02-02-42 Council Special Meeting Minutes

Home Browse Search

301 In order that your body might be properly informed as-to the physical condition of the dwellings and the income of families living therein, a W.P.A. project was sponsored to make a house to house survey and report its findings. This survey was not completed at the time the above named Ordinance was passed, but that since been concluded, and the Cooperation Agreement was delayed pending the conclusion of the survey. This survey was supervised by Mr. Clare Pittman of the City Plan Commission. Mr. Pittman was selected because he had supervised a similar survey made in 1935, and it was felt his experience in that survey would be beneficial in supervising this survey. The summary of this survey, briefly showed the following results: 3055 Sub - standard dwelling units in the area sur- veyed. Of these sub - standard units 401 were classified as unfit or needing major repairs as follows: 154 unfit, 247 needing major.repairs. This 401 unit unfit or needing major repairs was so classified because 307 were without toilet or bath, 84 had toilets but no bath and 9 had bath and toilet both but were otherwise unfit. The balance, or 2654 dwelling units, were classified as sub - standard and needing minor repairs. Of this number, 1226 were so classified because of no toilet and no bath, 1333 had toilets but no bath while the remaining 95 were so classified because of over - crowding and or lacked adequate heating facilities. The report of this survey was forwarded to the United States Housing Authority in Washington and on December 19th, 1941, Mr. F. Chas. Starr, Acting -Director, Region V, wrote the local Authority as follows:: "The preliminary results of the Survey of Low-Rent Housing needs show a total of 314 families living in dwellings which are unfit for occupancy or in need of major repairs, and an additional 1852 families living in dwellings which lack sanitary facilities. As compared with these figures, the Federal Census of 1940 shows a total of 2,576 dwelling units in need of major repairs or un- fit for use and 5,182 units lacking sanitary facilities. The Real Property Inventory of 1935 showed figures very similar to the Census, namely, 3,301 units in bad repair and 5,897 units lack - ing,.sanitary facilities. "`In view`•of this discrepancy between the survey on one hand and the Federal Census and the Real Property Inventory on the other, we are inclined to believe that the Housing Survey results represent a serious understatement of the true housing needs of South Bend. The discrepancy, moreover, is so considerable that it cannot be explained in terms of the fact that the above survey'data covers only tenant fem ilies, whereas, the Census and the BPI include owner families and non - family groups as well. We believe the understatement to be largely due to an excessive conservatism in the definition of what constitutes a sub - standard dwelling. In addition, the survey did not cover certain areas tr:hich, while they are outside of the city limits, comprise a large amount of sub - standard housing and represent a potential market for the housing projects which should not be ignored. "We feel it is essential, therefore, that the survey results be checked more accurately against the Census data by wards, and we have asked you to submit material to us at your earliest conven- ience. When these data are compared, it will be possible to determine how much of the discrep- ancy is due to a difference in evaluation as to sub - standard criteria and how much of it is due to a difference in coverage. It will then probably be necessary to revise the survey results both in terms of reclassifying borderline cases as to sub - standard criteria and in terms of ex- panding the coverage of the survey by adding certain areas outside the city limits. This is advisable because it is indispensable that the survey should represent a full coverage of all sub - standard housing in the city, thus giving the entire pool of families eligible for the pro - ;- Jects." On the same date the Local Housing Authority received another letter from Mr. Starr which read as follows: "'On the basis of the preliminary results of the survey of Low -Rent Housing Needs which you have R submitted to us, we have made a preliminary analysis of the market for low -rent housing in South Bend. When the survey results are checked against other available data such as the Federal Census of 1940 and the Real Property Inventory, it is apparent that there is an adequate market fort he two proposed projects, namely, a 250 -unit project for white occupancy and an 80 -unit project for negro occupancy. "The survey data indicate that the white project would dispose of a market ratio of approximately 3.7 to 1, and the negro project of a market ratio of about 3.3 to 1. We believe these ratios to be adequate, especially in view of the relatively high average gross rents shown in the survey. These high rents would tend to bring a very large portion of the income group to be served into the effective market for the projects, since the project rents they would have to pay would in general be lower than those they are paying now for substandard housing. "We have taken into account in this connection the fact that South Bend has 500 defense housing units which may revert to low -rent housing use at the end of the emergency. Even then, however, the total low -rent housing program for South Bend would amount to only 830 units, whereas our experience in communities throughout the United States has shown that a city the size of South Bend offers a market for approximately 1,000 low -rent housing units. In view of this fact, we feel that the proposed 330 USU- aided units would dispose of an adequate market both during and after the emergency." During the time the local survey was being completed changing conditions, occasioned by the National emergency, brought about confusing reports to me concerning the occupancy of the proposed project. Mr. Voor reported to me that he understood from Mr. Hahn of the USHA that in order to proceed with a project, it would be necessary to set aside fifty percent (50%) of the dwelling units in the project for occupancy by defense workers. In order to verify Mr. Voorts understanding on this matter, I wrote to Mr. Starr asking information on the subject, and received the following reply from him :: "Permit me to acknowledge your letter of December 12, inquiring as to whether a new ruling has been made whereby 50 percent of all construction of USHA housing must be set aside for defense workers, leaving only 50 percent available for low income or slum clearance use. "We have no knowledge of any such ruling. However, the various steps which must be taken in order to permit construction of a housing project might be said to result in a situation whereby only those hous4g projects which will give preference to defense workers will be constructed in the future. The reason for this is that it is practically impossible to obtain a decent bid (in fact, any bid) for the construction of a housing project unless the project has received a preference rating. To date this preference rating has not been issued unless the project is in an area where there is a critical shortage of housing for defense workers. When these conditions exist a preference rating will, in general, be issued, but only with the understanding that in renting the units the Local Authority will give reasonable preference to defense workers for the duration of the defense emergengr.