphia interests which centered their attack on the provision granting power of eminent domain."

526

PENNSYLVANIA

At the succeeding regular session of 1933, these bills were reintroduced, supplemented by one providing for limited dividend reconstruction corporations designed to eliminate slums. T h i s was drafted by the Housing Association which secured the support of the other interested agencies. Again the bills were defeated by the same hostile interests, prominent among whom were representatives of Philadelphia suburban acreage property who feared slum reconstruction would check the shift of population to the suburbs. In the special session following the regular session of 1933 they were once more introduced, supplemented by a fourth bill drafted by the Pittsburgh Housing Association, providing for the creation of public housing authorities that could take advantage of the federal government's free grant of 30'7näi s» a?i ïS.;S SÍ • 2 .S S.a 3 u3-s , 5u0 a Í5 ni 60

I° s ' J3 z: OI

.jifiio-S'-Sï ^ «eg O-SO l ~ Om u ! S.-S5 g'0« ««.!Sog ag a * o o e SI ÜJ¡8 C

s

o

SS

M (O U O K H

•3Ü

M

H < H

> M

m h O

K s

W §

gM «

£ £ g

H

« o

se S s en VH r a .a aiugd Ë M £ ÖT3 w cî ÎJfl tes»

M

"O 0) T3 tí

H

s

O ¿3

H

Sw's» " 3 a -fc.S •as t i rt H •g & ¿•S

D7Í £

»^ n ,M Sw B -â s .SM e «s D tí S Cad OT3 4) O * 3 CÖ'(J.FH J C S'g-O'o cas (dSC

O fe t/3 ¡z¡ o 1-1 H
4) au S Û 33 " 8 „ S i " ? acTrt ;|sssoâ-s OA m û ¡jfj S f O 4J X m ß = T> 4J «ft s -a o S3 a a fc « .2 S S! ß

2 ft o M

ft

SM

3

a

I

'C

W)

a'> 2'ï3 aï A. J. M a ' S J uM u ° a "S S.S a3-5_ s S .s 3 o •b s» Sa ¡3

5

gw ¡T) ^ Ö cd «a rt.o S 0 hj*n rt S U

O v© fO y J) B¡5

ftí I* 2 i Í í ¡

I ° •tí i J3 ,O I

sa K, B V b oM ËÌ3 ' o o tì f S" .fal Ü ^ Z i M f a g « oj o -e » V. 'SJft, « 3 £ ä c

s

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

673

the New York appropriations and expenditures in that year will undoubtedly result in a continuation of the tendency toward higher average appropriations and expenditures in 1941—42. In summary, it is apparent that the twenty different housing agencies may be placed in three groups on the basis of the information contained in Tables L X X I I I , L X X I V and LXXV. Approximately half of them have never had an appropriation for administrative expenses, they have incurred no expenditures, and have employed no personnel. The California Veterans' Welfare Board, the New York State Division of Housing, the New Jersey Housing Authority (during 1934 and 1935), and the California Division of Immigration and Housing, on the other hand, have had large appropriations, their expenditures have been relatively high, and their staffs relatively large. In the intermediate group are the states of Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey (in all years except 1934 and 1935), Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Of these states, Delaware, Georgia, Indiana, and Ohio have received such small appropriations that little could be accomplished, and the other five states have had fairly adequate administrative funds. This means that in nine cases out of twenty enough money has been furnished to state housing agencies for administrative expenses to warrant the expectation that tangible results would be produced. Have the nine housing agencies just mentioned rendered services in proportion to their administrative expenditures? That question can scarcely be answered. If the earlier chapters are examined, the evidence will be found to be conflicting. It will be recalled that for a considerable period the Georgia housing agency was most active, although it had no staff, and its funds were negligible. At the other extreme, there were several years in which the New York Division of Housing did not appear to be producing much in the way of measurable results, although its expenditures were considerable, and its staff relatively large. In general it appears that there has been little justification for setting up an agency with a minimum appropriation and a staff of one or two persons. The experience of Delaware is a case in point. Unless the agency is to be given adequate funds and several staff members, there is apparently little use in establishing it in the first place. In Massachusetts, since 1935, the state board has had reasonably large appropriations and a working staff of ten persons including the board members, and some satisfactory results have been achieved. If a state is willing to expend from $25,000 to $35,000 per year and to permit the employment of

674

SUMMARY AND

CONCLUSIONS

from eight to twelve staff members, it is reasonable to expect that something worth while can be produced. Of course such an administrative expenditure would be far from sufficient if the agency were given such functions as those currently performed by the New York Division of Housing and the two California bodies. The suggestion is intended as a minimum, initial proposal for a state agency which is during its first years of existence engaged largely in exploring the situation as a basis for making recommendations for its own permanent program. When this program is finally determined, the amount of administrative expenditure and the size of the staff will have to be worked out to insure successful prosecution of the program. No blanket recommendation can be made which would have any value. RECOMMENDATIONS

This very detailed recital of the complete history of state housing agencies in the United States contains not only the statement of all available facts but also very considerable expression of personal opinion. By this time perhaps the reader is quite aware of what that opinion is, but at the risk of repetition this final section contains a proposal for a complete plan for a state housing agency. In advance it may be said that no existing agency meets the qualifications which are set up in most, or even in many, respects. Nor does the existing system of relationships between national and state, and local and state, housing agencies appear to be even reasonably satisfactory. In short, although the following plan is stated in positive terms, a comparison of its details with a chapter describing any one state housing agency will reveal the underlying marked dissatisfaction with its organization, its legal powers, its actual operation, and its relationships with other housing agencies, national and local. The great possibilities inherent in the state housing agency have with very few exceptions not been realized. The belief in these possibilities has been the motive power behind three years of study, and the belief has been strengthened as a result of the study. One of the most powerful forces for improving housing conditions is as yet unused. Several national housing agencies, more than six hundred local authorities, and unnumbered private organizations, plus the private building agencies, are admittedly insufficient to solve the American housing problem within any reasonable period of time. The addition of the power and the prestige and the wealth of the forty-eight states is seriously needed, and no valid reason can be found for failure to in-

