The Mutual Ownership Defense Housing Division of the Federal Works Agency, an agency of the United States government, operating from about 1940 to 1942 under the leadership of Colonel Lawrence Westbrook, was an attempt by the United States Government, late in the New Deal, to respond to the housing needs facing defense workers and develop housing projects for middle-income families utilizing the cooperative/mutual housing ownership concept. Under pressure by entrenched real estate interests and intense and competing resource needs caused by World War II, the Division lasted for only two years. As stated in the Second Annual Report of the Federal Works Agency:

"As a group, defense workers were also poor candidates for individual home ownership because the duration of their employment was uncertain, and because few of them had savings adequate to finance the downpayment on new homes. Recognizing these characteristics, attention was given early to some special form of housing to meet squarely the economic problem of the defense worker and one which, at the same time, might lead to an ultimate solution of the housing problems of millions of other American families of similar economic status."

Limited staffing resources within the Division also resulted in poor management practices, and a number of the projects were investigated for cost overruns and poor construction standards.  Although only eight projects were ever built by the Division, all but one were eventually purchased from the government by their residents and continue to operate as mutual home corporations as of 2009. The Mutual Ownership Defense Housing Division projects can be considered a rare but important example of successful public housing within the United States.

During its very brief existence - from the autumn of 1940 to the winter of 1942 - the Mutual Ownership Defense Housing Division built the following eight projects.

Additional Mutual Ownership Defense Housing projects were planned but never built in Alcoa, Tennessee (250 units); Long Beach, California (600 units); Beaumont, Texas (600 units); Buffalo, New York (1,050 units); Coatesville,  Pennsylvania (400 units).

Late New Deal public housing

By the middle of the 1930s the Franklin D. Roosevelt Administration began to bring attention to the housing plight of lower-income groups in the United States.  Many of the New Deal administrators became convinced that decent housing was the right of every citizen, and believed it the duty of the government to find ways to provide such housing.  A decentralized lower-income housing program was developed, which relied heavily on local community involvement, organization, and input.  Financial and administrative support for this initiative were provided by the federal government. In support of this effort, a well-developed public relations campaign was begun to promote and explain the need for public housing, and to establish popular support for the program.  Some administrators of the housing program were not satisfied with assisting only the lower-income groups. They asked why programs could not be expanded to assist the middle-income groups in finding decent, affordable housing.  Able to afford higher rents, yet often unable to accumulate the required down payments for ownership, members of the middle-income group found it very difficult, if not impossible, to make the jump from renting a house to owning it.  Affordable housing plans were developed but were unable to garner the necessary support within government circles, and they were filed away to await a time when the environment would be right for implementation.  Surprisingly, the wait was not long. Just prior to direct American involvement in World War II, the nation entered an emergency period of military buildup that required the development of housing for the middle-income defense workers then streaming into defense plants across the country.  The nation's entire public housing program needed to adjust quickly to the needs of the middle-income worker, and the proposals for housing programs—filed away just a few years earlier—were dusted off. During this relatively brief period of time (1940–1941) just prior to the outbreak of war and its accompanying material shortages and limitations, housing officials had a great deal of freedom to implement these experimental middle-income housing plans.

The Housing Act of 1937 directed that initial motivation, maintenance, and partial funding of the housing program originate as the local level.  The federal government would now provide loans and subsidy assistance to local public housing agencies for the construction and operation of projects for "families whose incomes are so low that they cannot afford adequate housing provided by private enterprise." Those involved actively with public housing were generally pleased with this readjustment in operations. One federal publication stated that "..we must remember that in 1931, Government housing was only a dream of progressives. Today it is a fact and there is strong reason to believe that, in the near future, it will be recognized as a permanent necessity ..." The United States Housing Authority (USHA) was soon established to facilitate the implementation of the Housing Act of 1937. The USHA was charged with the responsibility for the development and administration of all federal public housing programs. One of the Authority's first efforts was the implementation of a public relations campaign to establish popular support for the housing program that would help blunt attacks from the construction industry and others enemies. Public Housing was a highly polished monthly publication distributed as part of this public relations campaign.  This publication not only discussed the benefits and justifications of public housing programs, but charted progress on a national scale.  Many other government agency publications also took a very protective and supportive—some might say radical—tone concerning the newly established United States Housing Authority and its mission:

"A clear-cut opposition (to public housing) has been formed of which the spearhead is the Realtor. He sees in this work an invasion of the field of private initiative and contends that Government housing projects subject him to unfair and ruinous competition ... Every attempt is being made to restrict competition with private enterprise to that restricted field where operators exploit the misery of the underprivileged. Here the competition is deliberate and amply justified."

Many public housing officials in the Roosevelt Administration were progressives, and had strong convictions about the right of all citizens to inexpensive, quality housing.  The provision of decent housing seemed to many of these officials to be a key to the preservation of democracy during the dark days of the Depression. Housing was simply too important a concern to be left only to private industry, labor, or even individual citizens; they believed it was the responsibility of the government to take the lead.  Sentiments such as these quickly led to the consideration of public housing programs for those other than just the low-income groups.  But the government creation of middle-income housing projects was viewed by many members of the nation's building and real estate industry to be a much larger threat to their livelihood than that designed for the lower-income group.  Although pressure from these groups did not stop the development of innovative middle-income housing programs, it did stop those programs from being implemented during the 1930s.

In 1939, the Federal Works Agency (FWA) was established with the aim of consolidating all government public works programs, including those for public housing, into one agency.  This new agency became responsible for the United States Housing Authority(USHA), its planning and operations; under a great deal of pressure, the FWA promptly filed away the newly developed plans for middle-income housing initiatives. However, few of those involved in the design process forgot about these innovative ideas, and hoped that one day they would be reconsidered.

Defense housing programs

The 1940s began in a state of global crisis as the European and Asian Wars began rapidly expanding into what would eventually be known as World War II.  The United States, although officially neutral, was busily taking defensive measures to ensure national security, while also attempting to assist friendly nations already in the midst of the fighting through measures such as the Lend-Lease program with Great Britain. The corresponding expansion of defense industries, especially those located along coastal areas, and the massive migration of workers into these booming regions, created a serious housing shortage that demanded immediate government intervention. On June 20, 1940, the Congress passed the National Defense Bill.  Shortly thereafter, on June 28, the 1937 United States Housing Act was amended, instructing the USHA to waive income requirements for potential public housing residents, and to apply all remaining monies from low-income housing projects into efforts to house defense workers. Additionally, monies were made available for defense housing through the President's Emergency Defense Fund. In July 1940, President Roosevelt created the position of the Defense Housing Coordinator to oversee the new defense housing effort. Out of political necessity this position possessed only limited authority, and the Coordinator was instructed by the Presidential directive to fit the defense housing program into the decentralized public housing program already in existence since the 1930s. Real authority for the Defense Housing effort would remain vested in the FWA and its administrator, John Carmody (This administrative structure would last only until early 1942, when wartime limitations not only permitted but necessitated far greater centralization.)

The establishment of the defense housing program accelerated quickly after the passage of National Housing for Defense Act of 1940 (also known as the Lanham Act) by Congress on October 14, 1940, which provided $140,000,000 for defense housing construction. The Lanham Act specified that, "The housing is to be wherever feasible of a permanent nature, and after the emergency has passed these homes are to be disposed of, and in that way the Government is to recoup the initial investment ... and they will be available for permanent homes." The cost per unit was set at, and not permitted to exceed, $3000. By its very nature, defense housing was primarily constructed for the middle-income employees of the defense industry.  The Act also empowered the Federal Works Agency (FWA) to overrule local governmental resistance and regulations in order to expedite construction. Additionally, it ensured that the host communities of defense housing projects would receive payments from the federal government, in lieu of taxes "equivalent to full ad valorem tax, less the cost of any municipal services provided by the project". During the war years the Lanham Act was regularly amended by Congress in order to provide additional funds for housing and to adjust various aspects of the Act, especially its impact on local communities. By 1945, almost 9,000,000 individuals had been provided with housing. Total costs approached $7.5 billion ($5.2 billion private financing and $2.3 billion public financing), with the average unit costing $4,566.00.

The Federal Works Agency, as the principal governmental agency responsible for construction, maintenance and disposal of defense housing constructed prior to 1942, established three goals for its efforts:

1. To provide housing to defense workers as quickly as was possible.
2. To provide housing to defense workers as inexpensively as possible,"in accordance with the permanent or temporary character of the need and prospective uses of the facilities."
3. To provide to employees housing of a quality and standard that "benefits the defense personnel for whom the housing is constructed, and for the purpose of realizing the maximum permanent public benefit to be derived from the new housing."

The concept behind mutual home ownership was developed in the late 1930s and filed away by the FWA as were other middle income housing plans.  But the emergency guidelines and policies outlined by the Lanham Act, the goals of the FWA, the availability of necessary resources, and the decentralized administrative structure for the development of public housing all contributed to an ideal environment for experimentation in public middle-income housing. The mutual housing concept was taken off the shelf, to be tried as an experimental community.  An entirely new office was established by FWA in support of this effort. Headed by Colonel Lawrence Westbrook, this office was known as the Mutual Ownership Defense Housing Division.

Mutual home ownership concept

One of the United States government's plans for middle-class housing was the Mutual Ownership Defense Housing Division of the Federal Works Agency (also sometimes referred to as the "Camden Plan" in honor of the city closest to the first project at Audubon, New Jersey).  From the conception of the Division; through the development of its eight projects;, and to its demise at the hands of inept management, wartime limitations and shortages, and attacks from powerful enemies was only a short few years. By the conclusion of the Second World War, the Mutual Ownership Defense Housing Division was all but forgotten. The Division's eight projects were presented by critics as unworkable and highly unattractive projects in the economic and political environment of the post-war period. But almost seventy years later, all but one (Dallas Park) of these projects is reported as continuing to operate as highly successful mutual housing corporations.  The passage by the United States Congress of the Housing Act of 1937 can be thought of as a reaction to criticisms of earlier New Deal low-income housing programs operated through the office of the Federal Emergency Administrator of Public Works. Many officials were concerned about the over-centralization and disregard for local involvement and control in these early experimental programs.

The Mutual Ownership Defense Housing Program, as designed by Westbrook and his team, called for government construction of houses or apartments to be occupied—and eventually owned—by middle-income defense workers.  A key to the plan was the commitment made by the federal government to sell the projects, at the conclusion of the emergency period, to a non-profit Mutual Housing Corporation made up of the projects' residents. This cooperative, non-profit corporation would be initially supported and advised by the government and later turned over completely to the members. This corporation would be responsible for amortizing the government backed mortgage over a 45-year period through monthly payments that included a 3% interest charge on the unpaid balance. Each of the project's residents would be a member of the corporation, and receive a contract from the corporation entitling him/her to perpetual use of his/her unit and one share of stock in the corporation. The monthly payment made by each member to the corporation would include individual amortization payments based on a 30-year rate, as well as set costs for maintenance, taxes, insurance, major repairs, etc. Each share was interchangeable among residents, thus allowing families to easily exchange different size units as family sizes and needs changed over the years.

