Enterprise, Committee for Rights of the Washington, D.C., Business Community, ALL MEMBERS OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD OF THE Mr. DOWDY. There will also be included in the record a statement by John M. Kyle II, consultant, and one by William Webster, president, Property Owners Protective & Improvement Association. The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF JOHN M. KYLE II, A CONSULTANT Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the subcommittee, I am John M. Kyle II and I reside at 1954 Columbia Road NW., Washington, D.C. I wish to address by remarks to a publication now being distributed by the Office of Urban Renewal of the District of Columbia and which was prepared by that Office, the American University and an organization identified as Stein & Marcon Associates. The title is "Adams-Morgan Democratic Action To Save a Neighborhood." Apparently the objective of the thing is to justify a social experiment in that part of the city now known as Adams-Morgan and to promote similar experiments throughout the Nation. The publication covered a period of approximately 5 years of Adams-Morgan labor in the vineyard of socialism; however, it is destined to win renown more for what it does not contain than can be found in its contents. The Adams-Morgan theme from its beginning, according to the publication, was restoration; and, although during the 5-year period covered by the publication private enterprise has spent around $90 million in the area on new construction and restoration the only thing Adams-Morgan restored or caused to be restored was a moderate expenditure, donated of course, for its own community house. But Adams-Morgan was never short on energy; and, apparently, the promoters found it necessary to socialize the community before undertaking to deal with its advertised interest in housing-except public housing. Before adequate housing should be provided for certain residents of the area, it was apparently the belief of the project sponsors, that, those residents should receive basic training in homemaking and housekeeping. The sponsors, therefore, offered instruction in cooking, needlework, lawn maintenance and gardening, and furnished free compost to those who would use it on their lawns. Then the sponsors promoted a community Christmas tree; they put on a "clean up fix up" parade and they take credit for inducing a few people to take down their backyard fences. While all this was in progress these social engineers became concerned with sanitation and building maintenance; and tenants were urged to abide by the sanitary codes which have been in existence here for more than 50 years. War was declared on the garbage can and, needless to say, some were photographed. Tenants were carefully instructed in the art of making complaints. They were told how to pressure landlords for building repairs and were given to understand that complaints could be made to the several District government agencies for violation of the building codes. And we are naturally supposed to believe that the people did not know about these codes until Adams-Morgan arrived upon the scene. Early in the game the project sponsors decided that to give the project some appearance of stability it would be necessary to attract local business. A longdefunct business association was, therefore, reactivated. The businessmen, among other things, were to have off-street parking provided for their customers, and to accomplish this it was proposed to raze a residential block to be made into a parking lot. This is another glaring attempt at the flagrant misuse of the powers of eminent domain-tearing down residences for commercial purposes in an area where a critical housing shortage exists. There was vigorous opposition to the project at an early date. The sponsors could not convince the substantial business interest nor a large segment of civicminded residents of the area. In an effort to discredit its credibility, the oldest citizens' organizations in the area was attacked, ridiculed, and smeared, but that isn't all. Certain anti-Adams-Morgan residents in the area had, so the sponsors thought, to be disposed of. How was this to be done? A student psychiatrist was employed and sent out to interview these people to determine why they were opposed to the project. It so happened, however, that the thing missed fire, and the interviews were called off in a hurry. It is reliably reported that the cost of this study in psychiatry was paid by a National Institute of Mental Health grant. Someone in authority along the line was apparently under the impression that all those opposed to Adams-Morgan had to be just plain nuts. This is urban renewal Adams-Morgan. It is noted, however, that this particular developmnt nor the suggested method is mentioned in the publication. As the project moved on, the project sponsors decided to go all out for public housing. The Adams-Morgan area was to become the benficiary of what was termed "scatter-sight public housing." Although the project sponsors entered the area to remove blight and by the democratic process it was now decided to exercise the right of eminent domain by taking residential properties at several locations in the area and to convert them to public housing to house low-income groups. The corporation counsel nipped this one in the bud, however, by his decision that such “scattersight public housing" had no status in law. The publication is silent as death on this "democratic" attempt. Without a doubt it was the intent of the project sponsors to thus socialize parts of the area and thereby actually to defeat restoration or modernization in them. It has been a long grind out here in the Adams-Morgan area, Mr. Chairman, and we would hope that the end is now in sight. We really have no way of knowing just how much more private enterprise would have laid out in the area on restoration, modernization, and new construction; but certainly the frustration and uncertainty generated by Adams-Morgan has discouraged and retarded private investment