S U M M A R Y AND CONCLUSIONS

675

elude them. The remainder of this section outlines a definite place for the states as active agencies in a total housing program. Although chief consideration in the present recommendations has been given to the position of the official state housing agency, it will undoubtedly be necessary to organize in each state a citizens' group, like the Citizens' Housing Council of New York City. In a few states there have been attempts to do this, but the organizations have not gone beyond the stage of preliminary plans. The National Public Housing Conference functioned fairly actively as a state-wide citizen organization in New York in 1938, for the purpose of securing popular adoption of the housing amendment, but these efforts were not continued. A state housing council must contain representatives from all parts of the state and from all special groups, and membership should be open to all interested persons on the payment of a small annual fee. Such a council is of inestimable value in the state during the period before the establishment of the official state housing agency, because there is at that time the opportunity to influence the contents of the constitutional or legislative provisions. Thorough study can be made of the situation in a state, of the suitability of various types of state agencies, of necessary constitutional amendment and legislation, of methods of financing the program, and of the relations between national, state, and local housing bodies. The enlistment of state-wide interest and the support of a wellplanned housing program during this preliminary period are among the most important duties of a citizens' council. After the creation of the official agency, the council will act as a check on the agency, it can assist the latter by giving state-wide support to the housing program, and it can act as a general source of criticism, support, and public education. This description of the organization and functions of a state housing council is based largely upon the experience of the Citizens' Housing Council of New York City and of similar councils in other large cities. The National Association of Housing Officials, during its earlier years, performed some of these functions on a national scale, and the newly organized National Committee on the Housing Emergency plans to act as a national council in relation to the current problems of defense housing. N A H O has, however, become a professional organization, and the new emergency housing committee is in process of organization. The constitutional and legal provisions for a state housing agency cannot be prescribed in detail for every state, but certain general recommendations can be offered. Two states have amended their constitutions,

676

SUMMARY

AND

CONCLUSIONS

and probably most other states would have to do so if comprehensive housing programs were to be undertaken. Two types of amendments are usually necessary: amendment to permit the state government to carry on such a program as a public function for which public funds can be expended and amendment of existing financial provisions which conflict with the financial powers needed to make a housing program effective. The first kind of amendment should be stated in broad, general terms. The New York State housing amendment is a perfect example of the most undesirable type, and the Massachusetts amendment, although it is much better, was adopted with a housing program in view which was quite unlike those which states would probably want to establish at the present time. As a result there are some questionable clauses in the Massachusetts housing amendment. A single sentence, clearing up possible questions of constitutionality, is all that is necessary. This sentence will grant to the state the power to engage in slum clearance and the building of housing for low-income families as a legitimate public purpose, for which the state can use its powers of taxation and of eminent domain. The organization of the state housing agency, the general program, and the specific powers of the agency will thus be left in the hands of the proper arm of the state government—the legislature. The question of constitutionality arising under the Constitution of the United States has been answered in the cases of Green v. Frazier (253 U.S. 233), and the 1941 case involving the Alley Dwelling Authority of the District of Columbia, in which the United States Supreme Court unanimously upheld the decision of the lower court (Kcycs v. U.S., 119 Fed. 2d 444). The opinion in the latter case contains the following significant statement: "Congress has plenary legislative power [in the District of Columbia]—all the power that a state has within the territory of the state, and more—and there can be no doubt that a state legislature may validly provide for low rent housing projects and authorize the condemnation of land for that purpose." Certain financial provisions of most state constitutions, particularly those relating to state and local debt limits, will need amendment to permit the financing of public housing. An alternative method may be to include in the housing amendment itself the necessary financial powers, as an exception to the existing constitutional provisions. If the housing amendment is drafted in broad general terms, as suggested above, the organization of the housing agency and the definition of its powers will be the duties of the legislature. Taking into considera-

S U M M A R Y AND CONCLUSIONS

677

tion the present tendencies in administrative organization and the experience of existing state housing agencies, the single, full-time, adequately compensated executive appears to be the preferred form. Second choice might be the five-member, unpaid, appointive board, but no recommendation can be given to the three-member, paid, professional board or to the ex officio board. The housing agency should usually be placed in the Executive Department, but that decision must depend upon other aspects of the administrative organization in the state. With the exception of the chief executive officer and the chief legal officer, all staff members should be on a civil service basis. It is strongly advised that an official council be provided as an advisory aid to the executive officer. The size of the staff and its organization will, of course, depend upon the scope and character of the housing program. It is, however, probably not worth setting up any administrative staff below a minimum size. This might include an executive head at a salary of $5,000-$6,000; two or three technical and legal staff members at salaries of $3,000-$4,000 each; and two or three clerical workers at salaries of $1,200-$1,800. As an alternative, part of the salary fund for full-time technical employees might be used to employ part-time experts on a fee basis. Minimum annual appropriations for administrative purposes should not fall below $20,000-$30,000. This would cover salaries, wages, and fees totaling $15,000-$20,000, and office, travel, and other expenses totaling $5,000$10,000. This suggested minimum appropriation is obviously suitable only for a small state during the early years of the operation of the state agency; for a larger state with a considerable program it is quite inadequate. Very few state housing agencies now in existence meet the requirements suggested, either with regard to staff organization or administrative appropriation, and the lack of success which has characterized their work may be attributed in some cases to lack of personnel and of money. It is probably unnecessary to warn that no state agency should be financed through the payment of fees. If fees are charged for any purpose, payment should be made into the general funds of the state, and the administrative funds of the housing agency should result from direct legislative appropriation. All processes of appropriation and expenditure should be like those established for other state administrative bodies. The powers and duties of a state housing agency cannot be set forth in a blanket list, to be adopted by the legislature of every state. Certain fairly definite recommendations can be made, and if these were followed

678

SUMMARY AND

CONCLUSIONS

there is reason to believe that the results would be suitable in each of the different jurisdictions. In the first place, there is no use in creating any state housing agency unless it is adequately staffed and financed and unless it is given some real power to perform important functions. The experience in several states which followed the uncritical adoption of the New York State limited-dividend housing program offers sufficient warning about the perils of imitation. If a small, weak, state housing agency is given only powers of study and survey and recommendation without sufficient staff or funds to perform them efficiently, and powers of control over a type of housing program so unsuited to the particular state that it will never be put into operation, predictable results will follow. The agency may simply—and wisely—do nothing at all. If it tries to become an active force, the most attractive situation which presents itself is found in the federal-local housing program, and the state agency may try to insinuate itself into that program, against the opposition of the two participants. Little success has attended such efforts. A third result might seem to be among the possibilities, but there is too little evidence of its presence. A state agency, given unsuitable or unimportant functions, which has not been able to secure an important role in the federal-local programs, might go to work to devise an independent program of its own. To some extent the California Division of Immigration and Housing under the leadership of Carey McWilliams has taken this course, and the force which the commission's plan attained may be measured by the extent of the opposition which defeated it during 1940-41. A glance at Tables L X X I I I , LXXIV, LXXV will show that several states have provided such small agencies and such small appropriations, that they could scarcely have hoped for valuable results (see Delaware, Indiana, Ohio), whatever functions had been given to the agencies. In the process of defining the specific powers and duties of the housing agency, most valuable assistance can be secured from the proposed statewide citizens' housing organization. After the establishment of the administrative agency, the citizens' organization and the official advisory council will be continually needed, because the original powers and duties will need statutory modification from time to time. Since this is a quasi-legislative function, the recommendations for such changes can be formulated more effectively by representative bodies than by the single executive director. The warning that the imitation of housing programs of other states is an unsuccessful practice does not mean, of course, that

