NEW HOMES FOR OLD

Evening Post, Volume CXVIII, Issue 105, 31 October 1934, Page 5

NEW HOMES FOR OLD

THE AMERICAN SYSTEM

NATIONAL HOUSING ACT

AID TO INDUSTRY

Little has been heard in Britain so far of the National Housing Act passed by the United States Congress in its last session, writes Leonard Reid, city editor of the London "Daily Telegraph," in that journal. But much may bo heard of it in the future, for if the hopes of its promoters are even partially fulfilled, it may exert an important influence on America's industrial recovery. Advocates of expansive housing policies in many countries are actuated, partly by the social motive of creating better conditions of life for the masses. But they also have a powerful economic argument up their sleeves. It is that there is probably no single industry which affects, directly and indirectly, so vast a number of workpeople as the building industry. Unemployment, in spite of the large reduction which the Administration claims to have made, remains America's greatest problem. Expenditure on public relief and works of "ad hoc" employment have reached such formidable dimensions that they clearly cannot be borne indefinitely by the Federal Exchequer. Therefore the Administration has now reached a position in which it must make as one of its principal aims tha stimulation of private business, in order to absorb the idle into employment and lessen the burden on the public purse. THE LATEST. The latest of a number of schemes devoted to this end is the National Housing Act. Out of a welter of authoritative detail which I have just obtained from Washington, there emerges a scheme which is attractive for its simplicity, and which is now being oxplotted in every corner of the Unitei States with all the thoroughness and zeal which the new regime at Washington is capable of generating. Briefly, the scheme is this. Any owner of house or business property can, if he has a record of solvency, obtain from his bank a loan for threo years (or more in approved cases) to finance the improvements which he may decide to put in hand at once in nis buildings. Hundreds of thousands of canvassers are going from door to door throughout the Continent, explaining how the new facilities may be used. Millions of pamphlets seting out the explanation in clearest ABC language have been distributed. The canvasser will call at the house of Mrs. Jones, explain the new facilities, and tell her what to do in mucJi j the following terms: — "Do you want your houso repainted or a new kitchen range instead of tho old one? Does not that rickety floor need replacing ? Why not build a roof i which does not let the snow through in the winter? Get a contractor or architect to tell you how much such alterations would cost. Then, if you j cannot pay cash now, perhaps you coukj pay by instalments over three years? "If so, you, or your contractor or architect, can go to your local bank, and a loan covering the costs will be arranged for you merely in response to your own signature. You require to give no security and have no backing. You are not borrowing from tho Government. You are borrowing from the bank on terms of specially che'np credit." BEING SPURRED ON. At the same time, tho authorities in every community in the country are being spurred to push on the scheme through intensive propaganda explaining the benefits to the community and its inhabitants accruing from wise expenditure on the renovation of homes and buildings in general. But what of tho banks? Is it good business for a bank to lend on what is practically note of hand, loans to all and sundry for three years, without any security? The answer is twofold. The bank, where 'it has reason to doubt the financial probity or the capability of an applicant to pay obligations, will refuse a loan. In thousands of American communities the banks must bo able to assess their clients' positions fairly accurately.1 But what if the bank makes a. bad bargain? That is precisely where tho Federal Government steps in, with an insurance scheme to secure the bank practically entirely against loss. Apparently the Government are as little apprchensio of serious losses accruing as they are confident that the scheme will be widely adopted, and will con-1 tribute substantially towards reducing the volume of unemployment. I Tho scheme is still in an embryo stage, and results cannot yet be seen. But there is no reason to doubt its good prospects. A campaign on a far Jess ambitious (>calo was carried out in the United States in eighty-four cities during 1932-33, and it resulted in an" average expenditure of roughly ton dollars per capita of the population. WORK FOR A MILLION. If the scheme could improve on that record over the whole area of the United States, it could hardly fail to produce a stimulating effect. Whatever may be tho fate of the National Housing Scheme, no one can deny that it possesses very big possibilities. There lias been during the last year or two a tremendous check to progress' both in the construction and in the reconditioning of buildings in the United States. Years of arrears of work have to be caught up. The Federal Housing Administration has issued propaganda describing the magnitude of the deferred work: "More than 1(1,000,000 buildings in this country have reached a more or less serious state (if disrepair," is one of the comments on the situation. Of these buildings more than 3,000,000 are said to liavo already fallen to such bad condition that major rebuilding is necessary, while in the case of most of the rest substantial reconditioning is highly desirable without delay. A good authority reckons that at tho present time 4,000,000 men and women formerly emplo3'ed in tho building and allied industries in America are out of work. The promoters of the scheme hope Hint tho operation of tho National Housing Act will put 1,000,000 of these back into work this autumn.

It so happens that here in London wo have, at the present moment, a Building Exhibition at Olympia. In connection with this the Building Industries Council has issued figures suggesting that, directly and indirectly, the building industry in Britain affects tho livelihood of 4,000,000 people, which is no less Ilian 25 per cent, of tho insurablo population of this country. In America the relative importance of the constructive industries is even greater than it is hove.

Housing work does not merely mean a demand for bricks and timber. It involves, or leads to tlio use of, innumerable products such as lime, cement, lead, grates, doors, window-panes, glass, tiles, gas, water and electric light fittings, meters and plumbing accessories, furniture, carpets, curtains, hangings—the list could be continued indefinitely. There arc two points about the working of the scheme in America which are of peculiar interest. In the first place,