March 21, 1949
Mr. Chairman, and members of the mayors conference:
I feel very much at home before this Conference of Mayors.
One reason is that I remember the hospitality and the courtesy that so many of you showed me on my recent tours around the country.
I greatly enjoyed visiting your cities and talking with your citizens. I hope that someday I shall be able to visit you again in your hometowns and cities, and visit some that I missed last fall. I don't miss very many.
Another reason for feeling at home here is that you are a group of elected executives As an elected executive myself, I know something about the problems you face Some of you are responsible to electorates larger than the total population of the United States in Washington's time. And the duties with which you are charged seem to increase almost as fast as the population--which is just the way it is at the White House.
As our modern civilization requires people to live and work together in larger and larger groups, cities take on more and more importance--and city governments face greater responsibilities. In many respects, we have failed to adjust our thinking to the increased importance of our cities in political and economic affairs.
It is a mistake to act as if the cities were inferior administrative subdivisions. It is a very serious mistake--because for most of our population, city government is the form of democratic self-government which is closest to the people.
In this country democracy is not a slogan--nor is it a propaganda smoke screen. It is a practice, a way of doing things. It is a method of adjusting the differences that arise between people in their daily lives in accordance with the principles of mutual tolerance and brotherly love.
The more closely people are brought together-the more they rub elbows--the more necessary it is for them to regulate their affairs on a democratic basis. In meeting this need through local self-government, our cities are among our most important democratic Institutions.
As usual, there is an exception to the rule, and the exception in this case is the city you are meeting in today, the city of Washington, D.C. I hope that the Congress will soon give the District real self-government and make it, like our other cities, a local democracy.
In foreign countries, as well as in the United States, cities show their essentially democratic nature. I am glad to see that the Conference of Mayors maintains strong bonds of friendship with the cities of other nations. Out of the understanding which you are creating among the cities of the world, will come added strength for the cause of peace.
I extend greetings to your honored guests who are here from other countries: the mayors from Canada are such old friends that we almost forget that they come from another country. To the mayors who are here from Europe, the people of the United States of America express their admiration.
They and their cities have given us a wonderful example of the vitality of democracy. In many parts of Europe the cities have been invaded, fought over, and in many cases reduced to rubble. But the spirit of democracy has survived in the ruins. And the cities have been born again.
Mayor Stokke of Oslo can tell you of the brave spirit of the people of Norway who today, as in the past, give proof that they will never surrender democracy for tyranny. Senator Vinck can tell you of the vigorous democracy of the cities of Belgium. And from Dr. Reuter, Lord Mayor of Berlin, you may hear one of the most inspiring stories of our time. The people of Berlin, after years under the rule of Nazi criminals, with their city in ruins, have dedicated themselves anew to the practice of democracy in the very teeth of totalitarian dictatorship. The courage they are displaying in their beleaguered outpost is proof to the world of the strength of the democratic spirit.
Here at home our citizens face less terrible problems. But if America is to fulfill its promises, our cities must be healthful, beautiful, and pleasant places in which to live and to work. We have been making real progress toward achieving these standards. But much remains to be done.
One of the biggest problems facing us today is that of housing.
It has been obvious ever since the end of the war that we have needed bold and large-scale action on housing. I have repeatedly recommended such action. In particular, we have needed a fresh start in the construction of rental housing for low-income groups, in the clearance of slums, and in research to reduce building costs.
The cities have long favored such a program. In fact, nearly everybody has favored it except the real estate lobby, which has managed to delay it year after year. Every year of delay has increased the need for the program and the size of the job we must do.
I believe that the end of this long and unnecessary struggle is in sight, and that this year will see the enactment of satisfactory housing legislation.
In fact, I believe that this year will see the enactment of a great deal of legislation for the good of the people.
Incidentally, I have been much interested in the attempts of the usual troublemakers to make it appear that there is bad feeling between the 81st Congress and the President of the United States. It seems that whenever I make a recommendation to the Congress, many newspapers and columnists set up a howl about the President trying to dictate to the Congress. And then if the Congress makes any decision that varies at all from my recommendations, these very same troublemakers start a gleeful chorus about how the Congress has thrown the whole Democratic program overboard. It's a wonderful country we live in!