As an added bonus, each member would build ownership equity within the corporation,

"since, during the amortization period, the tenant is paying off his share of the mortgage in 30 years, rather than the 45 years allowed the corporation, he is in effect enabling the corporation to make prepayments on the principal owed to the Government.  In this way he builds up an equity, or cash value, equal to the original value of the house, less depreciation and less the amount of principal still unpaid.  Should he wish to withdraw from the project the equity is returnable to him in cash.  Moreover, if for hardship reasons such as unemployment or illness he is unable to meet his monthly payments, the equity can be drawn upon to tide him over."

This equity could also be available to the Corporation as an emergency fund.

In a mutual home ownership corporation, rents are kept low by creating an economy of scale. There are also savings for mass-construction, improved land use, centralized facilities, operating economies, and maintaining a non-profit status.  Costs can also be contained—although controversially—by the federal government providing all necessary public works (i.e. sewers, streets, curbs, sidewalks) through the Works Progress Administration (WPA). According to Colonel Lawrence Westbrook, membership in the community should be based on a process in which individuals of predominantly similar income groups from a cross-section of area occupations, and from different age groups, are selected.  These demographics made the community less vulnerable to economic crisis, while the differing family sizes and space needs allowed for flexibility in housing requirements. Plans called for the final selling price of the Mutual Housing project to be set through negotiations between two separate appraisers—one representing the federal government and the other representing the Corporation—and title would be transferred at the 20% amortization point.

Advantages of the Mutual Housing plan

Testifying before Congress in the summer of 1941, Colonel Westbrook outlined the following advantages that he believed would result from the implementation of the Mutual Housing program:

Advantages for Workers

Permits the building of substantial financial reserves for bad times through the elimination of down payments and high rents for housing.
Allows interchangeability of housing units to account for changing family conditions.
Enables a family to maintain a substantial investment in a "facility in which it will always have a personal need."
Prevents individual foreclosures through cooperative risk sharing.
Group maintenance and repair is possible and can be accomplished at less cost while also maintaining a uniform community appearance.
During times of financial stress the program will permit large-scale refinancing and a more effective means for investment protection.

Advantages for the Government

Affords a better protection for the Government's investment by reason of the occupants' direct concern and interest in their homes.
Eliminates a sudden flood of housing in the real estate market at the conclusion of the emergency, because "occupants in the Mutual Housing program will have been selected on the basis of their probable permanence, high credit ratings.."
Improves the chance of recouping original investment by permitting the purchase of the project by its residents.
Creates a stable and responsible community with lower defense worker turn-over.
Creates a new and valuable pattern for home building.

Advantages for the Host Community

Acquires a group of carefully selected stable new citizens.
"Full participation of the residents of the project in community affairs and in the sharing of the community expenses."

Supporters
Among the first groups to support (and continue to support) the plans of the Mutual Ownership Defense Housing Division was the Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America, a member union of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO).  Representatives from the Kearny, New Jersey, Local spoke before Congress in support of initiatives put in place by the Lanham Act, while representatives of the Camden, New Jersey, Local were among the first to benefit from the mutual housing program itself, with the construction of Audubon Park, built just outside Camden. For many years the entire program itself was better known as the "Camden Plan." In a Congressional hearing during March 1941, a union representative stated that:

"In the opinion of the overwhelming majority of the workers, who will live in the homes, the (Mutual Ownership) plan, with a few minor changes, is absolutely foolproof and can assure the United States Government a full return on its investment.. and could ... provide good living space in a good established locality, where you can have an investment in the locality, not down in some slum-clearance district, homes where people can live for many years."

Another representative stated in a July 1941, hearing that:

"Study of this project by the CIO housing committee has confirmed our view that it (mutual housing program) points the way toward a proper answer to the problem of housing permanent workers in established industrial communities."

and

"This plan is the best and most efficient type of public housing) with the most satisfactory relationships with the occupant workers, and the least ultimate expense to the Government."

The National Committee on the Housing Emergency, a private group set up to examine all potential solutions to the defense housing problem, were also strong supporters of the mutual housing program and wrote the following in their final report to Congress:

"After study of the details of a plan of mutual home ownership this committee believes that such a plan includes many advantageous features in the planning, financing and construction of houses for defense workers ... So that further experimentation in this direction may be undertaken, this committee urges that funds be made available for defense housing under future appropriations by the Congress be used in part to further such experimentations."

Another very important and powerful supporter of mutual housing was Senator Lanham himself, who stated the following during a March 1941 hearing before Congress:

"My understanding of the original (Lanham Act) was that it was not the purpose to make (homes) ideal, but it was the purpose to build them in areas where they could be used permanently and of a standard that would be suitable for permanent residence, because in that way the Government has the best chance of recouping its investment by the sale of the homes, and, of course, this (mutual ownership plan) is different in that respect from many of these housing projects, because these are built from the standpoint of sale and recouping the expenditure insofar as possible, at the same time affording an opportunity to these industrial workers to get a home where they are permanently engaged."

Critics

Of course, not everyone was supportive of the mutual housing concept, and many of these critics were especially powerful and influential individuals. First among these critics was Charles Palmer, the federal government's Defense Housing Coordinator.  Palmer was frustrated by his lack of control over the highly decentralized defense housing effort, and from his perspective certain housing programs were wasteful, ineffective and unproductive.  This was especially true of experimental housing programs like the mutual housing program. Although not directly able to stop the program, Palmer was in a position to hamper the program's progress. Palmer went so far as to declare the program itself to be illegal—although never specifying how it was so—and made himself readily accessible and helpful to organizations protesting the siting of mutual housing projects within their communities.

Evidence supporting Palmer's contention of wastefulness is readily available.  Unfortunately, Colonel Westbrook did not possess many of the organizational or management skills necessary to successfully and efficiently supervise his division. On two separate occasions the mutual housing program's projects and efforts were brought before the scrutiny of the Truman Committee investigating waste and corruption in the National Defense Program. Contractors for mutual housing projects in New Jersey did particularly poor jobs and completed the projects substantially over budget. Bids were also badly mishandled by the Mutual Ownership Division. Senator Truman himself became so disgusted by the management of the mutual housing program that in answer to a witness' statement that he did not know exactly what the Mutual Ownership Division did, Truman was recorded as saying that, "They (Mutual Ownership Division) don't either, so proceed."

Other significant contentions expressed by the critics of the program included the following:

1. Temporary short term housing should be destroyed at the end of the emergency period. This was viewed as far more appropriate than attempting to plan for the long term in the midst of a crisis. Senator Kilburn stated that, "It is my contention that they (defense workers) are taking advantage of the situation to feather their own nests."

2. The defense housing problem could more efficiently be handled through the private market. The mutual housing program just competes with, and hurts the private developers. Senator Bell asked: "I am just wondering ... if people earning between $160 and $200 a month or less regularly and are permanently employed, (could have their housing needs) handled through channels of private industry? Aren't there plenty of builders and finance available for construction of homes of that character?" The New Jersey Realtors' Board President wrote an editorial published in local newspapers stating, " ..The USHA no longer can attempt to justify subsidized, socialized housing ... with defense activity providing new employment at good wages, and financiers alert to the rising home market, there can be no justification for another such (mutual housing) project in New Jersey."

3. The residents of a mutual ownership project will simply leave the project at the end of the emergency, taking their equity with them, and selling the whole project to speculators. Senator Kirman asked a resident of one of the projects "...don't you think you will take the whole thing and hock it off to the highest bidder? Every one of the emergencies in the past shows that this has been done."

4. The mutual housing program is good for city dwellers, but provides no solution for the severe housing needs of rural farmers who were also working for the defense program, but often living in squalid surroundings.

5. The federal government should not have to assume the risk for housing its citizens. According to Senator Johnson, "The thing that alarms me is the philosophy which the entire country seems to be adopting, that if the risk is not good, let the government take it. That is nothing more than a refinement of the old thought that the world owes you a living."

6. There are many hidden costs in a mutual housing project - especially related to the public works being provided by the Federal Works Administration (FWA) - which make each unit far more expensive than indicated, and far in excess of the maximum allowable dollar amount specified by the Lanham Act. Senator Shelton stated that, "..if you put in a public housing job by Lanham funds, and you ask the cost of it, and it comes to $3200 a unit, the public housing sponsors do not count in the FWA that did the excavations and the landscaping and we do not count the sewers that are $8 a running foot, and if it was all counted in and it was properly appraised and capitalized, the structure would cost $5000 ..."

By far the most persistent critics of the mutual housing program—and many other defense housing programs—were residents of the host communities where the projects were being built, or being planned. The residents feared additional financial burdens to be imposed on them for expanding public facilities. They were also very concerned about the quality and background of the new people moving into their community. Congress began reacting to the financial fears of potential defense housing host communities early in 1941 by passing an amendment to the Lanham Act that provided additional resources for the expansion of public facilities (i.e. schools, government offices, libraries, feeder roads, sewers, etc.) in these communities. Congress also anticipated the fears and concerns host communities would have about defense housing projects and empowered the FWA to overrule local resistance and regulations in order to expedite the provision of defense housing.  Residents of host communities would continue to be fearful that their new neighbors would be a lower class of people (no matter how similar to themselves they actually may have been), while also feeling resentful that others seemed to be getting a tax supported subsidy for housing when they themselves had worked "long and hard" to obtain their homes.

Demise of the Mutual Ownership Defense Housing Division

There were a number of pressures, factors, and individuals that contributed to the early end of the Mutual Ownership Defense Housing Division.

