The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
Monfhlu Review Atlanta, Georgia October • 1959 Also in this issue: COTTON'S COMEBACK DISTRICT BUSINESS HIGHLIGHTS [SIXTH DISTRICT STATISTICS SIXTH DISTRICT INDEXES Sfaferaf Ifeem IBankcf jS fa n ta Renewing Sixth District Cities W . /ee h a v e b e e n hearing the term “urban renewal” more and more fre quently in recent years. Such increasing use of a term gives the impres sion that something new and different must be happening, and some thing new and different certainly is taking place. Urban renewal itself is not new, however, for the faces of cities have changed strikingly over the years as old buildings have been remodeled or demolished and replaced by modern structures, sometimes with an entirely different use. It is, in fact, a rare city these days whose down town area is not changing as businessmen see the opportunity for more profitable use of scarce land. It is the sort of thing one can expect in a dynamic, vigorous economic area. The term urban renewal, as now used, has come to have a special meaning: It refers to those projects undertaken with Federal aid to clear slums on a broad scale and to prevent the spread of blight in urban areas. As a result of growing concern over slums and a desire to encourage cities to deal effectively with the slum problem, a national program has developed. The first comprehensive legislation in this pro gram was the Housing Act of 1949, which organized and amplified the piecemeal legislation of the past dealing with slum clearance. Subse quent studies emphasized the need for a broader approach to the prob lem of slums, recognizing that efforts should be made, not only to clear slum areas, but to rehabilitate areas where feasible and to prevent the spread of slums to other areas. The Housing Act of 1954 had as its objective the encouragement of this broader approach. To help further the cause, the Federal Government will pay two-thirds of the cost of projects undertaken by cities to clear and redevelop slum areas or to re habilitate deteriorating areas. To receive this aid, certain conditions must be met. The city must have a plan of community development; it must analyze its needs for specific projects; it must be able to carry out its responsibility in con nection with such projects; and it must be able to deal effectively with problems of developing a project area and relocating people displaced. The community must, as the Federal legislation puts it, have a “work able program” which will insure not only that slums will be eliminated, but that they will be prevented from developing in the future. Two assumptions underlie the Federal legislation to encourage urban renewal: (1) that the cost of clearing slum land and preparing it for development is greater than the land’s resale value, (2) that large-scale redevelopment of urban areas is not possible without the use of the powers of eminent domain to assemble a large enough tract of land whose use can be planned and developed efficiently. The Federal Government will share the cost of slum clearance and resale of land, but, once this has been accomplished, the urban renewal legislation looks to private enterprises for redevelopment. Local governments, how ever, must be able to assemble the necessary land. Their ability to do this through the use of the power of eminent domain has depended upon the enactment of special enabling legislation by the various states, From slum a re a to cleared land to subsequent redevelopment with highervalue uses—this sequence of events illustrated by these pictures typifies the projects being undertaken in the Sixth Federal Reserve District by cities participating in the Federal Government's urban renew al program. The picture on the left shows how the a rea surrounding Tennessee's State Capitol, the prominent building on the hill, looked before Nashville undertook its first urban renew al project, known a s the Capitol Hill Project. The center picture shows how the sam e a re a looked after the first since urban renewal involves using such power to buy land from private individuals to resell to other individuals. Thus, a new method of serving a public purpose has evolved. From the legal point of view, one lawyer has observed, urban renewal represents a new term applied to the old conflict between public welfare and private property rights. take urban renewal projects. Mississippi has such legis lation but it was only passed in April 1958, and it takes time to initiate the projects. By the time the Mississippi act was passed, Federal funds available for new projects were running low. Since early this year, no Federal funds have been available to start new projects, and projects which may have been in the minds of Mississippians, therefore, have had to wait for new Federal-aid authority. New opportunities are available now, however, for the housing legislation signed into law in late September provides additional funds for urban renewal projects. 53 Cities—77 Projects The great interest in the urban renewal program in the Sixth District is evident when we consider that on June 30 of this year 53 towns and cities in the area were actively participating in the Federal-aid program of urban renewal. That it is not just a “big-city” program is also apparent when we consider that projects are underway in cities ranging from less than 5,000 people to the largest District cities with populations in excess of 500,000. Even the number of cities does not tell the whole story for many have more than one project: The total number of projects involved at mid-year was 77. As one would ex pect, they are in various stages of completion. Twentyeight projects are in the planning stage, and 44 have ac tually been started, with the cities actively engaged in buy ing and clearing land, improving the cleared sites, and reselling parcels to private concerns. The remaining five projects have been completed, at least to the extent that cleared land has been sold and is awaiting redevelopment by its new owners. Three of the five—Florence and Auburn, Alabama, and Waverly, Tennessee—have finished redeveloping their project areas for residential use. As the accompanying map shows, all the projects in the Sixth Federal Reserve District are in cities in Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee. Alabama and Georgia each has 19 cities with a total of 29 projects, and the Sixth District portion of Tennessee—the eastern two-thirds— includes 15 cities with 19 projects underway. Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi participation in the urban re newal program is conspicuous by its absence, as is also apparent from the map. Both Florida and Louisiana lack the special state enabling legislation necessary to under Location and Number of Urban Renewal Projects Sixth District ALABAMA Decatur Auburn Bessemer Birmingham Cullman Demopolis Dothan Fairfield Elba Eufaula Florence Gadsden Huntsville Linden Mobile Montgomery Phenix City Sheffield Tuscumbia GEORGIA Cartersville Columbus Cordele Douglas Dublin East Point Lithonia Macon Manchester Marietta Moultrie Nashville Savannah Valdosta Waynesboro Americus Atlanta Augusta Bainbridge TENNESSEE Cookeville Athens Chattanooga Clarksville Gallatin Johnson City Knoxville Lebanon Shelbyville Morristown Springfield Murfreesboro Tullahoma Nashville Waverly phase, land clearance, had been completed. The final phase, redevelop ment, is illustrated by the picture on the right, w hich show s a new motel under construction, and beyond the motel, a modern high-rise apartm ent is being built. Photos by N a sh ville Housing A uth o rity Ambitious Projects—High Cost The size of some of the projects being undertaken in the Sixth District is impressive, whether viewed in terms of dollar cost or area involved. As the table shows, the gross cost of all projects is estimated at about $178 million. If the total were averaged among the 53 cities, the cost per city for its self-improvement effort would be about $3.4 million. The range is great, however, with some smaller cities undertaking single projects costing less than $100,000, while other cities have several multi-milliondollar projects, as is apparent from the ten largest projects also listed in the table. Nashville, which has been in the forefront among District cities engaged in urban renewal, expects to start soon on the District’s largest single proj ect, estimated to cost nearly $27 million. One project al ready completed in that city cost a total of nearly $12 million. Chattanooga’s single project, in which land clear ance is well underway, will cost nearly $21 million. Atlanta has five projects, not yet having reached the stage of land purchase, which will cost a total of over $42 million. Those who assume all the large projects are accounted for by large cities will be surprised to see among the ten largest projects one costing nearly $6 million in Shelbyville, Tennessee, whose population at the time of the 1950 census was about 10,000. Consider now that most of the urban renewal projects involve the acquisition and clearance of slum land for subsequent resale to private concerns for redevelopment in accordance with re-uses permitted by a city’s pre-conceived plan. The total cost of doing this and, in addition, making desirable street improvements and providing util ities, schools, and public recreation areas, in all cases greatly exceeds the amount received by reselling that part pt the land designed for private development. For projects in the District, this excess is shown in the table as net project cost. The amount can be considered as the net public expenditure necessary to provide the project area with required public facilities and to enable the local government to offer cleared land to private developers. It is perhaps safe to assume that no private concerns would be willing to incur the loss involved in this process. At least, none has offered to do so in this District. In fact, the cities by themselves have been unable to assume such costs in spite of pressing needs for self-improvement in all cases. By helping with these costs, the Federal-aid program, however, has made it feasible for the 53 District cities to carry out their renewal programs. Insofar as the figures in the table prove to be the actual costs incurred in carrying out the projects, the Federal contribution, amounting to two-thirds of the net cost, will enable these District cities to complete improvement projects costing $178 million by investing time, effort, land, and money worth only about $41 million. Even this cost to District cities can be considered an investment that will yield returns in the form of higher taxes. After all, when slum dwellings are replaced by multi-unit apartments or commercial and industrial estab lishments or when blight is eliminated through rehabili tation of existing buildings, a higher tax base can be ex pected. Estimated figures provided for 26 of the 77 projects in this District indicate the tax base will be in creased about sevenfold when the land involved has been redeveloped. A rule of thumb used in assessing the feasibility of urban renewal projects is that a city should be able to recover its cost through increased tax receipts in about ten years. Many expect to do much better than this; Atlanta expects to recover its cost in about seven years. With the Federal Government standing ready to pay two-thirds of the net cost and many cities forecasting a quick recovery of their one-third, it may seem strange that more cities have not joined the urban renewal parade. Lack of frequently needed legal authority enabling cities to acquire property through condemnation procedure for resale to private developers, we have seen, has been the reason why no projects are underway in Florida and Louisiana. Some cities simply may not have a real need for urban renewal projects. Where there is a need, it must be balanced against the cost to the city, even though the city pays only one-third of the total. Decisions! Decisions! Even after cities make the major decision to undertake an urban renewal program, other decisions are required, based on a balancing of needs and costs. Areas needing clearance and redevelopment are usually so extensive that it becomes a matter of selecting for attention a more limSixth District's Ten Largest Urban Renewal Projects Ten Largest Projects Project Cost ($000's) Net Gross N ashville, Tenn. (E astside A rea) . 