S U M M A R Y AND CONCLUSIONS

679

careful study should not be given to such programs. It does mean that all powers and duties must have been considered primarily from the standpoint of their probable suitability in the particular state, and success in another state should not bear too much weight. Although the principal function of a state housing agency is to carry out a state program, all existing housing programs of the national government must be taken into consideration. The state program is to be viewed as coordinate with the federal programs, and insofar as it is competitive or conflicting it has been formulated unwisely. If this rule is to be carried into effect with any degree of success, the various federal housing agencies must look upon their respective functions as parts of a total program, and they will have to be willing to admit that there is an important place for the state agency. The above statements, as of 1942, will sound like pure idealism. The housing program in the United States has become increasingly a competitive, rather than a cooperative, effort, and all current tendencies are in the direction of continued federal domination, with more or less local participation, but without any degree of state effort. The state housing agencies are being permitted to act as advisory bodies to the state defense councils, in connection with furnishing houses in defense areas. Whether it is pure idealism or not, the coordination of state with federal housing programs is fundamentally necessary in the process of establishing a new state housing agency and defining its duties. In addition to specific powers which will be granted to a state housing agency, optional and permissive powers should be extensive enough to permit experimentation. If several state agencies had been in existence for a ten-year period before the federal housing programs were initiated in the 1930's, and if these state bodies had been in charge of different kinds of housing programs, their experience might have prevented some of the difficulties encountered by the Housing Division of the PWA and by the USHA. Other national agencies have benefited from experimentation in their respective fields in the various states, but the federal housing agencies have had little assistance of that kind. State housing agencies ought to be permitted to develop rehabilitation projects, cooperatives, limited-dividend projects, projects in which homes are for sale as well as for rent, and projects carried out through financing by the state alone, by the state and its local areas, by the federal government and the state, and by the federal, state, and local governments together. Opportunity should be open to change the major emphasis in the state

68o

SUMMARY

AND

CONCLUSIONS

housing program. In general, the lowest-income group in the population has a legitimate claim to first consideration in a state housing program, but over a period of years the program must be adapted to aid as many groups as possible. At present, workers in defense areas need assistance even more than the slum dwellers, and it should be possible for a state housing agency to alter its program during the period in which our huge industrial, military, and naval establishments are expanding to a wartime size. After that period, it is impossible to predict what group will need aid from the state, and sufficient flexibility in the powers of the state agencies is desirable in order that a suitable change in program can be made without undue delay and difficulty. The program of housing which is to be carried out by a state housing agency must be planned and carried into effect on a state-wide basis. This will include housing in large metropolitan areas, small cities, villages, rural areas, defense areas, and special areas such as those parts of California in which the fruit and vegetable industry is located. No existing state housing agency meets this test. Considerable criticism has been expressed, throughout this study, of the New York State Division of Housing, because of its failure to develop a state-wide program even though it had adequate legal powers and ample administrative funds. Perhaps the Georgia State Housing Authority Board, for the brief period during which it was active before the present administration, most nearly approached attainment of a true state housing program. In Pennsylvania and in Indiana real attention has been given to housing programs outside a few large metropolitan areas. Carey McWilliams, of the California Division of Immigration and Housing, has an appreciation of the sort of state-wide program which is needed in that state. But in spite of these few exceptions, the recommendation must be emphasized in order to prevent the establishment of a program which gives insufficient attention to housing problems in certain areas and overemphasis to one or a few areas. One of the most important considerations in connection with the planning of proper functions for a state housing agency lies in the arrangements for cooperation between the state and the local housing agencies. It will be impossible, in fact, to plan for the state agency independently, and certain general considerations involving the local areas must govern the entire plan. In the first place, if the state is going to be permitted to provide funds for the use of local housing agencies or private bodies and if the latter

S U M M A R Y AND CONCLUSIONS

681

are to be granted tax exemption, powers of condemnation, and other privileges at the disposal of the state, adequate state control of local or private use of these privileges should be insured. In spite of all doctrines of local home rule, the state cannot grant these vital special powers without insisting upon the responsibility of their local agents, because the powers which are granted are exercised on behalf of the people of the entire state. If a state-wide program is to be developed by the state housing agency, it will obviously have to possess powers of planning in advance, of reviewing local plans, of supervising plans as they are being put into effect, and even of compelling local action under certain extreme conditions. If such powers are not granted, the result will probably be numerous, small, independent programs in the state—but no state program. During the entire time within which the present study of state housing agencies has been in process, in no state has a single individual or agency been encountered who was in possession of even a very general plan of this type. The relationship between the state housing agency and the local agencies in the state will have to be adjusted in accordance with varying local conditions. Large urban areas must be given adequate power to plan, finance, and operate their programs entirely outside the state system if they desire to do so, or within the state system if they wish to have state aid and the necessary amount of state control. This will protect the city which is more wealthy or more competent than the state in which it is located, and the city which is normally under the control of the political party which constitutes a minority in the state government. Small cities and villages and rural areas must be assured of a reasonable degree of independence in the control of their own housing programs, but more than this guarantee is needed. Because of peculiar local conditions and because of financial difficulties, some smaller areas need more state assistance and more state control than the large cities need. Examples of such communities are the small villages located near very large defense industries, communities like Shawneetown in the flood area in Illinois, and the rural areas in New Jersey and California in which fruit and vegetable farming on a large scale is the principal industry. Two possible agencies can be considered for handling such special problems: the regional authority and the state agency itself acting as an authority in the area. Although the local government or local housing authority is an effective agency in most cases, there should be no in-

