To sum up our findings in this survey, they show:

1. Relocation is a very costly process for many independents. Many experience losses for which they are not adequately compensated.

2. While compensation is judged inadequate, a majority of those who have moved report that it was not a factor in compelling business retrenchment.

3. There is support for liberalized compensation, however it extends only into the areas of tangibles-items like machinery, equipment, fixtures, moving costs, etc., which are readily verifiable, and not into the area of intangibles— items like living costs, lost income, etc., which are not so easily verifiable. 4. While there is support for liberalized compensation, there is also strong insistence that this be provided with strict safeguards for the public purse. 5. Despite the difficulties encountered by those who had completed their moves and those left in fringe areas, and despite the difficulties anticipated by those facing the need to move:

(a) A significant number (60 percent) of firms which had completed their moves reported income as great as or greater than that in their old locations, as against 40 percent of those left behind in the fringe area.

(b) Three of the 79 firms in these categories reported having to close down their operations-one because of seemingly poor redevelopment planning, one because of diversion of a highway necessary to his trade, and one for reasons that are not clearly indicated.

6. There is seemingly, a great need for improved informational procedures for the benefit of firms affected by these programs.

7. While there is some criticism of the concepts chiefly urban redevelopment and Area Redevelopment Act, chief criticism is over the need for improvement in the laws and the procedures involved in them.

STATEMENT OF ISADORE CANDEUB, PRESIDENT of Candeub, FLEISSIG & ASSOCIATES, NEWARK, N.J., ON S. 2468 AND RELATED BILLS

REGIONAL PLANNING GOALS

In the last few years the most significant change in planning has been in the direction of an expanded regional planning operation. More and more of the problems affecting our urban areas are clearly not resolvable within the scope of municipal boundaries and are being approached on a metropolitan and regional level. This has resulted in a sharp increase in the number of regional planning agencies, and within the next decade will surely see a vast increase in the budgets, staffs, and operations of these agencies.

To date, regional planning has emerged as an outgrowth of the various types of studies and activities undertaken in city planning offices. While there has been some modification in function, the general orientation to problems has not been significantly different. Emphasis has been on special projects such as transportation, water resources, and utilities; on coordination between agencies; and on the development of standards and their administration through such controls as subdivision ordinances and zoning.

In view of the new emphasis on regional planning, we should consider whether or not our present orientation to regional planning is adequate.

It is pertinent to consider the orientation and philosophy of those who are practicing planning at the present time. Most of the individuals in the field received their academic training and entered the field either in the immediate postwar period or during the 1950's. Both in school and in professional practice during this period considerable emphasis has been placed on planning being realistic, practical and effective. This is the banner under which planning has presented itself to the political leaders within the individual communities; this is the claim set forth at public hearings, before citizen groups; and this is the claim that is made with requests for additional public funds. There has been no hesitancy to claims for planning the same hard-headed practicality and fiscal responsibility as that of the businessman or corporation officer.

This orientation has come about as a consequence of a number of factors. The first could be considered as a reaction to the past-the past in which planning was considered to have been largly a matter of pretty drawings which were filed or used as room decorations. The second factor was the rather critical nature of some of the problems with which we were faced in the immediate postwar period and the very direct orientation of planning programs to these

problems. The planner felt that he had the solution to traffic, parking, land use and other problems, and in his eagerness to secure acceptance of plans and projects there was a constant hammering away at the feasibility of the solutions proposed. Thirdly, planners discovered that the most effective way to achieve results was to incorporate plans into a capital improvement budget and that to do so required a thoroughly studied fiscal solution.

While these three considerations were uppermost, the sharp reaction to the illustrative type of planning of the past, the immediate concern with practical projects, and the need for fiscal programing in terms of capital improvement budgets, another overriding concern was the desire to legitimatize a new profession. To do so required a deliberate severance with the past. The planner didn't want to be considered as just a "visionary" or a "do-gooder"; he wanted to be accepted as a hard working, technical analyst, designer and programer concerned with very real problems and oriented to realistic and effective solutions. Curiously, in the process of shaping and solidifying his image both for himself and for the public at large, the planner and the planning movement in America cast aside a very precious heritage. The early city planning movement in America had two aspects to it: (1) the city beautiful theme and (2) civic betterment. These developed in response to the problems of the 1880's and 1890's and represented in their time strong movements for the reshaping of our industrial cities. Out of the city beautiful movement we had emphasis on boulevards, parks, playgrounds, civic centers, monuments, museums, libraries and other cultural facilities. Unfortunately, over the years the movement as a whole lost its vitality and was finally reduced to a ladies tea society. The civic betterment movement, which took in muckrakers and reformers such as Lincoln Stephens and Jacob Riis, ultimately found outlets in settlement house activity, the civil service movement, recreation programs and, at a late date, housing reform and public housing. However, the general public image of civic betterment that has been passed down over the years has been that of the impractical reformer, do-gooder, and women's league amateur.

