HOW TO DO THE JOB?

"I want to know how to do this job," he said.

The mayor then thanked Mr. Moss and the planning council, the committee for downtown, and the Greater Baltimore committee for the plan.

Mr. Moss said that Charles Center is a "logical planning unit" designed to promote the highest and best use of the land it would occupy. He pointed out low land coverage with open space throughout the project, ease of pedestrian movement and ease of access for automobiles and buses among the high points in the audacious plan.

Mr. Moss said that the Charles Center plan represents a great challenge to Baltimore, a city which has traditionally considered yesterday more divine than today.

He said the plan will refocus Baltimore's attention on the heart of Baltimore and by chain reaction touch off renewal of buildings adjacent to the area.

He admitted that not all business interests would profit from the changeover. The historic Miller's Restaurant would go if the plan is approved as would Hamburger's Department Store, the O'Neill Building, the Maryland Building, the Albert Building, the annex of the Baltimore Gas & Electric Co., and the Metropolitan Savings Bank, along with the old Sun Building and the Century Theater.

ESTIMATE OF COST

Mr. Moss, a real-estate executive, said that Charles Center could be built for slightly over $127 million. Private enterprise would pay $109,965,000, or 86.5 percent of the project cost. The city's share would be the remaining $17,205,000.

For its share of the bill, the city would receive an annual tax yield from the entire project of some $2,600,000, Mr. Moss said. He said the city now gains only $500,000 from taxes on the 251 properties in the area.

According to his estimates, the city's share in the project would be paid off in less than 10 years.

The city, if it accepts the plan, would be called on to pay for the three public parks, the widening of streets and some utility changes and for the construction of the transportation terminal.

The terminal would be leased by the city and would be a self-supporting facility, according to Mr. Moss.

$17 MILLION FOR LAND

Private construction costs in Charles Center total $92,735,000, with an additional $17,230,000 for the land to build on.

Of the $92,735,000, over half would be poured into the office towers. Present estimates call for $59,435,000 to be spent on constructing the Federal office building and 7 additional chrome, steel, stone, and glass office structures.

The proposed new hotel accounts for an additional $11,300,000, the underground parking facilities, $12 million, and stores and commercial areas, $10 million.

Mr. Moss said the city can well afford the cost of the project.

He recommended that the city adopt Charles Center as an official urban renewal project. The plan would then be drawn up by the Urban Renewal and Housing Agency as a renewal plan and presented to the planning commission for its approval. With the final approval of the renewal agency, the plan would be introduced in the city council in ordinance form.

WOULD GO ON BALLOT

With council approval, steps could then be taken to secure State approval of a bond issue to cover the city's cost of the program. If the legislature goes along with the Charles Center plan, the proposal would be put on the ballot in May next year.

The Urban Renewal and Housing Agency, using its powers of condemnation, could then begin acquiring the 251 parcels of land in the area.

Some officials have estimated that demolition could conceivably be started in less than a year and a half.

Officials of the Greater Baltimore Committee, led by Charles H. Buck, its president, are convinced that the plan will work and are optimistic about the action to be taken by the city council and the mayor.

The plan was worked out with the participation of the renewal agency, the department of transit and traffic, the department of public works, and the planning commission and the support of the mayor.

NEED CALLED "URGENT"

Mr. Moss told the mayor today that the need for Charles Center is "urgent." He said that downtown, the center of a rapidly expanding region is deteriorating. He said the tax base for the central business district was $156 million in 1952.

It dropped to $140 million in 1957, he said.

Retail sales fell 12 percent during the same period, according to the real estate executive. Buildings are vacant, small businesses are drying up, dying on the vine.

The alternative to Charles Center is a decentralized metropolitan area, he told the mayor, in which "many small downtowns (will) appear."

He sid that the Charles Center would make downtown a "chooser" instead of a "beggar" and would make Baltimore think boldly in terms of future.

COMMITTEE NAMED

Mr. Buck yesterday announced the formation of a seven-man committee to promote the renewal of Baltimore by private capital.

Its first project will be to implement the plan introduced today. The "development committee" will be headed by Robert B. Hobbs.

The mayor, Mr. Sondheim, Thomas B. Butler, S. Page Nelson, Charles L. Phillips, and James W. Rouse have accepted membership on the committee. Mr. Hobbs is the vice chairman of the board of the First National Bank, Mr. Butler is president of the Mercantile Safe Deposit Co., and Mr. Nelson is the president of the Savings Bank of Baltimore.

Mr. Phillips is president and chairman of the board of the United States Fidelity & Guarantee Co., and Mr. Rouse is president of James W. Rouse & Co., a real estate company.

Mr. Buck said this combination "can and I believe will mold the efforts of private enterprise and the city government into an effective organization of private capital for Baltimore's urban renewal effort."

WHO WOULD PAY FOR IT?

Financing of the proposed Charles Center in the heart of downtown Baltimore would require an outlay of $127,170,000, it was estimated.

Of this amount, private enterests would be expected to put up $109,965,000 for construction of the new buildings.

