a portion of the housing as rental property. I believe you did. (See app. 3. p. 158.) Would you elaboraate on that a little?

Mr. PARKS. We didn't consider it specifically. We considered it in the context of the 70-percent figure that we recommend. The thought was that in the exercise of priorities that we were making it easier for occupants and groups to exercise a priority because they would have to represent only 70 percent of the units involved. This meant that you could, theoretically, have a pool of 30 percent of all units as rental units. We realize that won't work out that way, but there would be a group of units that would be available for rent. They might well be spotted through the entire community.

That was the type of consideration we gave to it.

Representative MORRIS. I want all consideration given to the question that we have discussed and Mr. Selarge has raised, and a memorandum from you furnished to the committee to that effect. Thank you, Mr. Selarge.

Mr. SELARGE. Thank you.

Mr. ROSER. Mr. Chairman. If I may interject, there are copies of the bills available. We will place them down in the orchestra pit. Any member of the audience who wants to pick them up may do so.

Representative MORRIS. Yes, and I assume copies of the witnesses' statements are available also to anyone who is here and desires copies. Mr. ROSER. Yes.

Representative MORRIS. This concludes the list of the witnesses the committee had.

Is there anyone here in the audience who would like to make a short comment, before the committee adjourns?

Would you state your name, please?

(Question directed to individual in the audience who indicated he wished to make a statement.)

Mr. ROGERS. John Rogers.

TESTIMONY OF JOHN D. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Chairman Morris, Senator Bennett, and Congressman Hosmer

Representative MORRIS. For the benefit of the record, Mr. John Rogers is a former county commissioner of Los Alamos.

Mr. ROGERS. My interest is not as an occupant but as an individual who first became interested as a county commissioner and has maintained communication with people who are involved more directly. I am paraphrasing and clarifying to a minor extent the written statement I handed to Congressman Morris this morning.

Representative MORRIS. The statement you handed to me this morning will be made a part of the record in full.

(Statement of John D. Rogers follows:)

Hon. THOMAS G. MORRIS,

Hon. WALLACE F. BENNETT,

Hon. CRAIG HOSMER,

Los Alamos, N. Mex., August 11, 1967.

GENTLEMEN: Senator Anderson and Congressman Morris are to be commended on their proposed bills on behalf of the people of Los Alamos. The community is fortunate that Congress has seen fit to consider in such detail the welfare of this town in the matters of disposal.

It is not clear that all multiple dwelling units in Los Alamos are automatically classified under the definitions of the act as "apartment houses" by the AEC. This is particularly important with respect to the quadruplexes and octaplexes in contrast to the larger apartment houses. I believe that such units are so classified or can be under the meaning of the act. Because of the preponderance of quadruplex units here in Los Alamos, it seems that the suggested percentage of 70 per centum on line 5, page 2, is a bit too large. In the case in which one dwelling unit is vacant in a quadruplex, such a percentage does not allow the majority of the tenants or occupants to exercise their priorities. It would seem that a 65 percentage figure is more appropriate without detracting from the bill. A corresponding change in line 12 of the same page may be desirable for sake of consistency but does not carry the same requirement for change since this portion of the bill calls for the stimulation of non-occupant interest.

Finally, I'm quite sure that although the bill is permissive in nature with respect to providing for AEC action, that the AEC will first follow the alternatives outlined under this new section of the act before pursuing those already provided elsewhere under the act. It would seem desirable, however, to solicit from the AEC a statement of intent at this time.

Sincerely yours,

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you.

JOHN D. ROGERS.

I would like to commend Senator Anderson and Congressman Morris, and particularly the Congress, for the interest and detailed concern for the transfer of this community when the Nation as a whole has bigger problems. I think it is a good indication of a fine, working democracy.

I think it is clearly understood that the quadruplexes and octoplexes are classified by the AEC as apartment units, and not as some other type of dwelling unit. There is such a preponderance of quadruplexes and octoplexes that it is not clear on line 5, page 2 of the bill how the percentage factor of 70 percent was obtained, and it is probably somewhat inappropriate.