26,950 20,270 Chattanooga, Tenn................................. 20,879 15,737 A tlanta, G a. (Butler Street) . . . 12,351 6,681 N ashville, Tenn. (C apitol H ill) . . 11,728 7,811 A tlanta, G a. (University Center) . 11,094 8,488 A tlanta, G a. (Raw son-W ashington) , 8,571 4,083 Shelbyville, Tenn..................................... 5,956 4,791 Knoxville, Tenn....................................... 5,899 3,941 A tlanta, G a. (T hom asville) . . . 5,404 4,328 A tlanta, G a. (R ock dale) . . . . 4,737 3,476 S u b - T o t a l......................................... 113,569 79,606 64,832 41,868 178,401 121,474 • 3 • Number of Acres 2,052.0 340.1 227.5 72.0 350.5 33.8 161.8 97.2 266.7 255.4 3,857.0 2,207.8 6,064.8 ited area in which conditions are particularly bad and for which the city is able to pay the cost. Even within a project so selected, a city must choose between demolition and rehabilitation of old buildings as the best way to stretch their urban renewal dollars. Atlanta, for example, has changed an earlier plan for its Butler Street project, located just east of the central business district, to include a larger area by leaving buildings in several blocks that had been scheduled for partial clearance. Surrounding land, it was reasoned, was in greater need of attention. Also, scheduled redevelopment for higher uses is expected to enhance the value of the by-passed land, and, through natural economic pressures, bring about its redevelop ment. Nashville will use rehabilitation extensively to con serve basically sound structures in its eastside project. Each city then sets the limit on its urban renewal effort after balancing the need and value of re-uses of land against the city’s share of the cost. Some small towns have found urban renewal programs impractical despite the availability of generous Federal aid. In one such case in Tennessee, a proposed project was turned down because of what appeared to be an insurmountable problem of temporarily relocating people that would be displaced by land clearance. The social disruption and costs involved did not, in the judgment of the city authorities, justify the potential benefits. In still other cases, some smaller cities find it difficult to sell the land cleared, an obstacle which illustrates that successful redevelopment ultimately de pends upon there being a demand to use cleared land to better advantage. As desirable as slum clearance might be, the absence of such demand would mean an urban renewal project would not be a feasible undertaking. Much Careful Planning Because of the importance of determining the economic feasibility of urban renewal projects, cities with large projects usually study very carefully the most efficient ways to re-use cleared land and whether or not there is likely to be a strong demand for the re-uses proposed. The Chattanooga Housing Authority, for example, en gaged private economic consultants to study the re-use and marketability of land in its Westside Urban Renewal Project. Basing its analysis on Chattanooga’s general eco nomic growth in the past, its potential economic develop ment, and the probable demand for the specific land uses planned for the project in relation to the supply, the con sultants recommended that certain sites within the project be used for garden-type and high-rise apartments with supporting neighborhood shopping facilities, schools, and recreational areas; other sites would be developed for light industrial and wholesaling uses; still others were to be developed for central business district uses. The project allows for a great diversity of future land use, therefore, with suitable buffers between areas of dif ferent uses designed to prevent future blight. A freeway through the project area, for example, will serve as a buffer between a residential section and a section zoned for light industry and central business district uses. Care ful coordination of the planning for the urban renewal project and for the freeway has been beneficial to the de velopment of both, giving the Chattanooga project its most unique aspect. To enhance the usefulness of a hilly section in the area, the hills are literally being cut down to provide a level plateau for residential development. As a result, usable land on one hilltop will be increased from the present 12 acres to an estimated 35 acres. In all, about seven million cubic yards of Chattanooga’s westside hilltops will be removed at no cost to the urban renewal project in order to provide the fill required for the freeway. New Uses As cities eliminate slum areas and adapt land to a higher value use, a change in the relative importance of broad types of land use will occur. This is suggested by the chart, which shows the relative importance of types of land use before and after redevelopment. Generally, residential uses will give way to industrial, commercial, and public uses. Land Use in Urban Renewal Projects, Sixth District Percent of Total Project Acreage Residential In^jstriTl Commercial Public The general picture, however, conceals many striking changes in land use that will take place as a result of urban renewal projects in the Sixth Federal Reserve Dis trict. In Birmingham, for example, the existing Medical Center will be