Title I originally provided that not more than 10 percent of the authorized Federal loan or capital grant assistance could be expended in any one State. This provision was modified in the Housing Amendments of 1953 authorizing contracts for capital grants aggregating not to exceed an additional $35 million of the total $500 million authorization in states where more than two-thirds of the maximum capital grants permitted under the 10 percent limitation has been obligated." B. Types of Projects Eligible for Federal Aid

Four categories of project areas are eligible for assistance under Title I: (1) slum or deteriorated or deteriorating predominantly residential area, (2) other deteriorated or deteriorating area, (3) predominantly open area, and (4) open area. Eligibility for Federal aid with regard to the latter three types of areas is predicated primarily on the need to expand the areas available for new housing.

C. Major Policy Developments in 1953

Major developments during 1953 in the slum clearance and urban redevelopment program authorized under Title I of the Housing Act of 1949 were the new emphasis on housing code enforcement to complement clearance projects, and the acceleration of progress of local public agencies toward the clearance of slums and blighted areas under plans completed in earlier years.

During the year, considerable momentum was gained in community efforts to conserve existing housing resources through development and enforcement of more adequate codes and regulations, rehabilitation of existing structures, and other conservation measures utilizing, particularly, voluntary efforts of local citizens. This broadening of the attack on urban blight and decay was recognized in certain provisions of the 1954 First Independent Offices Appropriations Act, approved July 31, 1953. Under these provisions, the Administrator, before approving any local program under Title I, is required to give consideration to the efforts of the locality to enforce local codes and regulations relating to adequate standards of health, sanitation, and safety of dwellings and to the feasibility of achieving slum clearance objectives through rehabilitation of existing dwellings and areas.

Under policies adopted pursuant to these provisions, program approvals after June 30, 1953, are withheld until the Division of Slum Clearance and Urban Redevelopment receives from the locality adequate information about its code enforcement program and evidence. that slum clearance objectives cannot feasibly be achieved solely through rehabilitation of existing dwellings and areas. With respect

Late in the year, $20 million of the $35 million of capital grant authorization under this amendment was earmarked for New York City.

to the code modernization and enforcement requirements, emphasis has been placed on progressive improvement. This is in recognition of the fact that few if any localities have adopted codes and established enforcement methods which they themselves consider adequate for their own needs. Every locality is required to demonstrate, with its first application for financial assistance for a project, that it has a definite program for improvement of existing codes and regulations, and to report on the actual accomplishment under such program at designated stages of the planning of the project. If satisfactory accomplishments are shown, Federal financial aid is continued. If progress is inadequate, further Federal financial aid is withheld.

D. Operations

1. Participating Localities

At the end of the year, there were local slum clearance projects in various stages of planning or completion in 180 different communities (160 in 28 States, 1 in the District of Columbia, and 19 in Puerto Rico and Hawaii) compared to 153 cities a year ago. Also at the close of 1953, some 45 additional communities (including localities in 2 additional States and Alaska) were holding reservations of Title I capital grant contract authorization as an indication of their intention to initiate a local slum clearance and redevelopment program with one or more projects.

Participation in the Title I program was proportionately more extensive in the case of the larger cities in the continental United States. Program approvals were outstanding at year end for all but 1 of the cities above 500,000, for somewhat more than half (or 46 of 88) of the cities between 100,000 and 500,000, and for about one-fourth (or 30 of 126) of the cities between 50,000 and 100,000. In contrast, only 68, or fewer than 1 in 50, of the 3,651 incorporated places with populations between 2,500 and 50,000 had received approval for planning or development operations in connection with a local slum clearance project. 2. Project Progress

In general, 1953 witnessed a steady growth in the number of local slum clearance and urban redevelopment projects progressing into the more advanced stages of final planning and development. As of December 31, 1953, development operations-the acquisition, clearance, improvement, and sale of land for redevelopment, and the relocation of families had been approved for 60 projects in 39 different communities. A year ago the total was 24 projects in 16 cities. The preparation of final plans and cost estimates for the undertaking of projects had been approved for an additional 94 projects located in 79 communities, against a total of 76 projects in 60 localities at the end of

1952. Surveys for the identification and delineation of eligible project areas had been approved for 105 other projects in 95 cities. The overall accomplishment in 1953 in comparison to earlier years is summarized in table 12a in Appendix A.

In 32 of the 60 projects approved for development, the demolition of existing structures had been commenced at year end as a prelude to preparation of the land for sale or lease at fair value for redevelopment, almost wholly by private enterprise, for modern uses conforming to and supporting local plans for community growth and redevelopment. Redevelopment of assembled and cleared land had commenced in 9 project areas in 7 cities. In Baltimore, Chicago, Little Rock, Norfolk, and Philadelphia, tenants had already taken occupancy of newly constructed or rehabilitated dwellings provided in connection with local slum clearance projects.

3. Project Characteristics

Of the 154 project areas approved for final planning or development as of December 31, 1953, all but 16 are blighted, deteriorated or deteriorating slum areas, typically at or near the central sections of communities. Of the 16 exceptions, 7 are blighted built-up areas in predominantly nonresidential use and 9 are blighted predominantly open areas.

