Even more serious practical problems arise from the uneven appliation of our present requirements as among different builders, different neighborhoods, and different sections of metropolitan areas. The theoretical availability to all citizens, regardless of their race, of i new FHA-aided housing project may, as I stated in another connection, be of no practical effect when that project is hidden away in a large section of a city or a large suburban area which is otherwise segregated. But, if the project does attract a few Negro families, the very fact that it is the only project in the area open without regard the race may result in its attracting many more Negroes, while prospective white tenants or purchasers find housing elsewhere. As the Attorney General has testified, the particular landlord or homebuilders who resist renting or selling to a Negro family may often do so not out of personal bigotry, but out of fear that his project will, because he is among the first not to discriminate, attract only one segment of the market. The fears of landlords and builders in this respect are not entirely unfounded under a system which provides open occupancy in selected projects while maintaining barriers in most others. It is the very pressure of segregation that often directs disproportionate numbers of Negro families to those housing projects and those neighborhoods which accept them. This is the same phenomenon that often leads to widespread sales of homes by white families whose objection is not to having some Negro neighbors, but rather to living in a Negro ghetto. The advantage of comprehensive nondiscrimination coverage thus lies not only in the greater coverage as such, but also in the avoidance of elements of unfairness and of serious market distortions. The enactment of title IV, with its broad coverage, would do more than remove defects in the present Federal laws relating to housing discrimination. It would, in effect, declare, as national policy, that denying a man a fair opportunity to provide a decent home for himself and his family is morally and legally wrong. At present, millions of Negro and other minority group families are trapped in racial ghettos from which they cannot escape because housing is, as has been well stated, "the one commodity in the American market that is not freely available on equal terms to everyone who can afford to pay.' The existence of the racial ghetto is the most serious problem affecting our large cities. To save our cities from spreading slums and blight, three steps are required: (1) the elimination of all forms of discrimination in housing; (2) the provision of additional housing for families of low and moderate income in all areas of our central cities and suburban areas; and (3) the revitalization of the central city itself. The 1960 census clearly showed the extent of the sharp differences in the quality and the crowding of housing occupied by white households and nonwhite households. About 13 percent of the housing occupied by white households was found to be substandard. This, itself, is a challenge to us as a nation; but 44 percent of the housing occupied by nonwhite households was substandard, and this is a national dis grace. Dwelling units with more than one person per room accounted' about 9 percent of the total for white households, but the percentag for nonwhite households was 27 percent, or three times as high. The fact that the average income of Negro families is far bela that of white families is a primary cause of these differences. Hever, another major factor is racial discrimination in the sale, rer. and financing of housing. By artifically limiting the supply, disr nation increases the cost of housing available to minority groups. Seriously substandard housing available to Negroes all too of costs more than good housing available to others. Studies have s that Negro families occupying decent housing are forced to pay s higher percentage of their limited incomes than white families iz same income group. As our urban communities grow ever outward into the surrounds countryside, larger and larger portions of our central cities are t ing into racially segregated slums, thereby multiplying the demar z on municipal budgets, while at the same time diminishing munic tax revenues. Thus, the problems of our minorities become the pr lems of our cities. The President has proposed, and the Congress has enacted, new pr grams for the provision of housing for low- and moderate-income faTM. ilies and for urban renewal. With established programs and imag tive new proposals, we are striving to help our cities rebuild their sm and blighted areas. I share the President's great hopes and h expectations that this country can build cities in which people come together to lead the good life. But it cannot be done so z as the ghettos of our major cities exist to deny freedom and the fra of American citizenship to millions of Americans. The widespread denial of access to housing and the creation of lart racial ghettos bring with them a denial of good schools and a dimbation of educational opportunities, both formal and informal. Infer housing and inferior education go hand in hand, and together they foster and reinforce inferior employment opportunities and infer : incomes. Neither poverty nor bad housing is an end result of these forces, bar both are parts of a cycle of intertwined causes and effects, strengthe ing each other like the strands of a rope which binds and chokes lions of American families. The Nation as a whole suffers when so many of its people are vented from making the contribution they are able to make to e country's social and economic well-being. I believe that enactment of title IV of this bill would benefit a --ments of our society. I believe enactment of title IV would (1) Help over 20 million American Negroes and other mirr ties attain the same freedom to choose the home in which wish to live as is available to any other Americans: (2) Make available to Negroes and other minorities the major commodity which is not now available to all Amer on the basis of ability to pay; (3) Greatly simplify the housing relocation process in all F eral and local government programs by making more sale ar! rental housing available to relocatees; (4) Stabilize neighborhoods and help eliminate panic selling; (5) Free builders, investors, lending