President Johnson's proposed solutions for city housing problems drew mixed reactions from authorities here yesterday.

Criticizing Johnson's proposal to give rent subsidies to "moderate" income families, Edward C. Banfield, Henry Lee Shattuck Professor of Urban Government, said "people who are competent to make choices should not be told how to spend their money." He added that an inadequate income does not necessarily indicate an inability to spend more money wisely.

Banfield emphasized, however, that he is "all for income transfers to the poor." Although he agrees that specifying how "incompetents" should use their money is a problem, he stressed the fact that for people who are competent, monetary decisions should not be transferred from the individual to the state.

Banfield has no sympathy for Johnson's plan for a system of rent subsidies to help the building industry. "The building industry can damn well help itself," he said.

Edward Logue, director of the Boston Redevelopment Authority, voiced other criticisms of Johnson's suggestions. Logue evaluates the limited funds proposed for urban renewal as "very disappointing." "If this amount is approved by Congress, it will mean a slowdown in all our renewal programs," he said.

Logue is, however, "very pleased," with the new emphasis on rehabilitation programs and rent subsidies for "moderate" income families. He noted that the BRA is already experimenting with such subsidies in Washington Park as "a federal pilot project." If the President's proposal is approved, the subsidy system will be extended to other parts of the city. Logue suggested that first priority for subsidies be given to families who have been displaced by urban renewal or highway construction.

The creation of a Cabinet department of housing and urban affairs is "long overdue," Logue added. "It's the difference between junior varsity and varsity," he said.