Hon. JOHN. J. SPARKMAN, UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF MAYORS, Chairman, Committee on Banking and Currency, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Enclosed please find a statement by Mayor Walter J. Kelliher, Malden, Massachusetts. I respectfully request this material be inIcluded in the record of hearing on S. 3029, the "Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968." This is a very clear statement demonstrating the need for adequate Urban Renewal funding to maintain an adequate balance in housing and other neighborhood development programs. I urge you to give Mayor Kelliher's statement full consideration. ROBERT G. WALTER, Assistant Executive Director. STATEMENT OF MAYOR WALTER J. KELLIHER OF MALDEN, MASS. The fierce competition of the cities of the country for a share of the federal program dollar has intensified greatly as a result of the general underfunding made necessary by the Viet Nam war. As a consequence, some feeling has developed for total suspension of some programs so as to provide more funding for others. A case in point is that line of thinking in favor of dropping urban renewal for the "duration" and putting all of that money into critically needed housing. A look at the record, however, should clearly indicate that to follow this line of reasoning would be to turn the clock back twenty years. I like to think of our original concept of "slum clearance" and "public housing" as having undergone a process of evolution that has brought it over a twentyyear period to the total social and physical rehabilitation concept of the Model Cities Program. In its initial form, the Housing Act authorized the acquisition of land in a substandard area for the single purpose of building a housing project, a lowrent housing project. The Act permitted the acquisition of sufficient land to build the housing and nothing more. All of the environmental influences in the immediate vicinity of the project were ignored and remained untreated. The result was this deteriorating influence impacted on the new project, and we soon found we had substituted a new slum for an old. To correct this, then, in 1949 urban renewal was devised to treat and improve the environmental factors so that we could now widen and renew the mean. narrow streets, plan better municipal services, generate green areas for recreation thereby afford the housing a reasonable chance for success. Again, from bitter experience, we learned that we were not solving the problems of many of the people of the area. We were merely moving the people themselves, many of them to a marginal area outside the project area, and this marginal area soon became substandard, blighted and a candidate for urban renewal treatment. So finally, in model cities, we have come to the point of not confining ourselves to the physical area at all but rather of looking inside the substandard dwellings to find and correct the problems that brought the tenants to the point of living under such conditions. It should be noted that Model Cities still leans heavily on the area or neighborhood approach of urban renewal. In our 58,000 population City of Malden, therefore, we have created housing to be sure. We have presently 250 units of Veterans' Housing, 250 units of lowrent housing, 365 units of low-rent elderly housing, 80 units of moderate income housing for elderly, 226 units of moderate income housing for people of all ages in being, and 108 more buildings. We have all of this, but in addition, and using urban renewal as a vehicle we have brought in new industry to strengthen our tax base and to provide jobs in a community where our median income was low and our median age was high. We have enlarged our capacity as a city to build new streets and playgrounds without unduly straining our economy. We have used concentrated code enforcement programs to check deterioration and decay in marginal areas. Finally, in a few short years, we have taken a community that was headed for deep, serious trouble and brightened its prospects to the point, where although the city's problems are far from solved, the promise of solution and the pattern of solution is plain to be seen. That pattern is, of course, a blending and mix of federal programs with the basic ingredient being the new legal tool of urban renewal, the ability to acquire sections of a project area or neighborhood by eminent domain for the "purpose of redevelopment in accordance with a plan for the area, said plan being calculated to fit into the general plan for the entire community and being calculated to enhance the weifare and well-being of the entire community." CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, March 25, 1968. Hon. JOHN SPARKMAN, New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. MY DEAR SENATOR SPARKMAN: Senator Mondale, of Minnesota, has introduced four bills-S 3128, S 3129, S 3130, S 3131. All of these bills go to the subject of providing interim assistance to blighted areas prior to major urban renewal projects being undertaken. Although this particular legislation has been introduced at the suggestion of Mayor Daly of Chicago, the City of Philadelphia has long advocated interim assistance to blighted areas in order that early visible results can be obtained which will raise the confidence of the residents of obligated areas that a major effort will be undertaken to improve their environment. I would appreciate it if your Committee would give consideration to this legislation in dealing with the housing legislation now before you. With all good wishes and kindest regards, I remain Sincerely yours, JAMES H. J. TATE, Mayor. STATEMENT OF ROY B. MARTIN, JR., MAYOR OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK, VA., AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS As the Mayor of Norfolk, Virginia's largest city, I am personally deeply involved in the problems confronting American cities today. I have had the privilege of serving as Mayor since 1962, and I have been a member of our City Council since 1953. Norfolk has a proud history as a community which has pioneered in rebuilding to meet the evolving needs of a 20th century city. As the first city in the nation under the Housing Act of 1949 to get under way with a federally aided redevelopment project and one of the first to have new public housing built under that Act, we have had a continuing program for eliminating slums, combating blight and providing homes for families of low income. As new tools become available, we have fit them into our programs. In November 1967, we were named to be one of the first round Model Cities. It is with this personal background that I speak today. The Executive Committee of the U.S. Conference of Mayors in January 1968, approved the attached Policy Statement on Community Development. This Policy Statement anticipated much of the substance of the Administration Bill which we most emphatically support. We are tremendously pleased and