On November 30, 1941, just eight days prior to the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor and the start of direct United States involvement in the Second World War, tenants of the last mutual ownership project (Winfield Park, New Jersey) began to move into their new homes. The outbreak of war ignited the smoldering debate over permanent vs. temporary housing for the defense workers. Early shortages of materials, equipment, and manpower for construction, along with the early retreat of allied forces on all fronts, added support to the argument that emergency housing should be only of temporary nature, and not built in support of long-term postwar goals. The construction of temporary housing quickly became the program's emphasis. But the mutual housing program was based on long-term financial planning for the construction of permanent housing, and could not function with this new temporary construction emphasis.  Support for centralizing the defense housing effort was also increasing, and resulted in the February 24, 1942 establishment of the National Housing Agency by Executive Order of the President. Those individuals sympathetic to centralization were not very supportive of experimental housing programs. Even prior to the formal outbreak of war, the entire defense housing program, under pressure from Congressional conservatives and industry officials, began to make a significant switch to private sector initiatives to get the defense housing job done. Supporters of this new direction strongly believed that private industry was far more efficient, and "..could utilize a few lots here and a favorably located site there, wholly unsuitable for large-scale Government projects." Congressional support of the private construction industry came in the legislative form of Title IV of the Lanham Act, passed in the spring of 1941. This legislation provided 100% financing for speculative builders of housing for workers in defense areas. Obviously Title IV was meant to serve the same housing market as the mutual housing program. Evidence also suggests that the staff of the NHA was far more conservative than had been the staff of the FWA. This swing to the right was completed when 700 members of the consolidated staff were laid off; many of those leaving were among the most progressive, and many programs, including the mutual housing program, were officially ended. This newly consolidated agency moved quickly to develop programs that were especially supportive of private initiative programs for solving the defense housing need, and generally supportive of Title IV.  Colonel Lawrence Westbrook noted in 1945 testimony that the NHA had destroyed the mutual housing program even at a time when requests for expansion of the program were pouring in from across the nation. Although news of the mutual housing concept had spread quickly through the labor union network, and many committees had been organized by workers to aid the implementation of the plan locally, all committees had to be told that the program was experimental in nature and no more staff could be made available to work with them.

During its short period of existence neither financial nor personnel resources were provided at the necessary levels to effectively support and operate the Mutual Ownership Defense Housing Division. The eight projects undertaken were far more than the Division could handle with its limited resources. Claims and investigations of mismanagement of the Division were partially related to Westbrook's weak supervisory abilities, but they were also due to oversights and mistakes made by a small, overworked staff trying to do more than it could efficiently do, in an unsupportive environment. In addition, problems at many of the projects—especially those in New Jersey—provided a lot of ammunition to critics of the mutual housing effort. Once publicized, these difficulties generated a large political and public backlash against the project. On November 30, 1942 Life Magazine provided its readers with a photographic exposé on the Truman Committee's investigation of the Winfield Park Project, which reported:

"These hearings are to establish and fix responsibility for the outrageously inept planning, construction and supervision of the 700-home project financed by the Government to house war workers from nearby Kearny, N.J. shipyards."

The very nature and concept of the mutual housing program was threatening to other government housing officials because it would result in a further division of limited resources, and because it called for the ultimate disposal of projects through direct purchase by its residents; although this was a very innovative concept in the United States, it would result in the reduction in the number of these same government managers and administers. The mutual housing concept was also not easily understood, contributing to the lack of support or remorse at the prospect of the demise of the program. An illustration is the October 29, 1941 Congressional testimony of Nathan Strauss, Administrator of the United States Housing Authority (the Authority had essentially been put out of business by the June 1940 defense housing amendment to the 1937 Housing Act):

"Next, the Federal Works Agency, no doubt pressed hard by other eager outstretched hands, sought still additional methods of getting defense housing done. Some money was made available to the Farm Security Administration, to the Tennessee Valley Authority, and within the FWA itself another unit was set up, the Mutual Ownership Division of Defense Housing, under Col. Westbrook. I don't know exactly what they do, sir."

But then he became very critical of Title IV of the Lanham Act. He stated that he viewed Title IV as a:

"...device evolved by the Defense Housing Coordinator to utilize the desperate need of defense workers for shelter in order to force them into the purchase of a home ... The result of the enactment of this bill would be to give away millions of public funds to speculative builders to enable them to sell homes on the installment plan to workers whose probable inability to meet the installments is the very justification urged for enactment of the bill."

Either Strauss knew as little as he indicated about the mutual housing program, or he was deliberately obfuscating, since a successful and growing mutual home ownership program would have pushed housing programs in a completely different direction from those already under way at the USHA.

There was also a great deal of discussion about the legality of the mutual housing program. This discussion was sparked by Charles Palmer, the Defense Housing Coordinator, during 1941, although there was never any clear statement of an actual legal problem related to the mutual housing program. On a number of occasions the Legal Counsel of the FWA and Westbrook were asked to defend the legality of the program. They announced that they could not find any violation of the law. But the question itself, posed by the Defense Housing Coordinator, created a number of doubts among influential individuals who could have protected and encouraged the program, rather than watch it be dismantled.

Taken together, these issues, concerns, falsehoods and speculations would have injured even a strong and stable program, but in this case completely undermined an innovative experimental program. It is actually surprising that the mutual housing program survived as long as it did. In 1942, the Council for Industrial Organizations (CIO) expressed its concern at the ending of mutual housing effort, and at the small percentage of permanent housing being built as part of the Defense Program. In March 1942, a CIO representative presented to Congress a copy of his organization's resolution on war workers' housing in the United States, that included the following demand:

"We demand not only that there be a return to a sane program of building planned housing communities, but insist further that war workers as tenants, through the labor organizations which represent them, be given an opportunity to participate in planning the layout and construction of such communities and in their cooperative management after construction, and renew our endorsement of the Mutual Home Ownership Plan.."

These protests were ignored by Congress, and the mutual housing program never revived.

Mutual housing projects after the Second World War

By the conclusion of World War II, the eight completed mutual housing projects built in 1941 were doing exceedingly well, though federal, state and local governmental support had been and continued to be severely lacking.  A number of these projects were reported to be the lowest-costing permanently constructed housing projects ever built by the federal government.  Some reports indicated that the cost of development and management of the mutual housing projects had been approximately 50% of the cost for comparably sized regular public housing projects.  According to mutual housing supports, the vested interest of corporation members inspired demands for efficient low cost operations.  As one resident of Greenmont Village Mutual Housing Corporation stated:

"When everybody owns an equal share of his community and knows that if his neighbor does not do his share, that the village as a whole and, in particular, his own equity will lose in valuation, each owner is interested to see that all people in the community do their share and will also help to educate those who are not true cooperators."

Clearly this type of involvement and concern by residents had a stabilizing effect on the communities, and the increased involvement of residents encouraged greater efficiency.  Reports from residents indicate that individuals had actually turned down other employment opportunities because they did not wish to leave the cooperative, neighborly, low-cost environment of their mutual housing project.

The Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) was so impressed by the mutual housing program, and so frustrated by the inaction of the federal government in expanding it, that it obtained private financing to build a second mutual housing project next to Greenmont Village in Ohio.  This new project differed considerably from the original mutual housing concept however.  Residents of this new project owned their own homes, forcing the project into the speculative housing market. The CIO believed that residents would not be inclined to sell out of the project because of the many advantages and benefits of being a member of a mutual housing corporation.

Although only positive reports were coming from the mutual housing projects already in existence, the Housing Act of 1945 made only vague mention of the mutual housing concept.  The Act provided only limited resources to promote the program as a private initiative model for groups of returning veterans seeking housing. The National Housing Agency informed Congress that research on the program would continue, and that:

"Records on the projects are being maintained for future analysis and study. They will be available for the guidance of groups interest in this approach to the low-cost housing market and to private capital and developers seeking to broaden the scope of private industry in the field of the so-called 'middle market' in housing."

Only one thin publication on how to create a privately financed mutual housing corporation was ever published by the National Housing Agency. This publication stated that:

"The Federal Public Housing Authority (FPHA) is in the process of disposing of a number of housing projects constructed during the war.  The Authority will sell these properties to mutual ownership corporations formed by present and prospective occupants of the specific projects, provided these groups meet the requirements of FPHA (2/3 occupancy at the time of Corporation purchase).  Among prospective occupants, veterans are given first preference."

Residents of a number of projects, most located in the midwest and working with the CIO, established a National Mutual Housing Association during the mid-1940s. Colonel Westbrook was a member of the advisory board. This association promoted what it believed was the housing solution of the future, whose time had come.  The Chairman of the Association made the following report to Congress:

"...I think it is the most thrilling story of housing that you have heard or will hear, and the only hopeful story that you have heard. We contend that this is the first showing of a hopeful effort, under Government auspices, to solve the housing problem, the first plan to be tried and tested which offers to you any solution of the housing problem.  Therefore, we want someone to administer it with faith in it and with faith in the people."

The goals of the Association included the creation of a Mutual Housing Agency in the National Housing Authority to promote the program and at the same time dispose of all war housing projects as mutual housing projects.  It also wanted to open the mutual housing program to all citizens regardless of "social, racial, or economic status."  Supporters realized that without the government resources or support of this type there could be little hope of the mutual housing program becoming a national program.  Once again, however, the concept that public housing was only for the low-income populations had taken hold, and also the concept that only through private initiative and financing, with substantial government support, could the United States provide appropriate middle-income housing.

The red scare of the immediate postwar years also created a negative environment for programs with even the slightest socialistic overtones, which was true for the mutual housing program.  The CIO itself, with the creation of its own mutual housing program in which each resident owned his/her own unit, clearly illustrated that the popular housing sentiment of the time was to own your own home. The resulting lack of mutually maintained equity, and the ability of residents to independently sell out of the project, created a speculative market environment that ran counter to the principles that held the mutual housing program together. Additionally, the desire for home ownership and the increasing affordability of middle-income housing, thanks to extensive government subsidies both in the mortgage market and through tax policy following the second world war, ensured that the mutual housing concept was shelved once again.

Both John Carmody (FWA Administrator) and Colonel Lawrence Westbrook continued to be devoted to the mutual housing concept and discussed the final disposal of the eight projects in keeping with the original mutual housing plan. As late as 1952 Westbrook was looking for ways to resurrect this middle-class public housing effort but this plan was abandoned with the election of the Republican administration of Dwight Eisenhower.