The 154 project areas embrace more than 5,700 acres of land. More than half are under 25 acres. About one-fourth are smaller than 10 acres. Only 17 are larger than 100 acres. The smallest project area, located in Shelton, Conn., consists of 2 acres. The largest area, the Diamond Heights project in San Francisco, Calif., contains 325 acres. The 9 predominantly open project areas aggregate some 843 acres. Plans for redevelopment of the project areas call for a variety of new uses conforming to local plans for community growth and redevelopment. The major emphasis is on new housing, which will be the exclusive or predominant reuse of the land in 84 of the areas. Residential redevelopment is also planned for part of the land in 11 of the 70 project areas to be redeveloped primarily or exclusively for nonresidential purposes as follows: industrial, 29 areas; commercial, 27 areas; and public and semipublic, 14 areas. Most of the projects for predominantly residential reuse will also provide for some commercial or public redevelopment.

The great bulk of the contemplated residential redevelopment will be privately financed housing. Public housing will be the exclusive reuse in one project, and will predominate in another. Some land will be devoted to public housing in a secondary relationship under the rede

These totals are exclusive of approvals in communities which terminated their local slum clearance and urban redevelopment programs in 1953 as a result either of local decisions or of adverse court rulings on the validity of State enabling legislation.

velopment plans for 8 additional projects. The density patterns to be established under the plans for residential redevelopment will permit the construction of up to approximately 51,000 new dwelling units, with about 17 privately financed units for every public housing unit contemplated. About three-fifths of the privately financed dwelling units will be for rental occupancy.

The approval of Federal assistance for local project undertakings is conditioned on the existence of a feasible method for temporary relocation and the availability for permanent relocation of decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings within the means of the families to be displaced. Before clearance, the 154 projects were estimated to contain approximately 80,000 dwelling units, some 80 percent of which were substandard. About 73,000 families were housed in these areas, with more than half of them eligible for admission to public low-rent housing projects.

4. Project Financing

Estimates of gross project costs-the total outlay by the local public agency in carrying projects to completion-aggregate $452.2 million for the 154 projects. About one-third of this figure, or $146.3 million, is expected to be recovered from the sale or lease of the cleared and improved land, leaving overall net project costs, or deficits, estimated at $305.9 million. Federal capital grants aggregating $196.1 million will help meet this deficit, the balance to be provided by localities in cash ($47.1 million) and donations of land, site improvement and demolition work, or facilities supporting the new uses contemplated under the redevelopment plans.

Outlays of considerable magnitude are anticipated in connection with the ultimate redevelopment of the project areas. As summarized immediately below, these outlays aggregate almost $500 million in the case of 52 of the 53 projects for which Title I capital grants had been approved as of the close of the year. (In the case of one project the data were not available.)

Puolic and semipublic ($79.1 million in the areas, $28.6 million in supporting facilities outside the arcas)..

107.7

Site improvements..

16.7

497.2

Total

Cumulative Title I assistance approved for specific projects in communities represented in the overall program at the close of the year includes:

$105.2 million of capital grants for 53 projects in 33 cities. $104.1 million of temporary loans for 40 projects in 29 cities. $9.9 million of advances for surveys and plans in 167 cities. Contracts for Title I capital grants had been executed for 39 of the 53 projects with capital grants approved. The 39 signed contracts aggregate $87.2 million in capital grants. Some $8.7 million had been disbursed to 7 projects in partial payment of the Federal capital grant commitment.

In the cases of 12 of these 39 projects, funds for project expenditures were available from State and local sources, making it unnecessary for the local public agencies to finance operations with a Federal loan. For the other 27 projects, the contracts for Title I assistance include loans aggregating $63.3 million. Almost half of this amount, or $30.8 million, had been disbursed for 21 projects. However, the balance outstanding at the close of the year had been reduced to $21.9 million through repayments representing funds obtained in borrowings from non-Federal sources at lower interest rates as well as from the sale of land in the project areas. Disbursements of Federal funds under Title I loan contracts were obviated in an additional amount of $4.3 million borrowed initially from non-Federal sources under the above-summarized features of the contracts. All told, some $10.9 million had been borrowed from non-Federal sources within the framework of Title I loan contracts to finance project expenditures.

5. Summary of Operations

The localities participating in the Title I program, the number and type of local program operations approved, and Federal assistance approved and disbursed are summarized in table 12b in Appendix A. E. Coordination and Liaison

Discussion and consultation with FHA, PHA, and officials of other agencies at the national level took place on frequent occasions, to assure coordination concerning problems of interest to more than one constituent agency or division. Particular attention was given to the role of FHA-insured loans in connection with rehabilitation and renovation of existing structures both within and near slum clearance project areas, in keeping with the objectives of the provisions added to Title I of the Housing Act of 1949 by provisions of the 1954 First Independent Offices Appropriations Act.

Attention was also given to the role of FHA mortgage insurance as one of the Federal aids which can be utilized locally to expand the supply of housing available for the relocation of families displaced by