Page images
PDF
EPUB
[graphic]

ally, with particularly low standards for Negroes and Mexican Americans; social patterns to enforce the dependency of both poor whites and Negroes.

Since World War II and particularly since the early 1950s, the spread of automation has been reducing the number of unskilled and semi-skilled jobs that require little or no education or training. The types of jobs that helped to adjust previous generations of foreign immigrants and rural American migrants to America's urban areas have not been expanding.

In ghetto areas in the cities, about 10 percent to 15 percent of the adult men and about 40 percent to 50 percent of out-of-school teenagers (including an estimate of those usually not counted by the Labor Department) are unemployed. In addition, a Labor Department survey of slum areas in November 1966 found that nearly 7 percent of those with jobs were employed only part-time, although they wanted fulltime work, and 20 percent of those working full-time earned less than $60 a week. This same Labor Department survey found that nearly 40 percent of the families and unrelated individuals in big city slum areas earn less than $3,000 a year.

However, it costs about $7,000, at present prices, to maintain a modest standard of living, including a few amenities but no luxuries, for a family of four in America's metropolitan areas-more for a larger family and less for a smaller family. Elimination of the amenities would result in a cost of about $5,000 to maintain a minimum decent standard of living for a family of four in our urban areas-scaled up and down for different family sizes.

Yet government reports indicate that probably about 20 percent of the population, within city limits, earn less than the amount necessary for a minimum decent standard of living. Within ghetto areas, perhaps 60

percent to 70 percent or more of the families are in that category. The result is badly overcrowded housing, inadequate diet, poor medical care, few books and magazines for about 20 percent of city families and about 60 to 70 percent of those who live in ghetto slums.

The hardcore slum areas continue to deteriorate. People with jobs, some skills and some regular incomes have been moving out. They are replaced with new migrants from the rural South-adding to the remaining lowest-income families, the jobless, the aged and fatherless families.

A large proportion of these slum residents depend on welfare payments, often to mothers with dependent children and no father present. The Labor Department survey of November 1966 found that 30 percent of the population of East Harlem, 30 percent of the Watts population, 40 percent of the BedfordStuyvesant children and 25 percent of the adults receive welfare payments. Moreover, the lack of adequate child-care facilities in slum areas is a barrier to employment for women with children.

Trapped by a history of degradation and the recent impact of automation, these new migrants to the city are also trapped by the unavailability of low-andmoderate cost housing, as well as by discrimination against colored peoples.

The peak home construction year before World War II was 1925. From 1926 to 1945, a period of 20 years, home-building was in a slump. It wasn't until 1946 that the 1925-level of housing starts was reached.

Since 1945, the ups and downs of residential construction have followed conditions in the money market -interest rates and availability of money. Normal

business operations and government programs have provided housing for families in the middle-income range and above (at present, about $7,000-$8,000 annual income and more).

The residential construction of the postwar period, however, has essentially ignored housing for the entire bottom half of our income distribution-for the lower middle-income group as well as the poor.

For lower middle-income families, with current incomes of about $5,000 to $8,000, the postwar years have seen only little new housing construction, with present rentals or carrying charges and taxes of about $85-$135 per month. This is particularly true for large families, with three or more children, in this income-range.

For the urban poor-families with current incomes of about $5,000 a year and less-there has been hardly any new housing construction during the 22 years since World War II and there was very little of such construction in the preceding 20 years from 1926 through 1945. Almost a half-century of rapid change in our cities-including the great Negro migration has passed with hardly any housing construction for low-income families.

Realistic rentals for poor families would have to be concentrated around $40 to $70 a month. Since the private market cannot provide such housing, public housing and public rehabilitation are essential. But, in recent years, the total number of new public dwelling units has been only about 30,000-40,000 per year.

Moreover, the urban renewal program, which has bulldozed Negro slum areas, has concentrated on the construction of commercial buildings and luxury highrise apartments. Relocation of families displaced from the slums has been neglected or ignored and there has been hardly any replacement of low-rental housing.

In addition, during the 1950s and early 1960s, the traditional conservative opposition to low-cost publicly subsidized housing for the poor was joined by many so-called liberals-the same coalition that debunked the impact of automation on unskilled and semi-skilled factory workers and on industrial location as a trade union myth.

At the same time, middle and upper-income families have been moving to the suburbs. This movement has opened up older housing in the cities. But, combined with the movement of industry to the suburbs and countryside, it has reduced the tax-base of the cities, when the demands on their financial resources for housing, welfare, education and public facilities are mounting. Moreover, the change of industrial location has compounded the problems of inadequate mass transportation facilities for low-income city-dwellers to get to the new areas of employment growth. And most suburban communities have rather rigid colorbar restrictions, as well as an absence of low-cost housing.

The New Deal's beginnings to provide low-cost public housing nearly perished between 1952 and

1966. And much of the long-delayed legislation of the 1960s to achieve partial adjustments to the radical changes in American life were first steps, without previous experience, precedents and trained personnel. Moreover, federal appropriations for even these purposes were kept down by public apathy. Yet, they were greatly oversold and their adoption aroused expectations of overnight solutions that were impossible to achieve.