in many places in the area. In fact, this publication freely admits that the more substantial business interest in the area does not support the project; and if Adams-Morgan would only fold up and go home, we can expect private investment to show a greater interest. Only marginal businesses have been identified with the project, and for the most part these are owned by small businessmen seeking capital whether public or private for modernization and/or expansion. Also there is yet no proof that a rebuilding of the Adams-Morgan business community would be a profitable business venture. Two of the largest national merchandisers closed their outlets in the area several years ago; and so far as is known no other similar firms have shown an interest in opening establishments in the area; but as a residential community, unmolested by the Socialists and Government, it will go forward. Adams-Morgan has been nothing more than a farce and a fraud upon the community. STATEMENT BY WILLIAM WEBSTER, PRESIDENT, PROPERTY OWNERS PROTECTIVE & IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D.C. In a recent issue of the Washington Daily News, Washington, D.C., an article appeared concerning a newly published book entitled "The Federal Bulldozer," by Martin Anderson, an industrial management specialist from Columbia University's Graduate Business School, formerly with the Ford Motor Co., the Dartmouth Graduate Engineering School, the Joint Center for Urban Studies of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Harvard University. Mr. Anderson's critique of federally sponsored urban renewal has called for repeal of the program on the grounds it has not and cannot achieve its admirable goals; he suggests that Congress simply not authorize any more projects, letting those under contract be carried through if the individual cities want to finish them. As usual, Mr. William L. Slayton, Federal Urban Renewal Administrator, has registered protests, on the feeble theory that Mr. Anderson has turned a little knowledge into something dangerous. Inherent danger to the American people, more appropriately, lies in the longstanding policy of the Redevelopment Land Agency to provide only the most meager knowledge of the processes of urban renewal, when trying to sell its schemes. However, when responsible citizens realize the inadequacies of urban renewal as it has evolved from the original intent of the law and rise up in protest, they are immediately termed people who "turn a little knowledge into something dangerous." This is the RLA cry, notwithstanding the evident facts of "bloody" trails left by urban renewal all over our wonderful country. Those of us who have become acquainted with the depredations perpetrated under the guise of alleged benefactions of urban renewal, support wholeheartedly the recommendations of Mr. Martin Anderson. In developments over the last half dozen years, it is virtually impossible to cite a single instance where urban renewal has served to accomplish more than the effect we choose to describe as a "Robin Hood switch-which robs the poor to give to the rich." Mr. Anderson's conclusions are extremely sound, when viewed in the light of urban renewal as experienced by a little west Texas town of Wink, in Winkler County. In the October 1964 issue of Reader's Digest, there appears an article about this small community. It has been rendered a virtual ghost town as a result of urban renewal. Political pressures were exerted, according to the article, by a Member of the U.S. Congress, for an urban renewal program which operated quickly to bulldoze existing structures and thereafter abruptly encountered "dead end." It appears that the RLA will find no "rich" takers to accept the bounty summarily acquired from the "poor," since urban renewal has served to eliminate the town's "purpose." One dubious benefit did accrue to some of the former occupants of the bulldozed area in that they accepted the RLA pittance for their properties and moved "pronto" to parts elsewhere. This Government-financed "exodus," as it has been termed, contributed to a reduction of the original 15,000 population to less than 2,000 souls. The economy of the town was devastated by removal of the oil well field services, practically the sole source of employment, because Wink was fresh out of able-bodied field help. Wink, therefore, formerly a town of 15,000 population with a purpose, has become a ghost town, with little prospect of change in its status. The experience of this small Texas community is a classic example of the inept, way-out bungling we have come to expect from the Redevelopment Land Agency through misuse of Federal power. Concerning Wink, the Houston Chronicle has said that this fantastic project may do some good in the long run, by forcing a reassessment of the entire urban renewal program. This is a fervent hope, but the news of the wide disparity between prediction and performance in Wink either does not reach RLA officialdom in Washington, or it is ignored by choice. Recently, as a case in point, Mr. William L. Slayton, of RLA, is reported to have astonished Mr. Ed Foreman, Congressman from the Wink district, by stating that Wink is not only moving briskly ahead as planned, but that it is "an outstanding example of small city revitalization." Who, then, can be said to have a little knowledge-even of what his own agency is doing? Where, indeed, does danger lie, if not in the ability of the Redevelopment Land Agency to ignore its own devastating ways and continue, merrily, to add to the bloody trail which its bungling leaves in its wake? If democracy is to survive and operate to provide each man the rights and privileges due him under the Constitution of the United States, the duty of the Congress is clear. The President of the United States, who has expressed his support of urban renewal, obviously is the victim of RLA failure to render him completely knowledgeable. It is inconceivable that Mr. Johnson-if he is aware of the depredations of urban rewenal-can fail to recognize the need