encouraged by the President's ten-year program for housing and community development as presented in his Message on Housing and the Cities. The President has set an ambitious housing goal. He has, through the legislation now before you, initiated a program designed to see the construction of 26 million new homes and apartments over the next ten years. Six million of these are to replace the existing sub-standard housing in which over 20 million Americans currently live. We believe this to be a desirable. necessary and achievable goal. But it is a goal which will require the full support of the private sector, the builders, the bankers, the realtors, the insurance companies, in short the entire building indusdtry. It will also require the constant and cooperative efforts of the federal government, as well as state and local governments-all of which are devoted to the cause of better housing for all of our families. The President's goal for the coming fiscal year is 300,000 houses and apartments for low and moderate income families. This means that we must construct three times as much of this housing as we did last year. This means that in one year we must construct half as much housing for this part of our population as we have built in the past ten years. To reach this goal we must take advantage of every possible source of available land. Let me speak to this problem for a moment. In my city we are using-and plan to expand-neighborhood conservation, code enforcement, and rehabilitation programs but, clearly, to achieve the scale of additional housing urgently needed today, we must rely on programs which will produce new construction for low income families. Here city officials face a dilemma. Where do we find the sites on which to build the needed housing? Most of us are faced with fixed boundaries and a rapidly vanishing supply of open land suitable for housing sites. In this situation we must be wary of policies which unrealistically restrict the use of proper sites. Right here, let me state that I do not wish to participate in the divisive and unreal debate over gilding versus breaking up the ghetto. That is not the issue. The issue is simply this: How do we provide decent housing opportunities for low income families now trapped in slums and blighted areas? The Model Cities philosophy of expanding opportunities in the poverty pockets did not-so far as I am aware-envisage the wide scale relocation of Model City residents In my community, land is our scarcest commodity. We must make the best use of all available programs designed to remove the scourge of blight and to provide sound neighborhoods available to all-including our lowest income groups. Slums are not always high density areas. One of our primary Model City neighborhoods tho badly blighted-represents an extremely extravagant use of land. By judiciously combining the moving of the few structures worthy of preservation, redesigning the present inefficient street pattern, clearance, and the staging of construction, this area can be converted to an attractive residential neighborhood-properly housing many hundreds more of our citizens than are now so meanly sheltered there. To reach our goal of 300,000 units next year, we will all have to act with dispatch, streamline administrative review procedures, and begin building at the earliest possible moment-in short, focus on the production of the housing that is needed now. To meet the President's goal this year will mean that the funds necessary to underwrite and support the new home ownership program, the rent supplement program, the new rental housing program, should be appropriated before the end of this June. Just as important and equally immediate in terms of need is the authorization of additional funds for urban renewal, and for the Model Cities Program, both of which will have to be used extensively to produce the sites desperately needed for new housing. I would also like to make it clear at this point that the Mayors feel very strongly that the programs set forth and the funds necessary to implement them as requested by the Administration in this legislation are absolutely minimal. We cannot begin to meet the first year's commitment without fully funding these programs as the President has requested. URBAN RENEWAL The neighborhood development program as advanced by the Administration represents a major innovation in our approach to renewal. It promises to be a useful new tool and one which we are happy to welcome. I want to emphasize that it is no substitute for the existing programs. For those cities which can utilize it, the new program should provide additional flexibility and make it possible for many cities to expand immediately their range of program activities to include a substantially larger number of the areas in need of remedial action. It means, again in those cities which can use this new approach, that a much larger share of dollar resources already committed to the program can be put to immediate use. Finally, the law ought to be clarified so that planning funds will be made available to undertake the necessary preparatory work to set the stage of action. As I am sure all the members of the Subcommittee know, the existing backlog of renewal project applications is in excess of $2 billion. This amount dramatically demonstrates the need for a vastly increased authorization to permit the program to operate at its maximum effectiveness. The Conference of Mayors, therefore, urges that the authorization for fiscal year of 1969 be increased by one billion dollars and for fiscal 1970, the increase be $2,000,000,000 from the $1.4 billion in the bill. Also, I would like to take this opportunity to specifically endorse on behalf of the Conference of Mayors and the city of Norfolk, Congressman Annunzio's bill, H.R. 15834, which would provide for grant funds to demolish dilapidated and dangerous non-residence structures, garages, out buildings, sheds, etc., that may be harborages for rodents. REHABILITATION There is unquestionably a need to achieve a much, much higher level of effective rehabilitation activity in our older neighborhoods. This bill provides some long needed incentives and program changes which ought to do much to facilitate our efforts to improve existing housing. Increasing the section 115 grants from $1500 to $2500 is certainly a needed change. Also taking the limit off the number of units a local redevelopment agency can undertake to rehabilitate as well as extending the rehabilitation loan program through 1973 should contribute substantially toward expanding rehabilitation activity. MODEL CITIES The city of Norfolk is one of the 63 which originally qualified for planning grants under the Model Cities Program. We are proud of this designation and are determined to make the program work effectively in our community. As might be expected, there has been much public discussion of the program in the city. We have had widespread expression of support for the program