68 a

SUMMARY AND

CONCLUSIONS

sistence on its use in situations in which it is clear that the housing problem is not coextensive with the existing local areas. It is also unrealistic to expect small areas with inadequate public funds to assume responsibility for housing problems of major scope. Examples of the latter situation are to be found in large numbers of small cities located within the immediate vicinity of army camps. Not only must proper coordination be secured between the state housing agency and local agencies, but careful consideration must be given to relationships with the state and local planning agencies. If the planning laws of the state have been enacted before the establishment of a system of state and local housing agencies, the details of the latter system must not conflict with the planning laws even though the latter may not be perfect. Ideally, planning and housing laws should be drafted at the same time, and the relationships between the two systems of state and local agencies can be worked out, taking both into equal consideration; but in practice this will not occur, because many states now have planning laws and state planning bodies and there is little reason to think that their revision could be timed to coincide with the drafting of a state housing law. Although it is difficult to devise proper procedure, the state housing agency should be given the power to go into a community and construct projects there, if the community consistently refuses to take any action in the face of a clearly demonstrated need for new housing. This recommendation is made with a full appreciation of the objections—both sound and unsound—which can be raised against it. The principle of "compulsory benefit" is, however, not new, and it has been applied in other social programs such as public health and public education. We no longer argue that it is the "right" of a community to be unhealthy or uneducated, and within a few years the "right" to be ill-housed may no longer be conceded. One of the best means of helping communities to understand their own housing problems and to take action themselves is assistance from the state. The state housing agency should have legal powers and adequate staff and funds to conduct local surveys, to engage in research and studies, to publish the results, and to develop educational and publicity programs. The small communities cannot afford to perform these functions, even in the cases in which the need is realized. If they are carried out by the state for as many areas in the state as possible, they furnish the stimulation to local action and the basic data for such action. This

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

683

is a more effective method than waiting for the local area to request state assistance, because it is admittedly true that many of the areas in greatest need of help will be the last ones to ask for it. The important problems involved in connection with the financing of state housing aid will be found to be so closely related to the entire financial structure of the particular state and its various subdivisions that little recommendation can be formulated which will have general application. That is to say, the solutions lie in the field of public finance rather than in public housing. In most states, as has been suggested, constitutional amendment will be necessary. If bonds are to be issued to provide funds for state loans or grants, in many states the debt limit will have to be raised. The local debt limits will also need revision to permit local bond issues. Of course, the most important single kind of help which the state can give to the local area is financial. The rate of interest on state bonds is usually lower than the rate on bonds of its cities, counties, or special authorities, and this advantage can be passed on by the state to the local housing authorities. A program of state housing which did not provide state financial aid might well be a valuable one, but it could scarcely be of major importance. After the second month of the second World War, any suggestions based upon its probable effects can only be of the most tentative nature. If the federal government is to be occupied completely in one of the largest military programs which has ever been undertaken, it is safe to assume that the housing program of the I930's will be completely altered and will be entirely based upon housing problems arising from direct connection with the war program. I t is possible that neither materials nor labor will be available for any additional housing, and if that condition persists there is little use in suggesting that the separate states shall take up that part of a complete housing program which the federal government cannot carry on. The states may be of more assistance than they have been to date in the defense and war housing programs, in any case. For example, the state-aided projects approved by the New York State Division of Housing in February, 1942, were both in a part of the state in which an acute housing shortage had been caused by the rapid expansion of industries working on war orders. The division approved the projects, expressing the belief that they are of value immediately for war housing purposes and that they are in a location in which lowcost housing would be needed after the war. In fact the states might relieve the burden of the federal government considerably by undertak-

684

SUMMARY AND

CONCLUSIONS

ing the major part of the war housing program, leaving to the latter the construction of such housing as clearly is needed for war purposes only. The use of state credit, as in the New York example just cited, and the assumption by the state of the responsibility for planning, building, and managing the projects through the local housing authorities might well constitute a most valuable contribution to the war effort, by relieving the federal government of even a minor part of its burden. The conclusion of this chapter ought to present the answer to the question—What is the future of the state housing agency? That is only one question concerning our future which we cannot answer in the early months of 1942. Before the war which marks the breaking point in so many aspects of our lives the future of the state housing agency was difficult to predict, and now prediction is impossible. That is certainly no reason for not giving the question any consideration, and one ought to be willing to take the risk of attempting an answer, recognizing the strong probability that the answer will be entirely incorrect. Until there are more state housing agencies, with greater power and prestige than any now have, it may be academic to consider the question at all. The existing state bodies are so obviously weak that they cannot force any consideration for themselves, and the present federal domination of public housing will probably persist until the states themselves realize their position and do something to improve it. The American state is vital, the federal government is entirely and properly engrossed with the war, and the ultimate result may conceivably be that the state will assume many nonwar functions now largely under federal control. Public housing may be one of such functions. In order that the best division of responsibility among the federal, state, and local governments may be defined, the persons interested in housing might give careful study to similar social functions of government. A three-way relationship is in operation in the programs of public education, public health, and social security—to mention only a few examples—and it is possible that these systems might demonstrate improvements over the existing set of governmental relationships in the housing program. There is no reason for the current complete acceptance of the federal-local pattern that has developed in the latter program, and there is ample time to reconsider and to make changes. If the present arrangements were even moderately satisfactory, such reconsideration might not be worth while; but very few competent critics will express more than the most moderate approval of the system in its existing form.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

685

T h e enthusiastic advocates are usually members of the federal housing agencies and of housing authorities in large cities, and these individuals are interested parties, however competent and honest they may be. Special consideration ought to be given to the present method of allocating federal housing funds to specific local authorities. Federal grants for other social purposes are usually made to the state, and frequently the state is required to make a contribution of its own funds as a condition of receiving the federal aid. T h e state then allocates part of the joint federal-state fund to local areas, which in turn frequently make a contribution. This process has certain proven advantages. Federal funds are spread to secure a nation-wide program, which is far from true in the case of the present means of allocating federal housing funds. In the second place, the joint federal-state fund under state control is spread to secure a state-wide program. This lack of plans which meet the housing needs of different types of communities within the states is one of the conspicuous faults of present programs financed by federal funds. In the third place, national and state standards can be coordinated, and their respective administrative practices need not vary as they do at present. Furthermore, national and state control can be established over the joint funds allocated to specific local areas, and, finally, all three spheres of government are responsible for final results. The present system in the state of N e w Y o r k , which makes it possible to have three kinds of housing projects in N e w York C i t y — a l l municipal, federalmunicipal, and state-municipal—is confusing, and in a smaller city it would result in excessive administrative costs. The average citizen could realize the defects of the housing program if he would try to imagine what the situation would be if in a single city there were schools entirely under municipal control, schools under joint federal-municipal control, and schools under joint state-municipal control. Federal grants for public education are made to the states, the states add their own larger contribution, and allocations on a predetermined basis are made to the local school agencies. This method is recommended to the serious and immediate attention of students of the administration of public housing. Finally, the present federal housing agencies, particularly the United States Housing Authority, should give careful consideration to the results of their policy of disregarding state housing agencies, after several years of application of that policy. The basis of this policy is fundamentally weak. Its weakness lies in the failure to recognize that a single administrative body in a very large and well-organized federal system can-

