"Meeting low-income housing needs militates against racially-mixed housing," Robert C. Weaver, administrator of the Housing and Home Finance Agency, said last night.

Presenting the third Godkin Lecture. Weaver stated that the conflicting objectives of integrating urban areas and building large-scale public housing have led the HHFA to seek an "optimum mix of solutions which move in direction" mutually inconsistent."

Consistent solutions are not possible in housing problems which result from prejudice, Weaver stated. "Prejudice is always irrational and illogical; logical solutions do not emerge from illogical problems."

Class conflict has substantially perpetuated this dilemma according to Weaver. He said that a plan which facilitates integration is often the least beneficial policy for securing good, low-income housing. He pointed out that it is primarily upper and middle-class Negroes who push for integration, while the lows affluent cannot afford this luxury.

Because the "possibility of non-white inundation" is less likely in upper-in-come neighborhoods, these are the most stable bi-racial areas, Weaver stated. Thus, he added, many fair housing committees concentrate only on the placement of upper-income Negroes.

The major dilemma is housing location, according to Weaver. If housing rehabilitation is undertaken in a non-white area, more low-income housing is provided but the ghetto is solidified. On the other hand, middle and upper-income groups of both races oppose public housing being constructed in their neighborhoods.

Moderate-income housing may be the heat solution, Weaver suggested. The four of inundation is not as great. Yet "housing browsing are economically alternative to whites as well as to non- whites," he said.

The "filter-down process" might he heat, as well. Since moderate-income homes are noised fairly close in what the nook are poy'ng for sub-standard housing." Weaver said Lower-income groups could move in before the housing had drastically depreciated.