CONTENTS H.R. 5049, a bill to amend the District of Columbia Redevelopment Act H.R. 7044, a bill to amend the District of Columbia Redevelopment Act H.R. 11428, a bill to amend the act of September 8, 1960, relating to the Washington Channel waterfront (by Mr. Dowdy) - House Report 1133, dated October 9, 1965, reporting H.R. 11428 to Barbour, Harry A.. STATEMENTS Capitol Hill Southeast Citizens Association, Mrs. Adelene Bickerdyke____ Committee for the Rights of the District of Columbia Business Community, Ellis, Mrs. Cy. Hogate's Seafood Restaurant, Thomas S. Jackson, Esq-- Housley, Leonard_ _ _ 58 Merine, Al, New England Raw Bar Restaurant- Property Owners Protective Association, William Webster, president.. MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR RECORD Capital Yacht Club, James R. Duke, vice commodore.. Statement_ Federation of Citizens Associations of the District of Columbia, John R. Riggs National Bank, Harry P. Bergman, Sr., vice president, statement. - Washington Waterfront Development Co., Inc., James R. Sharp, president, Excerpts from "Report on the Investigation and Study of Urban Renewal Redevelopment Programs and Parking and One-Way Street Planning in the District of Columbia, ," House Committee on the District of Columbia, House Report 1947, 88th Congress, 2d session, dated January Excerpts from "Washington Channel Waterfront," pp. 2427-2471 from the hearings before Subcommittee No. 4 of the House Committee on the District of Columbia (pt. 6), 88th Congress, 2d session, dated November H.R. 7044, a bill to amend the District of Columbia Redevelopment Act Page 71 TO AMEND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA REDEVELOP MENT ACT OF 1945 MONDAY, MARCH 29, 1965 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m., in room 445-A, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. John Dowdy (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Dowdy and Sisk. Also present: James T. Clark, clerk; Hayden S. Garber, counsel; Donald Tubridy, minority clerk; Clayton Gasque, staff director, and Leonard O. Hilder, investigator. Mr. DowDY. The subcommittee will now take up H.R. 2814 and related measures introduced by Congressman Roosevelt and Congressman Multer. These bills propose amendments to the Redevelopment Act and deal generally with the problem of relocation of businesses dislocated within urban renewal areas; the exercise of certain priority rights for relocation already provided by acts of Congress. (H.R. 2814, H.R. 4651, and H.R. 5049 follow :) [H.R. 2814, 89th Cong., 1st sess.] A BILL To amend the District of Columbia Redevelopment Act of 1945 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That (1) The first sentence of section 4(b) of the Act entitled "An Act to authorize the Commissioners of the District of Columbia on behalf of the United States to transfer from the United States to the District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency title to certain real property in said District", approved September 8, 1960 (D.C. Code, sec. 5-723), is amended by striking out "by reason of the enactment of the joint resolution approved August 28, 1958 (72 Stat. 983; Public Law 85-821).". (2) The second sentence of section 4(b) of such Act is amended by striking out "by reason of the operation of such joint resolution approved August 28, 1958.". (3) The last sentence in section 4(b) of such Act is amended by striking out the period at the end thereof and inserting in lieu thereof a comma and the following: "except that if after the end of such one-hundred-and-eighty-day period the Agency shall change either (1) the terms under which real property is to be leased, or (2) the redevelopment plan for the area, the Agency shall in writing notify the said owners of the change or changes so made and give to the said owners so notified a period of sixty days within which to advise the Agency in writing of their intention and ability to proceed as aforesaid." (4) Section 4 of such Act is further amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection: "(c) Whenever, pursuant to subsection (b), the Agency offers leaseholds to persons entitled to a priority of opportunity to lease under the provisions of this section, the rent per square foot prescribed in said lease shall not be greater than 6 per centum of the value of the land for the purpose to which any owner of a 1 displaced business concern shall put said land under such lease, after making due allowance for the cost to the developer of all improvements and public charges, notwithstanding any other provision of law." [H.R. 4651, 89th Cong., 1st sess.] A BILL To amend the District of Columbia Redevelopment Act of 1945 Be it enacted by the Seante and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That (1) the first sentence of section 4(b) of the Act entitled "An Act to authorize the Commissioners of the District of Columbia on behalf of the United States to transfer from the United States to the District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency title to certain real property in said District", approved September 8, 1960 (D.C. Code, sec. 5-723), is amended by striking out "by reason of the enactment of the joint resolution approved August 28, 1958 (72 Stat. 983; Public Law 85-821),". (2) The second sentence of section 4(b) of such Act is amended by striking out "by reason of the operation of such joint resolution approved August 28, 1958,". (3) The last sentence in section 4(b) of such Act is amended by striking out the period at the end thereof and inserting in lieu thereof a comma and the following: "except that if after the en. of such one-hundred-and-eighty-day period the Agency shall change either (1) the terms under which real property is to be leased, or (2) the redevelopment plan for the area, the Agency shall in writing notify the said owners of the change or changes so made