from civic leaders. Great expectations are developing in the target neighborhoods. This is something that happens in the normal course of events. It happens because we govern in the open. We cannot and should not plan in secret. The community is and must be deeply involved in programs of this sort. The Model Cities Program in effect constitutes a promise a commitment-to improve conditions in the model neighborhoods. We need to improve and strengthen services and facilities in these areas at the earliest possible moment-to give substance to our promises to our commitment-and in order to do that, the Congress must act affirmatively and as soon as possible to make the needed funds available. At this point in my testimony, Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce for the record the statement approved by the United States Conference of Mayors' Executive Committee last January on the Model Cities Program. URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION Let me emphasize how important the urban mass transit program is to residents of our cities, particularly among the poverty groups. Community development, if it is to be meaningful for all of our people, must make provision for the transportation of people from their homes to their jobs, to shopping, to hospitals, and to other needed services and facilities. We need to expand markedly our present efforts to improve local transportation systems. One problem cities have encountered in trying to utilize the mass transit program has been the application of "net project cost" as it relates to the financing of the locality's share. Under existing law, "net project cost" is so defined as to eliminate the possible use of available resources of transit operators as part of the local share. All matching funds must come solely from public sources. Most cities haven't the resources to provide the one-third or one-half matching funds. They are bonded to their limit, taxed to their limit and generally close to being broke. The amendment we propose, language for which is attached-which was included in the Senate Committee approved bill S. 2700 of last year-alters the definition of net project cost, but does not eliminate it. It would make it possible for transit operators to provide 50 percent of the required local share from three Sources: (1) undistributed cash surpluses, (2) replacement or depreciation funds or reserves available in cash, or (3) new capital. The funds may not be provided from current revenues. Where a city can demonstrate that it is fiscally unable to provide even 50 percent of the local share, provision is made that the transit operator may provide the entire local share. In any case the source of the transit operator's share must come from the three sources listed above. This amendment has been worked out with the cooperation of local governments, transit operators and labor unions. NATIONAL INSURANCE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ACT OF 1968 Insurance amendment The inner city insurance problem is serious and needs the kind of positive action proposed by the Administration bill. Residents of blighted areas who cannot insure their property against damage by fire, crime and related dangers are denied one of the basic economic protections in our free enterprise system. Beyond that, the lack of insurance coverage contributes to the deterioration of the slum. A national program to improve the availability of insurance protection is unquestionably needed now. We strongly urge enactment of this amendment. In closing, let me refer to the latest Census Bureau report on housing vacancies. On March 22, 1968, the Bureau reported another drop in the rental housing vacancy rate and confirmed what local housing officials have known for some time. The rental housing vacancy rate is now at a ten-year low and the pinch is most keenly felt by our low income families. The need for new construction to meet the backlog of housing needs for this segment of our community is critical and such construction must be on a very large scale. The President has said that America's cities are in crisis. We dare not temporize. The Conference of Mayors urges the Congress to approve the programs it has endorsed and the funding levels necessary to make new and existing programs meaningful in today's context. If we do not act promptly and vigorously, our urban crisis will become an urban catastrophe. Hon. JOHN SPARKMAN, U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS, Chairman, Subcommittee on Housing and Urban Affairs, Committee on Banking and Currency, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR SPARKMAN: Enclosed is a Statement on behalf of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights concerning S. 3029, the "Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968." We would appreciate your including this Statement in the record of the hearings the Committee has been holding on the bill. We are convinced that the bill would represent the most significant effort this government ever has made toward meeting the housing needs of low- and moderate-income families. We also believe the bill can have a significant impact in determining the quality of life in our cities and metropolitan areas. We hope that this Statement will be of help to the Committee in its deliberations. Sincerely yours, WILLIAM L. TAYLOR. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM L. TAYLOR, STAFF DIRECTOR, U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am William L. Taylor, Staff Director of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. I appreciate the oppor tunity to present a statement on the proposed Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968. We are convinced that the bill would represent the most significant effort this government ever has made toward meeting the housing needs of low- and moderate-income families. We also believe that the bill has profound implications for the future of the country, not only in terms of increasing substantially the Nation's housing supply, but also in terms of determining the quality of life in our cities and metropolitan areas. Mr. Chairman, in all that has been said about the disorders of recent years. we should not overlook one basic factor-that we are developing a society in which the affluent and the impoverished, the white and the nonwhite, live in isolation from one another. We are developing a society where it is possible, as the Commission learned at its Cleveland hearing, for a Negro child raised in the heart of a large city to reach adolescence without ever having known a white person of his own age. In short, we are developing a society that is rapidly being divided into opposite camps, hostile and mistrustful of each other. If these trends are to be reversed, it must involve action on every front-in education, housing, employment, health and welfare, the administration of justice-action spurred by a sense of urgency growing out of the recognition |