686

SUMMARY

AND

CONCLUSIONS

not hope to operate on a unitary principle. If the USHA method were in operation in England, it would fit the predominant scheme; but it is unsuitable and unworkable in the United States. The USHA, it is maintained, would be stronger rather than weaker if it were willing to forego immediate advantage. This fact should be apparent to the authority each year, when its requests for appropriations are under consideration in Congress. Certain cities are strong friends of the authority, but their cause would be stronger if the states as such had a direct interest in the program of the USHA. This program was entirely urban at first, but recently rural projects have been assisted in certain states. However, the viewpoint of the authority is extremely urban, and a disproportionate number of their higher staff members have had their housing experience in New York City and other large cities. Furthermore, the expert skill of the mayors of large cities has resulted in the presentation to the USHA of many urban projects. The smaller cities and villages and rural areas have no experience and no funds to go to Washington to present perfectly drafted plans for housing projects. Naturally the USHA grants aid where it is requested, and it is not the fault of the authority if few requests from small communities are presented to them. If the state housing agencies could present to the authority balanced state-wide programs, including proposed projects in all types of communities, the authority would be in a far better position than it is to make a wise decision as to which projects it wishes to subsidize. This is the reason for the strong recommendation that state housing agencies be not only recognized but also encouraged by the USHA, for the purpose of strengthening the position of that agency. After ten years of public housing experience on a considerable scale, it may be time to reconsider the entire program and the administrative structure. That experience is sufficient to permit a reallocation of functions and powers among federal, state, and local governmental units, and a planned coordination of their work. There was some attempt to do this sort of planning during the early years of the present housing movement, but the plans very soon became mere descriptions of the existing pattern, with very mild modifications. No constructive thinking based upon the idea that major changes can be made characterizes the deliberations of the various housing conferences, committees, associations, and so forth. The discussions and the literature tend to become more specialized—as do the housing "experts." If little can be done until the

SUMMARY

AND

CONCLUSIONS

687

end of the war, aside from the war housing program, this period could well be used for deliberation over the experiences of the past decade and for planning necessary changes on a realistic basis. The present study is one contribution to such a process of reconsideration and reform.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

EXPLANATORY

NOTE

The bibliography has been arranged by states, in the same order which has been followed for the chapters. In the case of each state, a uniform method of citing bills and statutes in Section I has been followed. They are listed chronologically, and in each separate legislative session the titles of all legislative journals and session laws issued for that session are listed first; this list is followed by specific references to (1) bills introduced in the lower house of the legislature, (2) bills introduced in the upper house of the legislature, and (3) laws enacted. To conserve space in the citation of titles of legislative journals and session laws, considerable abbreviation has been used. As a result, each title contains only those details which are absolutely essential to identify the document. Title pages of most legislative documents contain a considerable amount of nonessential information, and no reason for its inclusion in a workable bibliography is apparent. In citing a specific reference such abbreviations as the following are used: AJ for Journal of the Assembly, HJ for Journal of the House oj Representatives, SJ for Journal oj the Senate, and Acts or Statutes or Laws for the session laws, depending upon the principal word used in the title of the session laws of the particular state.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

MASSACHUSETTS I. Bills

and

(For appropriation

1908 Session (Regular) House of Representatives, Senate, Journal.

Statutes

acts see II,

below)

Journal.

House No. 640: HJ, pp. 142, 503, 522; SJ, pp. 158, 477, 492. 1909 Session (Regular) House of Representatives, Senate, Journal. Acts and Resolves.

Journal.

House No. 688: HJ, pp. 152, 414, 1286; SJ, p. 154. House No. 1723: HJ, pp. 1286, 1294, 1300, 1356; SJ, pp. 1077, 1092, 1102. Chapter 143, approved June 19, 1909: "Resolves, 1909" in Acts and. Resolves, pp. 921-22. 1910 Session (Regular) House of Representatives, Senate, Journal.

Journal.

House No. 198: HJ, pp. 72, 488, 561, 655; SJ, pp. 78, 998. House No. 258 : HJ, pp. 80, 655; SJ, pp. 94, 998. House No. 1687: HJ, pp. 1196, 1254, 1304, 1324, 1332-34, 1460; SJ, pp. 998, 1055, 1066-67. House No. 1735: HJ, pp. 1324, 1332-34, 1460; SJ, pp. 998, 1055, 1066-67. 1911 Session (Regular) House of Representatives, Journal Senate, Journal. Acts and Resolves.

(2 p a r t s ) .

House No. 214: HJ, Part I, pp. 53, 238, Part II, pp. 1295-96; SJ, pp. 72, 849. House No. 742: HJ, Part I, p. 127, Part II, pp. 1295-96; SJ, pp. 169. 849. House No. 1326: HJ, Part I, p. 216, Part II. pp. 1295-96; SJ, pp. 246, 849. Senate No. 28: SJ, pp. 45, 849, 1038, 1215; HJ, Part I, p. 164, Part II, pp. 1295-96. Senate No. 550: SJ, pp. 1215, 1257, 1281, 1291, 1404; HJ, Part II, pp. 1627, 1678, 1704, 1718, 1747.

692

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Chapter 607, approved June 30, 1911: "Acts, 1911" in Acts and Resolves, pp. 628-29. 1912 Session (Regular) House of Representatives, Journal Senate, Journal (2 parts). Acts and Resolves.

(2 parts).

House No. 441: HJ, Part I. pp. 90, 311. 539; SJ, Part I. p. 150, Part II. p. 1621. House No. 442: HJ, Part I, pp. 90. 311. 539, Part II. pp. 1574. 1612, 1689. 1775, 1890, 1905. 1919; SJ, Part I, p. 150. House No. 541: HJ, Part I, pp. 106, 862. 89S; SJ, Part I. pp. 98. 806. House No. 2344: HJ, Part II, pp. 1919. 1936, 1943. 1956; SJ, Part II. pp. 1621, 1656. Chapter 714, approved June 4, 1912: "Acts, 1912" in Acts and Resolves, p. 789. 1913 Session (Regular) House of Representatives, Journal Senate, Journal (2 parts). Acts and Resolves.

(2 parts).

House No. 1202: HJ, Part I. pp. 174. 931. 993, 1104, 1146. Part II, p. 1231; SJ, Part I, pp. 260, 946, 961, Part II, pp. 975. 1014. House No. 1203: HJ, Part I, pp. 174, 933, Part II, p. 1190; SJ, Part I, p. 260, Part II, p. 1059. House No. 2000: HJ, Part I, pp. 411, 618; SJ, Part I. pp. 53S, 617. 946. Part II, p. 1059. House No. 2281: HJ, Part II, pp. 1190, 1249, 1297, 1442; SJ, Part II, pp. 1059, 1107, 1135, 1156, 1178. Chapter 494, approved April 16, 1913: "Acts, 1913" in Acts and Resolves, pp. 405-6. Chapter 595, approved May 2, 1913: "Acts, 1913" in Acts and Resolves, pp. 506-7. 1914 Session (Regular) House of Representatives, Journal Senate, Journal (2 parts). Acts and Resolves.

