URBAN RENEWAL PROGRAMS-ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

In connection with the new programs and activities added to the Urban Renewal Administration workload by the Housing and Urban Development Act, we are also requesting an additional $570,000 in administrative expenses. This amount will permit us to add some 97 employees-primarily to our regional office staffs-to assist local communities and local public agencies in making the benefits of the new programs available on the community level. Briefly, the new or expanded activities which require an addition to our staff are four: (1) The new program permitting a local public agency to make grants for property rehabilitation in those cases where rehabilitation is necessary to a realistic urban renewal undertaking, and the incomes and other resources of the property owners would otherwise make substantial repairs and improvements impossible.

Mr. EVINS. How much do you envision by way of rehabilitation grants in the next year?

Mr. WEAVER. I will have to check that.

Mr. EVINS. This is a new program established by the 1965 act. Mr. WEAVER. $3.6 million worth of rehabilitation. This involves some 3,000 grants.

Mr. EVINS. Proceed with your statement.

Mr. WEAVER. (2) The provision of the new section 116, authorizing two-thirds grants to assist local action to demolish unsafe or unsuitable structures outside urban renewal areas, where the local agency has such authority and all other available legal processes have been exhausted and where certain other conditions are met; the other conditions being primarily that this is not a scattered thing but done on a planned neighborhood basis.

PURPOSE OF DEMOLITION GRANT PROGRAM

Mr. EVINS. Is this outside an urban renewal area? Is this for getting rid of an unsightly structure outside an urban renewal area? Mr. WEAVER. No.

I think the purpose behind this is, briefly, the fact that as we are increasingly encouraging and facilitating code enforcement, you do get pockets of bad housing where you will get some buildings that have been abandoned, or have been forced out of occupancy, and where they are not able under their local resources or what have you to get that torn down. That becomes an eyesore and a cancer.

Mr. EVINS. Outside the urban renewal area?

Mr. WEAVER. Yes.

The reason for this is, if you have had housing outside the urban renewal area, and this is the nucleus around which deterioration starts, you are some time going to have another urban renewal area, and if you hit it earlier, you can prevent it from becoming an urban blight. Mr. EVINS. How much do you envision by way of appropriations for this project for next year?

Mr. SLAYTON. No separate amount-this comes out of capital grant funds.

Mr. WEAVER. This would be out of the funds we have already asked for. All of this comes out of funds already asked for.

Mr. EVINS. The number of grants, applications and reservations? Mr. WEAVER. We set that forth in G-7. What we are asking for is not money for these appropriations

ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL REQUESTED

Mr. EvINS. You are asking for $570,000 for administrative expenses. Mr. Slayton is very experienced and qualified. He has an expert staff that is well qualified and very efficient. We gave you the full budget estimate in the regular bill. You were given 108 new jobs.

Why do you have to have more money and staff, nearly 100 more employees, to do this job?

Mr. WEAVER. We have these four brandnew programs which we have not done before, which involve different types of activities, additional activities, and which are not a part of the usual activity.

Mr. EVINS. How about these people you have now and the new jobs you got in the regular bill?

Mr. WEAVER. These people carry out these programs in addition. These programs have to be explained. We have to get out interpretations, we have to operate them, review them, we have to see that the legislative requirements are met in them, and we have to work with. the local authorities to carry them out, and we need additional people to do it.

Mr. JONAS. You are doing exactly that on your urban renewal program?

Mr. WEAVER. We are not doing these things.

Mr. JONAS. You have a house outside an urban renewal project. I do not see why it would take a lot of people to develop regulations to give the owner some money to tear it down.

Mr. WEAVER. This is exactly what we do not want to do. We want to be sure insofar as this program is involved, first, this is not money they could provide themselves out of their own resources.

Second, we want to be sure that this is a part of a program, and not just a helter-skelter hit-and-miss type of thing.

Third, we want to be sure they have exhausted their local legal requirements so they are not going to get in trouble with our money.

ESTIMATED VOLUME OF DEMOLITION PROGRAM

Mr. EVINS. We still need to know how much money you are going to need for demolition in your urban renewal program. How much money do you plan on spending?

Mr. WEAVER. We do not need any money. All of this comes out of the money that we have already asked for.

What we are asking for here is additional personnel to carry out these programs. We are not asking for additional funds to carry out

these programs.

Mr. JONAS. How much are you going to earmark for demolition work?

Mr. SLAYTON. No specific funds will be earmarked. We have an estimate of what we expect in applications. That is set forth on G-7; about $5.8 million for demolition grants.

Mr. JONAS. It took a long time to get that figure in the record.
Mr. EVINS. Proceed with your statement, Doctor.

Mr. WEAVER. Continuing with some of the new types of urban renewal workload we have

(3) The new authority for code enforcement projects outside urban renewal areas, which is expected to stimulate local action to prevent further deterioration of blighted areas; and

(4) The greatly expanded utilization of the Agency's workable program concept and the substantial amendments to requirements for relocation of displacees in decent, safe, and sanitary housing.

Mr. EVINS. You are going to have grants for demolition and enforcement of codes?

NEW WORKABLE PROGRAM REQUIREMENT

Mr. WEAVER. Also, the new law requires a much more detailed finding in relation to the project's conformity with the workable program than before, so the workable program will become a more complicated tool than we have had before and we will have to have certification that each project is in conformity with a workable program as a planning tool, which has not been true before.

Mr. JONAS. This is not a new activity. You have been doing this right along. You may require a little more paperwork.

Mr. WEAVER. No, sir; we will require more than that. We will do more fieldwork as well.

Mr. JONAS. You have had relocation costs before.

