No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
Housing has at last come into its own. Not housing for its own sake, but housing as a means of “increasing employment quickly,” was the avowed purpose of the housing provisions of the three acts under which the national government's low-rental housing program has to date been carried forward.
1 The Emergency Relief and Reconstruction Act of 1932, Public No. 302, 72nd Congress; the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933, Public No. 67, 73rd Congress; and the Emergency Relief and Appropriation Act of 1935, Public Resolution No. 11, 74th Congress.
2 Public No. 412, 75th Congress.
3 Article 25, Los Angeles City Charter.
4 Laws of Wisconsin, 1913, Ch. 678; Wisconsin Laws of 1933, Ch. 479; Ordinance 139 of City of Milwaukee.
5 Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
6 The wording is ambiguous and may mean either 20 per cent of the annual grant made by the federal government or 20 per cent of the total grant by both federal and local governments.
7 Exclusive of limited-dividend projects.
8 The Michigan law applies only to Detroit; the Texas law only to San Antonio; the Wisconsin law only to Milwaukee.
9 Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Nebraska, New York (at discretion of municipality), North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, and West Virginia.
10 Colorado, Connecticut, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, and West Virginia.
11 Spahn el al v. Stewart et al, decided by court of appeals of Kentucky, Feb. 19, 1937.
12 Opinion 3262, John W. Bricker.
13 Public No. 837, 74th Congress.
14 Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Texas.
15 Alabama, Montana, and North Carolina.
16 Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Maryland, Michigan, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Vermont provide for donations and loans; Indiana and Massachusetts, for appropriations only; and Delaware, Illinois, South Carolina, Texas, and West Virginia, for loans only.
17 Arkansas, New York, South Carolina, and Vermont.
18 Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina.
19 New York City Housing Authority v. Muller, 1936, 270 N.Y. 333, 1 N.E. (2d) 153.
20 Spahn et al v. Stewart, cit. supra.
21 United States District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, No. 2464, “In the matter of the acquisition of part of lot 29, etc.”
22 United States v. Certain Lands in the City of Louisville, Edward J. Gernert, et. al., July 15, 1935. 78 Fed. (2d) 684.
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.