ROOSEVELT’S NEW DEAL - By Casey Whittekind In 1935, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt issued an executive order aimed at rescuing rural and urban American citizens from the effects of the Great Depression. As part of the revolutionary changes under Roosevelt’s New Deal, this order called for economic reform under the Resettlement Administration. Eleven miles north of Cincinnati, Ohio, this reform resulted in what was known as a “greenbelt community” called Greenhills, Ohio. Existing as one of three Resettlement Administration greenbelt developments, Greenhills represented Roosevelt’s belief in the reality of federal government involvement in the lives of American citizens. The reaction of Americans living both inside and outside of Greenhills reflected national reaction to federal economic reform. In the early 1930’s, Americans were seeking strong leadership to counteract the effects of the Great Depression. Americans no longer believed in the programs introduced by President Herbert Hoover and, in 1932, voted overwhelmingly in favor of Roosevelt and his “new deal.” In his inaugural address Roosevelt outlined his plans stating, “…I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis; broad executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe…” (“Roosevelt, Franklin D.”; Grapes 56-67 84; Davis 14, 16, 627-648; Watkins 114-115). Roosevelt’s first three months in office, known as the “Hundred Days,” were a continuum of economic reform measures that laid the foundation of the New Deal (Grapes 28-30). Roosevelt defined the New Deal as a “use of authority of government as an organized form of self-help for all classes…” (Conkin 20-22). In an attempt to both reduce unemployment and restore prosperity, Roosevelt established many federal agencies under the New Deal that brought the federal government directly into the homes and lives of American citizens. The American public was impatient and reform measures were issued at a fast and furious pace (Grapes 94). Roosevelt’s emphasis was improvement of the common man’s living conditions and representation of “people who were not fighters at all, who didn’t know how to fight …” (Grapes 92). As H.L. Dalton wrote in his letter to Roosevelt, “I am righting you to let you no my conditions and to see if thair is enny way you can help me [because] i am 57 years old and have bin miss fortuned to loose my home…” (Dalton, H.L.). Americans like Dalton inspired Roosevelt to focus reform measures on the rural farmer unable to market his crops and the middle income citizen unable to support his family. On May 1, 1935, under the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act, Roosevelt issued Executive Order 7027 calling for the existence of the Resettlement Administration (Executive Order 7027). Congress approved 4,880,000,000 dollars in funding for the ERA, making it the largest welfare program of the New Deal (Conkin 56). Because of the wording within the ERA, executive power was given to Roosevelt to use the funds as he saw fit. The Resettlement Administration (RA) was given responsibility for three general types of activity: resettlement of low-income families from rural and urban areas; administration of programs for soil erosion, stream pollution, seacoast erosion, reforestation and flood control; and issuance of loans to finance the purchase of farmlands and necessary equipment by farmers or farm laborers. To oversee these activities Rexford G. Tugwell, undersecretary of agriculture, was named as administrator (Davis 471-472; Executive Order 7027). In June of 1935 Roosevelt commented to Tugwell and the directors of the newly formed Resettlement Administration, “You who are here today are entrusted with the duty of bringing not only new hope, but a new program into the lives of a great many thousands of families” (Remarks to the Regional Resettlement Directors). Tugwell’s concept of resettlement included a “friendly community” (Davis 487) that would “resettle urban slum dwellers in autonomous garden cities and submarginal farmers in new, productive farm villages…” (Conkin 58). Tugwell believed there were two main rural groups: farmers moving toward the cities in search of work and people moving away from cities looking for a more pleasing environment (Leach 51). To provide for both of these groups, Tugwell began plans for “greenbelt” communities. These communities were to exist as planned villages where “town and country living were mingled” (Davis 487). Tugwell planned for up to 25 greenbelt communities throughout the United States, each of which would be surrounded by a large tract of land or greenbelt (Leach 66). In a radio broadcast, Tugwell explained that the federal government’s greenbelt developments would “demonstrate the possibility of providing employed workers in the low-income groups with decent housing…” (“The Reason for Resettlement”). The greenbelt communities were planned according to several specific qualifications. Of primary importance was their proximity to a large metropolitan area in order that residents could conveniently commute to employment and retail areas (“The Greenbelt Towns”). The RA originally studied data on one hundred metropolitan areas. Criteria for qualification also included availability of transportation, access to a large quantity of unspoiled land, land elevation that was pleasing to the eye with natural sloping for drainage, and access to area within the greenbelt that would be suitable for farming (Mayer 60). By August of 1935 the selected areas had been narrowed to open land regions outside of five cities, one of which was Cincinnati, Ohio. The RA selected this site because Cincinnati had diversified industry, was close to the coal fields of West Virginia and Kentucky, and was “well located with respect to the vast market of the South Central United States.” It was also believed at the time that Cincinnati was chosen