for decisive action to avert further such depredations. In President Johnson's words, "Let us begin"-through Congress, to either1. Revise, cancel, or modify existing provisions of the law to the extent that the RLA may no longer operate urban renewal in the flagrant, nearcriminal manner it has to date, with complete disregard for human dignity or the diety, or 2. Repeal, without delay, any and all existing urban renewal laws as contrary to the best interests of the United States and its taxpaying citizens. Only by one of the courses outlined above, may free Americans again be assured that "A man's home is his castle," as to which he may rest secure in the knowledge that the rights guaranteed him by the Founding Fathers may, in no way, be negated by urban renewal laws, susceptible of interpretation to suit the whims of the small bureaucrats responsible fro their implementation. Submitted by: BESSE WHITING HAYDEN, Secretary, Property Owners Protective and Improvement Association. Mr. DOWDY. That will be all until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. (Whereupon, at 6:05 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned.) URBAN RENEWAL IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1964 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE No. 4 OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 445-A, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. John Dowdy (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Dowdy, Huddleston, and Springer. Also present: James T. Clark, clerk; Hayden S. Garber, counsel; Clayton D. Gasque, staff director; and Leonard O. Hilder, investigator. Mr. DOWDY. Mr. Robbins, you might state your name and official capacity for the record. Mr. ROBBINS. Louis P. Robbins, Assistant Corporation Counsel for the District of Columbia. Mr. DOWDY. We asked that you come over this morning. Mr. Springer wanted to ask some questions about a hearing where an urban renewal project plan comes to the District Commissioners, the hearing is had, and they send it back to the National Capital Planning Commission and a new plan or revised plan comes up. I will ask Mr. Springer to frame the questions in such manner as he wishes. Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Robbins, do you generally handle matters connected with redevelopment? STATEMENT OF LOUIS P. ROBBINS, ASSISTANT CORPORATION COUNSEL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Mr. ROBBINS. Mr. Congressman, several years ago I did a fair amount of it. In the last few years I have done very little. I am now working on the relocation bill, and I have dealt with urban renewal matters; not as much as Mr. Murphy from our office, who, unfortunately, is ill. Mr. SPRINGER. All right. There has been one thing which has been greatly misunderstood here in the District by a great many people, and I am not sure that we on the committee understand it exactly and this is what I am trying to get on the record, something in testimony which tells us under what conditions legally the plans may be changed or modified. Now, is it your understanding-I am talking about legally, and I am not talking about anybody's opinion. Yesterday a lot of people had opinions on the way in which they did it. In other words, the practice they follow, as such, but nobody rendered a legal opinion on what you can do. Now, as to the Adams-Morgan project. My particular question that is applicable is, may the Commissioners or anyone else connected officially with a project such as that modify or change the plan without giving notice and having hearings? Mr. ROBBINS. That question is a little bit difficult to answer, sir, and I shall try not to hedge. One, they cannot change it-let me strike that. The plan, itself, cannot be approved without the Commissioners having held a public hearing prior to approval. Once the plan is approved by the Commissioners and it is ready to be sent to the RLA for execution, a change may not be made without a public hearing. Mr. SPRINGER. Then I take it from what you say that any time previous to sending it to the RLA, a change can be made? Mr. ROBBINS. If there has been the statutory public hearing held in the first case. After the Planning Commission has adopted the plan and has then sent it to the Commissioners for approval, and the Commissioners hold the public hearing thereon. Mr. SPRINGER. May it be changed, then? Mr. ROBBINS. Such is my opinion, sir. Mr. SPRINGER. Do you think the District Commissioners may change it? Mr. ROBBINS. They can't change it by themselves. Mr. SPRINGER. How can they change it? Mr. ROBBINS. They will send it back to the Planning Commission for the changes to be adopted, and then they have held the public hearing, at which time the interested citizens both pro and con will have had an opportunity to be heard. Mr. SPRINGER. Let's get this straight. Don't misunderstand me: The plan goes to the Commissioners, and the Commissioners decide they want to make a change in it. They send it back to the Planning Commission-is that right? Mr. ROBBINS. Yes, sir. Mr. SPRINGER. And the Planning Commission can make suggested changes; that is what you are talking about, the Commission, either delete or add to? Mr. ROBBINS. Yes. Mr. SPRINGER. Now, at that time, the Planning Commissioner itself must hold hearings on the changes, is that right, or on the whole revised plan? Mr. ROBBINS. Now, of course, we are getting into a sphere of I don't like to speak for the Planning Commission-I think that they have to adopt it, and when they send it back to the Commissioners saying that "We have adopted it," there is a presumption of regularity and that the Planning Commission has followed the procedures that they have to do. And then when they adopted it and they send it back, then it is my opinion that the Commissioners may then approve it without holding a subsequent public hearing. Mr. SPRINGER. Let us trace these steps through: The Planning Commission sends it up to the Commissioners? Mr. ROBBINS. Yes. Mr. SPRINGER. The Commissioners make suggested changes in them? |