The city of Baltimore would put up the remaining $17,205,000 or 13.5 percent of the money needed to implement the plan.

Hunter Moss, the chairman of the Planning Council of the Greater Baltimore Committee, described the project as a "tremendous bargain."

INTEREST SHOWN

Some of the Nation's leading developers have already shown interest in the project, Mr. Moss said.

Mr. Moss said that the 250 parcels of land in the area could be acquired for about $24,035,000. The real estate executive said this figure is based upon detailed assessments of the properties in the area.

The cost of acquiring title to the sites includes the added costs of demolition, relocation for some 350 businesses, termination of utility services, and a 10 percent contingency fund.

After demolition of all but five existing structures at a cost of only $1,450,000, Mr. Moss said, the land would be apportioned between the city and private developers.

Redevelopers would be required to pay an estimated $17,230,000 for their share of the land. The city would pay the remainder of the cost of acquiring sites.

$92,735,000 CONSTRUCTION

Private interests would then have to finance construction costs placed at $92,735,000.

The eight office towers account for $59,435,000 of this sum.

Other costs in the breakdown are:

Underground parking garage__

New hotel

Stores and commercial areas-----

$12, 000, 000

11, 300, 000 10, 000, 000

The financial plan for Charles Center proposes that the city, although it sells the land to redevelopers, retain easements for the construction and operation of the parking garage.

Then, as in Pittsburgh's Mellon Square, the city could lease its rights to a private firm or firms for the construction and operation of the garage.

INCREASED TAXES

Mr. Moss estimated the city's investment of $17,205,000 would be repaid in increased taxes in under 10 years.

This sum, according to the finance report, could be raised through the issuance of urban renewal bonds or by special legislation.

The city's share of the burden would be spent in this manner:

Since the terminal and ramps will be largely self-supporting, Mr. Moss estimated the city's investment in urban renewal at $12,805,000.

UNITED STATES FUNDS UNAVAILABLE

Federal funds are not presently available for renewal of commercial areas that continue as such, hence all of this cost must be borne by the city.

The city now receives $504,000 in annual taxes from the 251 properties to be acquired under the plan. Mr. Moss said that "additional tax revenues from Charles Center, even after taking into account the temporary tax loss on the acquired properties, will be $2,110,000 a year. This revenue will amortize the city's entire investment in slightly less than 9 years."

STATEMENT OF HARRY A. BARBOUR

My name is Harry A. Barbour. I reside at 4925 Deal Drive SE. (Glassmanor, Md.), Washington, D. C.

First, permit me to express my appreciation of the courtesy extended me by your committee, in order that I may present certain aspects of the proposed housing legislation that, if enacted into law, will, in my opinion, destroy low-rent, slum clearance public housing for all time.

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, may I outline my background in the field of public housing, as I am confident such knowledge on your part will add emphasis to my remarks.

Subsequent to the passage of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended, I became its first public relations representative. I was director of information and research for the San Francisco Housing Authority; assistant executive director of the Oakland Housing Authority, and later executive direc tor of the Housing Authority of the city of Richmond, Calif., the largest in the Nation-25,600 units. I spoke from more than 200 platforms in the West, explaining the program, including the Real Estate Convention in San Francisco. At this point I would like to state that I represent no special interest group, either public or private. Rather do I speak for the great mass of inarticulate families who so greatly need decent, safe, and sanitary housing, and who, if the

1958 Housing Act is passed without control of income limits, will never have the opportunity to move out of their present unsanitary quarters; slum-clearance, low-rent housing will have been legislated out of existence.

The proposal to amend section 405 (a), section 15 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended, to permit members of a family that would otherwise be compelled to move due to income increases beyond the permissible limits, to continue in occupancy by paying an unsubsidized rent or by purchase of their house or apartment, which has been amended out of the Senate version, should under no circumstances be reinstated in the House.

By doing so, low-rent housing will have been killed for all time.

There are too many families living in hovels and substandard housing that sorely need these housing units, to allow families who can afford the economic rent to continue in occupancy. The excuse is that there are not sufficient privately owned apartments available.

Then let Congress face the problem squarely-let them legislate to provide such homes by proper adjustment of downpayments and interest rates that would permit this group, the greatest untouched housing market in the country, to qualify for private housing. Such legislation would be the greatest possible impetus to our present deflated economy.

But don't tear the heart out of the low-rent program-low-rent housing is for low-income families that cannot pay the present economic rent-let it stay that way.

Unless Congress closes the door to this unsound approach, inside of a few years all the units of the low-rent program will be occupied by those who have no right to be in them. Those who oppose public housing will, and properly so, insist public housing has placed itself in competition with private enterprise, which is contrary to all objectives of low-rent, slum-clearance housing.

The primary purpose behind the original act-slum clearance-must not be buried under a mass of "directives" and "manuals" issued by PHA. Slums are increasing at an alarming rate; they must be cleared to improve the general welfare; they must be cleared because they are eyesores; barnacles that cling and help demoralize the decency of our communities; taxeaters that demand greater and greater percentages of the public budget for police, health, and the many other public services. They breed crime and juvenile delinquency, presenting one of the great problems of our present day society.