We are at a stage now in the development of planning in this country when it may be well to look back on this heritage that we have taken such great pains to deny during the last 15 to 18 years. The channelization of planning efforts into projects as such and into the minute breakdowns called for in our technical planning programs such as detailed land use, traffic counts, population distribution, economic projections, and capital improvement budgets, have taken us at times further and further away from what should be our overriding concern and true objectives-the quality of living that we can offer in our urban areas and the degree to which we are able to provide for the broad range of needs of the people that live and work in our great metropolitan regions.

This need for a return to basic objectives applies to the field of planning as a whole but most particularly to regional planning. In postwar city planning, our concern was with corrective programs, relief of congestion, parking solutions, playground projects, slum clearance, modernized zoning, and central business district development. This orientation is not adequate for long-term city planning and is most inadequate in setting the broad sights needed for our regional planning endeavors.

In considering appropriate objectives for regional planning, the basic themes of the city beautiful and civic betterment movements appear to have renewed vitality and importance to the degree that they can be brought up to date and placed within the context of our economy of abundance and greatly expanded metropolitan regions.

In the splintering of activities so common today where residence is in a suburban community, shopping in a regional shopping center, and industrial employment in an industrial park or old, industrial center, it is obvious that we are in need of a better defined image of the structure of our metropolitan regions. While our highways bind the regions, the highway as a connector suffers by being rural rather than urban. It is not the setting for buildings; it is not directly joined to the pattern of streets and blocks and land uses that make up our visual imagery of an urban area. We need a better designed street system; we need a more conscious regard for aesthetics in building frontage; we need a greater emphasis on civic squares, boulevards, and monuments. Without these, our cities are becoming places of utter boredom and dreariness. Our suburban areas, with their dull repetition of subdivision tracts without any formal design or pattern for the area as a whole, merely create additional dullness and provide little relief either to the eye or to the spirit.

How can we achieve pride of place? How can we achieve satisfaction with the daily experience of living in an area? The crying need is for a strong pattern of regional development with strong focal points, strong connecting linkages, exciting vistas, and opportunities for exploration, discovery, and visual change, all within a range of travel readily available to any portion of a metropolitan region. This is the level of planning that we should seek, and we should seek it not from the point of view of practical planning or in the spirit of compensation for inherited problems. A sound and stimulating living environment needs no justification. It is a basic goal.

A second base point to our regional planning activities is to deal with the broad range of social and economic needs of the people who live in our regions. These are people concerned about their jobs, the schools and colleges that they will send their children to, their faith in the progressive development of their region in competition with other regions, their concern as residents, as property owners, as employees, as businessmen, and industrial managers.

The regional planning program should encompass specific economic and social objectives; it should provide for job opportunities in terms of industrial sites, utility expansion, transportation facilities, and related other facilities. It should provide outlets for youth activity. It should set up programs for proper development of schools, colleges, and other training facilities. It should provide facilities for the aged. It should provide for resource development and enhancement, particularly of rivers, streams, woodlands, and other natural resources. It should, in its totality, encompass a sufficiently broad range of programs enhancing the development of a region, to establish faith and confidence in the prospects of the region not only on the part of officials but on the part of all elements of the population.

If the regional planning program is to serve in this fashion, it will require support and participation going far beyond what can be offered by the planner in his technical role. On the other hand, if the planner sets his sights on a broad enough target, the opportunities for securing the participation and assistance of all of the dynamic forces within the region are greater, and the chances of ultimately carrying out a sound plan are also greater.

STATEMENT OF CLIFFORD DAVIS, A U.S. CONGRESSMAN FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE

It is a pleasure to be in Boston for this hearing of the Select Subcommittee on Real Property Acquisition of the Committee on Public Works, House of Representatives.

This is the sixth public hearing held by the subcommittee, in various sections of the country, as part of a comprehensive study to determine whether owners and tenants of property affected by Federal and federally assisted land acquisition programs receive fair and equal compensation and adequate assistance, considering the value of their property, the expenses they incur in replacing their homes, the expenses and losses they may suffer in liquidating and reestablishing their farms and businesses, and keeping in mind the interests of the general taxpayer.

I want to emphasize at the outset that the subcommittee is not inquiring into questions relating to the desirability of programs, the plans, design, or location of specific projects, or the need for acquiring particular properties. We recognize the importance of these matters but they are not within the scope of our study.

In Boston today, and in Providence tomorrow, we will be concerned primarily with programs in urban areas. We have asked representatives of Federal, State, and local agencies concerned with programs of urban renewal, public housing, and highway construction to discuss their land acquisition and relocation activities. Testimony will be received from the Small Business Administration about its special loan program for displaced small businesses and other activities. We will also hear from experts in law, economics, sociology, and real estate appraisal. Several have done extensive research on the effects of dislocation upon individuals, families, and businesses in the New England area. One of the important considerations in the decision to hold our urban hearings here was the opportunity presented for members of the subcommittee to hear personally from these knowledgeable men.

We have seen in recent years a vast increase in the amounts of land needed for public programs all over the country. Highway construction, urban renewal, public housing, airports, flood control, and water resources develop

ment, military and space agency installations, public building construction, and other programs require more and more land each year. Property values have been climbing and in many areas the availability of property for relocation or replacement has decreased sharply.