See also
 Aluminum City Terrace

References

Sources
 "500 House Experiment at Camden, NJ: FWA Defense Housing Project Tries Mutual Ownership Plan, as Well as Partial Prefabrication." American Builder. 63 (1941).
 "A Road to Home Ownership: Remarks of Jerry Voorhis of California in the House of Representatives." Congressional Record. October 4, 1945.
 "A Unique Method of 'Owning' Their Homes: Living in Audubon Park." The Philadelphia Inquirer. March 22, 1998.
 "An Urban Village Built on Cooperation: Some Have Questioned the Co-Op's Family Preference and Admissions Criteria. Two Suits - One was Settled, Another Thrown Out - Contended That They Had the Effect of Excluding Blacks." The Philadelphia Inquirer. September 17, 1987.
 "Building for Defense ... Government Housers Meet Each Week to Study Program Progress, Dodge Bullets and Bouquets from Boss Carmody Who Last Month Pulled in Young Blood to Speed the Work Via Private Architects, Prefabrication and Good Weather." The Architectural Forum. July 1941. p. 8-9.
 "Building for Defense ... Government Housing in a Hurray For 500 Shipyard Works. FWA Encloses 20 Houses a Day with the Aid of Prefabrication, Gives AFL 56 Units to Hammer and Saw. A Close-Up of the Biggest House Factory (Audubon Park)" The Architectural Forum, May 1941. p. 341-343.
 Carmody, John M. " 'Village Improves National Morale,' Says Carmody.  More Needed, He Declares.  Project Symbol of What Nation Can Do, He Points Out." Special Edition Courier Post. Camden, New Jersey. Saturday, December 16, 1941. p. 5.
 "Cooperative Mutual Housing." Speech by John. R. Lutes, Secretary of the Walnut Grove Mutual Housing Corporation, South Bend, Indiana before the National Cooperative League Congress at Columbus, Ohio.  September 9, 1946.
 Danenberg, Elsie, "Get Your Home The Co-Operative Way", Greenberg, New York, 1949.
 "Defense Housing: An Exchange of Correspondence between Defense Housing Coordinator Palmer, FWA Administrator Carmody and The Forum's Editor." The Architectural Forum. March 1941. p. 30, 54-58.
 "Development of a Park Site: Rahway River Park Housing Project, Rahway, New Jersey, John T. Rowland, Architect (Winfield Park)." Architectural Record, Volume 90, Number 5, November 1941, p. 86-87
 Distributor (Publication of the United Auto Workers), March 15, 1942. "War Housing: The Mutual Home Ownership Plan Which Means Real Homes For War Workers Planned and Built According to Democratic Principles."
 Federal Emergency Administration of Public Works. "Urban Housing: The Story of the P.W.A. Housing Division 1933-1936, Bulletin No. 2." Washington, D.C.: GPO, August 1936.
 "Federal Housing for North American Workers (Dallas Park)." The Architectural Forum. July 1941. p. 5.
 Federal Works Agency. (United States Housing Authority). "Four Years of Public Housing." Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1941.
 Federal Works Agency. "1st Annual Report." Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1940.
 Federal Works Agency. "2nd Annual Report." Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1941.
 Federal Works Agency. "3rd Annual Report." Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1942.
 Federal Works Agency. Press Release #83. "Explanation of the Proposed 'Camden Plan': Text of Remarks by Lawrence Westbrook, Special Assistant to the Federal Works Administrator, for the Easter States Inistitue of Public Housin, March 22, 1941, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania." Federal Works Agency Information Division, March 21, 1941.
 Federal Works Agency. Publication #7530. "Suggested General Principles Governing Execution and Operation of Mutual Home Ownership Projects." Revised October 17, 1941.
 Federal Works Agency. Publication #9149. "Mutual Ownership Defense Housing."
Hines, Thomas. Richard Neutra and the Search for Modern Architecture. Oxford University Press, 1982. (Avion Village p. 175-180, 194; illustrations p. 180-180. Lawrence Westbrook p. 174-175, 178-179.
 Home Ownership at Audubon Park. Prepared for the Residents of Audubon Park, NJ by the Board of Trustees Audubon Mutual Housing Corporation. 1954.
 House of Representatives Hearings on House Resolution 3213, (A Bill to Expedite Further the Provision of Housing in Connection With National Defense, and to Provide Public Works in Relation to such Housing and other National Defense Activities, and For Other Purposes) and House Resolution 3570, (A Bill Authorizing An Appropriation for Providing Additional Community Facilities Made Necessary By National Defense Activities and For Other Purposes). "Hearings Before the Committee On Public Buildings and Grounds, March 4,5,6,7,12 and 13, 1941." Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1941.
 House of Representatives Hearings on House Resolution 3486, (A Bill to Authorize An Appropriation of An Additional $150,000,000 for Defense Housing). "Hearings Before the Committee On Public Buildings and Grounds, February 21, 1941." Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1941.
 House of Representatives Hearings on House Resolution 5211, (A Bill to Authorize An Appropriation of An Additional $300,000,000 For Defense Housing). "Hearings Before the Committee On Public Buildings and Grounds, July 9,10,11,15,16,17,18,22,23,1941." Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1941.
 House of Representatives Hearings on House Resolution 7312, ( A Bill to Increase by $600,000,000 The Amount Authorized To Be Appropriated For Defense Housing Under the Act of October 14, 1940, As Amended). "Hearings Before the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds, June 9,10,11,12,16,17,18,19,23,24,25 and 26, 1942." Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1942.
 House of Representatives Hearings on House Resolutions 6482 and 6483, (Bills to Amend the Act Entitled 'An Act To Expedite the Provision of Housing In Connection with National Defense and For Other Purposes'). "Hearings Before the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds, January 29 and 30, February 3, 1942, March 11,12,17,18,19 and 24, 1942." Washington, D.C." GPO, 1942.
 House of Representatives Hearings on Message from the President of the United States, (A Draft of a Proposed Bill to Increase by $400,000,000 the Amount Authorized to be Appropriated for Defense Housing). "Hearings Before the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds, May 18,19,20,21,26 and 27, June 1,2,4,8, and 10, 1943." Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1943.
 "House Types, One and Two Story, One and Two Bedrooms. Defense Houses at Grand Prairie, Texas. Roscoe P. De Witt, Architect, David R. Williams, Richard J. Neutra, Consulting Architects." The Architectural Forum, October, 1941. p. 240-242.
 "Housing for Defense-And After: Vast Opportunity as Well as a Whole Host of Baffling Problems Lie in the Task of Adequately Sheltering Our Army of Workers." New York Times. September 21, 1941.
 "Housing Lag Seen Slowing Defense: Flynn of CIO Says Key Men Refuse Overtime Owing to Long Journeys to Homes." New York Times. January 26, 1941. p. 1.
 "Housing Project, Bellmawr, NJ: Mayer & Whittlesey and Joseph N Hettel Associated Architects." The Architectural Forum. January 1943.
 Life Magazine, "Truman Committee Exposes Housing Mess," November 29, 1942.
 "Mutual Housing: Extension of Remarks of Hon. Robert F. Wagner of New York in the Senate of the United States." Congressional Record. Monday, July 9, 1945.
 National Housing Agency (Federal Public Housing Authority). "Public Housing: The Work of the Federal Public Housing Authority." Washington, D.C.: GPO, March 1946.
 National Housing Agency. "Housing for War and the Job Ahead: A Common Goal for Communities ... for Industry, Labor and Government." Washington, D.C.: GPO, April 1944.
 National Housing Agency. "Housing Practices - War and Prewar: Review of Design and Construction, National Housing Bulletin 5." Washington, D.C.: GPO, May 1946.
 National Housing Agency. "Public Housing: The Work of the Federal Public Housing Authority." Washington, D.C.: GPO, March 1946.
 National Housing Agency. "Second Annual Report." Washington, D.C.: GPO, Oct., 1944.
 National Housing Agency. "The Mutual Home Ownership Program." Washington, D.C.: Federal Public Housing Authority, January 1946.
 National Housing Agency. "War Housing In the United States." Washington, D.C.: GPO, April 1945.
 National Housing Agency. "Mutual Housing A Veteran's Guide: Organizing, financing, constructing, and operating several selected types of cooperative housing associations, with special reference to Available Federal Aids." Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1946.
 "Neither For Sale Nor Rent Are House at Camden, NJ Defense Project. Colonel Westbrook Combines Advantages of Both Merchandising Methods, Invents a Mutual Financing Plan for Investors and Occupants." Architectural Forum, June 1941 pp. 443–445.
 Palmer, C.F. "Palmer Proud of Record Set: Estimates Need in this Area at 12,000 More Units." Special Edition Courier Post. Camden, New Jersey. Saturday, December 16, 1941. p. 5.
 "Prospectus for the Organization of a National Mutual Housing Association." Office of Congressman Jerry Voorhis. Washington, DC. Approx. 1945.
 Public Housing Administration. "First Annual Report Public Housing Administration." Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1948.
 Rutgers University Bureau of Economic Research. An Economic Profile of Winfield Park, New Jersey: Including Alternatives For the Use of Community Resources. New Brunswick, N.J.: Bureau of Economic Research, 1965.
 Senate Hearings on Proposed General Housing Act of 1945. " Hearings Before the Committee on Banking and Currency, Part 2, December 6,7,11,12,13,14,17,18, 1945, January 24 and 25, 1946, Revised." Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1946.
 Senate Hearings on Senate Resolution 71, (A Resolution Authorizing and Directing An Investigation of the National Defense Program). "Investigation of the National Defense Program, Part 8, October 3,7,8,9,14,15,21,22,23,24,27,28,29, and 31, 1941." Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1942.
 Senate Hearings on Senate Resolution 71, (A Resolution Authorizing and Directing An Investigation of the National Defense Program). "Investigation of the National Defense Program, Part 15, November 18,19, 23, 24 and 25, 1942." Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1943.
 Smith, Jason Scott. Building New Deal liberalism: the political economy of public works, 1933-1956. Cambridge University Press, 2006.
 "Strauss Condemns Housing Programs: USHA Administrator Criticizes Coordinator and Urges an End of 'Unnecessary' Agencies." New York Times. November 13, 1941. p. 17.
 Szylvian Bailey, Kristin. The Federal Government and the Cooperative Housing Movement, 1917-1955. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation Carnegie-Mellon University, 1988.
 Szylvian, Kristin M. "Our Mutual Friend: A Progressive Housing Legacy from the 1940s." Designer Builder: A Journal of the Human Environment. Vol. 111 No. 9. January 1997.
 Szylvian, Kristin M., "The Federal Housing Program During World War II" in From Tenements to The Taylor Homes: In Search of An Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth Century America edited by John F. Bauman, Roger Biles and Kristin Szylvian. Pennsylvania State Press, 2000.
 "Tenants Buy Town in New Home Plan: US is Sponsor of a Mutual Housing Project it has Put Up at Audubon, NJ." New York Times. November 9, 1941. p. 44
 Time Magazine, "Not for Rent, Not for Sale", June 2, 1941.
 Time Magazine, "Whose Fault", October 13, 1941.
 Time Magazine,"Two Scandals", November 30, 1942.
 "Town is White Inside and Out: In the Borough of Audubon Park, There is One Non-White Resident Out of a Population of 1,150 Residents." The Philadelphia Inquirer. March 10, 1991.
 United States Housing Authority. "Annual Report of the United States Housing Authority." Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1940.
 "United States Speeds Village of New Homes for Defense Workers, Audubon Village, NJ." Special Edition Courier Post. Camden, New Jersey. Saturday, December 16, 1941. p. 1-16.
 Westbrook, Lawrence. "Farm Tenancy: A Program." The Nation. January 9, 1937. Vol. 144, No. 2, P. 39-41.
 Westbrook, Colonel Lawrence (as told to George Creel), "No Down Payment", Colliers Magazine, February 2, 1946. p. 26-27.
 "With Benefit of Local Planning: Dallas Park Housing Project, Dallas Texas, Burns Roensch, Architect." Architectural Record. Volume 90, Number 5, November 1941. p. 84-85.

