Housing Act of 1949

The Housing Act of 1949 (Pub. L. 81-171) represents one of the most often cited pieces of federal housing legislation in history. Its long road to passage was filled with debate and controversy between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives consistently felt uncomfortable with the U.S. commitment to public housing and opposed the legislation. The real estate lobby and industry abhorred the growing presence of the federal government in housing. To them, the federal government was already too big, and the legislation was seen to result in more centralization of power in Washington, D.C. The real estate industry felt it could meet the nation's housing needs with minimal interference from the federal government. Moreover, conservatives did not like that urban redevelopment was secondary to the primary goal of expanding the number of public housing units. To conservatives, public housing was not the tool to rebuild urban neighborhoods. They favored a more comprehensive urban redevelopment program.

Liberals countered the conservative views by stressing the social importance of housing. They supported public housing and its increasing numbers. The legislation included the authorization of the construction of 810,000 units of public housing over a 6-year period. These units would replace those units destroyed by urban development. Liberals overcame conservative opposition and cheered the passage of the Housing Act of 1949. Eventually, the construction of these 810,000 additional units was relegated to secondary importance and took some 20 years to complete, because priority was given to redeveloping areas for commercial purposes.

A number of organizations participated in the lengthy debate over the passage of the Housing Act of 1949. Outspoken advocates included Catherine Bauer Wurster and W. Blucker. Among the groups supporting the legislation were the American Institute of Architects, National Urban Leagues, National Housing Conference, League of Women Voters, American Federation of Labor-Congress [Page 334]of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), and the U.S. Conference of Mayors. Among those opposing the legislation were the U.S. Savings and Loan League, Chamber of Commerce of the United States, National Association of Home Builders of the United States, National Association of Mutual Savings Banks, and the National Association of Real Estate Boards.

In passing the Housing Act of 1949, Congress declared the following broad national policy:

Title I of the act provides federal funding to assist localities with “slum clearance and urban redevelopment” efforts (which created what was later to be known as “urban renewal” under the Housing Act of 1954). Cities, not the federal government, chose the areas to undergo urban renewal. Title II extended and authorized increased Federal Housing Administration mortgage insurance. Title III authorized the construction of more low-rent public housing units. Additional funding was also provided for housing research, technical services, farm housing research, a decennial census of housing, and for Washington, D.C., to participate in the Title I Slum Clearance and Community Development program.

...