སྣུམ་

and expand a proposed public housing project a few blocks from Eye Street site. (c) Capitol East Community Organization.-As the housing technical committee for Capitol East Community Organization, the broad-based umbrella organization which coordinates more than 100 other groups in the Capitol East area, we are working under a mandate from the community. We presented a Housing Resolution to the Capitol East Community Assembly last November which was adopted as the preliminary goals and objectives which would govern future developments of the Capitol East. Our present activities and those planned for the future are consistent with our stated intentions to maintain and upgrade the housing stock in the Capitol East area.

(d) Southeast Citizens for Good Code Enforcement.—The Capitol East Housing Council has been working with this organization towards the development of a federally assisted code enforcement program in the area. An Interim Assistance Program is scheduled to begin shortly. This program is the forerunner of this Federally Assistance Code Enforcement program. It will include such things as rat control, street repair, and exterior renovation assistance. When the Federally Assistance Code Enforcement program comes in all homes in the Code Enforcement Area will be inspected, code violations identified and homeowners will be able to obtain 3% loans to make needed repairs. At the present time the Interim Assistance Program has been initiated.

(e) Southeast Economic Development Corporation.-With the active assistance of the Council this organization has developed plans in conjunction with the Mayor's Economic Development Committee for a shopping center to be located under the freeway just west of the proposed site for the Barracks expansion. (f) Charitable Organizations.-The Council has undertaken to assist Churches and other organizations to develop rehabilitated property in the area on an individual basis. The Council has purchased one home a block from Eye Street as a model for Section 235 development.

We have only mentioned our major involvements in the Capitol East; there are many more.

2. Future Development of Eye Street

In the event that the proposed Marine Barracks expansion into the 800 and 900 block is rejected, the Capitol East Housing Council is prepared to purchase the remaining home in the 900 block of Eye Street for rehabilitation and will complete total redevelopment of that block. The 900 block of Eye Street will then be a prime example of excellent low-income housing. Contact has been made with the District Government regarding the possible purchase or the use of vacant land which it owns behind the houses in the 900 block of Eye Street. One of the proposed usages of that land is a play area for the children in that neighborhood. The Council is committed to cooperate with the owners in the 800 block of Eye Street and will lend assistance for repair and rent of their properties. The Council will be willing to assist the owners of the 800 block by providing certain types of volunteer assistance in the rehabilitation process, such assistance will be a nontechnical basis and will not involve such things as electric wiring and plumbing. It would involve clean up, painting, and minor repairs. We would also be willing to assist the owners in finding responsible tenants for those properties. The Council will attempt to negotiate an agreement to that effect.

3. Replacement Housing

The Housing Council feels that the best solution to the question of the expansion of the Marine Barracks, if such expansion is found by you and the Committee to be justified in terms of spending priorities, is for the Marines to build in a place which involves the least expense to the taxpayer and the least disruption to this community. It is for this reason that we have suggested that an initial $700,000 be saved by placing the Barracks within the Navy Yard or on other federally owned land in the near vicinity.

If, however, the Committee feels that the Marines can expand only in this two-block residential area, our suggestion would be that a special appropriation would be authorized in the amount of $250,000 to be paid to the District Government for the purpose of establishing a revolving fund to allow the District Government to proceed to develop replacement housing in the Capitol East area. We would foresee that this would basically be accomplished by the purchase and rehabilitation of vacant or condemned property in the area. With this appropriation the District Government in cooperation with the Capitol East Housing Council could develop the housing in stages.

The first stage would allow for the resettlement of the present residents in houses which are comparable to or better than those which they are currently living in. These houses would of course be in the immediate area. Arrangements would be made for the three homeowners to receive clear title to their replace ment homes after they have been purchased and rehabilitated with part of this appropriation. Other homes would be purchased and rehabilitated and rented or sold to the remaining residents in the two-block area depending on their ability to rent or purchase. If the families concerned were qualified under Section 235 of the 1968 Federal Housing Act the houses could be sold to them under that provision or a similar program. If the families concerned were eligible for public housing these houses could be managed by the National Capitol Housing Authority operating under the turnkey process in which the tenant would eventually become the owner. Once the houses have been sold the moneys could revert to the revolving fund to be used again in like manner. When concluded such a program would at least add an equivalent number of units to the usable housing stock in the area. Our various negotiations with officials of the District Government lead us to the conclusion that this can be accomplished if the money is made available.

Senator JACKSON. We have a number of other witnesses here who want to be heard.

Mr. Terris has asked to be heard on this matter, and Mr. McCarthy, I believe.

Mr. Bruce Terris, chairman of the District of Columbia Democratic central committee, and Mr. Lawrence McCarthy.