External links
"The Mutual Housing Experiment: New Deal Communities for the Urban Middle Class (Urban Life, Landscape, and Policy)"  by Kristin M. Szylvian, Temple University Press, 2015. .
Bellmawr Park Photos From 1942
Avion Village Mutual Ownership Corporation
Avion Village Historical Marker
"Avion Village: Texas' World War II Housing Laboratory," by Kristin M. Szylvian in Legacies: A History Journal for Dallas and North Central Texas, Vol 4, No 2, Fall, 1992.
"Texas Workmen Build Finished Home in 58 Minutes", Life Magazine, June 9, 1941. p. 59.
Greenmont Mutual Housing Corporation
Pennypack Woods Home Ownership Association
Construction Photos of Pennypack Woods Project
The Borough of Audubon Park
Walnut Grove Mutual Housing Corporation
Bellmawr Park Mutual Housing Corporation
Winfield Mutual Housing Corporation
Colonel Lawrence Westbrook (1889-1964) Papers - Special Assistant to the Federal Works Administrator for the Mutual Ownership Defense Housing Division.
John M. Carmody (1881-1963) Papers - John M. Carmody, Administrator, Federal Works Administration (1939–1941)
Reminiscences of John Michael Carmody (1881-1963) - Administrator, Federal Works Administration
General Records of the Federal Works Agency, The US National Archives.
Charles Foster Palmer (1903-1973) Papers - Defense Housing Coordinator.
Nathan Straus (1889-1961) Papers - Administrator, United States Housing Authority (1937–1942)
Warren Jay Vinton (1889-1969) Papers - Chief Economist and Planning Officer of the U.S. Housing Authority (1937–1949), and First Assistant Commissioner of the Public Housing Administration (1949–1957). Author of "The Mutual Home Ownership Plan."
Hugh Fulton (1908-1962) Papers - Chief Counsel of the Special Committee of the Senate to Investigate the National Defense Program (Truman Committee), 1941-1944.
 Architect David Williams (1915-1984) papers
 Architect Richard Neutra (1892-1970) papers
John T. Rowland - Architect of Winfield Park, NJ
Donald Barthelme- Architect of Avion Village, Dallas, TX
Leo Goodman (1913-1983) Papers - Labor Leader (CIO) who worked to preserve and expand mutual housing concept in the immediate postwar years.
Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America (IUMSWA) archives
Kristin Szylvian - Author of soon to be published study The Camden Plan: Mutual Home Ownership for America's Middle-Income Families.

Related Projects
 Atchison Village, Richmond, California
 Greenbelt, Maryland
 Greenhills, Ohio
 Greendale, Wisconsin
 Arthurdale, West Virginia
 Aluminum City Terrace, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
 Kramer Homes, Center Line, Michigan
 Pine Ford Acres, Middletown, Pennsylvania
 Channel Heights, San Pedro, California
 Vanport City, Oregon

New Deal agencies
Public housing in the United States


Cookie salad is a dessert salad from the U.S. states of Minnesota and North Dakota made with buttermilk, vanilla pudding, whipped cream, mandarin oranges, and fudge stripe shortbread cookies. Dessert salads, like glorified rice and cookie salad, are more common in the cuisine of the Midwestern United States than other parts of the country. They are popular with children and a common contribution to holiday tables and potlucks.  Berries can also be added. The salad is also prepared in other areas of the Midwestern United States.

See also
Glorified rice
Snickers salad
Watergate salad

References

Further reading

Cuisine of the Midwestern United States
Cuisine of Minnesota
Salads
Cookies


Jason Gatson (born June 25, 1980) is a retired American gymnast.

Gatson competed in his first World Championship in 1997 at the age of 17, where he placed 5th with team USA and 22nd in the all-around. He was considered by many to be the next champion for the US team, but injuries and other struggles cost him a chance for the 2000 Olympic team.

Injuries would continue to be a problem for Gatson, but in 2003 he finished second in the US national championships and qualified to the World Championship team, where he and his fellow team members won a silver medal in the team competition. He also competed in the all-around final and still rings final, finishing 8th and 7th respectively.

Gatson would battle a back injury heading into the 2004 Olympic trials. Still, he was able to make the Olympic team despite not competing on all of the events. At the olympics, Gatson and his team won a silver medal behind Japan. In team finals, Gatson scored 9.825 on his parallel bars routine, the highest score of the day on that apparatus.

His knee injuries were featured on the season 2 8th episode on Impact: Stories of Survival, titled "Pentagon Survivor".

Jason's younger brother Brandon is a professional wrestler.

References

External links

 https://web.archive.org/web/20090313014625/http://www.kristypage.net/jasongatson/bio.html
 Gymnast lands on his feet
 2004 Olympic games results
 Gatson1(Parallel bars)

1980 births
Living people
American male artistic gymnasts
Gymnasts at the 2004 Summer Olympics
Medalists at the World Artistic Gymnastics Championships
Place of birth missing (living people)
Medalists at the 2004 Summer Olympics
Olympic silver medalists for the United States in gymnastics
Originators of elements in artistic gymnastics


Illinois Centennial Memorial Column, Logan Square Monument or Illinois Centennial Monument is a public monument in the Logan Square community area and the Chicago Landmark and National Register of Historic Places-listed Logan Square Boulevards Historic District.  Built in 1918 to celebrate the 100th anniversary of Illinois' statehood, the monument, designed by Henry Bacon, famed architect of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC, is a single  tall marble Doric column topped by an eagle, in reference to the Flag of Illinois. Reliefs surrounding the base depict figures of Native Americans, explorers, farmers and laborers intended to show the great changes experienced during the state's 1st century. Although Bacon designed the main column, Evelyn Beatrice Longman designed and sculpted the reliefs.

It is located at North Milwaukee Avenue and Logan Boulevard in the public square known as Logan Square. The monument is cased in Tennessee marble. The column is composed of 13 solid marble segments and is based on the same proportions and scale as the columns that make up the colonnade of the Parthenon in Greece.  The column is opposed by a flagpole and a concrete plaque dedicated to American soldiers who died in World War I, World War II and the Korean War. The monument was funded by the Benjamin Ferguson Fund.  Daniel Boone, Hiawatha and Ceres are among those depicted in the base.

In 1997 the Chicago Department of Transportation planted 81 trees around the column including hackberry, Patmore green ash, Skyline honeylocust, red oak, swamp white oak, alpine currant, Virginia Rose and three varieties of hawthorns: downy, Washington and thornless cockspur.

Notes

External links
Logan Square Preservation website

Buildings and structures in Chicago


North Medwyn is a river in the Lanarkshire region of Scotland. Along with the confluence of the South Medwyn River it forms the Medwyn water basin. The North Medwyn is a tributary of the River Clyde.

Rivers of South Lanarkshire
River Clyde


The National Provincial Championship, or NPC, was the predecessor to the current Air New Zealand Cup and Heartland Championship in New Zealand rugby. 1979 was the fourth year of the National Provincial Championship, Counties were the winners of Division 1.

Division 1 Standings

These were the NPC Division 1 standings for the 1979 season.

Table notes
Pld = Played
W   = Win
D   = Draw
L   = Loss
PF   = For (Total points scored)
PA   = Against (Total points scored against)
PD = Points difference

Promotion/Relegation
As the bottom placed North Island team, Taranaki were automatically relegated.

Division Two North winner Hawkes Bay were promoted to Division One.

Otago faced Division Two South winner Marlborough, defeating them 15-13, and remained in Division One.

Division Two Teams
Division 2 North (In Order of Final Placing)

Division 2 South (In Order of Final Placing)

Ranfurly Shield
North Auckland began the season as holders having defeated Manawatu the season before. They defended the Shield in 5 matches before being defeated by Auckland. Auckland then successfully defended against Counties in the final match of the season that pitted the Shield holders against the National Champions.

North Auckland
beat King Country      21-6
beat Thames Valley     35-6
beat Marlborough       29-6
beat South Canterbury  20-12
beat Taranaki          23-11
lost to Auckland     3-9

Auckland
beat Counties          11-9

National Provincial Championship
1


The 1926 College Football All-America team is composed of college football players who were selected as All-Americans by various organizations and writers that chose College Football All-America Teams in 1926. The six selectors recognized by the NCAA as "official" for the 1926 season are (1) Collier's Weekly, as selected by Grantland Rice with cooperation from ten coaches, (2) the Associated Press, based on polling of "more than 100 coaches and critics", (3) the United Press, (4) the All-America Board, selected by Knute Rockne (Notre Dame), Glenn "Pop" Warner (Stanford), and Tad Jones (Yale), (5) the International News Service (INS), and (6) the Newspaper Enterprise Association (NEA).

Other notable selectors included Billy Evans, the Central Press Association, the New York Sun, and Walter Eckersall.

Consensus All-Americans
For the year 1926, the NCAA recognizes six All-American teams as "official" designations for purposes of its consensus determinations. The following chart identifies the NCAA-recognized consensus All-Americans and displays which first-team designations they received.