PERCENTAGE OF OCCUPANTS EXERCISING PRIORITY

My reason for saying this is that we have often talked here in the context of a complete occupancy of the unit, and just recently Mr. Parks indicated that the 70-30 percent split does recognize the possibility of some rental vacancies being available. But I think you should consider the specific situation where, for a quadruplex, there is one vacancy and for some reason some one person in the quadruplex is also unable to participate in any sort of a joint arrangement. This then means that it is difficult for the remaining majority of the members with a single vacancy in a quadruplex and two vacancies plus a nonparticipant in an octoplex-an equivalent situation-to participate and form a consensus to exercise the first priority provided in this bill.

Senator BENNETT. I would like to ask-and I am not stating whether I agree or disagree-if you should not reduce it to at least 6212 percent, which would enable those five out of eight to operate. If you leave it at 65 you will still have to have six out of eight in the octoplex.

Mr. ROGERS. One can carry the argument ad infinitum, and for the octoplex it is a worthwhile consideration. It is very difficult to tailor any particular bill to all sizes of apartment houses in the community. This is a worthwhile suggestion, and a percentage like 60 percent certainly would incorporate that capability.

Representative MORRIS. Mr. Trosten, do you want to comment on

this?

Mr. TROSTEN. Mr. Rogers, would you care to be a little more specific with respect to the apartment buildings that you have in mind? Specifically what do you have in mind when you mention a percentage of 65 percent?

Mr. ROGERS. I would like to relate that to the quadruplexes and the octoplexes, but not necessarily to larger ones. I don't know whether you want to make the effort to rewrite the bill and make it specifically for such size units

Senator BENNETT. That is no problem.

Mr. ROGERS. This would be the more desirable approach in which case for the larger units one could retain the 70 per centum figure originally incorporated in the bills. There may be better justification for the larger units to maintain a 70-percent factor.

Senator BENNETT. You would suggest 60 percent for the smaller units.

Mr. ROGERS. I think 60 for the quadruplexes and octoplexes would be most desirable and I see no reason why it would not be possible to arrange financing for those persons who did want to participate and have a consensus with the 60-percent factor in terms of some vacancies in the building.

Representative MORRIS. The committee will consider that suggestion very carefully and ask the agencies also to consider it in their memoranda. (See app. 5, p. 165.)

Representative HOSMER. How about those efficiency apartment. buildings? Is there really enough reason to fiddle around with them or should they be turned over to commercial operation?

Mr. ROGERS. From my point of view and in consideration of Fred's earlier comments, I think for those units, like the eight or less dwelling units in an apartment house, that similar consideration might be given. Representative HOSMER. A smaller number of priorities or no priorities at all? What would you think of just selling them off? An apartment of a larger size probably has to be operated commercially.

Mr. ROGERS. I think the intent of the bill is to provide for the largest flexibility and capability of persons to exercise priority to purchase. And I think this arrangement on these smaller apartinent houses enhances that capability. I believe, for the efficiency-type apartments with eight units or less, this would be a desirable factor; in other words, to reduce that per centum figure from 70 percent

Representative HOSMER. Some of them have more units than that. Mr. ROGERS. I believe they have. You are speaking in terms of efficiency apartments?

Representative HOSMER. I am trying to get a feel for a line beyond which this solicitude for people living in these places has to stop simply because of the necessity for operating a larger building of a type where you have more of a transient population, young unmarrieds, and so forth, and that this really shouldn't be subjected to this kind of thing.

Perhaps we ought to face up to this now and dispose of it for commercial operation before somebody fumbles around for a year with the management of a building they don't know how to manage, with consequent deterioration, and finally FHA or somebody having to take it

back, restore order and start managing the building as it should be as a service to the tenants. We don't want to get into that kind of a situation with any of the buildings here. If there is a building here that you think might be subject to that type of a problem, I wish you would so specify.

Mr. ROGERS. I am not knowledgeable in this respect. My insight is limited to those persons who have discussed with me their personal problems with respect to quadruplexes and octoplexes. Actually I have not been approached with respect to problems of those people with efficiency apartments of eight units.

Representative HOSMER. Mr. Roser, how many units are involved in the larger apartments?

Mr. ROSER. We have various types and sizes, Mr. Hosmer. However, generally speaking, there are no units, other than the quadruplexes and octoplexes, that have less than 24 units to the sales lot. The table which is a part of my testimony (see p. 7)

Representative HOSMER. Frankly, I can't understand that table. Mr. ROSER. That I can understand also, sir, but let me give you some examples.

