There is the matter of obsolescence which we feel is another loose and all-enveloping term meaning whatever the officials of the District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency wants it to mean. I describe that in No. 6, page 2.

We find that the standards by which this resurvey was drawn up, that is standards by which the resurvey was produced, are not required even in new buildings in the District under the present codes. These demands, added to the one regarding parking facilities listed above, would probably bankrupt every apartment house owner in the Adams-Morgan area. If applied citywide we think it would be very harmful to a successful operation of multidwelling units such as apartment houses and the like.

Those are the high points of our resolution dated September 21, 1964.

As I said before, the most important point is the variance between the figures in the workable program and the survey.

Mr. DOWDY. Before you move from there there is a statement in one of the resolved clauses. You say:

Nor is provision made in the Adams-Morgan urban renewal project plan, as President Johnson said of the National Housing Act of 1964, so that property owners in the area can rehabilitate their homes and businesses instead of having to move from the path of the bulldozers.

That is important.

Mr. FERGUSON. We did include that statement. For the sake of time I was trying to hold to the salient points.

The second report to which we respectfully direct your attention is the "Report to the Congress of the United States," issued by the Comptroller General of the United States on October 2, 1964. The full title of this General Accounting Office document is: "Inadequate Policies and Practices Relating to the Relocation of Families From Urban Renewal Areas-District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency and Housing and Home Finance Agency."

In his foreword the Comptroller General asserts:

In our review of the relocation of families displaced from the areas of urban renewal projects of the District of Columbia RLA, we noted that some families had relocated into substandard dwellings as a result of inadequate relocation policies and practices. In its relocation operations, the District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency: (1) used standards for determining the acceptability of dwellings for relocating families displaced from the urban renewal areas which were less stringent than the standards used for evaluating the physical condition of dwellings in determining the eligibility of an area for urban renewal, (2) made inadequate inspections of housing for displaced famlies, (3) prepared incompelte inspection reports, and (4) referred some displaced families to substandard or uninspected housing.

The GAO report is confined to families displaced by urban renewal projects Northeast 1, Northwest 1, and Columbia Plaza. But the findings of the current GAO report bear a shocking similarity to the 1958 GAO review of what happened to many families displaced by the Southwest urban renewal project.

Quoting from the contents of the October 2, 1964, GAO document, it is charged:

RLA uses two different standards for evaluating the physical condition of dwellings, one to determine the adequacy of dwellings for housing families displaced by slum clearance projects and the other to determine whether the extent of substandard housing is sufficient to qualify an area for urban renewal. As

a result, RLA classified some dwellings as decent, safe, and sanitary for purposes of relocating families but later classified these dwellings as substandard because of their physical condition when surveying the area to determine its eligibility for urban renewal under the federally subsidized program.

GAO presents in its report specific instances of "inadequate policies and practices relating to the relocation of families from urban renewal areas," of NE-1, NW-1, and Columbia Plaza. Because of these policies and practices, the report says:

Consequently, RLA does not seem to have carried out its relocation responsibilities in accordance with the intent of Congress and Urban Renewal Administration regulations.

With the 1958 and current reports of the Comptroller General clearly in mind, the Independent Citizens of Adams-Morgan reviewed the Adams-Morgan relocation program, a document which is hard to get hold of and is not circulated widely, and this contemplated the fate of the 1,181 colored families and 404 white families that would be displaced from Adams-Morgan area in the event the District of Columbia Board of Commissioners approve this urban renewal project. Meanwhile, it was difficult for us to believe that dual standards were not used in the recent $45,000 resurvey of buildings in the proposed Adams-Morgan urban renewal area.

In this connection, I might point out this is a relocation report. It starts off by giving all of the various jobs which will be distributed.

Then it gets to the matter of handicapped persons. You even see sample copies of the letters which will be sent to the people who are going into business, residential informational letters, and so on. It is not on page 22 but the twenty-second page.

Way back here on page 22 we suddenly discover this 1,585 total number of families displaced by the Adams-Morgan urban renewal project should it be approved by the District Commissioners.

Even though Mrs. Bailey is here and wants to enter this as part of the record, way back on October 16, 1962, we wrote a letter to Mr. Gartenhaus, Chairman, and I am not speaking at this moment about the Independent Citizens Association, and we received from a source just as close to the White House as you can get without going to the gate, the fact there would be 1,595 families displaced.

It turned out we were off 10 families. This letter didn't get any reply whatsoever because we were concerned about the truthfulness of this, although it came from a pretty high up source.