America's urban crisis is a national complex of social problems-rather than simple problems of individual communities. No city or state government can solve them in isolation. Neither can private enterprise, even with the promise of tax subsidies. Their solution requires nationwide social measures, with adequate federal funds and standards.

Step by step, we must begin immediately to rebuild America's cities and lift the living conditions of the American people.

[subsumed][merged small][graphic][merged small]

There are a large number of people who cannot find regular employment in the job market due to insufficient jobs for those who lack education, vocational training and previous regular employment. Such long-term unemployed and under-employed persons, including those who have given up seeking jobs, should be given the opportunity to work in local, state, federal and non-profit public services that would not otherwise be done.

Jobs of this type, with wages not less than the federal minimum wage, could provide services for which society has growing needs-such as in parks, recreational facilities, day-care centers, hospitals, schools and libraries. In endorsing the concept of such a program, the tri-partite National Commission on Technology, Automation and Economic Progress declared:

"The public service employment program should be coupled with basic education, training and counseling to raise the productivity of the employes and assist them to move on to better jobs. With this assistance the opportunity for higher incomes would provide the necessary incentive to seek other jobs. Since the jobs would provide services for which society has growing needs, no element of make-work would be involved."

We urge immediate adoption by the Congress of a $4 billion program, along the lines of the bill introduced by Congressman O'Hara of Michigan and 76

96-292 0-68-16

associates, to provide the necessary funds to federal, state and local government agencies and to non-profit organizations, to help them bear the cost of creating one million public service jobs for those who are now unemployed or seriously under-employed. The emergency employment section of the anti-poverty bill introduced by Senator Clark of Pennsylvania represents a step in this direction.

In a work-oriented society, jobs for the unemployed are the first essential towards helping people to lift themselves out of poverty and deprivation.

22 Million
New Housing Units
Each
Year

America requires a national housing goal of 21⁄2 million new dwelling units each year during the next decade, supplemented by a large-scale effort to rehabilitate substandard housing that is worth savingto provide an ample supply of decent homes for our rapidly growing population, as well as for those who live in substandard housing. Such goal is in sharp contrast to the annual construction of only 1.2-1.6 million new housing units in recent years, accompanied by very little rehabilitation.

The most urgent needs are: 1-to provide low-rent publicly subsidized housing-new and rehabilitatedfor the approximately 20 percent of city families whose incomes are below the requirements for a minimum decent standard of living (about $5,000 a year for a family of four); 2-to provide adequate housing for lower middle-income families (between about $5,000 and $8,000 a year for a 4-person family) who are not eligible for public housing and cannot obtain decent dwellings in the standard, privately financed housing market; and 3-to provide expanded and improved community facilities and services-such as schools, hospitals, mass transit, day-care centers and playgrounds.

Low-Rent Public Housing-Construction of new, low-rent publicly-subsidized housing should be stepped up immediately from a yearly rate of 30,000-40,000 new starts of recent years to 200,000-300,000 per year in the next two years and stepped up, thereafter, to an annual rate of 500,000.

New public housing construction should be supplemented by large-scale publicly-subsidized rehabilitation to provide additional low-rent housing. Rentals of such new and rehabilitated housing should be concentrated in a range of $40 to $70 per month to meet

the needs of the city poor. In order to maintain decent housing at low rentals, a partial government subsidy should be provided for adequate maintenance of the properties.

A major federal effort along these lines should include architectural designs and first-class construction for attractive homes and neighborhoods. It should also include an emphasis on people and services-with provision for nearby shopping, schools, transportation, playgrounds and the availability of social services. As part of an overall effort to rebuild our urban areas, new and rehabilitated low-rent public housing should be located in both the city and suburbs and interspersed with other types of rental and private housing for the creation of balanced neighborhoods.

The federal program should include provision for the potential sale of low-rent public housing developments or parts of such developments to tenant cooperatives or to tenants who meet the income requirements for home-ownership.

We strongly support an adequate rent supplement program, but this program should be a supplement to, not a substitute for, a major effort to provide new and rehabilitated low-rent homes for low-income families.

Housing for Lower Middle-Income Families—Another large-scale program is needed to provide the opportunity for decent homes for lower middle-income families with monthly rentals concentrated in a range from about $85 to $135.

A considerable step-up and overhaul is needed in the present very small program of federally subsidized interest rate loans-at 3 percent-to sharply increase the construction of such housing by cooperatives, nonprofit and limited divided corporations. A federal subsidy for the partial abatement of local taxes on such properties is also required.

Federal housing legislation should also make it possible for cooperatives, nonprofit and limited dividend corporations to acquire existing properties-with government insurance of long-term and low-interest loans -for the operation of such housing.

Trade unions, limited dividend corporations, cooperatives and churches should be encouraged to participate in a large-scale effort to provide decent homes that lower middle-income families can afford.

Moderate-Income Housing-This section of the housing market already operates with government-insured mortgages such as FHA and VA. There is need, however, to increase the supply of funds that move into this part of the housing market.