All-American selections for 1926

Ends
Bennie Oosterbaan, Michigan (CFHOF) (AAB-1; AP-3; COL-1; NEA; UP; CEP-1; WC-1; BE-1; RG-2; ES-1; WE-1)
Vic Hanson, Syracuse (CFHOF) (AAB-2; AP-1; COL-1; INS-1; UP; CP-2; NYS-1; BE-2; HF-1; LP-1; RJW-2; RG-2; DW-1; ES-1; WE-1)
Hal Broda, Brown (AAB-3; AP-2; INS-2; UP; CP-1; NYS-1; BE-3; HF-1; LP-2; RWJ-3; RG-1; ES-2; WE-2)
Hoyt Winslett, Alabama (AAB-2; AP-1; INS-1; NEA; CP-2; NYS-2; BE-1; LP-1, RWJ-2; ES-2; WE-3; CP-1)
Ted Shipkey, Stanford (AAB-1; AP-2; INS-2; WC-1; NYS-2; BE-2; LP-2; RG-1; WE-2)
Carl Bacchus, Missouri (AAB-3; AP-3; BE-3; RWJ-3)
 Cal Hubbard, Geneva (INS-3; RG-3; CEP-1)
 Ed Lindenmeyer, Missouri  (INS-3)
 George Thayer, Penn (WE-3)
 Charles Born, Army (RG-3)

Tackles
Frank Wickhorst, Navy (AAB-1; AP-1; COL-1; INS-1; NEA; UP; CP-1; WC-1; NYS-1; BE-1; HF-1; LP-1; RG-1; WE-1; CEP-1)
Bud Sprague, Army (AP-1; CP-1; RG-3; CEP-1; LP-2)
Lloyd Yoder, Carnegie Tech (CFHOF) (AAB-1; AP-3; INS-2; CP-2; WC-1)
Lon Stiner, Nebraska (AAB-2; INS-1; RWJ-2; ES-2)
Robert Johnson, Northwestern (NEA; BE-1; RG-1; WE-2)
Alfred "Al" Lassman, NYU (AAB-3; UP; BE-3; HF-1; RWJ-3; RG-2; ES-1; WE-2)
Orland Smith, Brown (AP-3; COL-1; LP-1; NYS-2; WE-1)
Spike Nelson, Iowa (AP-2; CP-2; NYS-1; BE-2; LP-2; RG-3)
Theodore "Tiny" Roebuck, Haskell (AAB-2; RWJ-2)
Jim Dixon, Oregon State (AAB-3; INS-2; RWJ-3)
D. Thomas Eddy, Navy (AP-2; NYS-2; ES-2)
Fred Pickhard, Alabama (BE-2)
Jesse Hibbs, USC (BE-3)
Howard D. Cothran, Lafayette (RG-2; WE-3)
Leo Raskowski, Ohio State (INS-3; ES-1; WE-3)
 Ed Kevorkian, Brown (INS-3)

Guards
Bernie Shively, Illinois (CFHOF) (AAB-1; AP-1; COL-1; INS-1; NEA; CP-2; WC-1; BE-1; RG-2; WE-1)
Harry Connaughton, Georgetown (AAB-2; AP-1; COL-1; INS-2; NEA; UP; CP-1; NYS-1; BE-1; HF-1; LP-1; RWJ-2; RG-1; ES-1; WE-1)
Ed Hess, Ohio State (AAB-2; AP-2; INS-2; CP-1; NYS-2; BE-2; HF-1; LP-2; RWJ-2; RG-1; ES-1; WE-2; CEP-1)
 Edwin Hayes, Ohio State (UP)
Fred H. Swan, Stanford (AAB-3; AP-3; INS-3; CP-2; RWJ-3; ES-2; CEP-1; LP-2)
Herbert Sturhahn, Yale (CFHOF) (AAB-1; AP-3; WC-1; NYS-2; BE-3; ES-2; LP-1; RG-3; WE-2)
Ted "Butter" Gorrell, USC (AAB-3; RWJ-3)
Emerson Carey, Cornell (AP-2; RWJ-2; WE-3; RG-3)
Ernest Schmidt, Army (NYS-1; BE-2)
Orland Smith, Brown (INS-1; BE-3; RG-2)
 Frank Mayer, Notre Dame (INS-3)
John H. Lovette, Michigan (WE-3)

Centers
Bud Boeringer, Notre Dame (AAB-1; AP-1; COL-1; INS-1; NEA; CP-1; WC-1; NYS-1; BE-1; LP-1; RG-1; ES-1; WE-1)
John J. Butler, Penn (AP-2; INS-3; UP; CP-2; BE-2; HF-1; RG-2; ES-2; WE-2)
Jeff Cravath, USC (AAB-2; INS-2; RWJ-2)
Larry Bettencourt, St. Mary's (CA) (CFHOF) (AAB-3; RWJ-3)
Pollock Wallace, Oklahoma (AP-3)
Alex Klein, Ohio State (BE-3)
Maurice Daly, Army (NYS-2)
Robert Reitsch, Illinois (RG-3; WE-3)
 Joseph Truskowski, Michigan (LP-2)

Quarterbacks
Benny Friedman, Michigan (CFHOF) (AAB-2; AP-1; COL-1; INS-1; NEA; CP-1; NYS-1; BE-1; HF-1; LP-1; RWJ-2; RG-1; ES-1; WE-1)
Bill Spears, Vanderbilt (CFHOF) (AAB-3 [as hb]; AP-2; INS-2; NYS-2; BE-2; LP-2; RWJ-3 [as hb])
Bill Kelly, Montana (CFHOF) (AP-2 [as hb]; BE-3 [as hb]; CP-2; RG-2; WE-3)
Roy Randall, Brown (AAB-1; WC-1)
 Butch Meeker, Washington State (WE-2)
George Guttormsen, Washington (AP-3; INS-3)
Gerald Mann, SMU (CFHOF) (AAB-3; BE-3; RWJ-3)
 Dan Caulkins, Princeton (RG-3)

Halfbacks
Mort Kaer, USC (CFHOF) (AAB-1; AP-1; COL-1; INS-1; NEA; CP-1; WC-1; NYS-1; BE-1; RG-1; ES-2 [as qb]; WE-1)
Ralph Baker, Northwestern (CFHOF) (AAB-2; AP-1; COL-1; INS-2; CP-1; NYS-1; BE-2; LP-1; RWJ-2; RG-2; ES-2; WE-1)
Harry Wilson, Army (AAB-1; AP-2; INS-1; NEA; CP-2; WC-1; ES-1)
 Tom Hamilton, Navy (UP; HF-1; RG-3; WE-2)
Marty Karow, Ohio State (UP; ES-2; WE-3)
Frank Kirkleski, Lafayette (AAB-3; AP-3; RWJ-3)
Charles Rogers, Penn (AP-3; INS-3; UP; HF-1; RG-1; WE-2)
Chester "Cotton" Wilcox, Purdue (NYS-2; LP-2; RG-3; BE-2)
George Bogue, Stanford (BE-3; WE-3)
Christie Flanagan, Notre Dame (AAB-2; CP-2; RWJ-2; RG-2; ES-1)
Dave Mishel, Brown (INS-2)
George Wilson, Lafayette (INS-3; BE-1; NYS-2)
 Dick Hyland, Stanford (LP-1)

Fullbacks
Herb Joesting, Minnesota (CFHOF) (AAB-1; AP-1; COL-1; INS-1; NEA; BE-1; CP-1; ES-1; NYS-1; RG-1; LP-1; WC-1; WE-1)
Marty Karow, Ohio State (AP-2; INS-3; CP-2; BE-3; HF-1; LP-2; RG-2)
Bill Amos, Washington & Jefferson (AAB-2; INS-2; BE-2; RWJ-2; WE-2)
Mayes McLain, Haskell (AAB-3; RWJ-3)
Ty Rauber, Washington & Lee (AP-3)
Harry O'Boyle, Notre Dame (LP-2 [hb]; NYS-2)
Henry H. Caldwell, Navy (ES-2)
Loren Lewis, Northwestern (RG-3; WE-3)

Key
 Bold – Used for (1) consensus All-Americans and (2) first-team selections by an official selector
 CFHOF = College Football Hall of Fame inductee
 1 – First-team selection
 2 – Second-team selection
 3 – Third-team selection

Official selectors
 AAB = All-American Board, team selected by three coaches: Knute Rockne (Notre Dame), Glenn "Pop" Warner (Stanford), and Tad Jones (Yale)
 AP = Associated Press, based on AP polling of "more than 100 coaches and critics"
 UP = United Press
 COL = Collier's Weekly as selected by Grantland Rice with cooperation from ten coaches: Glenn Warner (Stanford), Robert Zuppke (Illinois), G.C. Woodruff (Georgia), Knute Rockne (Notre Dame), Wallace Wade (Alabama), Captain J.J. McEwan (Oregon), W.A. Alexander (Ga. Tech.), Howard Jones (So. Calif.), E.P. Madigan (St. Mary's, Calif.), and Dan McGuigan (Vanderbilt).
 INS = International News Service, selected by Davis Walsh
 NEA = Newspaper Enterprise Association

Other selectors
 BE = Billy Evans
 CP = Central Press Association, based on a poll conducted by Norman Brown of over 400 newspapers, each of which conducted its own election in which fans voted for the All-American team; Central Press reported compiling a million votes.
 CEP = Charles E. Parker for the New York World News Service
 ES = Ed Sullivan
 HF = Henry Farrell of the United Press
 LP = Lawrence Perry
 NYS = New York Sun
 RG = Red Grange
 WC = Walter Camp Football Foundation
 WE = Walter Eckersall

See also
 1926 All-Big Ten Conference football team
 1926 All-Missouri Valley Conference football team
 1926 All-Pacific Coast football team
 1926 All-Southern college football team

References

All-America Team
College Football All-America Teams


The Old Botanical Garden (German: Alter Botanischer Garten) is a botanical garden and arboretum in the Swiss city of Zürich. The garden is, among the neighbored Schanzengraben moat and the Bauschänzli bastion, one of the last remains of the Baroque fortifications of Zürich, that was begun in 1642.

Facilities
The Garden is located on the former zur Katz bastion in the city centre near the Sihlporte area. Opening times are daily from April to September 7:00–19.00 (7 pm), October to March 8:00–18:00 (6 pm). Trams 2 and 9 stop at the nearby Sihlstrasse stop. Although the Old Botanical Garden is owned by the University of Zurich, it should not be mistaken for the Botanical Garden of the University of Zurich, opened in 1977 and located at Zollikerstrasse in the Weinegg quarter of the city. The present facilities also house the ethnological museum (Völkerkundemuseum) of the University of Zürich.

History
The origins of the first botanical garden base on Conrad Gessner's (1516–1565) private herbarium. A Gessner descendant, Johannes Gessner (1709–1790) who was a physician and naturalist, founded Zürich's first botanical garden in 1746, in co-operation with the Naturforschende Gesellschaft Zürich (Zürich Botanical Society).

In 1833 the Canton of Zürich changed this first location to the so-called Schimmelgut when the University of Zürich was founded. On dissolution of the ramparts zur Katz in 1837, the still existing plant at the Schanzengraben moat was built. The garden was designed by the university's gardener Leopold Karl Theodor Fröbel (1810–1907). In 1851 its Palmhaus (a greenhouse) was opened – constructed of glass and wood, in 1877 the octagonal glass pavilion got an iron frame. Today, the pavilion is primarily used for concerts, theater and exhibitions.

The terrain of the garden was limited by surrounding buildings, whilst the shadows of these buildings  hindered growth conditions for the plants. Thus in second half of the 20th century, an urgently needed expansion was impossible, and as the botanical buildings were in poor condition, the administration decided to move the gardens from the city center to a more peripheral location within the city, where there was room to expand. In 1971 the old park of the Bodmer-Abegg family in the Weinegg quarter was selected, and in 1976 the new botanical garden was opened there.

Since 1976 the Old Botanical Garden, as it is now known, has been used as a recreation area, as the location of the Völkerkundemuseum (ethnological museum) of the University of Zürich, as the site of an arboretum and of the so-called Gessner-Garten.