to allow the federal Democratic government to gain support in a chiefly Republican area (Leach 81-82). As the government initiated construction at Greenhills, they encountered several stumbling blocks. The first of these was the fact that project designers, who had never viewed the site in person, were completing the planning in Washington. The contours of the land and utility access paths were not considered, forcing plans to be redrawn and time to be wasted. Utilities and their providers were in dispute between the local government and the RA representatives, leading to additional time spent as negotiations were completed (“City Pipes”). Secondly, as the communities surrounding Greenhills were notified of the proposed plans for the greenbelt community, there was immediate opposition. Residents of Cincinnati were afraid that Greenhills would become an urban slum and believed that federal funding should “…be devoted to less costly direct relief and other more necessary public works projects” (“Property Men”; “Act of Congress II”). The fact that the RA had not released specific information on occupancy requirements, completion dates or cost led to more speculation by local greenbelt opponents (“Specific Data Lacking”). Thirdly, opposition came in the form of political controversy. The Republican National Committee was gaining public attention with its claim that Greenhills was an “unwanted city…[was] financially unsound, costing local taxpayers their hard earned money…” (“Target of Attack”). The fact that the residents of Franklin County, New Jersey had prevented a greenbelt development in their area by taking the RA to court provided support for the Republican claims (Robbins). In addition, Colonel Stanley W. Moulding Sr., assistant superintendent of Greenhills construction, was found guilty of “…ordering [workers] to…pay one dollar membership in the Roosevelt Non-Partisan Club and … to become members of the Hill Top Democratic Club…” (“Three Greenhills”). With Moulding’s conviction and subsequent firing came additional public controversy and increased support for the Republican claim of disorganization within the Greenhills administration (“Job Holder”). Lastly, in November of 1936, Tugwell resigned his position as RA administrator stating concerns that the RA was given too many responsibilities and not enough funding. His successor, W.W. Alexander, was left with a depleted budget and local speculation that Greenhills would not be completed (“Tugwell Quits”; “W.W. Alexander”). Representatives of the RA attempted to counteract the Greenhills opposition by exposing the plans for the development of Greenhills to the local media. Articles in the local newspaper supported the RA by representing Greenhills as efficient family units built to the highest standards of convenience and design. Published photographs of both the “park like setting” and the completed model units disputed the public fear of “slum” development (“Modern, Efficient”; “As Greenhills”). Also published were artist’s conceptions of what the finished town would look like, which kindled public interest and produced 2500 letters of interest addressed to the local RA office (“Greenhills: How”; ”2500 Letters”). In February 1937 accusations that the development was facing financial difficulties were negated when the Senate allocated an additional one million dollars to complete the partially finished structures in Greenhills (“Senate Votes Continuation”). At this point the RA had made significant progress in disproving the claims others had brought against Greenhills and public opinion had shifted in favor of the greenbelt communities. Attempting to continue this progress, the RA published several pamphlets detailing the benefits of living in a greenbelt community. Greenhills was described as “…966 acres of open, rolling country, bounded on three sides by wooded stream courses.” Greenhills was called a new town with “…low-rental homes for families with modest incomes…planned by competent town planners, engineers, architects, and other qualified professional specialists….” The convenience of nearby metropolitan areas was noted with bus lines linking Greenhills to the Mill Valley industrial region and to Cincinnati. Living in Greenhills was described as “…healthful, safe, and pleasant….” The homes themselves were to vary in size in order “to fit every family.” Kitchens would be “compact, airy rooms fitted with modern and durable, but inexpensive, equipment,” and nearby farms would supply fresh fruits and vegetables for every family. The RA went to the expense of hiring a professional artist to paint watercolors that would be displayed in downtown Cincinnati to encourage interest in Greenhills. These watercolors depicted both the land development and a sense of community by portraying homes, playground areas, the community building and the shopping area (“Apartments”; “Aerial View”; “Community Building”; “Neighborhood ‘A’ Block”; “Neighborhood ‘B’ Block”; “Neighborhood ‘C’ Block”; “Shopping Area”). In addition, the RA pamphlet counteracted the claims that Greenhills would become a socialist community by assuring the public that Greenhills would be governed by a nonprofit corporation, with the federal government involved only to assure a “competent management to protect its investment.” The RA guaranteed that Greenhills would still pay its “fair share of local taxes” thereby putting an end to financial concerns voiced by the local government (U.S. Resettlement Administration). As public interest in Greenhills grew, the main task left before the RA was to determine the future residents’ qualifications. Greenhills construction was reaching completion and a formal application process was begun. The applicant’s annual wage needed to range between 1,000-2,700 dollars and be sufficient to cover rent (which ranged from 18-42 dollars a month), utilities, transportation, and “other