upr000275 185

Your letter of April 27 submitting draft of proposed letter to the Commission requesting the 9G: cancellation of Rule It has been my thought that this matter would have to be handled under formal application rather than in the form of a letter but I assume you have given that matter consideration and are satisfied that the manner proposed will meet the require­ments of the Commission, With that assumption in mind, I have revised your draft slightly, primarily with the thought of showing sufficient facts and including sufficient arguments to warrant the Commission, if it so desires, approving this request ex parte. I have for ready inference in this letter numbered the different paragraphs of the enclosed draft. In Paragraph § I have referred to the B1 Rancho situation. It may be that you and Mr, Bracken will not desire to bring that up, but it is my understanding that they secured priorities for that development upon the representation that the houses would be available for general rental purposes for a limited period of time. If that is the case, there would seem to be no reason why we should not take advantage of it to include those houses in the general vacancy situation. I do not know the number of them and It is my recollection from observation that each house contains at least two units, so you raay desire to amplify para­graph S to show this situation. Certainly if the housing situation becomes less acute, I have no doubt that El Rancho would be glad to rent these houses to any tenants instead of using them as an adjunct to the hotel, which I believe is the real purpose of their construction. However, the inclusion of these will add a considerable number of housing accommodations to our general pool. In connection with paragraph 10 you will have to check up on my mathematics as I am not certain from the letter from Mr, Sehulman to Mr. Bracken of the goth whether the so-called units W.H.J. APR 30 1943