enlarged by building additional hospitals and related buildings in an adjacent area, 82 percent of which previously contained residential slums. A somewhat similar hospital project is underway in Florence, Ala bama. In Fairfield, Alabama, on the other hand, 84 per cent of the project area will be used to provide much needed space for light industry, whereas 63 percent of the area now contains slums. Such aspects of urban renewal, however, will obscure the most significant results of the projects being under taken in the Sixth District. These results will become apparent gradually and will be realized fully only when the slums being eliminated have been replaced by spar kling new single family houses, modern garden-type or high-rise apartments, or by well designed commercial and industrial establishments, or by public parks and buildings. P h i l i p M. W e b s t e r Bank Announcement On September 9, the Bank of Monterey, Tennessee , began to remit at par for checks drawn on it when re ceived from the Federal Reserve Bank. Officers are: W. T. Ray, Chairman of the Board; William Eugene Morgan, President; J. R. Bower, Vice President; Wil liam B. Uffelman, Cashier; and Jack Ray and Mozelle Stevens, Assistant Cashiers. Capital stock amounts to $60,000 and surplus and undivided profits to $174,693. •4 • Cotton’s Comeback Cotton growers in District states emphatically expressed their faith in their favorite crop this year by stepping up their planted acreage 44 percent in the region over that last year. To date yields exceed those a year ago despite adverse weather earlier. Given good weather for harvest ing, farmers should gather a total crop at least 61 percent larger than that last year. Cotton’s comeback in 1959 and the beneficial economic impact from it will be cheered in many local communities. Why the Comeback? Topping the list of reasons why farmers increased their cotton crop this year was the close-out of the national Soil Bank’s acreage reserve. The Soil Bank had attracted heavy deposits of cotton land from farmers in 1958. In Georgia half of the 900,000 allotted acres were deposited. With the acreage reserve ending in 1958, farmers chose to seed cotton on most of their previously banked acres. Meanwhile, special provisions covering price support for cotton in 1959 enabled farmers to further increase their acreage. By these provisions farmers could plant up to 40 percent more than their cotton allotment if they ac cepted price support at 65 percent of cotton’s parity price. Few farmers in District states, however, elected to do that. Farmers chose to grow cotton on their previously banked acres largely because few other crops looked as promising to them. For one thing, pricing and marketing arrangements favored cotton over alternative crops; for another, farmers had the capital items and credit base required for growing cotton. They also could expect fairly high yields, especially since the land on many farms had been rested or even rehabilitated. Similar considera tions moved the few farmers who accepted the special provisions for planting cotton on more acres than they were allotted. Cotton output also is resurging because the cotton land is yielding well this year. Although wet weather in May and June was a hindrance, the weather improved during early summer with beneficial effects for cotton growers. Farmers also controlled boll weevils effectively and they have fertilized their crop heavily. The tonnage of mixed fertilizers and materials sold for all crops in District states from July 1958 to July 1959 rose about 12 percent over the preceding year. True, farmers used more fertilizer because they increased their plantings, but they did so for other reasons as well. Many of them had higher incomes in 1958 and could afford to spend more; at the same time, they found prices for plant nutrients favorable—the cost per pound was actually down somewhat from costs in early 1958. Taken together, these events insured record or near record yields for many cotton growers. According to crop estimates by the United States Department of Agriculture, average yields are greater than those last year in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee. Yields in Georgia are down only slightly. Where Concentrated? The major economic impact from heavier cotton plantings and output in the District centers in Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi. Many acres were planted to cotton in those states and output this year is sharply above that in 1958. In Alabama, 1959 output is indicated at 725,000 bales, up 65 percent from the 439,000-bale output last year. Meanwhile the price support for cotton, although lowered somewhat for the 1959 crop, still enables growers to realize larger returns for their crop than they other wise might. Large harvests of cotton are bound to stimulate eco nomic activity in District states, especially in Mississippi. Receipts from cotton are important in Mississippi’s farm economy. In 1956, such receipts accounted for 51 percent of all cash receipts from farm marketings there, and 71 percent of receipts from crops. Because cotton land was put in the Soil Bank in 1957, the proportions declined to 34 and 62 percent, respectively, and probably even fur ther in 1958. This year cotton in Mississippi will retake the position it held earlier. Estimated Cotton Production by Areas in Four District States, 1959 State and Geographic Area Total Indicated (thirds of states)_________ 1958__________1959 bates Mississippi............ 960,970 North ............. 485,840 M iddle............ 427,795 South ............. 47,335 Alabama ............. 439,000 North ............. 237,000 M iddle............ 122,000 South ............. 80,000 Louisiana ............. 297,000 North ............. 196,500 M iddle............ 78,800 South ............. 21,700 G eorgia................ 352,000 North .............. 