Mr. Terris, will you proceed?

STATEMENT OF BRUCE J. TERRIS, CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTEE

Mr. TERRIS. I am Mr. Terris.

Senator JACKSON. Yes. Then we will hear from Mr. Frank Calcara, if you will all come over to the table. First, Mr. Terris.

Do you have a prepared statement? If you do, you can submit it for the record and summarize it. It will appear as if you have read the

statement.

Mr. TERRIS. I have already submitted the statement and I would just like to make a couple of brief comments from it.

As the chairman of the Democratic central committee which was elected in the 1968 primary, we consider ourselves the representatives of the more than 80 percent of District citizens who are Democrats, since the District of Columbia has no elected government.

You heard earlier today the number of representatives favoring military construction in the District. I think I can assure you that if the District of Columbia had Congressmen that they would oppose the expansion of the Marine Barracks and they would do so, I think, on two grounds:

First of all, in this time of discussion about cutting unnecessary military expenditures, it would seem to me that this would be one of the most obvious things to cut. The Marine Barracks, to house the very excellent Marine Band, does not seem to me to go to the heart of our questions of national security, and in a time of severe inflation and severe shortage of money for domestic needs, it seems to us that a good place to start in cutting unnecessary military expenditures would be this very kind of expenditure.

The second reason, one that is more directly relevant to the interests of the people of the District, is the severe shortage of housing in this city.

This city is short, studies indicate, between 50,000 and 100,000 units of adequate housing for poor and moderate-income families. We are building at the moment probably in the neighborhood of the Washington metropolitan area, perhaps, 2,000 or 3,000 units a year for these families.

As was indicated earlier, the vice chairman of the City Council believes we are destroying units for these families at a faster rate than we are building them.

Now, it has been mentioned earlier that we are only talking about nine families and 24 dwelling units. However, the issue really is not just whether you can find other housing for those nine families. The question is the total supply of housing in the District of Columbia.

I do not have any doubt that you can find adequate housing for nine families. But that housing will come from the total supply of adequate housing or it will come from a new supply that you can provide, but the fact is that supply that you can provide cannot even begin to make a dent in the housing crisis we have in this city and the housing crisis here is more severe than even in most of our major cities across the country.

I would say that when we have started to make a major impact on that 50,000 to 100,000 units so that we could say we are constructing 5,000 or 10,000 a year, then we can talk about the destruction of additional units. But I think the key issue here is, Are we going to destroy these units?

The fact that 17 of them or 15 of them are not occupied really is not relevant. The reason they are not relevant is because the landlord, who is sitting here, wants to make money from this project, and so he has gotten rid of families from these units. But those units are being taken from the housing supply in the District.

We are going to lose 24 units from the Washington housing supply. We cannot afford to lose those units. We cannot afford to lose the other units being taken.

Senator JACKSON. How much would it cost to put these houseswe keep talking about 24 units. Are there really 24 units of suitable housing? I mean, what is it we are talking about?

Mr. TERRIS. Well, Senator, I

Senator JACKSON. I have not had a chance to go over and see firsthand, but I understand some of them are in deplorable condition. Mr. TERRIS. Well, even if they are, I may say in the Capitol East area a considerable number of units in similarly bad condition have been rehabilitated.

Senator JACKSON. I understand that. It is what I am trying to get at. What are we

Mr. TERRIS. Senator, even that is not really the issue. If these units, all 24 of them, were not usable, the question is land in the District of Columbia.

We have not got land for the poor, the moderate-income families who live in this city. We have got to use the land for these kinds of extremely important purposes.

We have got to use it for housing and, to some extent, we are willing to have land use for employment, but the use of this land is of no value whatever to the citizens of the District. What it is, is a further use by the Federal Government of scarce land.

48-941 O 70-34

I would submit to you what the Federal Government ought to be doing is trying to deal with a very severe housing crisis we have got rather than making it worse, and it seems to me no matter what solution is proposed, and certainly building nine more units for these families or 24 more for these families, would be better than not doing it. Still any such solution is contributing to the crisis that we already have in which the Federal Government is doing extremely little to get us out of it.

Now, in some ways it is unfair to burden the committee with that responsibility because the overall responsibility lies elsewhere to do something about our housing crisis. But this committee does have authority over one action which will make this crisis worse, in some small degree, but still make it worse.

Senator JACKSON. Thank you.

(The statement follows:)

I appear before you today in what I hope is not becoming a annual duel between the residents of Capitol East and the Marine Corps. The arguments against Marine Corps expansion on Capitol Hill are as valid this year as they were last. We strongly urge the Senate to refuse to authorize these funds in 1970 just as it did in 1969.