(2 parts).

House No. 118: HJ, Part I, pp. 64, 591, 1211, Part II, pp. 2052. 2137; SJ, Part I, p. 96. House No. 119: HJ, Part I, pp. 64, 591, Part II, pp. 1461, 1575, 1630, 1642-43; SJ, Part I, p. 96. House No. 120: HJ, Part I, pp. 64, 591; SJ, Part I, pp. 97, 1117, Part II, see references below for House No. 2537. House No. 121: HJ, Part I, pp. 64. 591, 1211. 1260; SJ, Part I, pp. 97. 908. 937. House No. 122: HJ, Part I, pp. 64, 591, 1211, 1260; SJ, Part I, pp. 97. 908. 937. House No. 123: HJ, Part I, pp. 64, 591, 1211. 1260; SJ, Part I, pp. 97. 908, 937. House No. 1871: HJ, Part I, pp. 292, 677, 721; SJ, Part I, pp. 330, 465, 490. Senate No. 447: SJ, Part I, pp. 673, 690, 813; HJ, Part I, pp. 925, 954. 976, 1021. Chapter 283, approved April 2, 1914: "Acts, 1914" in Acts and Resolves, pp. 245-46. Chapter 100, approved June 6, 1914: "Resolves, 1914" in Acts and Resolves, pp. 1030-31.

MASSACHUSETTS 1915 Session (Regular) House of Representatives, Senate, Journal. General Acts.

693

Journal.

House No. 635: HJ, pp. 84, 317, 691, 718; SJ, pp. 105, 521, 545. House No. 636: HJ, pp. 84, 317, 691, 718; SJ, pp. 105, 521, 545. House No. 637: HJ, pp. 84, 691, 718; SJ, pp. 105. 521, 545. House No. 638: HJ, pp. 84, 691, 719, 768, 800; SJ, pp. 105, 505. 521, 530, 543, 545, 672. House No. 639: HJ, pp. 84, 317, 411, 457, 472-73; SJ, pp. 105, 405, 426-27. Chapter 129, approved April 1, 1915: General Acts, pp. 113-14. 1916 Session (Regular) House of Representatives, Senate, Journal. General Acts.

Journal.

House No. 512: HJ, pp. 52, 615; SJ, p. 128. House No. 513: HJ, pp. 52, 711, 1101, 1121-23, 1153, 1161-63, 1198, 1206, 1221; SJ, pp. 128, 1045, 1057, 1062-63, 1074-75, 1077. House No. 514: HJ, pp. 52, 333-34, 351, 362, 460, 480, 561, 944-45, 956; SJ, pp. 128, 339, 353, 386, 426, 444, 509, 545, 592. 608, 815, 830, 867. House No. 1443: HJ, pp. 153, 892, 913; SJ, pp. 174, 732, 752, 782, 786, 787. Chapter 185, approved May 9, 1916: General Acts, pp. 164-65. 1917 Session (Regular) House of Representatives, Senate, Journal. General Acts.

Journal.

House No. 311 : HJ, pp. 38, 711 ; SJ, pp. 66, 899. House No. 2083: HJ, pp. 711, 1014, 1032, 1039, 1047, 1116; SJ, pp. 899, 923, 936, 942, 950. Chapter 310, approved May 25, 1917: General Acts, pp. 317-18. 1918 Session (Regular) House of Representatives, Senate, Journal. General Acts.

Journal.

House No. 231 : HJ, pp. 34, 616; SJ, p. 66. House No. 1447: HJ, pp. 674, 683, 690, 749, 758, 772; SJ, pp. 591, 619, 629-30, 635, 662. Senate No. 87: SJ, pp. 45, 542, 551, 556, 572, 702, 719-20; HJ, pp. 99, 615, 622, 856. Senate No. 392: SJ, pp. 711, 719-20, 727, 735-36, 788. Senate No. 410: SJ, pp. 735-36, 788; HJ, pp. 856, 872, 890-92. Chapter 204, approved May 14, 1918: General Acts, p. 173. 1919 Session (Regular) House of Representatives, Senate, Journal. General Acts.

Journal.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

694

House No. 823: HJ, pp. 116, 553, 573; SJ, pp. 129, 463. 4S2. House No. 1152: HJ, p. 149. House No. 1153: HJ, pp. 149, 595, 609. House No. 1154: HJ, pp. 149, 681, 704; SJ, pp. 178, 580, 595. Senate No. 130: SJ, pp. 60, 463, 481. 527, 554; HJ, pp. 159. 553, 573. Chapter 350, approved July 23, 1919: General Acts, pp. 384-433. at pp. 413-20. 1920 Session (Regular) House of Representatives, Senate, Journal. Acts and Resolves.

Journal.

House No. 1500: no page references in the legislative journals are given here, because legislative action was not related to housing. House No. 1642 : HJ, pp. 610, 804, 971 ; SJ, pp. 688-89. House No. 1759: HJ, pp. 973, 982. House No. 1773: HJ, pp. 1057-59. 1073; SJ, pp. 817, 825, S37, 853-54. Order (no number) : HJ, pp. 547, 648, 705 ; SJ, pp. 538, 548-49. 554-55. Chapter 554, approved May 28, 1920: "Acts, 1920" in Acts and Resolves, pp. 56162. Chapter 628, approved June 5, 1920: "Acts, 1920" in Acts and Resolves, pp. 705-6. 1921 Session (Regular) House of Representatives, Senate, Journal.

Journal.

House No. 1260; HJ, pp. 82, 884, 898; SJ, pp. 324, 723, 739. 1922 Session (Regular) House of Representatives, Senate, Journal.

Journal.

House No. 969: HJ, pp. 123, 492, 503; SJ, pp. 137, 424. 435. House No. 1400: HJ. pp. 405, 710, 722; SJ, pp. 339, 600, 615. 1923 Session (Regular) House of Representatives, Senate, Journal.

Journal.

House No. 692: HJ, pp. 92, 280, 289; SJ, pp. 114, 228, 239. 1924 Session (Regular) House of Representatives, Senate, Journal.

Journal.

House No. 5: HJ, pp. 31, 202, 208; SJ, pp. 28. 172, 187. House No. 558: HJ, pp. 428, 449; SJ, pp. 358, 375. House No. 562: HJ, pp. 428, 449; SJ, pp. 358, 375. 1925 Session

(Regular)

House of Representatives, Senate, Journal.

Journal.

House No. 168: HJ, pp. 32, 280, 295; SJ, pp. 46, 254, 268.

