Mr. GARBER. Then you say the reason they decided on parking here was that the buildings were going to be elevated. Would you say there is any substantial difference in cost between putting parking underneath the building or merely elevating it on pilings?

Mr. DOYLE. It would be more expensive to put the parking in because just elevated on piers, you do not have to construct a concrete floor and do not have to light it and do other things. But certainly, if it has to be elevated, it would be a place that you might develop and you would not want to store materials there that might be flooded, but you could store automobiles there. It is not much use to defend this too much. The Planning Commission was insisting on it and I think they did it in terms of the appearance of the waterfront, but also taking into account that this would be a fairly economical way to get parking out of sight and off the street.

Mr. GARBER. Now do you know of any other part of the urban renewal program in the District of Columbia where there is any similar parking requirement placed upon a developer that he supply space for parking that is open to the public, generally?

Mr. DOYLE. Yes; I think that there is in effect because providing so much parking on both sides would mean the developer would have to go underground probably after the fact because there is now pending before the District of Columbia Commissioners the revised plan for project area C which would affect Towne Center and that plan requires that 80 percent of the parking be out of sight which means either in the structure, well designed above ground, or in a structure below ground. The alternative I think would have to be huge parking compounds. You would have a building and a parking compound and then another building if you did not utilize space under the buildings.

Mr. GARBER. But who in Towne Center will control the parking? Does not the developer control it?

Mr. DOYLE. Yes.

Mr. GARBER. If the help on the Hill wants to find a place to park can they go down there and park all day and take over the parking space?

Mr. DOYLE. There is a tendency to do that now, on the surface. They almost have to engage a full-time, unofficial policeman to see that does not happen.

Mr. GARBER. But is not it true that there is a substantial difference between that and the way the parking arrangement is presently planned?

Mr. DOYLE. Well, I think there is no doubt about it. It would have been much more attractive to the priority holders, in the days of the Municipal Fish Wharf which was an addition to the publicowned building which was leased to them a fairly substantial area where people parked as I remember rather informally. You just parked there. The issue here was whether you would permit people to park on the surface and buy this rather expensive land to provide the parking because as a matter of economics, after you get to a certain price land, it is cheaper to do it in a structure anyway.

Mr. GARBER. Well, now, again going back to the matter of appraisals, have you had any residual land-use appraisals made any place in connection with urban renewal programing and land disposition? Mr. DOYLE. Well, we have not had residuals. I think, though, it has gotten to the point with financing of residential development that

it does tend, because of the high cost of construction and the limitation on the rent you can get, to come to a residual because you take into account how much it is going to cost to construct the units that your income would be and the overage represents the value of the land. However, in having this land appraised, I think our appraisers approached it in very much the same way. They took into account the probable cost of constructing the facilities, the probable volume of business and the income and under those circumstances what a priority holder could afford to pay in rent.

I suppose it did leave open to debate the question of whether they had estimated properly the cost of providing the facility.

Mr. GARBER. Have you indicated to your appraisers working on the waterfront whether or not he would like to have a residual appraisal made in reference to the use of those facilities by displaced businesses?

Mr. DOYLE. No; we did not put it in terms of their giving us a residual appraisal. We gave it to them as a straight appraisal assignment to tell us what the fair market value of this land was for the several uses permitted by the plan and they, of course, took into account whether the plan permitted a one- or two-story building and I think they also took into account some views of theirs on what would be a superior location over other locations.

Mr. GARBER. These appraisals will be available you say, in 2 weeks?

Mr. DOYLE. I hope so.

Mr. GARBER. What is the plan of the agency from that point when it receives these appraisals?

Mr. DOYLE. The plan is to study the report and then decide whether or not the prices originally established should be adhered to or whether the prices should be adjusted. If they are adjusted, then all of the 21 would be notified so that if some who said they did not want to before now want to go ahead because of the adjusted price, they will have an opportunity to do so and then as promptly as possible, to get to public hearings on the lease of land to the priority holders.