49,400 M iddle............ 150,800 South .............. 151,800 S o u rce : Percent Change 1959 from 1958 bales 1,600,000 765,000 730,000 105,000 725,000 406,000 174,000 145,000 490,000 319,000 145,000 26,000 575,000 106,400 259,900 208,700 + 66 + 57 + 71 +122 + 65 + 71 + 43 + 81 + 65 + 62 + 84 + 20 + 63 +115 + 72 + 37 State cotton crop releases, Sept. 1,1959, Crop Reporting Service, USDA. Although farmers are growing more cotton in each District state, not all areas will share equally in the heavier yield and increased receipts. In relative terms, the gain in Alabama is greatest in the southern third of the state; output there jumped from 80,000 bales in 1958 to 145,000 bales in 1959, or 81 percent. Yet with about half of the Alabama crop grown in the northern third of the state, the 169,000-bale-increase forecast for that area will be much more significant. In Mississippi the relative gain was greatest in the southern third of the state, which lies within the Sixth District, but output there is over shadowed by that in the delta area in mid- and north Mississippi; in Georgia the middle third of the state shows the largest increase in acreage and output. With farmers in these places assured larger gross re ceipts this year, a pertinent question arises: How will •5 • they spend them? Farmers will give a modest portion— roughly a tenth—to their wage hands and other labor. They also will repay their short-term debts incurred for buying operating supplies in 1959. But the big leverage in their disbursements will appear among items needed for strengthening farm businesses. Wherever cotton is im portant this year, therefore, merchants may experience increased sales of farm equipment, durable household items, and automobiles and trucks. ening demand for their goods. Then too, mill output abroad could rise and lift foreign demand for our cotton. Probable heavier subsidization of our cotton exports this year could induce mills abroad to take more cotton from us. Finally, innovation and product development for cotton cloth may enable the cotton trade to recover some sales lost to cotton’s close substitutes. A r t h u r H. K a n t n e r Comeback Temporary? Debits to Individual Demand Deposit Accounts Whether the recovery of cotton in the District farm econ omy is solidly based and whether it will persist are diffi cult questions that cannot be answered at this time. By looking at some facts one can conclude that the resurgence simply heralds a future slump. Nationally, the cotton carry-over stands at 8.9 million bales—slightly greater than a year ago. With a 14.7-million-bale crop possible this year and an estimated disappearance of 14.5 million bales the carry-over could rise another notch by mid-1960. Meanwhile cotton consumption per capita remains de pressed. Finally, although price supports are lower than previously, they still hold domestic prices for cotton above world prices. Our cotton exports suffered from this in the recent past and for the marketing year just ended reached the discouragingly low total of 2.8 million bales, a drop reflecting to a great extent uncertainty as to the United States’ price policy for cotton exports. We had shipped 5.6 million bales in 1957-58 when exports were heavily subsidized. When we look at other evidence, however, we see some signs that cotton may be able to hold its ground. Most importantly, domestic consumption of cotton has moved sharply higher as cotton mills experienced strengthDepartment Store Sales and Inventories* Percent Change Place ALABAMA ................... Birmingham . . . . M obile........................ Montgomery . . . . FLORIDA........................ Daytona Beach . . . Jacksonville . . . . Miami Area . . . . M ia m i................... Orlando ................... St.Ptrsbg-TampaArea . GEORGIA........................ A tlanta**.................... Augusta ................... Columbus................... M acon ........................ Rome** .................... Savannah ................... LOUISIANA................... Baton Rouge . . . . New Orleans . . . . MISSISSIPPI . . . . Jackson........................ Meridian** . . . . TENNESSEE .................... Bristol-KingsportJohnson City** . . Bristol (Tenn.&Va.)** Chattanooga . . . . Knoxville.................... DISTRICT .................... Sales Aug. 1959 from 8 Months July Aug. 1959 from 1959 1958 1958 +12 +2 —3 +1 —2 + 112i + +8 + 13 —3 +68 +5 +5 +9 +4 +17 + 20 + 11 ++182 +11 +5 +18 +10 +19 +1Z +2 +62 +9 +9 +5 + 19 +2 +3 +8 —6 —3 +6 —5 +5 —1 +6 +5 +5 +0 +3 + 13 +3 +& + 10 +3 +7 +4 + 12 —7 —13 +4 +6 +6 +6 +3 +5 +5 +13 +9 +20 +8 Inventories Aug. 31,1959 from July 31 Aug. 31 1959 1958 +11 + 11 +4 +17 +8 —1 +8 +12 +6 +12 +19 +5 +5 +14 —2 +4 + 19 —1 +5 +3 +6 +10 +10 +7 +8 +4 +1 +9 +9 +8 +2 —2 +8 + 12 + 12 +39 +20 +24 +8 +7 +5 +10 +6 +5 +7 +9 +9 +5 +7 +5 +10 + 12 +6 +13 +14 +8 +3 —10 +7 +7 +2i +13 ♦Reporting stores account for over 90 percent of total District department store sales. **In order to permit publication of figures for this city, a special sample has been constructed that is not confined exclusively to department stores. Figures for nondepartment stores, however, are not used in computing the District percent changes. (In Thousands of Dollars) Percent Change Year-to-date 8 Months Aug. 1959 from 1959 July Aug. from Aug. 1959 1958 1958 1958 Aug. July 1959 1959 ALABAMA Anniston . . 41,674 45,728 36,825 Birmingham 717,287 875,180 687,919 Dothan . . 31,585 32,280 28,170 Gadsden . . 35,073 40,183 33,379 Huntsville* . 60,402 61,418 53,874 Mobile . . 270,686 283,841 232,070 Montgomery . 158,590 172,451 151,473 Selma* . . 23,091 23,636 20,108 Tuscaloosa* 51,412 54,592 45,548 Total Reporting Cities 1,389,800 1,589,309 1,289,366 Other Citiest . . 695,879 752,798 665,009 FLORIDA Daytona Beach* 57,797 67,198 54,909 Fort Lauderdale* 178,304 211,851 162,301 Gainesville* . . 36,455 39,682 33,084 Jacksonville 744,780 800,767 645,971 Key West* . . 