Thanks to Congress; thanks to the passage of the United States Housing Act of 1937 as Amended, some hundreds of thousands of families have been given a chance to live decently. How well they have embraced this chance to climb upward economically, is evidenced by the number of families whose incomes have now risen beyond the occupancy limit. They have had their chance they have profited by it-it is now up to them to move to give others the chance that has been given to them. Public housing must be utilized for those who so sorely need it-the waiting lists at each of the local authorities tells the tale.

If the removal presents some difficulties, it must be borne in mind that the United States Congress does not guarantee Utopia-they merely guarantee a chance that chance has been given-others need that same chance.

Should the Housing Act of 1958 be enacted into law with the income limit provision included, you will have killed the slum-clearance, low-rent housing program for all time. The provision in the act would make such action on the part of the local authority “permissive.” You are all persons who have come up the political ladder-you know only too well that when political pressure is exerted heavily and continuously, there are times when it becomes impossible to resist; that will be the case if this provision is granted; "permissive" will become "mandatory"-"directives" will have taken over; low-rent housing will be no more.

Payment in lieu of taxes should be discontinued. As a result of pressure by opposing forces, payment in lieu of taxes have now become a generally recognized factor in the housing program-again as a result of "directives."

As I was one of the first in the Nation to make such a payment (please remember I have been with three different local authorities), I remember that payment was made because the properties were used for defense housing, as shipyard workers were able to pay better than the low-rent sum for their housing units.

Cities and counties now engaged in the slum-clearance, low-rent housing program, should be reminded that they entered into a solemn contract with the United States Government under the provisions of section 10 (a) of the 1937 act

to make local annual contributions, the wording of which reads as follows: quote "No part of such annual contributions by the Authority (PHA) shall be made available for any project unless and until the State, city, county, or other political subdivision in which such project is situated shall contribute, in the form of cash or tax remissions, general or special, or tax exemptions, at least 20 per centum of the annual contributions herein provided"-end of quote.

In the face of such a contract why should the political subdivisions receive such payments in lieu of taxes?-They have been well rewarded by the clearing of some wretched slum properties that were a disgrace to their communities; they have found it unnecessary to spend such great sums for the services previously supplied; they have benefited the taxpayer by the elimination of this special cost; those are the payments-wonderful payments civic decency and civic betterment-why do they demand money? Such demands are equivalent to welshing on their contract with the United States. There should be no payments in lieu of taxes; the money should be used to reduce rentals.

The Public Housing Administration, rather than encouraging this practice, should oppose it vigorously as being contrary to the conditions of the annual contributions contract, together with it being contrary to the wishes of Congress as expressed in the 1937 act.

Now comes talk of reducing the period of amortization from 40 years to 31% years based on what are called-residual receipts-in other words, profit. What profits? The only way profits can accrue, other than those very minor resulting from careful administration, must come from overcharging of rents. There should be no residual receipts in a well-operated authority. Income above expenditures should be used to lower rentals, thus making it possible to reach down to those needing housing so badly. As for the local authority getting onethird of the residue, again, why? If they have properly administered their authority, they do not need one-third of the profits, having sufficient funds at their command for proper operation.

It appears to be completely overlooked that Congress never at any time, contemplated profits from slum-clearance, low-rent housing operations. Further, such reduction of time would play havoc with the bond conditions, so should be eliminated from consideration, using the money to reduce rents.

Sound budget control, a well-managed management program, and exercise of proper supervision over R. M. and R. (repair, maintenance, and replacement), will carry any local authority along without recourse to improper rental schedules for profit. As stated previously, any minor profit that might result should be used to reduce rentals.

Should the 1958 Housing Act be enacted by Congress with a greater degree of autonomy for local authorities on budgetary and management affairs, while retaining the right of audit by General Accounting Office that would act as an invisible brake against loose expenditures; if it embraces protection against removal of rental ceilings; such enactment will again have demonstrated the desire and intent of Congress to provide for the low-income families of our Nation in a manner best suited to their interests, which in turn represents the best interest of our Nation.

Gentlemen, if I have presented these arguments somewhat strenuously, may I ask you to please consider that I have spent 20 years with this program. I know its strength and its weaknesses; I know of the pressures; the heartaches; the pleasure of a job well done; and the danger that hovers ahead to eliminate the program in its entirety.

Thank you, gentlemen.

STATEMENT BY Bernard Weitzer, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, Jewish War VETERANS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

As this committee knows, the Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America have always maintained a keen interest in housing and have appreciated the efforts of your committee to strengthen legislation to carry out, fully, the Housing Act of 1949. In line with that interest, our organization, at its 62d annual national convention passed the following resolution:

"Be It Resolved, That the Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America in 62d annual national convention assembled in Boston, Mass., August 12-18, 1957, urge the Congress to pass legislation to reinvigorate the Housing Act of 1949, as amended, with special emphasis on removing the shackles from the public housing