Mr. GARBER. How did the maximum price established for waterfront land, that is the values, compare with other locations in urban renewal areas in the District of Columbia?

Mr. DOYLE. Well, they were higher I suppose than a good many of the sites used for other purposes in the Southwest. They were lower than some of the prices established. This was the only place we had this particular appraisal power, of course.

Mr. GARBER. Granted you have in this package problems that you do not have in any other, but places where they did not have these limitations which would make the property more valuable, what were your maximum prices that you had set or had recommended by appraisers as of the date this price was set, approximately?

Mr. DOYLE. I would have to look at the record and get a compilation of it, but prices in the Southwest ranged from $30 approximately, per foot, for certain land, down to maybe $1 a foot for certain land that was used for residential purposes.

Mr. GARBER. When you mention $30 a foot, was that the portal site?

Mr. DOYLE. No, the site up on the plaza. I think one of those sites was $29, opposite the plaza on 10th Street just south of Independence.

Mr. GARBER. What was the portal site?

Mr. DOYLE. Offers were solicited on that a $30. That has been held up because of the thing we talked about earlier this morning. Mr. GARBER. Do you have a firm agreement for a purchaser at $30 a foot?

Mr. DOYLE. We have a proposal that was an architectural competition conducted several years ago and it was after that competition that we found we could not get title to the land and ultimately led to our requesting the joint resolution which we discussed at the preceding hearing this morning. At that time we had, as I recall it, three proposals so they wanted to pay $30 then.

Mr. GARBER. What was the price, top price on the 10th Street Mall?

Mr. DOYLE. I think between $29 and $30.

Mr. GARBER. Was that when you were talking about the plaza here?

Mr. DOYLE. Yes; opposite the plaza. I think the piece on the west side of 10th Street.

Mr. GARBER. How big a piece is that?

Mr. DOYLE. That is a piece of land which will accommodate an office building of about 500,000 square feet.

Mr. GARBER. What is the balance of that 10th Street Mall area? What is the hotel site priced at?

Mr. DOYLE. I would have to check it. I should know, but I do not recall the exact figure on it. I know it is over $20. I cannot say It is over $20-in the $25 range.

now.

Mr. GARBER. But none of these require limitation in height?
Mr. DOYLE. Limitation?

Mr. GARBER. To any two stories.

Mr. DOYLE. No.

Mr. GARBER. They do not require this kind of parking arrangement and they do not carry a provision whereby the successful party who builds his structure, which ultimately goes to the agency; those are not included in any of those parcels as requirements, are they? Mr. DOYLE. I think those are 99-year leases.

Mr. GARBER. But they have an option to purchase?

Mr. DOYLE. Option to purchase so they could get their investment out.

Mr. GARBER. And in the case of waterfront they have no option to purchase. The only thing they may do is extend their leases? Mr. DOYLE. Option to extend their lease.

Mr. GARBER. Under certain circumstances.

Mr. DOYLE. And the procedure under the waterfront leases is fair enough because of the fact of the kind of questions you and I have been discussing for the last few minutes we decided to use the appraisal review board to see what, and I think their over-theshoulder operation is criticizing somebody else's appraisal report can be a very fruitful thing. It may be that they will recommend these prices be adjusted as you seem to think they should be and perhaps they should be. I do not know.

Mr. GARBER. Do you know whether it is the view of the Board of Directors of the Agency that residual land use appraisals are or are not a suitable method for determining land values for relocation of businesses?

Mr. DOYLE. I do not believe, Mr. Garber, that they have ever studied this question in the technical sense that you ask that question. I think most boards are very cognizant of the fact that they had better get disinterested competent appraisers rather than to try to substitute their judgment.

I would say this was true even if the board were made up of very competent appraisers because they obviously would be subject to the charge of being biased by getting more income or less income or one charge or another. So that is the reason here, and I suppose everywhere all over the country, boards rely upon appraisers who have no interest except to do a good scholarly job on their assignment.