Arboretum and Gessner-Garten
The arboretum is still remarkable, as is the idyllic location on the Schanzengraben moat in the midst of Zürich, and therefore the garden is a popular recreation area.

Gessner-Garten on the hilltop, a medieval herb garden, is a memorial to Conrad Gessner. The southern gun bastion of the fortifications of Zürich was at the highest point of the former ramparts zur Katz. The guns at the fortification were called Katz. Opened on 27 May 1997, the garden was built by private horticultural companies and financed by the Pro Katz foundation, with the object of maintaining the botanical garden. At the northern end of the herb garden, we find the Conrad Gessner memorial.

The Gessner garden shows 50 medicinal plants (herbs and shrubs), used by 16th century's healers, each with a citation of a healer from that period, such as Cynara cardunculus, Potentilla erecta, Linum usitatissimum, Paeonia officinalis, Silybum marianum, Juniperus communis, Fragaria vesca, Artemisia absinthium and more. The garden features herbs, which for centuries have been healing illness or having beneficial effects in infirmity. The signs by the plants give us an insight into the medicinal knowledge of Conrad Gessner and his contemporaries, such as Hieronymus Bock (1498–1554) and Leon Hart Fuchs (1501–1566). Another herb garden dedicated to Conrad Gessner is situated in the former cloister of the Grossmünster respectively Carolinum.

Katz bulwark (Bollwerk zur Katz)

The Bollwerk zur Katz (German name) is besides the Bauschänzli river island the last remaining bulwark of the 17th-century city fortifications. The first structures of this bastion were built between 1648 and 1664, the final expansion took place from 1673 to 1675. The final construction stage of this centrally positioned military factory on Schanzengraben had also two casemates, two underground vaults for purposes of defense, and a cavalier on hilltop that was overlooking the area outside of the Schanzengraben moat. The cavalier was particularly a strong increased gun emplacement, which towered over the adjacent defense walls and thus enabled additional covering fire. Thanks to the altitude, a strong and large-scale defense was maintained by its powerful and therefore more far-reaching guns up to the present General-Guisan-Quai on lakeshore respectively the Sihlfeld area towards the Limmat Valley. As of 1661 originated there also, incidentally, the only access for larger carriages into the town, the so-called Sihlporte which is the name of the area west of the botanical garden at the present Schanzengraben moat. After discontinuation of defense purposes, from 1834 the upstream curtain walls were demolished, and in 1935 the hilltop bulwark was rebuilt to house the Gessner-Garten.

Cultural heritage of national importance
The garden is listed in the Swiss inventory of cultural property of national and regional significance as a Class A object of national importance.

References

External links

Buildings and structures in Zürich
Parks in Zürich
Botanical gardens in Switzerland
Cultural property of national significance in the canton of Zürich
University of Zurich
Fortifications of Zürich
Museums established in 1837
Museums in Zürich
1837 establishments in Switzerland
Buildings and structures completed in 1837
19th-century architecture in Switzerland


Christchurch City Holdings Ltd (CCHL) is a wholly owned investment arm of the Christchurch City Council. The council controlled trading organisations (CCTO) own and run some of the important infrastructure in Christchurch, such as the public transport and electricity delivery in the city.

Organisations owned by CCHL
CCHL owns or part-owns the following eight companies.

Lyttelton Port Company
The Lyttelton Port Company is the management of the main port in the South Island at Lyttelton, New Zealand. It services the city's businesses as the seaport. By June 2012, CCHL ownership had increased to 79.3%.

Christchurch International Airport

Christchurch International Airport. 75% owned by CCHL.

City Care
City Care is the City Council's infrastructure management company. They have branches throughout New Zealand and service many councils and businesses. 100% owned by CCHL. After the collapse of construction company Mainzeal, City Care hired their management team. A decision whether City Care will venture into 'vertical construction' has not yet been made. In November 2015, Christchurch City Council decided to sell City Care. After a sales process left only one offer on the table that was considered insufficient, the city council decided in August 2016 that it would keep City Care. Asset sales is one of the top issues in the 2016 Christchurch mayoral election.

Orion

Orion is an electricity distribution company, that owns and operates the network in the central Canterbury area. It covers the area between the Waimakariri and Rakaia rivers and from the Canterbury Coast to Arthur's Pass. 89.3% owned by CCHL.

Selwyn Plantation Board
Selwyn Plantation Board operates in forestry and farming. 39.32% owned by CCHL, but the company is in the process of being wound up (it is selling its assets and the proceeds will be distributed to the two shareholding council holding companies). A final payment to CCHL is expected in 2013.

Enable Networks

Enable Networks builds and runs a new fibre optic network in Christchurch. Enable Networks was first launched in 2007 with funding from CCHL and a grant from the Ministry of Economic Development. Initially launched as Christchurch City Networks Limited (CCNL), in 2009 the company re-branded as Enable Networks. The company is the Crown's partner for its Ultra-Fast Broadband initiative. 100% owned by CCHL.

Red Bus

Red Bus is one of the public passenger transport operators in Christchurch. 100% owned by CCHL. On 4 November 2020 it was announced that Red Bus's operations and assets had been sold to Ritchies Transport Holdings Ltd for an undisclosed sum with completion expected in early December.

Ecocentral Ltd
The newest company is Ecocentral Ltd, which operates council's recycling. It is 100% owned by CCHL.

See also
Christchurch
Christchurch City Council

References

External links
Christchurch City Council website
CCHL website
Orion website
City Care website
Christchurch International Airport website
Lyttelton Port Company website
Red Bus website

Companies based in Christchurch
Companies owned by municipalities of New Zealand


Wang Xueqi (; born 19 March 1946) is a Chinese film actor whose career has spanned over 25 years. He was often cast in early Fifth Generation films, such as Chen Kaige's Yellow Earth (1984) and The Big Parade (1986), Huang Jianxin's Samsara, and Zhang Yimou's Codename Cougar (1989). He has since carved out a niche in the Chinese market as a character actor.

He has recently appeared in award-winning roles in Forever Enthralled (2008) and Bodyguards and Assassins (2009)

Wang has also directed one film, Sun Bird, which the screenwriter Yang Liping also co-directed. The film won a Special Grand Prize of the Jury at the Montreal World Film Festival.

Filmography

Variety show

References

External links

Wang Xueqi at the Chinese Movie Database

|-
! colspan="3" style="background: #DAA520;" | Asian Film Awards
|-

|-
! colspan="3" style="background: #DAA520;" | Hong Kong Film Critics Society Awards
|-

1946 births
Living people
Male actors from Beijing
Film directors from Beijing
Chinese male film actors
Chinese male television actors
Best Actor Asian Film Award winners


Alan Hunt (born 28 December 1968) was an English cricketer. He was a right-handed batsman who played for Gloucestershire. He was born in Birmingham.

Hunt, who also played for Worcestershire and Gloucestershire Second XIs, made a single first-class appearance for the team, during the 1991 season, against the touring Sri Lankans. He scored 3 runs in the first innings in which he batted, and 12 runs in the second.  He is married to Ngoc Tran, who works for Phidex.

External links
Alan Hunt at Cricket Archive

1968 births
Living people
English cricketers
Gloucestershire cricketers
Cricketers from Birmingham, West Midlands


William Mirehouse (29 October 1844 – 16 June 1925) was an English cricketer. He was a right-handed batsman who played for Gloucestershire. He was born and died in Bristol.

Mierhouse made a single first-class appearance for the team, during the 1872 season, against Sussex. Mirehouse did not bat or bowl in the match.

External links
William Mirehouse at Cricket Archive

1844 births
1925 deaths
English cricketers
Gloucestershire cricketers
Cricketers from Bristol


Li Yixiang (), also known as Li Qiang (李强), is a Chinese actor. He appeared in movies such as Ji Quan Bu Ning, Crazy Lottery. In 2002, he starred as one of the two murderous con men in director Li Yang's Blind Shaft, opposite Wang Baoqiang as his naive would-be victim. Li shared the Golden Kinnaree for Best Actor at the 2004 Bangkok International Film Festival along with Wang, and fellow Blind Shaft co-star, Wang Shuangbao.

Li went on to star in Lost and Found, Ma Liwen's black comedy about a migrant worker in Beijing.

Selected filmography

References

External links
 (as Qiang Li)
Li Yixiang at the Chinese Movie Database

Chinese male film actors
Chinese male television actors
Living people
Year of birth missing (living people)
Chinese male stage actors


Alejandrina Torres (born June 18, 1939) is a Puerto Rican woman whose trial as a member and role in Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional (FALN) resulted in her conviction and sentencing of 35 years for seditious conspiracy.  Torres was linked to FALN, which claimed responsibility for 100 bombings and six deaths. Her sentence was commuted by President Bill Clinton in 1999.

Early years and personal life
Alejandrina Torres was born in San Lorenzo, Puerto Rico in 1939 and grew up in New York City. Her family emigrated to the United States when she was 11 years old. During the 1960s and 1970s, she was a leader in her community. During the time of her arrest, she was married to Rev. Jose A. Torres and was the mother of five children. Torres continued her education to better serve her community. She was a founding member and later a teacher at the Puerto Rican High School in Chicago. She help found Chicago's Betances Health Clinic. Her work and membership in the FALN were rooted in the work made by other Puerto Rican nationalists and separatists who believed in their right to fight U.S. colonialism in relation to the History of Puerto Rico with armed resistance.

Criminal activities, arrest and convictions
Torres was arrested in June 1983 at the age of 44.  The arrest in April 1980 of a dozen FALN members in Evanston led to the identification of Edwin Cortes as a suspect.  This led to the identification of a FALN safe-house, and subsequently that it was also used by Alejandrina Torres. The surveillance team was able to place cameras and listening equipment in the apartment. In the apartment, they found approximately 24 pounds of dynamite, 24 blasting caps, weapons, disguises, false identification and thousands of rounds of ammunition. The agents were able to neutralize all the ammunition and explosives in the apartment, by replacing the gunpowder with coconut charcoal. Using surveillance, investigators determined that the group planned to place bombs at a military facility on July 4, 1983. This prompted the arrest on June 29, 1983, of three FALN members: Edwin Cortes, Alberto Rodriguez, and Alejandrina Torres, and a fourth sympathizer (Jose Rodriguez).