Major sources of additional funds, such as pension funds, college endowment funds, and private trusts are not attracted, to a sufficient degree, by mortgage investments, even when they are government-insured. A bond or debenture-type obligation, fully guaranteed by federal insurance, could be the method to channel additional funds, through the private bond market, into the financing of housing, as a supplement to the funds of private mortgage financing institutions.

[merged small][ocr errors]

An increase in the supply of moderate-income housing will enable such families to upgrade their living conditions and make additional dwellings available for lower middle-income families.

Open Housing Housing restrictions against Negroes and other minority groups must be eliminated. All people, regardless of color or national origin or religion, must have the legal right to buy or rent dwellings that they can afford-in the suburbs and outlying areas, as well as in the cities. Open housing is an essential part of a meaningful effort to rebuild our metropolitan areas.

Urban Renewal-The emphasis of the federal urban renewal program should be shifted drastically from commercial and expensive high-rise construction to a focus on homes for people, balanced neighborhoods, community facilities and services. Families to be displaced by the elimination of slum housing must be provided assistance in finding decent dwellings at rents they can afford.

We have repeatedly stated our support of the Model Cities program with adequate appropriations and we reiterate our support. But this program alone is not enough.

The ghettos of our major cities must be replaced, as rapidly as an increasing volume of new and rehabilitated housing becomes available, by balanced neighborhoods, with a mixture of different types of housing and different economic and racial groups. A combination of new sites for housing developments, open housing in the suburbs, the large-scale construction and rehabilitation of low-rent and lower-middleincome housing can quickly begin to eliminate ghettos and the isolation of their inhabitants. Any semblance of apartheid-whether enforced by old racial barriers or new legislative proposals of well-meaning liberalshas no place in America.

Mass Transit

EXPRESS:

KOOL

In localities where the construction of rapid transit systems will take several years, emergency measures should be adopted to provide temporary but adequate and fast service in areas that now have inadequate transit service or none at all.

Mobility has always been an important part of American life. The rebuilding of America's metropolitan areas must include adequate provisions for mobility in transportation, housing and employment, rather than the stifling isolation of ghettos.

Accelerated
Construction of
Public
Facilities

The rebuilding of our metropolitan areas will require an increased pace of public facilities construction -water supplies, sewage systems, mass transit, schools, hospitals, day-care centers, playgrounds, libraries, museums, clean air and water.

[graphic]
[graphic][subsumed]

Every American city has an urgent need for an improved and expanded mass transit system. The need is greatest and most urgent in the low-income areas of most cities. With the movement of industry to outlying areas and suburbs, open housing and the establishment of adequate mass transit systems are as essential to the solution of America's urban crisis as the massive construction and rehabilitation of housing.

The Congressional Joint Economic Committee has published a comprehensive and detailed inventory of existing state and local facilities projected needs in each category for the decade 1965-1975. This

[graphic][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][graphic][subsumed]

report projects a rise from $20 billion for state and local public facilities in 1965 to more than $40 billion in 1976-for a total expenditure of $328 billion over the decade.

In the past, federal grants-in-aid have accounted for 20 percent of the aggregate cost of these state and local outlays-with borrowing accounting for 50 percent and current state and local revenues for 30 percent. Federal grants-in-aid vary by category from none at all to 50 percent and more.

An acceleration in the pace of building these essential facilities-the underpinnings of adequate living conditions-will require a step-up of federal grantsin-aid.

We urge the Congress to adopt at least a $2 billion a year additional grant-in-aid program for an acceleration of public facilities construction by state and local governments-in addition to categorical grantsin-aid.

Youth Employment

The highly successful Neighborhood Youth Corps program provides about 300,000 full-time and parttime jobs for youngsters below the age of 21-part

The 89th Congress of 1965-1966 rightfully deserves recognition as the education Congress, for never before in our history was there such a comprehensive attempt to deal with the specific problems facing the nation in education. There remain, however, significant gaps in the over-all plan to fully develop programs which will realistically meet the needs of urban communities.

At the elementary and secondary school levels, priority must be given to the principle of equalizing the standard and quality of instruction provided pupils from low income families with those from middle- and upper-income groups.

The recently developed More Effective Schools program advanced by American Federation of Teachers' locals should be implemented in all urban communities. The program requires additional funding beyond present levels because of its very nature. It addresses itself to the remedying of years of substandard education offered minority and low-income groups.

Significant aspects of the program are costly, but there are no alternatives. To meet our current and future needs, local school systems must have funds available to approve programs which will reduce class size to a maximum of 22, add additional teachers to deal with problem children, add to guidance counselor services and upgrade the skills of counselors, provide special care for the seriously disturbed child, provide teacher-aids and add medical and dental services over and above the amount now provided in regular school programs.

Vocational education and training is not reaching the hardcore of the large number of unemployed youth in our cities, the school dropouts and youths with socio-economic disadvantages.

Vocational education must be geared to the needs of the modern job market. It must adopt educational methods that reach into young peoples' minds to pre

[graphic]
« PreviousContinue »