MASSACHUSETTS (Regular) 1927 Session House of Representatives, Senate, Journal.

695

Journal.

House No. 810: HJ, pp. 135, 377, 390; SJ, pp. 117, 309, 322. 1928 Session (Regular) House of Representatives, Senate, Journal.

Journal.

House No. 1225 : HJ, pp. 465, 695, 704. Senate No. 168: SJ, pp. 87, 284, 294; HJ, pp. 143, 350, 356. 1930 Session (Regular) House of Representatives, Senate, Journal.

Journal.

House No. 896: HJ, pp. 134, 314, 327; SJ, pp. 122, 248, 257. 1932 Session (Regular) House of Representatives, Senate, Journal.

Journal.

Senate No. 205: SJ, pp. 91, 398, 412; HJ, pp. 153, 494, 502. 1933 Session (Regular) House of Representatives, Senate, Journal. Acts and Resolves.

Journal.

House No. 676: HJ, pp. 118, 603, 616; SJ, pp. 105, 473, 486. House No. 1051 : HJ, pp. 168, 603, 614; SJ, pp. 152, 474, 485, 1013. Senate No. 471 : SJ, pp. 944, 991. Senate No. 489: SJ, pp. 991, 996, 1001, 1013, 1017, 1026; HJ, pp. 1288, 1296, 1339. Chapter 364, approved July 22, 1933: "Acts, 1933" in Acts and Resolves, pp. 644-50. 1934 Session (Regular) H o u s e of Representatives, Senate, Journal.

Journal.

House No. 770: HJ, pp. 115, 974, 1077, 1189; SJ, pp. 109, 840. House No. 1555: HJ, pp. 974, 990, 1077. House No. 1603: HJ, pp. 1077, 1089; SJ, pp. 109, 840, 850, 883, 885-87, 889, 905, 914-16. 1935 Session (Regular) H o u s e of Representatives, Senate, Journal. Acts and Resolves.

Journal.

House No. 2097: HJ, pp. 1023, 1267, 1307, 1324, 1331. House No. 2212: HJ, pp. 1267, 1331-33, 1348. 1468, 1481, 1518. 1528, 1540; SJ, pp. 1033, 1066, 1080, 1104, 1114, 1135, 1162, 1175, 1183, 1262. House No. 2296: HJ, pp. 1518, 1528, 1540; SJ, pp. 1162, 1175, 1183.

696

BIBLIOGRAPHY

House No. 2315: HJ, pp. 1604-5, 1611, 1620, 1631, 1653-54; SJ, pp. 1232, 124344, 1261-62. Chapter 449, approved July 26, 1935: "Acts, 1935" in Acts and Resolves, pp. 544-55. Chapter 475, approved August 9, 1935: "Acts. 19351' in Acts and Resolves, pp. 624-28. Chapter 485, approved August 14, 1935: "Acts, 1935'' in Acts and Resolves, pp. 659-60. 1936 Session (Regular) H o u s e of R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , Senate, Journal.

Journal.

Senate No. 265: SJ, pp. 80. 874-75, 881; HJ, pp. 159, 1153, 1167. 1937 Session (Regular) H o u s e of R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , Senate, Journal. Acts and Resolves.

Journal.

House No. 30: HJ, pp. 27, 637, 657, 704; SJ, pp. 36, 504, 530, 836. House No. 31 : HJ, pp. 28, 637, 657; SJ, pp. 36, 504, 530. House No. 32: HJ, pp. 28, 704; SJ, pp. 36, 836. House No. 1200: HJ, pp. 35, 238, 413; SJ, p. 940. House No. 1688: HJ, pp. 704, 733, 1032, 1044, 1053; SJ, p. 836. House No. 1788: HJ, pp. 896, 1188-89, 1208, 1220, 1259. House No. 1951: HJ, pp. 1169, 1189. House No. 1958: HJ, pp. 1189, 1208. 1220, 1259; SJ, pp. 940. 946, 964, 996. House No. 1959: HJ, pp. 1189. 1213, 1220, 1259; SJ, pp. 940, 946, 964, 967. Chapter 53, approved May 28, 1937: "Resolves, 1937'' in Acts and Resolves, 640. Chapter 64, approved May 28. 1937: "Resolves, 1937" in Acts and Resolves, 646. 1938 Session (Regular) H o u s e of R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , Senate, Journal. Acts and Resolves.

p. p.

Journal.

House No. 1706: HJ, pp. 308-9, 470, 1076; SJ, pp. 358, 1161. House No. 1965: HJ, pp. 1076, 1120, 1439^40. 1512, 1528-31, 1571-72. 1584, 1591-92, 1594, 1604-5; SJ, pp. 1161, 1184, 1195, 1196-97. 1203, 1208, 1211. House No. 2092: HJ, pp. 1390-91, 1440. House No. 2127: HJ, pp. 1439-40, 1475, 1481. 1512. House No. 2187: HJ, pp. 1601, 1604; SJ, pp. 1210, 1211. Senate No. 285: SJ, pp. 93, 328, 354; HJ, pp. 150, 385. 398. Chapter 484, approved July 5, 1938: Acts and Resolves, pp. 635-49. Chapter 485, approved July 5, 1938: Acts and Resolves, pp. 649-50. 1939 Session (Regular) H o u s e of R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , Senate, Journal. Resolves. Acts and

Journal.

697

MASSACHUSETTS House No. 2313: HJ, pp. 1228. 1333. 13S9; SJ, pp. 868, 998, 1014. Chapter 26, approved February 20, 1939: Acts and Resolves, pp. 3 3 - 3 4 .

1941 Session (Regular) The legislative journals and the session laws were not available at the time of publication. Copies of bills and of laws enacted, and of the Bulletin of Committee Work, were furnished by Miss Ethel M . Turner, legislative reference assistant. Charles P. Norton furnished information concerning the legislation of this session. The Bulletin of Committee Work and Business of the Legislature, published on June 30, 1941, was used. House No. 69: Bulletin of Committee Work, p. 278. House No. 70: Bulletin oj Committee Work, pp. 132, 278. House No. 71: Bulletin of Committee Work, pp. 132, 278. House No. 72: Bulletin of Committee Work, pp. 108. 278. House No. 73: Bulletin of Committee Work, pp. 6, 278. House No. 74: Bulletin of Committee Work, pp. 108, 278. House No. 2216: Bulletin of Committee Work, pp. 223, 338. House No. 2402: Bulletin of Committee Work, p. 227. House N o . 2669: Bulletin of Committee Work, no reference. Senate No. 484: Bulletin of Committee Work, pp. 207, 268. Senate No. 634: Bulletin of Committee Work, p. 272. Chapter 269. approved May 15, 1941. Chapter 291, approved May 20, 1941. Chapter 317, approved May 26, 1941. Chapter 71, approved August 4, 1941.