It is hard to understand why the Navy Department is contemplating acquisition of property in the middle of a congested city when it already owns a siz able piece of land, the Navy Yard, just blocks away. The value of the Marine Barracks in its current location is primarily historical. That is good and sufficient reason for retaining the barracks but it is hardly justification for taking the blocks next door. The activities now assigned to the Barracks could logically be separated. The Drum and Bugle Corps, for example, could be left in the existing barracks and the other activities moved to the Navy Yard. This would eliminate the sizeable costs of land acquisition and preparation. And, even more significantly, it would not destroy housing or disrupt the neighborhood of which the Marine Barracks is a part.

I know that expansion of the Barracks would destroy only 26 housing units, not all of which are occupied. But the neighborhood we are discussing already suffers from a serious housing shortage, particularly for low and moderate income families. And the District of Columbia, as 15 studies in the last few years have shown, suffers from a severe housing crisis. At least 100,000 new or rehabilitated units must be constructed before the guarantees of the 1949 Housing Act-adequate housing for all American citizens—will be a reality in the Nation's Capital.

The expansion of the Marine Barracks will destroy the very kind of housing. for low and moderate income families, of which the shortage is the greatest. Housing has already been destroyed by construction of the Southwest Freeway. Plans for remodeling the Navy Yard and for the construction of a GSA installation will increase the demands for housing in the neighborhood even more.

The decision to preserve or to destroy these blocks of I Street has significance beyond the 26 dwelling units in question. Condemnation and destruction applies not only to houses but to neighborhoods as well. This neighborhood is almost unique in that both blacks and whites alike want it to remain economically and racially integrated. However, this is becoming harder and harder to continue as blacks are forced out of the neighborhood by real estate speculation. The government should be attempting to stabilize this integrated community rather than pushing poor black people out of the neighborhood.

It is true that some of the residents in these blocks might be persuaded to leave by attractive relocation allowances. But unless. at the least, they can be provided wih new homes in the same neighborhood, condemnation would be contributing to nothing more than destruction of a neighborhood in one place and overcrowding somewhere else. In short, even if the residents are bribed to leave, expansion will still be destructive to the neighborhood and city as a whole. If the expansion is authorized-and we strongly urge you not to do so there is no reason why the poor residents of these blocks must pay the cost. Authorization must therefore include funds for the maximum possible relocation allowances and subsidies. The 26 units should not be destroyed without the Marines

helping to pay the cost of rehabilitating 26 other units in the neighborhood. This would allow the residents to be given choices of alternative housing in the same neighborhood.

I know that the members of this Committee have shown interest in cutting back on excessive military expenditures. Military expenditures are causing serious problems of inflation which in turn have resulted in government counter actions which have produced rising unemployment, soaring interest rates and other severe economic dislocation. Excessive military expenditures are absorbing funds which are needed for hospitals, education, control of pollution, programs to fight crime, and other critical needs.

The Marine Barracks is an excellent place for Congress to show that only essential military expenditures will be allowed. The acquisition of these blocks to provide space for the Marine Band is of no value to the national security. It would make far more sense for the Marines to use land at the Navy Yard and to utilize the funds which are saved to help deal with far more important and critical domestic problems such as the shortage of housing.

Tens of thousands of poor families in the District of Columbia urgently need housing. The federal government should be attempting to provide for building more housing rather than destroying what little we have.

Senator JACKSON. Mr. McCarthy.

STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE MCCARTHY, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Lawrence McCarthy of 900 South I Street SE. I am one of an ad hoc group of residents, both property owners and renters, in the Ninth and 10th Streets, Southeast area who are concerned about the various developments projects in our area-among them being the Marine Corps Barracks extension proposal.

Some of us hold memberships in various other organized civil or community action and service groups on Capitol Hill and support the programs of these groups on Capitol Hill: many more of us support the programs of these groups; however, today we appear before you as independent spokesmen for ourselves.

We are here because we are people from the general area that will be directly affected by the barracks expansion proposal and because no other group has either asked for or represented our collective view on the proposal.

We support, with certain important qualifications, the Marine Corps extension proposal.

We say "with important qualifications" because we believe that some facts have been overlooked or misrepresented in previous testimony before this committee and other committees of Congress which have been considering this problem.

There are three main areas of concern to us:

First of all, the true condition of our neighborhood and the area involved in the expansion proposal has not been accurately portrayed. First, there has been what appears to us to be a serious lack of coordination between Navy and Marine Corps agencies most directly concerned with this development proposal, the District government agencies and local organized community groups-a coordination which we believe was the intent of last year's House-Senate conference committee report which deferred the project.

Third, the present vague compensatory and resettlement measures, for resident property owners and renters who will be displaced by the proposed expansion, that are provided in the bill as it now reads.