Of course, I differ with the actions of the Congress on some points, and where these differences are important I shall continue to urge the course which I think is right. But basically the Congress and the President are working together and will continue to work together for the good of the whole country. We are going to agree on a lot more things than we disagree on. And when the final score for this Congress is added up, some of the selfish pressure groups are going to be pretty badly disappointed.
As I have already indicated, one of the things we can expect this Congress to do is to pass a good housing bill.
I am told that one of the treasured possessions of your organization is a pen with which President Roosevelt signed the United States Housing Act of 1937. Right now I will make you a little promise. I promise to give you the pen with which I sign the Housing Act of 1949, when it is passed. In this way we can mark another milestone in the program of cooperation between the cities and the Federal Government which was begun under President Roosevelt.
You all realize, of course, that the passage of such legislation will give to your cities the tremendous task of planning and carrying out slum clearance and public housing projects. The Federal Government will be limited to providing financial and technical assistance. I am confident that the city governments will meet their responsibilities under this law and make the program a success.
But I hope you will go even further. For the cities can do much to encourage private building, at lower cost.
For example, cities should continue their efforts to modernize their building codes. In too many cases existing building codes are an obstacle to the use of new methods and materials and to the spread of prefabricated housing. Prefabricated housing is still an industry in its infancy. It can grow much faster, produce more and better housing at lower cost, if codes are modernized and the conflicts and differences between them are ironed out.
We cannot discuss the housing shortage without mentioning rent control. I know that you will agree with me on the necessity of maintaining rent control in those areas where there are still serious shortages and few vacancies.
The lobbyists who have been fighting lowrent housing and slum clearance have been trying to destroy rent control. They don't want us to build new low-rent houses, they don't want us to hold down the rents of houses that are available. If we let them have their way, they would not only have pushed the whole cost of living up another 10 or 20 percent, but they would have broken up the homes of thousands of low-income families. It is a terrible and shocking thing that the real estate lobby--which pretends to speak for those whose business is providing houses--has become the real enemy of the American home.
During recent weeks the real estate lobby has made a concerted effort to have rent control turned over to the cities and localities. I have no doubt that the elected officials of city and local governments in most large city areas are as strongly in favor of effective rent control as I am. They know that their problems of overcrowding, relief to the needy, crime and juvenile delinquency, would be greatly increased if rent controls were removed now. The point is, however, that most cities have neither the legal authority nor the financial resources to carry out a successful program of rent control. The real estate lobby knows this perfectly well. It wants us to turn rent control over to local authority--not in order to strengthen local authority, but in order to destroy rent control.
Another very serious matter facing our cities is the fundamental problem of finances.
Many cities are paying now--in crime, in disease, and in blighted areas--for the haphazard way their land has been developed. Whole areas now need to be cleared out and put to good uses; utilities need to be improved and rearranged; schools and public buildings need to be rebuilt; and future expansion must be properly guided in the interest of the whole community. You all know how necessary, and yet how slow and expensive, this job is. Many cities today have inadequate financial resources to achieve the large-scale improvements that are required.
Here is a problem at the very core of American life. A solution is required not only in the interest of the cities, but also in the interest of the State and Federal governments.
One of the most important first steps is to bring some order out of the tangle among cities, States, and the Federal Government in the field of taxation and financial relations. This question has, I know, been high on your agenda for many years. In the near future, the Secretary of the Treasury is inviting representatives of State and local officials to meet with him and other Federal officials in a preliminary conference to work toward a program for action in this field.
I have asked the Secretary of the Treasury to report to me on the progress of this work. I hope that we can work out some guides not only for Federal policy with regard to taxation and related matters but also for the policy of the States and localities. In these matters, as in so many others, the three types of government--Federal, State, and local-must act together in a spirit of cooperation for the common good.
The financial health of the cities, however, is more than a matter of tax policy. Cities can be financially sound only if the general economic health of the Nation is sound.