13,476 16,211 13,020 Lakeland* . . 70,351 76,154 62,250 Miami . . . 781,864 906,210 681,630 Greater Miami* 1,155,679 1,352,908 1,029,491 Orlando . . . 230,415 256,297 178,162 Pensacola . . 87,912 98,451 77,664 St. Petersburg . 199,602 245,894 160,715 Tampa . . . 394,404 428,901 328,438 West Palm Beach* 114,369 134,%7 107,715 Total Reporting Cities 3,283,544 3,729,281 2,853,720 Other Citiest . . . 1,414,475 1,624,007 1,252,984 GEORGIA Albany . . Included in "Other Cities" Athens* . . 35,709 40,730 34,225 Atlanta . . 1,990,180 2,052,331 1,719,567 Augusta . . 108,032 109,678 117,415 Brunswick . 25,759 27,006 19,582 Columbus 103,166 109,155 92,786 Elberton . . 9,258 9,073 9,152 Gainesville* 48,058 49,898 49,705 Griffin* . . 18,266 18,855 16,429 LaGrange* 19,119 20,818 17,786 Macon . . 117,597 124,417 105,483 Marietta* 31,711 31,746 26,022 Newnan . . 19,959 18,732 15,211 Rome* . . 42,619 45,640 36,370 Savannah 188,436 206,954 168,067 Valdosta . . . 48,451 41,464 41,429 Total Reporting Cities 2,806,320 2,906,497 2,469,229 Other Citiest 929,532 989,773 867,065 LOUISIANA Alexandria* . 72,780 74,671 64,663 Baton Rouge 263,%6 274,908 225,371 Lafayette* . 61,270 67,883 59,112 Lake Charles 84,359 88,379 80,914 New Orleans 1,302,882 l,391,667r 1,167,113 Total Reporting Cities 1,785,257 l,897,508r 1,597,173 Other Citiest 565,190 575,946 503,342 MISSISSIPPI Biloxi-Gulfport 49,498 51,563 40,524 Hattiesburg . 35,857 38,537 31,140 Jackson . . 278,015 295,947 254,718 Laurel* . . 28,451 28,796 23,888 Meridian . . 42,914 46,286 40,434 Natchez* 23,053 22,831 20,224 Vicksburg . . 18,214 19,946 17,399 Total Reporting Cities 476,002 503,906 428,327 Other Citiest . 253,426 261,577 223,392 TENNESSEE Bristol* . . 43,713 46,159 40,287 Chattanooga 332,198 362,906 277,416 Johnson City* 41,311 43,553 36,677 Kingsport* . 82,713 89,649 72,086 Knoxville . . 217,203 246,300 201,759 Nashville . . 705,552 717,699 649,558 Total Reporting Cities 1,422,690 1,506,266 1,277,783 Other Citiest . 561,986 564,478 511,282 TOTAL SIXTH DISTRICT 15,584,101 16,901,346 13,938,672 Reporting Cities 11,163,613 12,132,767 9,915,598 Other Citiest . 4,420,488 4,768,579 4,023,074 Total, 32 Cities 9,585,870 10,367,568 8,476,930 UNITEO STATES 344 Cities . 208,131,000 235,645,000 185,849,000 t Estimated. r Revised. —9 —18 —2 —13 —2 —5 —8 —2 “ 6 —13 —8 + 13 +4 + 12 +5 +12 + 17 +5 + 15 + 13 +8 +5 ■—14 — 16 —8 —7 —17 —8 —14 —15 —10 —11 —19 —8 — 15 —12 — 13 +5 + 10 + 10 + 15 +4 + 13 + 15 + 12 + 29 + 13 + 24 + 20 +6 + 15 + 13 — 12 —3 —2 —5 “ 5 +2 —4 —3 —8 —5 —0 +7 —7 —9 +17 —3 —6 +4 + 16 —8 +32 + 11 +1 —3 + 11 +7 + 11 + 22 + 31 +17 + 12 +17 +14 +7 —3 —4 —10 —5 —-6 —6 —2 +13 +17 +4 +4 + 12 +12 +12 —4 —7 —6 —1 —7 +1 —9 —6 —3 + 22 + 15 +9 +19 +6 + 14 +5 + 11 + 13 —5 —8 —5 - 8 —12 —2 —6 —0 +9 +20 + 13 + 15 +8 +9 +11 +10 +H +18 —8 _8 —7 •—8 + 12 +13 +10 +13 +15 +1J +14 +17 +14 + 12 +18 +22 +12 +19 +11 +13 +14 +17 +9 +!1 +13 + JI +10 + H +16 +15 +28 + i? +21 +20 +15 +15 +8 +10 +?6 + 1? +2 +22 +J! +16 +15 +K +17 +16 +7 +15 +15 +?2 +,1? +J +8 +17 +2 it -—12 +12 I Bank Debit Series. Sixth District Indexes Seasonally Adjusted (1947-49 = 100) 1958 SIXTH DISTRICT JULY Nonfarm Employment................................. 134 Manufacturing Employment...................... 117 Appare!....................................................... 170 Chemicals..................................................130 Fabricated M e t a ls ..................................178 Food.............................................................I l l Lbr., Wood Prod., Fur. & Fix. . . . 75 Paper & Allied P ro d u c ts...................... 154 Primary M e t a ls ....................................... 89 Textiles....................................................... 85 Transportation Equipment...................... 208 Manufacturing Payrolls................................. 199 Cotton Consumption**................................. 81 Electric Power Production**...................... 312 Petrol. Prod, in Coastal Louisiana & Mississippi**...................... 170 Construction C o n tra c ts*............................ 427 Residential..................................................377 All O t h e r ..................................................468 Farm Cash Receipts.......................................134 Crops.............................................................90 Live sto ck ..................................................184 Dept. Store S a le s*/**................................. 175 A tla n ta....................................................... 168 Baton R o u g e .............................................185 Birmingham.............................................128 Chattanooga.............................................159 Jackson....................................................... I l l Jacksonville .............................................127 K n o x v ille ..................................................139 M a c o n ....................................... . . 164 M ia m i....................................................... 269 New O rle a n s.............................................141 Tampa-St. Petersburg............................207 Dept. Store Stocks*....................................... 193 Furniture Store S a l e s * / * * ...................... 140 Member Bank D e p o sits*............................ 170 Member Bank L o a n s * ..................................278 Bank D ebits*.................................................. 240 Turnover of Demand Deposits* . . . . 148 In Leading C itie s....................................... 165 Outside Leading C it ie s ............................ 110 ALABAMA Nonfarm Employment............................118 Manufacturing Employment . . . . 104 Manufacturing Payrolls............................175 Furniture Store S a l e s ............................ l29r Member Bank Deposits............................ 