Ask the Scholar

Document scope · 1 page
doc
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory. For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.

Scholar Source Context

Document identity
localId
4525647
label
House Speech Cooperative Housing Bill, March 22, 1950
core
doc
dtoType
document
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4525647
contentType
document
title
House Speech Cooperative Housing Bill, March 22, 1950
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
Housing
Legislation
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4525647
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1950-03-31
month
3
year
1950
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1950-03-01
month
3
year
1950
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
553b149713a30a8f
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D13, folder "House Speech Cooperative Housing Bill, March 22, 1950" of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. Copyright Notice The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections. Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. Speech by Representative Harnld Ford Jr during debate on Corporative Housing bill March 22, 1950 MR. CHAIRMAN, before any member of the House votes for or against the controversial Title I of H.R.7402 I firmly believe a therough and complete examination should be made of the precise situation in each Representative's respective district. Although we are legislating for the benefit of the nation as a whole, none of us should forget that we also represent limited geographical areas. We have a responsibility to reflect the views, understand the problems and seek answers for the citizens who live in our own congressional districts. No one denies that our nation still needs additional housing particularly in certain areas where the shortage of homes is still acute. The problem is how to ready the situation. Should we enset Title I, the Cooperative Housing Act, or should we rely on a continuation of legislation such as our existing F.H.A. statute which has worked rather effectively for a number of years. Under the controversial Title I of H.R.7402 approximately 250,000 homes can be constructed. A new federal agency, the Cooperative Housing Administration, will handle the job if Title I is approved. Interest rates will be 3% and the amortization period for the mortgages will range between FORD i LIBRARY GERALI Digitized from Box D13 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library Page Two 50 and 60 years. Down payments will be required. The group seeking to set up a cooperative project must buy an amount of stock in the Cooperative Hous- ing Administration equal to 23% of the total cost of their project at the time the contract for mortgage financing is signed. At the time each family is ready to move in it must put up another 23%. In other words, the total down payment is 5%. This would amount to $40 on s home costing $8,000 or $300 on a $6,000 home. With these facts in mind, will Title I aid in solving the housing problem in Kent and Oktawa Counties of Michigan, my district. The proposal might be helpful in some instances but let's examine the record to see whether or not it might have discriminatory or harmful results. Further, will the co-op prevision provide a solution which is not already on the statute books. Titles II and VI of the previous F.H.A. legislation have proved extremely helpful in Kent and Ottawa Counties. I believe we can peint with pride to the job done by our losal office in Grand Rapids. From various sources and efter considerable digging for the fasts, I have prepared the following table. Here is the record from January 1, 1946 through December 1, 1949. FORD i LIBRARY Page Three Type of Loan Committed Amount 1946-1949 of Guaranty Insured Amount KENT COUNTY Titles II and VI 3,670 $23,845,000 2,621 $17,032,000 See. 203 2(b)(D) 257 124 OTTAWA COUNTY Titles II & VI 475 $ 3,087,500 340 $ 2,205,300 See. 203 2(b)(D) 10 6 I am particularly interested in the See. 203 2(b)(D) leans for I was somewhat instrumental in initiating the use of this provision among Grand Rapids leaning institutions. This provision provides for mortgages up to $6,000, at 43% with a maximum term of 30 years. The above chart indicates 257 leans of this type are committed in Kent County and 10 in Ottawa County. In other words, a person, veteran or otherwise, under this provision can buy his own home with a down payment of $300 to $400 and monthly charges of approximately $41 including payment on principal, interest, taxes and insurance. These homes must meet F.H.A. specifications. They include 2 bedrooms, a living room, a kitchen and dinette, full basement, gas furnace, plastered walls, and a reasonably sised lot. FORD In addition I would like to mention homes that are being constructed LIBRARY in a slightly higher price range. Here is the copy of an advertisement in the Page Four Grand Rapids Herald of March 19, 1950 - "THIS HOME ON YOUR LOT $6,800 "Only Cash Required $150 for Mortgage Costs. 