Many of you know this from first hand experience. This organization of yours was formed to meet the crisis of the great depression, when the cities were told by the national administration then in office that they must provide for the unemployed out of their local resources. We have since grown to understand that unemployment is a national as well as a local problem, but we still have far to go in perfecting the democratic instruments by which we can maintain high employment and insure a progressively growing economy.
In this connection, I hope that you are all familiar with the proposals I have recently made to the Congress for helping us achieve economic stability. I hope that you will acquaint yourselves with the facts of the case, and not just read the propaganda. I am sure that you will find that those proposals are no more radical than the concept of preventive medicine. In the old days, we used to concentrate on curing the sick. But now, as you mayors know, we rely increasingly on public health and sanitation measures to prevent disease. In the same way, we are moving from the idea of curing depressions after they happen to the concept of preventing them. That is what my proposals are intended to do.
The spirit of democracy is to find new ways of doing things for the common good. A few years ago it used to be popular to talk about closing the western frontier in this country, as if that meant we had come to the end of our growth and change. We know now that nothing could be further from the truth. We have bigger frontiers ahead of us now--greater possibilities for democratic growth--than we have ever had. To find practical, realistic ways to afford a better life for our people is the great challenge which faces our Federal, our State, and our city governments.
I am sure that the Conference of Mayors will continue to lead the way in achieving greater prosperity and greater freedom for all through the confident and progressive practice of democracy as we know it.
NOTE: The President spoke at 11:30 a.m. at the Statler Hotel in Washington. His opening words "Mr. Chairman" referred to Mayor George W. Welsh of Grand Rapids, Mich., president of the United States Conference of Mayors. Later in his remarks the President referred to Mayor Halfdan E. Stokke of Oslo, Senator Vinck of Brussels, and Mayor Ernst Reuter of Berlin.
On April 21 and 22 Secretary of the Treasury Snyder called a meeting of the heads of the principal State and municipal organizations to discuss taxation problems of mutual concern. The conference "Summary of Proceedings" (20 pp.) was not published.
Mr. Chairman, and members of the mayors conference:
I feel very much at home before this Conference of Mayors.
One reason is that I remember the hospitality and the courtesy that so many of you showed me on my recent tours around the country.
I greatly enjoyed visiting your cities and talking with your citizens. I hope that someday I shall be able to visit you again in your hometowns and cities, and visit some that I missed last fall. I don't miss very many.
Another reason for feeling at home here is that you are a group of elected executives As an elected executive myself, I know something about the problems you face Some of you are responsible to electorates larger than the total population of the United States in Washington's time. And the duties with which you are charged seem to increase almost as fast as the population--which is just the way it is at the White House.
As our modern civilization requires people to live and work together in larger and larger groups, cities take on more and more importance--and city governments face greater responsibilities. In many respects, we have failed to adjust our thinking to the increased importance of our cities in political and economic affairs.
It is a mistake to act as if the cities were inferior administrative subdivisions. It is a very serious mistake--because for most of our population, city government is the form of democratic self-government which is closest to the people.
In this country democracy is not a slogan--nor is it a propaganda smoke screen. It is a practice, a way of doing things. It is a method of adjusting the differences that arise between people in their daily lives in accordance with the principles of mutual tolerance and brotherly love.
The more closely people are brought together-the more they rub elbows--the more necessary it is for them to regulate their affairs on a democratic basis. In meeting this need through local self-government, our cities are among our most important democratic Institutions.
As usual, there is an exception to the rule, and the exception in this case is the city you are meeting in today, the city of Washington, D.C. I hope that the Congress will soon give the District real self-government and make it, like our other cities, a local democracy.
In foreign countries, as well as in the United States, cities show their essentially democratic nature. I am glad to see that the Conference of Mayors maintains strong bonds of friendship with the cities of other nations. Out of the understanding which you are creating among the cities of the world, will come added strength for the cause of peace.
I extend greetings to your honored guests who are here from other countries: the mayors from Canada are such old friends that we almost forget that they come from another country. To the mayors who are here from Europe, the people of the United States of America express their admiration.