The Chapel apartments, for instance, which are the two-bedroom family-type apartments, consist of 92 units. Those are divided into two sales lots, one which contains 72 apartments and the other which contains 20 apartments. The same is true of the kitchenette apartments. There are three buildings, two sales lots containing 96 units. Each of those sales lots contain 48 units because one sales lot is one 48-unit building and the other is a 24-unit building.

Representative HOSMER. Are these clustered in the same general

area?

Mr. ROSER. They are clustered. That is why a division by sales lots rather than by individual buildings.

Representative HOSMER. What sense does it make to try to put something like that into a cooperative?

Mr. ROSER. I really don't think it makes any sense, sir, if you want my personal opinion. I believe that is the type of building that is best operated by a real estate operator, whether it be an individual firm or whatever.

Representative HOSMER. I wish in the memorandum you give to the committee you would specify-not a recommendation-the particular buildings or clusters of buildings, which are like what we call garden apartments in Washington but they are all under the same ownership, that might not be subject to these priorities and might better be put into an effective and efficient type of commercial operation.

Mr. ROSER. I would be happy to do that, sir (see app. 5, p. 165.) Mr. ROGERS. May I proceed?

Representative MORRIS. Certainly.

Mr. ROGERS. Just to summarize my point, particularly with respect to quadruplexes and octoplexes, it would appear especially in those cases where there may be vacancies at the time priorities and offering for sale are made, that the 70 percent amount specified in the bill might be too high.

With respect to line 12 on page 2 of the bill there is also a 70 per centum figure, but since this one requires the solicitation or involvement of interest of outside persons, this number, I think, may be ар

propriate as compared with the earlier per centum factor of line 5. In other words, in exercising of the second priority in the case there is not sufficient interest of the occupants in the dwelling, there may be no need to change, but there is some inconsistency if you want to make those percentages comparable for comparable-type housing units.

The only other comment I would like to make is one that is quite evident to me with respect to the intent of what is being done here today. I think it is worthwhile at least to ask the AEC to reiterate its position. This is primarily an AEC-initiated bill through the Joint Committee. The bill is permissive in nature, as has been most of the legislation with respect to how sales are handled here. It is not clear to many of the people in the public what the intent of the AEC will be in terms of following and allowing maximum latitude, which the bill itself provides, in terms of the kind of legal entities which will be available or people may choose for themselves in terms of the purchase of their apartment house. (See p. 164.)

Thank you.

Representative MORRIS. Mr. Trosten?

Mr. TROSTEN. Mr. Rogers, do you feel on the basis of the statements made by the AEC witnesses today, specifically by Mr. Parks, that the AEC's intent is still unclear as to what they would do in the event this legislation were enacted? Do you feel there is some supplemental information they should supply at this time, as opposed to the time the priorities regulations were published?

Mr. ROGERS. I believe in the course of events through the educational period to which Mr. Roser referred it will be required that the public be made aware of the magnitude of the latitude available to them. I just want to emphasize that I think it is a very important aspect of this program under this new section of the bill.

Representative MORRIS. One of the reasons we spent so much time this morning is trying to make it perfectly clear that it is an important point.

Mr. ROGERS. I fully appreciate that.

Thank you.

Representative MORRIS. Thank you, Mr. Rogers.

Mr. Lloyd A. Poquette has requested permission to testify.

STATEMENT OF LLOYD A. POQUETTE

Mr. POQUETTE. Congressman Morris, don't have very much to say, as Mr. Rogers has covered some of things I had planned to say. I would like to say that on this unit it says 70 percent of occupancy; could that be changed to 70 percent of the occupants instead of 70 percent of the building because some of these buildings are not occupied— maybe 30 or 40 percent.

Representative MORRIS. Just a minute. Let's get counsel

Mr. TROSTEN. Mr. Poquette, the proviso on page 2, the first line through the sixth line says:

Provided, That a first priority right to purchase shall be granted only to an occupant or a group of occupants, or an assignee of the priority interests of such occupants, who or which has obtained the priority interest of at least 70 per centum of the occupants of the apartment house.