2 Large Bedrooms Spacious Living Room Large Kitchen and Dinette Full Basement 32'x24' Gas Furnace and Hot Water Heater Plastered Walls Not Prefabriested. 843 Monthly payments Includes Taxes and Insurance. All This On Your Lot If Acceptable to FHA or Veterans Administration. Public Water Supply Must be Available. NO LOT? "To veterans only. Call us anyway. If you have $300 to $400 each it may be possible to build this house on a lot of your one) choice. We have several lots available or perhaps you have a lot which you would like us to buy for you." I ask in all sincerity, isn't this the kind of housing which is needed, at the right price and on fair terms? The local newspapers include other rather similar advertisements. Another "ad" reads as follows: "No down payment to a veteran. 043 per month (including taxes and insurance)." Here is another advertisement: "Twe-bedroom, lig-stery bungelow. Room for third bedroom. Pull base- ment 32'x24'. Gas furnace, automatic water heater. Large living room, combination kitchen and dinette. Near schools. Can be purchased on FHA terms or GI lean. "$250 down to veterans covers all mortgage costs; $56 monthly pay- ment includes taxes and insurance." One of the most perplexing problems to low cost home purchasers is the down payment whether it be $100 or $1,000. Under a combination of Title II leans and GI financing homes can be financed with no down payment. I believe under Title I a 5% down payment in two installments is mandatory with some very limited qualification. In other words, Title I will not help the person in the low income group who cannot acquire sufficient funds for the down payment. In contrast, as I have said before, a combination F.N.A.-G.I. Loan will obviate the necessity of a down payment. GERALD FORD VIBRARY Page Five There is justification to the argument that Title I is discrim- inatory, particularly as regards G.I.s of World War II who have already purchased homes with the help of a O.I. loan guaranty. In Ottawa County 938 G.I.S as of February 25, 1950 are now buying homes at 4% on a 20 year term. In Kent County as of February 25, 1950, there are 3,085 G.I.s in the same eategory. These veterans would be diseriminated against by the exetment of Title I. There is no 3% interest rate for them. They have no 50 to 60 year term for the repayment of their loan. I recently compiled some facts and figures on the situation in Kent and Ottawa Counties, which should be included in the record. KENT COUNTY OTTAWA COUNTY W.W.I Veterans 7,759 1,551 W.W.II Veterans 29,472 6,488 Total 37,231 8,039 KENT COUNTY G.I. LOAN DATAAS OF FEBRUARY 25,1950 Type of Loan Number of Amt. of guaranty Total Dollar Loans and/or Insurance Amounts of Loans Home 3,085 $8,627,290.00 $17,388,418.00 Farm 18 43,182.00 90,344.00 Business 137 179,023.00 394,054.00 Total 3,240 $8,849,495.00 $17,672,816.00 OTTAWA COUNTY G.I. LOAN DATA AS OF FEBRUARY 25,1950 Number of Amt. of guaranty Total Dollar Type of Loan Leans and/or Insurance Amounts of Loans Home 938 $2,359,920.00 $4,748,253.00 Farm 6 15,900.00 31,800.00 Business $ 78,257.00 161,305.00 FORD & LIBRARY GERALD Total 1,004 $2,454,077.00 $4,941,358.00 Page Six If the 3% rate in Title I is raised to 4% there will be no discrimination against those veterans of World War II in Kent and Ottawa Counties who haven't yet purchased a home with a G.I. loan but there will be an overlasting bias against the 4023 who have already bought or constructed their homes. This injustice can never be corrested unless the 50 to 60 year loan term provision is corrected. The gentlemen from Michigan, Mr. Walcott, ably showed how ridiculous the 50 to 60 year amortisation schedule is under Title I. A veteran who is now 25 years old will finish paying for his home at the age of 75 or 85. Obvieusly this is unsound on its face. The advocates of Title I claim there will be no additional cost to the federal government. What about the new agency with the tre- mendous staff that will be required to handle the "se-op" loan applications. It will undoubtedly require at least 5000 new federal employees plus a director at $15,000 per year. The federal treasury can't stand this additional burden. In conclusion, I vish to emphasise my opposition to Title I for the following reasons: 1) it will discriminate against G.I.s who have FORD is LIBRARY CERVID Page Seven already purchased homes, s cme 4023 in my district; 2) the Administrative cost burdens will be excessive; the federal treasury can't afford a now federal agency with some 5000 additional employees; 3) existing F.H.A.-G.I. loan pregrams can and will provide an ample supply of low cost and middle income homes. FORD & LIBRARY GERALD