Mr. GARBER. Well, would you say that it is correct that there have been residual land use appraisals made for residential and some commercial property where there has been no involvement in the limitations on income?

Mr. DOYLE. My expectation would be that you would not find the word "residual" in the scope.

Mr. GARBER. I am talking about the actual result.

Mr. DOYLE. I think the actual result, a good many residential pieces of land is that the land has this residual value that we discussed earlier and that is partly because of our method of financing residential construction.

Mr. GARBER. Well, you mentioned that the appraisers are doing a scholarly job. In other words, when the appraiser undertook the setting of a price on land for one of these luxury-type developments, was he instructed to make a residual type of appraisal? Is that the reason he came up with that or was this in his scholarly judgment that the residual type appraisal should be made for luxury apartment development?

Mr. DOYLE. I think his judgment would be that other land in the District, and that is what he relied upon, comparable lands as a good appraiser always looks to comparables, was being appraised that way and the value established that way so actually perhaps you ought to talk to one of the professional appraisers rather than to me on this. I would conject a little into the residual business myself. Mr. GARBER. That is all.

Mr. Dowdy. Thank you, Mr. Doyle.

Congressman Roosevelt is our next witness. Is Mr. Potvin here?

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES ROOSEVELT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, PRESENTED BY GREGG POTVIN

Mr. POTVIN. I might say, Mr. Chairman, the Congressman deeply regretted his inability to be here. As you know, he has other matters out in Los Angeles at the moment. I will, with your permission, read his statement at his request.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to appear before you to express my views concerning H.R. 4651. This is a bill to protect the rights of certain

small businessmen located in the Southwest Washington redevelopment area. The entire subject of urban renewal is, of course, perplexing. All of us I am sure favor the updating of metropolitan areas so as to eliminate slums and provide inhabitants of our urban areas with cities which will fully serve their needs. However, in accomplishing these ends, it is most important that the rights of individuals be accorded the fullest possible consideration. One of the groups that has encountered the most difficulty in this respect are those small businesses which are displaced by urban renewal activities. I do not consider that their rights run counter to those seeking the benefits of urban renewal, but rather that small business presents one important factor which must be given consideration in the formulating of urban renewal planning and just as importantly, its implementation.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, the rehousing of the people of the Southwest Washington area was a longtime dream of my mother dating at least from her residence in the White House. I know it would still be her earnest wish and her firm purpose to see those people decently housed and honestly relocated in accordance with the urban renewal legislation which razed the community formerly there. More than $100 million has been spent at the foot of Capitol Hill to redevelop a historic area. To date, there is still a regrettable lack in that area of low-cost or medium-cost housing. In addition, a number of small businesses have been displaced. They do not appear to have received any substantial assistance in relocating from the Agency which was created by Congress for the purpose of community revitalization and renewal.

I know that this committee and this subcommittee have been inquiring into the question of why the rehousing aspect of the RLA has not producd homes for displaced families.

Similarly, the Select Committee on Small Business has spent several years asking what happens to small business as a result of the changes taking place in our urban areas.

My Small Business Subcommittee held hearings in several cities during the 88th Congress at the request of citizen witnesses and Members of Congress. In each case, we have heard of businesses displaced and of the difficulties of relocation.

Because of the extreme importance of this subject, the Honorable Joe L. Evins, chairman of the Select Committee on Small Business has, during the past few weeks created a new subcommittee to study urban small business problems. This subcommittee which is chaired by the Honorable John C. Kluczynski will, I am informed, conduct an intensive study during the current Congress of this kind of problem. You are, I know, familiar with several published reports of small business fatality under Federal land acquisition programs. As an example, a somewhat detailed study taken at Brown University revealed a 40-percent death rate for small businesses included in urban renewal projects.

The health and vigor of small business is important to the vitality of the free America. In fact, many observers feel our smaller, independent enterprises are one of the chief distinguishing features of our own competitive free enterprise economy.

As you know, there are present a number of factors in our economy today which are producing ever-increasing economic concentrations. In my opinion, it is imperative that the revitalization of our cities be