and give to the said owners so notified a period of sixty days within which to advise the Agency in writing of their intention and ability to proceed as aforesaid." (4) Section 4 of such Act is further amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection: "(c) Whenever, pursuant to subsection (b), the Agency offers leaseholds to persons entitled to a priority of opportunity to lease under the provisions of this section, the rent per square foot prescribed in said lease shall not be greater than 6 per centum of the value of the land for the purpose to which any owner of a displaced business concern shall put said land under such lease, after making due allowance for the cost to the developer of all improvements and public charges, notwithstanding any other provision of law." [H.R. 5049, 89th Cong., 1st sess.] A BILL To amend the District of Columbia Redevelopment Act of 1945 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That (1) the first sentence of section 4(b) of the Act entitled "An Act to authorize the Commissioners of the District of Columbia on behalf of the United States to transfer from the United States to the District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency title to certain real property in said District", approved September 8, 1960 (D.C. Code, sec. 5-723), is amended by striking out "by reason of the enactment of the joint resolution approved August 28, 1958 (72 Stat. 983; Public Law 85-821).". (2) The second sentence of section 4(b) of such Act is amended by striking out "by reason of the operation of such joint resolution approved August 28, 1958." (3) The last sentence in section 4(b) of such Act is amended by striking out the period at the end thereof and inserting in lieu thereof a comma and the following: "except that if after the end of such one-hundred-and-eighty-day period the Agency shall change either (1) the terms under which real property is to be leased, or (2) the redevelopment plan for the area, the Agency shall in writing notify the said owners of the change or changes so made and give to the said owners so notified a period of sixty days within which to advise the Agency in writing of their intention and ability to proceed as aforesaid." (4) Section 4 of such Act is further amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection: "(c) Whenever, pursuant to subsection (b), the Agency offers leaseholds to persons entitled to a priority of opportunity to lease under the provisions of this section, the rent per square foot prescribed in said lease shall not be greater than 6 per centum of the value of the land for the purpose to which any owner of a displaced business concern shall put said land under such lease, after making due allowance for the cost to the developer of all improvements and public charges, notwithstanding any other provision of law." Mr. DOWDY. The problems on the waterfront are not new to this committee. This is the fifth or sixth time the subcommittees of this committee have held hearings for the purpose of legislating in connection with the Washington Channel waterfront. From the very first time in 1958 it was the expression of this committee and the Congress that businesses being displaced from the waterfront would be afforded a genuine opportunity for relocation of their business. I believe that after repeated hearings and legislation by the Congress it should be abundantly clear to almost anyone that the intent and policy of the Congress is that the businesses displaced from the waterfront shall be given a reasonable opportunity to relocate on the waterfront. However, during the 6 years since the first action of this committee, I note that not a single displaced business has been relocated nor is there any definite commitment to any business, on a specific location in the waterfront area. Two years ago this committee received testimony concerning the new plan for the waterfront. That plan was without precedent in its requirements as to the severe limitations for commercial development; provision for public parking spaces at the expense of the businesses to be relocated, and almost without precedent as to the land values placed upon waterfront sites as compared to land prices elsewhere in urban land renewal areas. Testimony received by this committee from witnesses at that time questioned the workability of the plan and its economic feasibility for the relocation of displaced businesses. The legislation which we have pending before us today is designed to restate and preserve priority rights for displaced businesses in the waterfront area, and to establish some formula which will give businesses that relocate a reasonable opportunity of economic survival. No one can claim that urban renewal has not destroyed many small businesses. Many more small businesses are being and will be destroyed by urban renewal if the present practice continues. The waterfront is a small area. If the Planning Commission, the District of Columbia government, and the Redevelopment Land Agency are unable to adequately plan to relocate small businesses there, it will probably not be done anywhere. The first witness we have is General Duke, the Engineer Commissioner for the District of Columbia, and he is accompanied by Colonel Adams, his Assistant Engineer Commissioner, and Mr. John Crocker of the Office of Urban Renewal for the District of Columbia. You may proceed, General. STATEMENT OF GEN. CHARLES M. DUKE, ENGINEER COMMISSIONER OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; ACCOMPANIED BY LT. COL. EDWIN C. ADAMS, ASSISTANT ENGINEER COMMISSIONER; AND MR. JOHN CROCKER, OFFICE OF URBAN RENEWAL General DUKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad to be here and give my comments on this proposed bill. The purposes of H.R. 2814, as I understand them, are to extend the priority of opportunity to lease land along the Washington Chan |