Mr. WEAVER. I am not talking about relocation cost. I am talking about the planning requirements in the new law which are somewhat ambiguous, but require that we make a determination that each project is in accordance with the workable program.

Mr. JONAS. You have to do that before you approve an urban renewal project?

Mr. WEAVER. No, sir. Before this, a workable program was not a planning tool primarily. It was a set of conditions that were required before a city would be eligible for urban renewal, or public housing. Mr. JONAS. You are not telling us you have not been requiring a workable plan?

Mr. WEAVER. I am saying that the workable program was a set of requirements that were set forth as a precedent to urban renewal. Now, the workable program—let me read the language:

No loan or grant contract may be entered into by the Administrator for an urban renewal project unless he determines that (1) the workable program for community improvement presented by the locality pursuant to subsection (e) is of sufficient scope and content to furnish a basis for evaluation of the need for an urban renewal project; and (2) such project is in accord with the program. This is an entirely new concept.

Mr. JONAS. That is a change from before?

Mr. WEAVER. Yes. Before the workable program was a set of conditions that the local community had to meet. They had to have a certain type of citizen participation. They had to have a relocation program. There were seven elements in it

Mr. EVINS. Zoning?

Mr. WEAVER. Zoning, yes.

The law now says not only is that required, but we have to review the project and make sure that the workable program provides a planning tool for the project and that the project is consistent with the planning requirements in the workable program.

Mr. JONAS. You have been requiring that right along.

Mr. WEAVER. No, sir. This is a brandnew requirement. If it were not a brandnew requirement, they would not have put it in the law. Mr. JONAS. I say they have added a few little requirements.

Mr. WEAVER. It is more than a little requirement.

Mr. JONAS. Mr. Slayton testified before this subcommittee not more than 30 days ago, and we knew it all the time, that the first step is for his office to approve a workable program.

Mr. WEAVER. His office does not approve a workable program. My office does.

Mr. EVINS. Should not the communities have some consideration in what they want to do?

Mr. WEAVER. They make up the workable program. This is put in the law. This requires additional activity, and quite a lot of additional activity on our part. If it has to be carried out, we have to have bodies. Mr. EVINS. Most of the 97 employees will be in the field? Mr. WEAVER. Most of them in the field; yes, sir.

Mr. EVINS. These people contact the cities and municipalities? Mr. WEAVER. Most of them will be field staff, as I said before. They will be going out in the field.

WORKABLE PROGRAM REQUIREMENT UNDER PREVIOUS LAW

Mr. JONAS. May I read, since you read your new law, the old law? Mr. WEAVER. Yes.

Mr. JONAS. So persons reading this record can compare the two and see if I was correct when I said you have been requiring a workable program.

Mr. WEAVER. I have agreed with that.

Mr. JONAS. You have not. You said you did not require one.

Mr. WEAVER. I did not. I said we did require a workable program. Mr. JONAS. This is in the law before this amendment that you are now talking about:

No contract shall be entered into *** unless there is presented to the Administrator by the locality a workable program for community improvement (which shall include an official plan of action, as it exists from time to time, for effectively dealing with the problem of urban slums and blight within the community and for the establishment and preservation of a well-planned community with well-organized residential neighborhoods of decent homes and suitable living environment for adequate family life)

Mr. WEAVER. Yes. That is quite different from the new language. That refers to the overall approach. This refers to a project-byproject approach. Let me read it again:

No loan or grant project may be entered into by the Administrator for an urban renewal project unless he determines that (1) the workable program for community improvement presented by the locality pursuant to subsection (c) is of sufficient scope and content to furnish a basis for evaluation of the need for the urban renewal project * *

There is no reference to the urban renewal project in the old law. That is a program requirement, a total requirement. This is a project requirement

* and (2) that such project is in accord with the program.

Mr. JONAS. I contend that the law before this amendment required a workable plan to be presented by the community, and it had to have your approval.

Mr. WEAVER. Let me read what the House committee said in this connection:

To meet the requirements of this provision of the bill that the workable program provide sufficient information for the Housing Administrator to evaluate a particular proposed project, it is the committee's understanding that the workable program should *

And so on.

At present, application for an individual urban renewal project must carry sufficient evidence showing blight. **

And so on.

The proposed amendment would require the Administrator to relate this data to the workable program to insure that it is consistent with and will contribute to the community's overall effort to renew and maintain its physical environment.

RELATION OF WORKABLE PROGRAM TO RENT SUPPLEMENTS

Mr. EVINS. Is it planned that the rent supplement program will tie into the community workable program, or will the city request this, or authorize this, or will you as the Administrator say in effect we are going to put in rent supplement projects in this area whether it is in the community plan or not?

Mr. WEAVER. No. The choice as to whether or not the rent supplement program will go into an area will be primarily made by the sponsors, like any other FHA project. They will come in to us. will not take the initiative.

We

Mr. EvINS. Will the community have anything to say as to when the program rent supplement will come in?

Mr. WEAVER. The community will probably be required under a workable program to have some relocation facilities. And the rent supplement may be one of the tools.

Mr. EVINS. So private enterprise will come in and build something, maybe not in line with the community workable program?

Mr. WEAVER. Private enterprise might come in and build something not in line with the workable program all through the FHA existing program. If a man decides to build an apartment house, or if he decides to build a new subdivision within a city, the workable program has nothing to do with that. This is the same sort of thing. Where you have a private developer coming in, he is not controlled by the workable program unless he is in an urban renewal area. He is controlled by his own conditions, by the local provisions of zoning, building requirements, and so forth.

Mr. EVINS. Your program now envisions activities outside the urban renewal area?

Mr. WEAVER. It always has.