Trial as a prisoner of war
At their trial proceedings, all of the arrested FALN members declared their status as prisoners of war, and refused, in general, to participate in the proceedings. They declared themselves to be combatants in an anti-colonial war against the United States to liberate Puerto Rico from U.S. domination and invoked prisoner of war status. They argued that the U.S. courts did not have jurisdiction to try them as criminals and petitioned for their cases to be handed over to an international court that would determine their status. The Federal court, however, did not recognize their request. During the trial, Cortes and Torres painted a picture of Puerto Rico as a bleak world where American corporations, particularly drug companies, conducted unethical experiments, such as birth control tests, on Puerto Rican women; where the American government systematically effaced a rich, proud Puerto Rican cultural heritage; and where the powerful, shadowy hand of the Wall Street capitalist dictated the country's politics and exploited its citizens and natural resources. Prosecutors countered: "There may be something heroic about someone who dies for his beliefs, but there is nothing heroic about someone who sneaks out into the dead of the night, plants bombs and then slinks back into the sanctuary of a safe house before the bomb detonates."  Judge George Layton stated, "One of the strange things about this case is that these defendants didn't accomplish any of their purpose. The didn't succeed in springing Oscar Lopez. They didn't succeed in springing anybody from Pontiac Correctional Center. And they didn't even succeed in planting the bombs. Why? Because in this case, in this court's judgement, represents one of the finest examples of preventive law enforcement that has ever come to this court's attention ... They were going to plant bombs in public buildings during a holiday."

Torres and other FALN members had been linked to more than 100 bombings or attempted bombings since 1974 in their attempt to achieve independence for Puerto Rico. Torres was sentenced by a Federal district court to 35-years of incarceration for seditious conspiracy, bomb and weapons violations (conspiracy to make destructive devices, unlawful storage of explosives, possession of an unregistered firearm), and interstate transportation of a stolen car. Cortes and Rodriguez were convicted of conspiring to rob a Chicago Transit Authority money collector.

Commutation of sentence by President Clinton

On September 10, 1999, Torres was released as one of 12 FALN members granted conditional clemency by President Clinton. All of them were required to submit a written statement renouncing the use or threatened use of violence for any purpose. Clinton cited Rev. Desmond Tutu and former President Jimmy Carter as having been influential on his decision to grant clemency to FALN prisoners. Torres was one of the eleven who accepted clemency. The other ten who accepted clemency were: Edwin Cortes, Elizam Escobar, Ricardo Jiménez, Adolfo Matos, Dylcia Noemi Pagan, Alberto Rodriguez (FALN), Alicia Rodríguez (FALN), Ida Luz Rodríguez, Luis Rosa, and Carmen Valentín Pérez.

A spokesman for the Clinton administration stated that none of the crimes for which they were convicted resulted in deaths or injuries. They pointed out that they had not been convicted of the actual bombings. Rather, they had been convicted on a variety of charges ranging from bomb making, conspiracy to armed robbery, and firearms violations. Among the other convicted Puerto Rican nationalists there were sentences of as long as 90 years in Federal prisons for offenses, that included seditious conspiracy, possession of unregistered firearms, interstate transportation of a stolen vehicle, interference with interstate commerce by violence and interstate transportation of firearms with intent to commit a crime.

President Clinton's offer of clemency to former FALN members, including Alejandrina, was strongly opposed by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in both the US House of Representatives and US Senate. In criticizing President Clinton's decision, both houses of Congress categorized the FALN members as militant terrorists, and asserted that the actions of the FALN had killed 6 persons and maimed others, including members of law enforcement. In addition, one of the jailed co-conspirators of Alejandrina, Marie Haydee Beltran Torres, the wife of FALN leader and Alejandrina's stepson, Carlos Alberto Torres, had been convicted of killing a civilian in the bombing at the Mobil Oil building in New York, hence the FALN movement included members convicted of causing deaths. While the Fraunces Tavern bombing in New York that killed five persons was linked to the FALN, no one was specifically convicted for this bombing.

Challenges of political imprisonment
The sentences given to the FALN members were judged by some to be "out of proportion to the nationalists' offenses", and almost 20 times greater than sentences for similar offenses by the American population at large.

For many years, numerous national and international organizations criticized Torres' incarceration categorizing it as political imprisonment. Cases involving the other Puerto Rican Nationalist prisoners have also been categorized by some as cases of political prisoners. The Lexington, Kentucky facility where Torres was imprisoned was sharply criticized by Amnesty International and its closure was eventually ordered by U.S. District Judge Barrington Parker.

There were reports of human rights violations against the FALN prisoners. The prisoners were placed in prisons far from their families, some were sexually assaulted by prison personnel, some were denied adequate medical attention, and others were kept in isolated underground prison cells for no reason. Amnesty International and the House of Representatives' Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Administration of Justice both criticized the conditions. The conditions were found to be in violation of the U.N. Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. A federal judge also expressed concerns regarding FALN prisoners held at the Female High Security Unit, Lexington, Kentucky. In the case of Baraldini vs. Meese, the judge found that their exceptionally restrictive conditions of detention were not in response to any legitimate security threat, and were therefore "an exaggerated response" and in violation of the prisoners' First Amendment rights.

Experience in prison
Throughout her imprisonment, Torres was plagued by health problems which were aggravated by prison staff's attacks and an indifference to her medical needs. Further, she faced physical abuse during her incarceration. It took the federal prison system six years to place her in a regular women's prison. Two of those six years were spent in the underground Women's High Security Unit at Lexington. Kentucky. Amnesty International condemned the conditions in that unit as "deliberately and gratuitously oppressive" and as causing physical and psychological deterioration.

Torres was one of four subjects housed in an experimental prison unit in Kentucky. The High Security Unit (HSU) was a kind of prison within a prison, occupying the basement of the Federal Correctional Institute. Allegations were made that the unit was an experimental underground political prison that practiced isolation and sensory deprivation. It was finally closed by a federal judge after two years of protest by religious and human rights groups. She was then moved to the federal women's prison in Danbury, Connecticut, from which she was released in September 1999.

Allegations of human rights violations
Torres was also sexually assaulted multiple times in cases involving prison personnel with the assailants never being charged. The attacks occurred in three different prisons. The first assault took place when she was locked in a men's unit, permitting the men to exhibit themselves in front of her. In a second incident, a male prison lieutenant forced her to put her head between his knees and observed while female guards tore off her clothes and left her naked. The authorities responded to Torres' complaint in this case by placing her in solitary confinement, prohibiting from calling her family and lawyer to denounce the abuses. She was further penalized for violating prison rules, and a secret letter was written to a judge assigned to her case giving a false version of the events. In the third case, female prison guards held her while a male guard inserted his fingers in her vagina and her anus during an alleged "search". The warden who ordered the search admitted later that he did not suspect Torres of having contraband, and that the search was in violation of prison rules.

References

External links
 United States v. Alejandrina Torres  United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

1939 births
Living people
People from San Lorenzo, Puerto Rico
History of Puerto Rico
Puerto Rican people convicted of seditious conspiracy
Puerto Rican nationalists
Imprisoned Puerto Rican independence activists
People convicted of illegal possession of weapons
Prisoners and detainees of the United States federal government
Recipients of American presidential clemency


"Tennessee River Run" is a song co-written and recorded by American country music artist Darryl Worley.  It was released in July 2003 as the third single from the album Have You Forgotten?.  The song reached #31 on the Billboard Hot Country Singles & Tracks chart.  The song was written by Worley and Steve Leslie.

Chart performance

References

2003 singles
2002 songs
Darryl Worley songs
Songs written by Darryl Worley
Song recordings produced by Frank Rogers (record producer)
Song recordings produced by James Stroud
DreamWorks Records singles
Music videos directed by Shaun Silva


"Grapevine Fires" is a song by American indie rock band Death Cab for Cutie, the fourth single from their sixth studio album, Narrow Stairs, released February 3, 2009 on Atlantic Records.

The single peaked at number twenty-one on the Billboard Hot Modern Rock Tracks chart, and becoming the band's sixth single on that chart. "Grapevine Fires" was featured in the NBC drama Heroes" in the episode "Ink", and also appeared on the 2009 compilation album, Change Is Now: Renewing America's Promise.

The drumbeat of the song is modeled after the "Purdie Shuffle", although drummer Jason McGerr says it is more of an emulation, as opposed to a replication, of the famous drum pattern.

Music video

The video of the song is animated and created by Walter Robot. It features a semi-literal interpretation of the lyrics by showing a wildfire and its effect on the lives of the people in the video. The band members make a cameo appearance loading a van. The visual interpretation of the song in the video leaves out the imagery of the second verse of the song.

The video was accepted into the Los Angeles Film Festival where it won the Audience Choice Award for Best Music Video.

Charts

References

2009 singles
Death Cab for Cutie songs
Songs about California
2007 songs
Atlantic Records singles
Songs written by Nick Harmer
Songs written by Jason McGerr
Songs written by Ben Gibbard


This list comprises all players who have participated in at least one league match for Cleveland City Stars since their first season in the USL in 2007. Players who were on the roster but never played a first team game are not listed; players who appeared for the team in other competitions (US Open Cup, CONCACAF Champions League, etc.) but never actually made an USL appearance are noted at the bottom of the page where appropriate.

A "†" denotes players who only appeared in a single match.

A
  Pato Aguilera
  Gerardo Alvarez

B
  Paul Ballard
  Teteh Bangura
  Joshua Boateng
  Sallieu Bundu
  Evan Bush

C
  Eric Carpenter
  Nigel Codrington
  Max Cream
  Stephen Cruickshank
  Jack Cummings

D
  John DeVae
  Glen Duerr

F
  Floyd Franks

G
  Leo Gibson
  Steve Gillespie
  Hunter Gilstrap
  Alioune Gueye
  Stéphane Guillaume

H
  John Michael Hayden
  Neil Hlavaty
  Jason Hotchkin
  Ben Hunter

J
  Randolph Jerome
  James Jaggard
  George Josten
  Ryan Junge

K
  Ibrahim Kante
  Warren Kanu
  Skelly Kellar
  Gordon Kljestan

L
  Kolby LaCrone
  Angelo Ladera
  Spencer Lappin
  Tre Lee
  Ian Leibbrandt
  Chris Lemons

M
  Kiel McClung
  Dana McGregor
  Ryan Miller
  Adam Moffat
  Brandon Moncrief

N
  Nate Norman

O
  Tomiwa Ogunsola
  Arsene Oka
  Musa Otieno

P
  Caleb Patterson-Sewell
  Anthony Peters
  Ricardo Pierre-Louis
  Derek Potteiger

R
  Eric Reed
  Stephen Rigby
  Troy Roberts
  Adam Ruud

S
  Kwame Sarkodie
  Mark Schulte
  Chris Seitz †
  Adriano Sella
  Israel Sesay
  Ryan Stewart
  Anthony Stovall

T
  Godfrey Tenoff
  Jeremy Tolleson
  Aaron Tredway

V
  Julian Valentin

W
  Austin Washington †
  Josh Westermann
  Luke Williams

Z
  Jed Zayner

Sources

Cleveland City Stars

City Stars players
Association football player non-biographical articles