150 Member Bank Loans..................................235 Farm Cash Receipts..................................143 Bank D e b it s .............................................210 FLORIDA Nonfarm Employment............................ 186 Manufacturing Employment . . . . 183 Manufacturing Payrolls............................ 309 Furniture Store S a l e s ............................ 155 Member Bank Deposits............................ 225 Member Bank Loans..................................449 Farm Cash Receipts................................. 214 Bank D e b it s .............................................360 GEORGIA Nonfarm Employment............................ 128 Manufacturing Employment . . . . 114 Manufacturing Payrolls............................ 193 Furniture Store S a l e s ............................ 131r Member Bank Deposits............................ 146 Member Bank Loans..................................213 Farm Cash Receipts..................................129 , Bank D e b it s .............................................219 LOUISIANA Nonfarm Employment............................ 127 Manufacturing Employment . . . . 94 Manufacturing Payrolls............................ 164 Furniture Store S a le s * ............................ 178r Member Bank D e p o s its *.......................153 Member Bank L o a n s * ............................ 264 Farm Cash Receipts..................................143 Bank D e b its*.............................................209 MISSISSIPPI Nonfarm Employment............................ 127 Manufacturing Employment . . . . 127 Manufacturing Payrolls............................ 235 Furniture Store S a le s * ............................ 101 Member Bank D e p o s its * .......................184 Member Bank L o a n s * ............................ 367 Farm Cash Receipts..................................138 _ Bm Ic D e b its*....................................... 207 TENNESSEE Nonfarm Employment............................ 119 Manufacturing Employment . . . . 113 Manufacturing Payrolls............................ 187 Furniture Store S a le s * ............................ 300r Member Bank D e p o s its *.......................156 Member Bank L o a n s * ............................ 243 Farm Cash Receipts..................................114 Bank Debits* . . . . . . . . . 201 1959 AUG. SEPT. OCT. NOV. DEC. JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY JUNE JULY AUG. 135 117 168 130 181 110 76 156 88 85 221 136 117 167 127 182 112 79 159 89 86 220 136 118 169 127 179 113 80 159 94 137 119 170 128 178 136 118 172 129 179 138 121 174 133 179 115 78 161 95 88 200 209 93 341 138 121 176 135 180 115 79 161 98 87 207 214 94 340 139 123 182 135 182 114 79 163 103 88 207 219 89 357 139r 123 185r 135 181 139 79 160 92 86 217 205 84 330 137 120 174 132 178 114 80 161 92 87 205 206 92 346 139 80 159 90 137 119 173 132 182 113 79 160 91 86 213 204 91 351 80 165 79 163 72 88 216 216 94 n.a. 192 336 364 314 141 128 162 174 164 195 136 162 124 143 161 161 242 145 207 200 161 181 298 265 144 153 114 193 445 382 496 134 113 164 168 161 180 127 154 116 141 154 155 248 139 203 198 154 178 303 270 153 162 121 189 463 394 520 142 105 185 167 155 171 127 148 104 136 147 143 251 130 198 453 398 499 150 127 183 175 169 190 135 148 206 397 429 370 151 131 181 182 161 187 135 164 130 151 170 263 142 230 201 157 178 311 272 145 164 121 120 121 200 85r 313 200 89 311 86 213 204 87 316 190 364 433 308 190 333 375 298 123 99 216 170 161 214 129 163 126 136 155 158 230 144 214 207 152 180 291 243 139 146 187 393 421 371 104 82 185 167 158 179 133 150 107 129 151 147 250 140 209 198 145 175 282 257 146 161 116 118 104 177 144r 154 233 130 208 118 104 175 138 152 234 97 231 104 182 136 153 239 106 221 186 185 313 175r 233 456 206 342 188 187 320 171 233 457 212 384 129 114 195 157r 154 212 127 95 168 169r 157 273 109 201 127 129 246 123 192 352 100 201 119 114 193 109r 159 250 112 202 86 203 199 87 314 176 397 413 384 136 118 182 185r 183 192r 148r 158r 124 136 r 156 183 285 147 221r 192 151r 176 281 230 147 165 113 157 212 112 112 84 217 165 154 180 131 154 111 135 146 153 258 144 209 202 145 175 285 250 142 149 105 102 120 112 201 309 367 262 130 92 211 176 162 204 138 156 124 142 163 158 256 148 212 205 148 179 292 273 150 161 121 221 195 141 179 305 271 149 160 118 111 112 122 179 135 181 113 80 163 100 88 210 215 92 346 206 411 433 393 151 112 102 89r 213 224 110 359 135 153 166 269 144 251 192 186 174 192 127 161 114 139 148 168 277 151 245 207 417 425 410 151 n.a. n.a. 190r 178 179r 136 168 124 138 164 167 301 155 244r 153 182 316 259 158 174 126 148 183 321 276 152 174 117 158 181 329 281 162 179 124 121 200 112 202 212 122 120 185 136 176 112 222 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. I96p 188 I90p 145 164 131p 221 165 177 312 156p 263p 2l6p 159p 183 330 257 154 174 115 105 182 147 155 248 126 233 106 185 154 154 254 123 232 107 189 125 154 250 147 231 107 193 145 156 254 148 235 121 107 190 135 157 259 132 227 121 216 120 105 179 131 155 242 111 232 106 195 134 160 266 162 249 109 198 139r 160 275 164 250 188 187 326 153 235 463 162 388 188 186 322 170 241 477 147 357 187 186 316 167 241 477 162 403 188 188 318 176 242 485 281 370 189 190 326 184 238 492 232 378 191 193 319 163 235 500 182 383 193 195 343 183 233 511 230 379 195 195 351 176 241 526 227 387 197 198 351 175 243 534 236 420 199 202r 364r 178 238 544 239 424 130 116 191 147 155 219 158 236 130 115 190 151 154 223 104 224 130 116 130 116 131 116 197 143 157 237 142 238 131 117 204 134 157 235 169 242 132 118 206 151 157 244 150 247 132 119 134 148 160 246 158 235 132 119 215 139 159 250 140 252 219 160 r 157 256 178 260 133 119 219 166p 162 260 n.a. 237 128 96 167 181 155 265 72 235 128 96 165 166 152 268 99 215 129 95 173 174 160 287 128 96 178 177 160 293 123 230 128 96 179 191 165 295 159 218 128 96 175 177 165 295 146 241 127 % 176r 193r 160 302 142 234r 126 95 178 167p 160 299 n.a. 224 130 130 247 221 211 131 133 248 107 198 363 129 214 132 134 247 194 359 59 130 132 247 80 197 359 99 191 391 139 209 131 133 247 132 195 398 163 240 131 134 r 252r 115 197 403 145 234 131 134 251 129 194 400 n.a. 225 120 120 120 122 123 122r 121 122 101 115 192 103 158 247 77 217 *For Sixth District area only. Other totals for entire six states. Daily average basis. 