II. Executive

Budgets,

Appropriation

Acts,

and Financial

Reports

A. EXECUTIVE BUDGETS (For period

since crcation

of State

Board

of

Housing)

Budget Recommendations of His Excellency James M. Curley to the General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for the Fiscal Year 1935, Beginning December 1, 1934, and Ending November 30, 1935. January 23, 1935, House No. 2000; p. 141. Budget Recommendations of His Excellency James M. Curley to the General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for the Fiscal Year 1936, Beginning December 1, 1935, and Ending November 30, 1936. January 22, 1936, House No. 1500; pp. 51, 145. Budget Recommendations of His Excellency Charles F. Hurley to the General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for the Fiscal Year 1937, Beginning December 1, 1936, and Ending November 30, 1937. January 26, 1937, House No. 1550; pp. 46, 144. Budget Recommendations of His Excellency Charles F. Hurley to the General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for the Fiscal Year 1938, Beginning December 1, 1937, and Ending November 30, 1938. January 26, 1938, House No. 1601; pp. 47, 144.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

698

Budget Recommendations of H i s E x c e l l e n c y Leverett Saltonstall t o the General Court of the C o m m o n w e a l t h of M a s s a c h u s e t t s for the F i s c a l Y e a r s 1939 a n d 1940. J a n u a r y 25, 1939, H o u s e N o . 1; pp. 4 2 , 113. Budget Recommendations of H i s E x c e l l e n c y L e v e r e t t Saltonstall t o t h e General Court of the C o m m o n w e a l t h of M a s s a c h u s e t t s for the F i s c a l Y e a r s 1941 and 1942. J a n u a r y 22, 1941, H o u s e X o . 1; p. 108. B. APPROPRIATION ACTS 1911

Session

(Regular)

C h a p t e r 749, approved J u l y 28, 1911: "Acts, 1911" in Acts and Resolves, pp. 993-97, at p. 993. 1912

Session

(Regular)

C h a p t e r 714, approved J u n e 4, 1912: "Acts, 1912" in - l e a and Resolves, p. 789. C h a p t e r 732, approved J u n e 13, 1912: "Acts, 1912" in Acts and Resolves, pp. 861-64, at p. 862. 1913 Session

Session

Session

1912,

1913, 1913,

(Regular)

C h a p t e r 305, approved April 6, 1914: "Acts, 1914" in Acts and Resolves, p. 270. C h a p t e r 480, approved M a y 5, 1914: "Acts, 1914" in Acts and Resolves, p. 417. C h a p t e r 734. approved July 2, 1914: "Acts, 1914" in Acts and Resolves, pp. 767-73, at p. 770. 1915

1912,

(Regular)

C h a p t e r 595, approved M a y 2, 1913: "Acts, 1913" in Acts and Resolves, pp. 506-7. C h a p t e r 757, approved J u n e 6, 1913: "Acts, 1913" in Acts and Resolves, pp. 717-21, at p. 720. 1914

1911,

1914, 1914, 1914,

(Regular)

C h a p t e r 175, approved M a r c h 12, 1915: "Special Acts, 1915" in Special Acts and Resolves, 1915, p. 119. C h a p t e r 74, approved April 28, 1915: "Resolves, 1915" in Special .-Ic/i and Resolves, 1915, p. 429. 1916

Session

(Regular)

C h a p t e r 30, approved F e b r u a r y 4, 1916: "Spccial Acts, 1916" in Special and Resolves, 1916, p. 23. 1917

Session

Acts

(Regular)

C h a p t e r 36, approved F e b r u a r y 7. 1917: "Special Acts. 1917" in Spccial Acts and Resolves, 1917, p. 34. C h a p t e r 376, approved M a y 26, 1917: "Special Acts, 1917" in Special Acts and Resolves, 1917, pp. 432-37, at p. 435. C h a p t e r 7, approved February 17, 1917: "Resolves, 1917" in Special Acts and Resolves, 1917, p. 443.

MASSACHUSETTS 1918 Session

699

(Regular)

Chapter 106, approved March 28, 1918: "Special Acts, 1918" in Special Acts and Resolves, 1918, pp. 73-110, at p. 92. Chapter 20, approved March 6, 1918: "Resolves, 1918" in Special Acts and Resolves, 1918, p. 310. 1919 Session

(Regular)

Chapter 153, approved April 23, 1919: "Special Acts, 1919" in Special and Resolves, 1919, pp. 132-84, at p. 154. 1920 Session

Acts

(Regular)

Chapter 225, approved March 31, 1920: "Acts, 1920" in Acts and

Resolves,

1920, pp. 195-251, at p. 236. 1921 Session

(Regular)

Chapter 203, approved March 31, 1921: "Acts, 1921" in Acts and

Resolves,

1921, pp. 179-240, at p. 223. 1922

Session

(Regular)

Chapter 129, approved March 8, 1922: "Acts, 1922" in Acts and

Resolves,

1922, pp. 80-146, at p. 126. 1923 Session

(Regular)

Chapter 126, approved March 14, 1923: "Acts, 1923" in Acts and

Resolves,

1923, pp. 73-122, at p. 108. 1924

Session

(Regular)

Chapter 126, approved March 21, 1924: "Acts, 1924" in Acts and

Resolves,

1924, pp. 83-132, at p. 117. 1925 Session

{Regular)

Chapter pp. 211, approved March at p. 199. 30, 1925: "Acts, 1925" in Acts and 1926 1925, Session 165-214, (Regular)

Resolves,

Chapter 79, approved March 8, 1926: "Acts, 1926" in Acts and Resolves, pp. 57-107, at p. 91. Chapter 398, approved May 29, 1926: "Acts, 1926" in Acts and Resolves, pp. 488-504, at p. 497. 1927 Session

1926, 1926,

(Regular)

Chapter 138, approved March 21, 1927: "Acts, 1927" in Acts and

Resolves,

1927, pp. 105-57, at p. 140. 1928 Session

(Regular)

Chapter 127, approved March 16, 1928: "Acts, 1928" in Acts and

Resolves,

1928, pp. 81-134, at pp. 116-17. 1929 Session

(Regular)

Chapter 146,122-73, approved March 1929, pp. at p. 157. 22, 1929: "Acts, 1929" in Acts and

Resolves,

700

BIBLIOGRAPHY Chapter 386, approved June 8, 1929: "Acts, 1929" in ,4i7j and 1929, pp. 492-512, at p. 501.

1930 Session Chapter 1930, Chapter 1930,

(Regular)

115, approved March 14, 1930: ' Acts, 1930'' in .4