We wondered why they were taking all this time before revealing some year and 3 months later, after we sent this letter of inquiry, this figure which is clearly shown here, 1,585, which is 10 families off. I must say that the Adams-Morgan field office went through our block with a fine tooth comb because these figures were reported at one of our block council meetings. They used more man-hours trying to find out where I got my figures.

I told the block council where I got the figures but I didn't let anyone else know the source of the figures.

We think if those man-hours had been spent in correcting some of the ills we are suffering in the block the taxpayers' money could have been very well used.

The third report which we respectfully bring to your attention is the demonstration project, titled "Adams-Morgan Democratic Action To Save a Neighborhood."

Mrs. Josephine M. Bailey, president of the block council of the 1700 block of U Street NW., has a statement that goes into more details than we will present here. It is abundantly clear that a case for urban renewal was made the day the Adams-Morgan RLA field office ordered its succession of area C community organizers

to use different methods from the other organizers in stimulating compliance with Housing Code requirements.

This is a quote from page 74. This is another one of these back-ofthe-bus type of thing which we find here and here it is.

The case for urban renewal in Adams-Morgan was nailed down when, to quote the Demonstration Project Board

Two hundred and fifty-three residences were "held for planning" because of the possibility that they might be in a demolition area in the event of urban renewal.

It seems to me that the demonstration project is not in accordance with the contract, as I read it, between American University and the District government.

In the subcommittee report of hearings, May 17, 23, and July 19, 26, 1963, in the ninth paragraph, of page 1740, I testified to what were the hopes of most residents of area C when the declaration project was started. The following paragraphs, down to the bottom of page 1740, complain of what amounted to a moratorium declared on any kind of rehabilitation and other structures in area C. Similar complaints are made on page 2058, subcommittee hearings report.

Little wonder that the demonstration project report is 4 years late coming off the press where they seem, according to newspapers, to have a lot of trouble printing this up.

Little wonder that the demonstration project report is 4 years late getting to the Housing and Home Finance Agency for approval, and then for release to the public. Little wonder, too, that the official story of moratorium in area C is buried exactly three-fourths the way through the 101-page report.

We worked a little mathematics on this and it is exactly three-fourths of the way through before you come to this moratorium on area C which was composed of many persons who had been working diligently over the years. It is nothing new. They worked to keep certain neighborhood standards and then we find that for all of our enthusiasm and for all of our votes in favor of the demonstration project, a whole area taken out. Practically a moratorium declared because this statement amounts to a moratorium. Those are the reports we want to bring to your attention and those are the three reports that have been published since we were last here.

The Washington Post of Sunday, November 13, 1964, contains an article on page G-10 by Wolf Van Eckardt, titled "The AdamsMorgan Story: Citizen Action Bogged Down."

It may be that Reporter Van Eckardt was so busy observing the RLA-enforced slum sectors of area C that some $75 million of new construction, restoration, and rehabilitation now going ahead, or completed, partially in areas A and B of Adams-Morgan escaped his "Cityscape" (end of second paragraph, column 1).

It is true that this restoration and rehabilitation is largely in areas A and B, because it has been put up on the shelf. It may be in an urban renewal area but I think there is a conditional clause here.

Mr. Dowdy. May I interrupt you just a moment. The first witness, Mrs. Josephson, said there was some new construction and restoration and rehabilitation going on but it was only a small amount. Seventy-five million dollars is a considerable amount of money; is it not?

Mr. FERGUSON. It certainly is. The Washington Hilton Hotel alone is $41 million and we have the two Universal Buildings and we have photographs, not with us, but they have appeared in the papers as to numerous renovations of large apartment houses and new construction. Even in our block we have taken care of our normal 3-year roofing and painting, and this is going right ahead. After all, we have to have a roof over our heads even though we may be subject to displacement.

I would like to say we could not quite see the relationship between what Mr. Van Eckardt said about the neighborhood still deteriorating and could not see any of this $75 million in new construction. We would like to point out in the fourth column, sixth paragraph, under lead line "During May, June, and July 1963," Reporter Van Eckardt completely twists a part of the Independent Citizens statement presented at the Adams-Morgan hearings before the District of Columbia Commissioners.

Of

Under the item concerned solely with the now-discredited "scattered site" public housing we gave our views of what this scheme might do to private restoration, the residential tax structure, et cetera. course, no reference was made to low-income families of any specific race, color, creed, or national origin. And Mrs. Alva A. Dawson, who substituted for another spokesman at the Commissioner's hearing, did not refer to the race, color, creed, or national origin of families of whatever income bracket. She read the text of our statement, and made an impressive presentation.