institutions, real estate brokers and agents of the fear of economic loss if they are among the first to support open-occupancy housing in their own localities. or neighborhoods; (6) Open up a new housing market for the urban nonwhite middle class which, in increasing numbers, has the income needed to pay for good housing; and (7) Help rid us of one of the basic obstacles to revitalizing our cities. The task of eliminating discrimination in housing requires the concerted effort of all levels of Government and private groups and individuals. History teaches us that this task cannot be left to voluntary effort alone. The enactment of this legislation will not only establish a national policy against discrimination in the sale and rental of housing, but will represent a great step forward in the Government's efforts to guarantee to every American all the civil rights to which he is entitled under our form of government. The CHAIRMAN. That was a very splendid statement, Mr. Weaver. I would like to ask you a few questions. I take it you agree with me that this question of slums, ghettos, which you are trying to get at and prevent, is a huge problem. We have used every weapon available to aid us in the process; is that correct? Secretary WEAVER. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I do not think there is any question that it is a tremendous problem. The CHAIRMAN. You feel that this bill will go a great way toward that end? Secretary WEAVER. I think this bill is a necessary tool and I do not think we can do the job without accomplishing that which this bill hopes to accomplish. The CHAIRMAN. You believe, therefore, that it would be deleterious, to say the least, to make exceptions to these provisions that we have in the bill? Secretary WEAVER. I think there is a great danger in weakening the bill and making it less effective to do a job that I think is far overdue. The CHAIRMAN. There has been some controversy in the last few days with reference to exceptions which I think would weaken the bill and I would like to ask you: Do you see any difference in principle between a boarder in a boardinghouse and a tenant in an apartment house as far as race is concerned? Secretary WEAVER. Well, I think here there are great dangers in carrying this difference, which is minimal, to the point that you get such an exception as to make an operation of this sort ineffectual. I think that there are psychological differences. I think as far as the impact on the housing market is concerned, that making the differences and making the exceptions weakens the law and presents problems which I think are unfortunate. The whole question of the relationship between certain types of roomers and tenants, I think, has sometimes been exaggerated. I would favor not having the exceptions, from a practical, operat point of view, from the efficacy of doing the job that needs to be d The CHAIRMAN. Therefore, you would deplore, I take it, our r ing an exception to this bill, for the so-called five-boarder boardg house? Secretary WEAVER. I would say that any exception weakens the and obviously the exception of the roominghouse is the one whii for many people the most palatable one. I think it is an unfort: one. The CHAIRMAN. My experience as chairman of this committer once we open the door to exemptions, a little bit, why, the door : opened a great deal more to all kinds of exemptions. On that basis alone I personally would oppose this exemption. alone for many other reasons that I am opposed to it. Secretary WEAVER. I would say I am very much impressed by point of view. I think that once you begin to get exceptions, yo the most likely ones, and by the time you get through, you get so : that by the time you get through you might not have much left. The CHAIRMAN. We understand that the title of this bill is basi : part upon the power of the Congress under the Constitution to rete late commerce. Can you give the committee some information as to the interst commerce aspects of the residential housing industry? Secretary WEAVER. On the surface, I think it would appear tat this would be difficult to do if you look at the physical proper s which, with the exception of trailers, do not move, but actually te occupants do, and it is largely in this aspect of the problem that we get the compelling figures. Not only do the occupants move, but materials move and moret moves, but just getting back to the people-we made an analysis what had happened in the 5 years from 1955 to 1960, for example, and we found that some 14 million persons moved from one State to a other, and this has been true in every 1 of the 50 States. And we ve probably the most mobile people in the history of mankind, and ‹ ̈r mobility is increasing. I would be very happy to submit for the record a table which we'] indicate the extent of this movement State by State, sir. The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to receive that information for record. (Table follows:) Question: Mr. Secretary, as you may know, there is some question as ** whether the commerce clause of the Constitution would give to the Fed Government authority to enact legislation pertaining to the sale or transfer it residential properties. Can you give us some data that shows the inte movement of people who purchase or rent housing? Answer: Residential properties, of course, are stationary, and with the ex tion of mobile homes and trailers, relatively few are moved from one pie " another. However, transactions involving residential properties are betwis people, those who buy and those who sell. The United States popularise ba evidenced a great deal of mobility. For example, between the years 1:55 1960 some 14.1 million persons moved from one State to another, all of wi must find a place to live by purchase or rental of property in their new State residence. I would like to submit for the record a table showing the gross ent of population between States between the years 1955 and 1960 showing the The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other aspects that you can think of Secretary WEAVER. As I mentioned before, the other two compo- In 1963, we found that some 29,000 tons of wallboard were trans- 89, 522 84.047 75, 141 33, 268 41, 873 869, 502 456, 398 413, 104 621, 415 325, 230 296, 185 321,265 92, 043 229, 222 427, 087 198, 759 228, 328 118,520 56, 074 62, 446 |