They and their cities have given us a wonderful example of the vitality of democracy. In many parts of Europe the cities have been invaded, fought over, and in many cases reduced to rubble. But the spirit of democracy has survived in the ruins. And the cities have been born again.
Mayor Stokke of Oslo can tell you of the brave spirit of the people of Norway who today, as in the past, give proof that they will never surrender democracy for tyranny. Senator Vinck can tell you of the vigorous democracy of the cities of Belgium. And from Dr. Reuter, Lord Mayor of Berlin, you may hear one of the most inspiring stories of our time. The people of Berlin, after years under the rule of Nazi criminals, with their city in ruins, have dedicated themselves anew to the practice of democracy in the very teeth of totalitarian dictatorship. The courage they are displaying in their beleaguered outpost is proof to the world of the strength of the democratic spirit.
Here at home our citizens face less terrible problems. But if America is to fulfill its promises, our cities must be healthful, beautiful, and pleasant places in which to live and to work. We have been making real progress toward achieving these standards. But much remains to be done.
One of the biggest problems facing us today is that of housing.
It has been obvious ever since the end of the war that we have needed bold and large-scale action on housing. I have repeatedly recommended such action. In particular, we have needed a fresh start in the construction of rental housing for low-income groups, in the clearance of slums, and in research to reduce building costs.
The cities have long favored such a program. In fact, nearly everybody has favored it except the real estate lobby, which has managed to delay it year after year. Every year of delay has increased the need for the program and the size of the job we must do.
I believe that the end of this long and unnecessary struggle is in sight, and that this year will see the enactment of satisfactory housing legislation.
In fact, I believe that this year will see the enactment of a great deal of legislation for the good of the people.
Incidentally, I have been much interested in the attempts of the usual troublemakers to make it appear that there is bad feeling between the 81st Congress and the President of the United States. It seems that whenever I make a recommendation to the Congress, many newspapers and columnists set up a howl about the President trying to dictate to the Congress. And then if the Congress makes any decision that varies at all from my recommendations, these very same troublemakers start a gleeful chorus about how the Congress has thrown the whole Democratic program overboard. It's a wonderful country we live in!
Of course, I differ with the actions of the Congress on some points, and where these differences are important I shall continue to urge the course which I think is right. But basically the Congress and the President are working together and will continue to work together for the good of the whole country. We are going to agree on a lot more things than we disagree on. And when the final score for this Congress is added up, some of the selfish pressure groups are going to be pretty badly disappointed.
As I have already indicated, one of the things we can expect this Congress to do is to pass a good housing bill.
I am told that one of the treasured possessions of your organization is a pen with which President Roosevelt signed the United States Housing Act of 1937. Right now I will make you a little promise. I promise to give you the pen with which I sign the Housing Act of 1949, when it is passed. In this way we can mark another milestone in the program of cooperation between the cities and the Federal Government which was begun under President Roosevelt.
You all realize, of course, that the passage of such legislation will give to your cities the tremendous task of planning and carrying out slum clearance and public housing projects. The Federal Government will be limited to providing financial and technical assistance. I am confident that the city governments will meet their responsibilities under this law and make the program a success.
But I hope you will go even further. For the cities can do much to encourage private building, at lower cost.
For example, cities should continue their efforts to modernize their building codes. In too many cases existing building codes are an obstacle to the use of new methods and materials and to the spread of prefabricated housing. Prefabricated housing is still an industry in its infancy. It can grow much faster, produce more and better housing at lower cost, if codes are modernized and the conflicts and differences between them are ironed out.
We cannot discuss the housing shortage without mentioning rent control. I know that you will agree with me on the necessity of maintaining rent control in those areas where there are still serious shortages and few vacancies.
The lobbyists who have been fighting lowrent housing and slum clearance have been trying to destroy rent control. They don't want us to build new low-rent houses, they don't want us to hold down the rents of houses that are available. If we let them have their way, they would not only have pushed the whole cost of living up another 10 or 20 percent, but they would have broken up the homes of thousands of low-income families. It is a terrible and shocking thing that the real estate lobby--which pretends to speak for those whose business is providing houses--has become the real enemy of the American home.