normal family expenses.” The applicant’s current living conditions needed to indicate need, either due to poor living conditions or excessive rent. Applicants were not permitted to rent a home too small for their families in order to improve affordability. In addition, verification of the applicant’s satisfactory credit rating, steady employment and good health was required. Finally an applicant’s current housing was checked for cleanliness and upkeep, while neighbors and friends were interviewed to ensure that applicants were viewed as friendly, orderly, and good neighbors. At the time Greenhills was created, it was socially acceptable to limit residents based on race and religion. The federal government, therefore, prohibited African Americans from living in Greenhills and provided for only Protestant and Catholic churches within the community. As construction neared completion, over 2,700 applications were received for the community’s 676 available units (Lippermeier, Carol A., Act of Congress). With applicants selected and new residents moving into their Greenhills homes, only the original residents could best describe the community at this point. Mrs. James Blackwood, the first official resident, commented, “…the new residents all agree it [Greenhills] is quite the loveliest community in which any of them have ever lived” (Price 23). There are also those who remember their own family’s experiences in 1938 as new Greenhills residents. Mrs. Peggy Lohstroh reminisces, “Part of coming to live in Greenhills was coming to live in a big family. Everything was shared.” Paul Richardson, President of the Greenhills Historical Society, adds, “Greenhills had the first shopping mall … the grocery, the post office and ice cream shop were all there. Everything anyone needed was within walking distance.” A sign of Greenhills’ unity was evident in the local government structure. Although a community manager was appointed and paid by the federal government, the residents were still given a voice in the form of a community council. Organized in September of 1938, the community council “was given authority to establish traffic, police, sanitation, and health regulations.” The fact that this council had no legal power required the residents to use “self-discipline…to give effect to the regulations” and to volunteer to fill the roles of police and firemen. This form of community leadership remained in effect until, in 1939, the state of Ohio incorporated Greenhills and the first local election was held for the purpose of creating a Village Council (Lippermeier, Carol A., Act of Congress). The Village Council remained in effect as local government and provided consistency in 1947 when Congress passed Public Law 65, which “paved the way for the residents of the greenbelt community to purchase their community.” The Greenhills Homeowners Association, with 493 members, signed a mortgage with the federal government to purchase the Village of Greenhills for 3,510,000 dollars, “Tenants became homeowners, and bought their homes from the Association at bargain prices” (“Sale of Greenbelt, MD., Greendale, Wis., and Greenhills, Ohio”; Senate, “Disposition on Greentown Projects”; House, “Disposition on Greentown Projects”;). Greenhills was the only original greenbelt development to successfully organize and purchase their community (“Greenhills, Ohio: A Self-Guided Tour”; Lippmeier 12). In Rexford G. Tugwell’s own words, “The intention of Resettlement was to do something for a group of people who had been neglected for too long…Indeed, so far as I am concerned, I should like every householder to be able to say that this really is his own community, that he has a managing part in its life and a proportionate share of responsibility for its success” (Diary of Rexford G. Tugwell 309). In speaking with the Greenhills “pioneers,” one certainly has the feeling that Tugwell’s expectations for this reform measure were met (Lohstroh, Peggy). The reaction to and success or failure of the RA is perhaps a reflection of the reaction to and success or failure of the New Deal itself. Historians disagree on how revolutionary the New Deal was. According to John Flynn, “…When he [Roosevelt] was elected there were 11,586,000 persons unemployed. In 1939…there were still 11,369,000 persons unemployed…how can any sober-minded citizen suppose that Mr. Roosevelt brought recovery to the United States?” In contrast, Samuel Morrison argues that “in spite of its flaws, the New Deal was a success because ‘it gave the ordinary citizen a feeling of financial security against old age, sickness, and unemployment which he had never enjoyed, and a participation in government such as he had never felt since Lincoln’s era’” (Grapes 31, 41). Perhaps the truth lies between these two perspectives in the thought that Roosevelt implemented the correct plans, but not on a grand enough scale. “Probably the greatest mistake of [Roosevelt’s] first term was the failure to do enough about public works and housing…for all his willingness to spend in an emergency, [Roosevelt] continued to believe in balancing the budget” (Leuchtenburg 225). This reluctance toward spending likely contributed to the downfall of the RA programs. The “agency was compelled toward too many widely differing goals; it was forced to try to do far too much with far too little financial resources” (Davis 489). Regardless of one’s belief in these speculations on New Deal economics, the reality of reform remains apparent today in Greenhills, Ohio. The fact that the resettlement efforts were not completed on the large scale that Roosevelt had hoped for does not diminish the actuality that, for 676 families living in Greenhills, Ohio in 1938, the concept of a greenbelt community provided the hope for the common man that Roosevelt had promised.
Posted on: Wed, 05 Jun 2013 12:04:14 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015