120 116 187 103 159 251 114 220 104 186 136 158 246 101 120 141 158 226 124 218 153 158 227 153 243 131 115 195 149 159 230 143 236 128 98 129 97 169 1% 159 274 109 230 129 96 173 171 163 284 103 210 216 128 96 175 203 165 293 130 227 130 132 245 133 195 369 132 131 247 114 197 361 93 217 131 131 246 106 190 367 85 210 131 131 251 97 198 378 146 226 130 132 250 114 195 383 129 226 120 117 202 121 118 204 114 160 267 107 243 122 123 119 208 114 201 172 197 156 277 114 199 116 187 112 161 251 114 213 n.a. Not Available. 200 122 233 120 116 1% 113 162 256 100 235 111 165 262 98 230 p Preliminary. 112 119 205 109 159 268 119 232 162 272 109 231 211 120 119 206 116 166 276 95 228 120 206 116 164 283 113 238 120 211r 105r 165 287 87 242 117 99 173 143 160 269 n.a. 222 199 202 371 194p 246 548 n.a. 391 119 215 122p 165 287 n.a. 224 r Revised. Sources: Nonfarm and mfg. emp. and payrolls, state depts. of labor; cotton consumption, U. S. Bureau Census; construction contracts, F. W. Dodge Corp.; petrol, prod., U. S. Bureau of Mines; elec. power prod., Fed. Power Comm. Other indexes based on data collected by this Bank. All indexes calculated by this Bank. •7 • S I X T H D Mfg. Payrolls M f q £m ploym *nt I S T R I C T B U S I N E S S H I G H L I G H T S T h e r is e in e c o n o m ic a c tiv ity w a s te m p e r e d in A u g u s t. N o n fa rm e m p lo y m e n t d id n o t rise a b o v e J u ly le v e ls, re fle c tin g b o th th e steel s tr ik e a n d little c h a n g e o r slig h t d e c lin e s in m o s t ty p e s o f em ploy m e n t. M a n u f a c tu r in g p a y ro lls d e c lin e d s u b s ta n tia lly . F a r m em ploy m e n t a n d in c o m e ro se , h o w e v e r, as h a r v e s tin g o f la r g e c r o p s began. C o n s u m e r b o rro w in g a n d s p e n d in g c o n tin u e d to r is e a s d id m em ber b a n k d e p o s its a n d lo a n s; b o rro w in g s f ro m th e F e d e r a l R e s e rv e B ank o f A tla n ta a lso in c re a s e d . E lt c tn c C onstruction | Contracts -montti * 10* * 40*9 Farm C ash R a ca ip ts Dtpt. Stora * Sto c k * RATtQ TO WCQUtRED RESERVES Nonfarm employment, seasonally adjusted, was virtually unchanged in August, principally because of losses in employment in Alabama due to the steel strike, but also because seasonally adjusted employment either did not rise further, as in Florida, Mississippi, and Tennessee, or declined, as in Geor gia and Louisiana. Most of the major types of maufacturing employment showed little change or slight declines in August. Manufacturing payrolls decreased substantially, mainly because of strike losses in Alabama. The rate of insured unemployment declined less than usual. Construction contract awards, expressed as a three-month moving aver age centered on July, showed further improvement as a result of gains in awards for nonresidential construction. Residential aw ards were off slightly, but, on the whole, have held at a high volume recently. Cotton con sumption, a measure of cotton textile activity, dropped in August, following a sharp rise in the preceding month. Crude oil production in Coastal Louis iana and Mississippi rose sharply, largely as a result of efforts to make up for allowable production lost in May because of a tropical storm. As the harvest season gained headway, farm employment increased about seasonally in all District states except Florida. Harvesting operations were favored by the weather. Total farm output exceeded levels a year earlier; prices received by farmers, however, averaged slightly less, largely because hogs, broilers, citrus, corn, and cotton brought lower prices. Demand de posits, seasonally adjusted, at banks in agricultural areas rose slightly in August with gains registered in all states except Alabama and Louisiana. Retail sales, seasonally adjusted, increased slightly in July, and seasonally adjusted automotive sales were virtually unchanged. Department store sales set another new record in August as gains occurred in practically every major metropolitan area, and preliminary data indicate that September sales de clined. Furniture store sales increased in August everywhere except Lo u isia n a . International trade through District ports reversed its recent trends in July. Imports registered contraseasonal declines and exports began to in crease; the Mobile Customs District was the only exception to these move ments. The dollar volume of spending by check dropped in August, as bank debits declined sharply in every District state. Consumer instalment credit outstanding rose in August, as slight gains occurred at both retail outlets and financial institutions, with increases in out standings of all forms at commercial banks. Member bank loans, seasonally adjusted, increased less in August than July, as gains in Georgia and Florida were partly offset by declines in Ala bama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Tennessee. A further rise in September is suggested by an increase reported in that month by member banks in major District cities. Deposits also increased enough in August at Georgia and Florida member banks to yield a small seasonally adjusted increase for the Dis trict. Modest disposal of bank investments continued. By September, interest rates had risen sharply on all sizes of short-term business loans at A tla n ta and New Orleans banks, and borrowings from the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta rose slightly to a record high. I
@FedFRASER