During recent weeks the real estate lobby has made a concerted effort to have rent control turned over to the cities and localities. I have no doubt that the elected officials of city and local governments in most large city areas are as strongly in favor of effective rent control as I am. They know that their problems of overcrowding, relief to the needy, crime and juvenile delinquency, would be greatly increased if rent controls were removed now. The point is, however, that most cities have neither the legal authority nor the financial resources to carry out a successful program of rent control. The real estate lobby knows this perfectly well. It wants us to turn rent control over to local authority--not in order to strengthen local authority, but in order to destroy rent control.
Another very serious matter facing our cities is the fundamental problem of finances.
Many cities are paying now--in crime, in disease, and in blighted areas--for the haphazard way their land has been developed. Whole areas now need to be cleared out and put to good uses; utilities need to be improved and rearranged; schools and public buildings need to be rebuilt; and future expansion must be properly guided in the interest of the whole community. You all know how necessary, and yet how slow and expensive, this job is. Many cities today have inadequate financial resources to achieve the large-scale improvements that are required.
Here is a problem at the very core of American life. A solution is required not only in the interest of the cities, but also in the interest of the State and Federal governments.
One of the most important first steps is to bring some order out of the tangle among cities, States, and the Federal Government in the field of taxation and financial relations. This question has, I know, been high on your agenda for many years. In the near future, the Secretary of the Treasury is inviting representatives of State and local officials to meet with him and other Federal officials in a preliminary conference to work toward a program for action in this field.
I have asked the Secretary of the Treasury to report to me on the progress of this work. I hope that we can work out some guides not only for Federal policy with regard to taxation and related matters but also for the policy of the States and localities. In these matters, as in so many others, the three types of government--Federal, State, and local-must act together in a spirit of cooperation for the common good.
The financial health of the cities, however, is more than a matter of tax policy. Cities can be financially sound only if the general economic health of the Nation is sound.
Many of you know this from first hand experience. This organization of yours was formed to meet the crisis of the great depression, when the cities were told by the national administration then in office that they must provide for the unemployed out of their local resources. We have since grown to understand that unemployment is a national as well as a local problem, but we still have far to go in perfecting the democratic instruments by which we can maintain high employment and insure a progressively growing economy.
In this connection, I hope that you are all familiar with the proposals I have recently made to the Congress for helping us achieve economic stability. I hope that you will acquaint yourselves with the facts of the case, and not just read the propaganda. I am sure that you will find that those proposals are no more radical than the concept of preventive medicine. In the old days, we used to concentrate on curing the sick. But now, as you mayors know, we rely increasingly on public health and sanitation measures to prevent disease. In the same way, we are moving from the idea of curing depressions after they happen to the concept of preventing them. That is what my proposals are intended to do.
The spirit of democracy is to find new ways of doing things for the common good. A few years ago it used to be popular to talk about closing the western frontier in this country, as if that meant we had come to the end of our growth and change. We know now that nothing could be further from the truth. We have bigger frontiers ahead of us now--greater possibilities for democratic growth--than we have ever had. To find practical, realistic ways to afford a better life for our people is the great challenge which faces our Federal, our State, and our city governments.
I am sure that the Conference of Mayors will continue to lead the way in achieving greater prosperity and greater freedom for all through the confident and progressive practice of democracy as we know it.
NOTE: The President spoke at 11:30 a.m. at the Statler Hotel in Washington. His opening words "Mr. Chairman" referred to Mayor George W. Welsh of Grand Rapids, Mich., president of the United States Conference of Mayors. Later in his remarks the President referred to Mayor Halfdan E. Stokke of Oslo, Senator Vinck of Brussels, and Mayor Ernst Reuter of Berlin.
On April 21 and 22 Secretary of the Treasury Snyder called a meeting of the heads of the principal State and municipal organizations to discuss taxation problems of mutual concern. The conference "Summary of Proceedings" (20 pp.) was not published.