In closing, the Independent Citizens of Adams-Morgan appreciate this opportunity to be heard. Any action taken on the contents of the three reports mentioned here, and the damaging effects of the practices and policies which they reflect, will find us grateful. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DOWDY. Thank you.

(The resolution referred to by Mr. Ferguson follows:)

RESOLUTION OF INDEPENDENT CITIZENS OF ADAMS-MORGAN, WASHINGTON, D.C. Whereas the Commissioners of the District of Columbia filed on July 21, 1964, the "Workable Program 1963-64 of the District of Columbia" with the Federal Housing and Home Finance Agency, which they are required to do in order to continue to receive Federal urban renewal funds, and stated therein that only 66 premises, or less than 6 percent, in the entire Adams-Morgan urban renewal project have not been brought up to code requirements; and

Whereas the $45,000 resurvey of buildings in the Adams-Morgan urban renewal project area, filed by the District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency with the District Commissioners on August 27, 1964, just 1 month later, shows 31 residential buildings as having substantial defects, and 140 nonresidential establishments as having substantial defects.

In addition, this resurvey sublimely ignores the more than $75 million (estimated) being spent in the Adams-Morgan area on restoration, rehabilitation, and such new construction as the two Cafritz (north, and south) Buildings and the Washington Hilton Hotel.

Further, this resurvey states that, "57 percent of the buildings used in whole or in part for residential purposes and 52 percent of the nonresidential buildings

are characterized by one or more of the deficiencies which, as noted in section I of this report, are to be taken into account in determining whether an area is eligible for designation as an urban renewal project."

However, no list of the buildings and structures having substantial or minor defects is provided in the resurvey report. Such a listing would clearly indicate that the District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency has an elementary concern for the citizens of Adams-Morgan, or believes in government of, by, and for the people; and

Whereas the standards and criteria used in this resurvey are in the public interest; they are open to public question for these reasons:

(1) They are not in conformance with the requirements of the housing and building codes now in effect in sectors of the District of Columbia outside of the Adams-Morgan area;

(2) These standards and criteria, if used by the District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency in executing urban renewal projects in the District of Columbia, would require widespread demolition and prohibitive expense to all property owners;

(3) They have no basis in the Housing Act of 1964, or in Senate bill 628 as amended by the House District Committee; and

(4) These standards and criteria have adversely affected real estate values and improvements in the Adams-Morgan area by imputing major slum and conditions of blight to an area where an objective study and report, based on the District's present housing and building Codes, would reveal a comparatively minor tabulation of substandard conditions confined, mainly, to two streets in Adams-Morgan.

Whereas the standards and criteria employed by the District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency in this resurvey are objectionable, they must be rejected on the following grounds:

(1) Excessive land coverage is defined in the report on the resurvey as existing whenever a building does not provide space for offstreet loading. unloading, or parking in the quantity of at least one parking space for each three living units.

This requirement discriminates against apartment house owners in the Adams-Morgan area since it is not a citywide requirement, and its strict enforcement as planned by the District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency-would in most cases be impossible without prohibitive expense and wholesale demolition.

(2) Adequate ventilation and light, while eminently desirable, are primarily factors related to the use to which the affected premises are putrather than being structural defects per se. The District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency, similar to the Cleveland, Ohio, Urban Renewal Agency in like situations and for the same reasons with regard to perfectly sound buildings, finds the local codes inadequate for Adams-Morgan.

(3) Incompatible land use refers to conditions which are presently governed by voluminous provisions of the District of Columbia Zoning Code, which were arrived at by many years of court decisions and legal precedents. (4) Faulty interior arrangement also depends upon the use to which the interior space in question is put and is governed by present code standards. (5) Lack of adequate sanitary facilities simply indicates overcrowding. a condition which could be easily corrected by proper enforcement of the housing and building codes, as this kind of deficiency could just as readily occur during and after urban renewal treatment as before.

(6) Obsolescense, another loose and all-enveloping term meaning whatever the officials of the District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency want it to mean, accordingly, the resurvey report includes conditions among which are inadequate ventilation and light, faulty interior arrangement, and lack of adequate sanitary facilities-plus a provision requiring an elevator in every building with residential units on the fourth floor and above, and an elevator in every nonresidential building in which the third or higher floor is used for commercial purposes.

These standards are not required even in new buildings in the District of Columbia under the present codes. These demands, added to the one regarding parking facilities listed above, would probably bankrupt every apartment house owner in the Adams-Morgan urban renewal area, as well as in the entire city if applied on a citywide basis. For if these standards are adopted for the Adams-Morgan area, citywide application would follow as surely as the night the day; and