The great demand for land has been accompanied by increased concern for persons forced to make way for public improvements. We see this concern expressed in increased resistance to projects by those who fear their property may be taken or damaged. We note higher percentages of condemnation activity in many programs, and complaints of inadequate agency offering prices. We hear of strained appraisals with values adjusted to meet owner demands and to avoid condemnation. And there seem to be even wider variations between initial Government offers and final settlements or court awards.

Congress has enacted legislation from time to time designed to ease hardships. However, action to date has been "piecemeal," and has been directed to specific programs or to specific cases. Many Members of Congress, in both Houses and on both sides of the aisle, have become concerned that this kind of "piecemeal" legislation, if continued, will result in compensation being dependent more on the program involved than the severity of the loss suffered. It was because of this concern that the Public Works Committee of the House of Representatives created our subcommittee and directed it to make this study. I believe it is particularly appropriate in these hearings on programs in urban areas to acknowledge the warm support we have received from Senator John Sparkman, the distinguished chairman of the Housing Subcommittee of the Senate Banking and Currency Committee, who has long urged this kind of study.

We expect to complete our work this year and to submit a report to the Congress with specific recommendations and legislative proposals. I am confident that the testimony we receive here in Boston today and in Providence tomorrow will contribute materially to the knowledge and understanding we must have to accomplish our purpose.

A CONGRESSIONAL STUDY OF JUST COMPENSATION

ARTICLE PREPARED FOR MANUAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF APPRAISERS

(By Henry H. Krevor, Chief Counsel, Select Subcommittee on Real Property Acquisition, Committee on Public Works, U.S. House of Representatives) ***Nor shall any person *** be deprived of * property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

These noble words written into our constitutional system by the adoption of the fifth amendment give recognition to the importance of private property in our country, and guarantee the payment of just compensation when private property is taken to meet public needs.

Why the study

There has been growing concern in recent years about the fairness of compensation to property owners and tenants in Government land acquisition programs. We see it in increased resistance to projects by persons who fear their property may be taken or damaged. We note higher percentages of condemnation activity in many programs; and complaints of inadequate agency offering prices. We hear of "fudged" appraisals, with values adjusted to meet owner demands and to avoid condemnation. There seem to be ever wider variations between initial Government offers and final settlements or court awards. Writers call for serious rethinking about present laws and practices. And Members of Congress are flooded with complaints from constituents and demands for change. Why is this so? Why is there so much controversy about concepts and standards which for many years have been accepted as reasonably satisfactory?

Surely, there is no real doubt that public officials responsible for the acquisition of real property generally are men of integrity, competency, and conscience: and that they try to be fair to persons affected by public programs. Certainly, we expect our public officials to recognize an equal degree of responsibility to the general taxpayer who must pay for these programs.

Perhaps, the increased attention to these land acquisition activities is not at all surprising when one considers the vast increase in the amount of property and the growing complexity of the kinds of interests in property required to meet our expanding economic, military, and scientific needs.

Consider for a moment current programs involving the acquisition of land for locks and dams, reservoirs, levees, military facilities, airports, public buildings, parks, highways, public housing, urban renewal, and other purposes. There is every reason to expect that current high levels of activity will continue, and more than likely increase in the years ahead. Property values have been climbing, and the supply of property available for relocation or replacement in some areas has decreased sharply. Programs of urban renewal and freeway-type highways in particular require large proportions of improved property, and they displace ever greater numbers of families and businesses.

In any event, legislation has been enacted in several instances to provide more liberal payments in particular programs; and in the past 3 Congresses, close to 300 bills were introduced bearing to some degree on problems of land acquisition and compensation. There was a feeling, however, that these bills offered at best only "piecemeal" solutions, and there was concern that additional legislation directed toward individual programs might result in varying amounts being paid to owners and occupants of property, depending more on the program involved than the severity of the loss suffered.

Consequently, several Members of Congress introduced bills providing for the establishment of a Commission to make a broad study of the subject. Examples during the 87th Congress include S. 671, introduced by Senator Sparkman, and H.R. 1995, H.R. 2074, and H.R. 4851, introduced by Representatives Stubblefield, Burke, and Albert, respectively. On introducing his bill, Senator Sparkman explained his purpose this way:

This study should be broad enough to cover all land acquisitions under Federal and federally assisted programs, such as highway program, public works programs, urban renewal programs, and military programs. It should be broad enough to cover all land acquisition, no matter how the property is acquired or by whom. It should be broad enough also to cover all the widespread effects of these land acquisitions-their effects on owners, on tenants, on nearby property and businesses, and on others affected by the acquisition. It should be broad enough to cover the benefits and burdens of these land acquisitions, in relation to the persons and businesses involved and to the Federal programs under which the properties are acquired. For example, the study should include the extent to which the costs of Federal programs are borne by individuals or firms whose property is taken or whose property or business is either destroyed or reduced in value by the taking of neighboring property, and the extent to which these costs are borne by the general public which underwrites these programs. It should also include consideration of the benefits which these programs may provide for persons and businesses in affected areas.

"The study should be made in the broad spirit of the just compensation provision of the 5th amendment and the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments. It should not be limited to a determination of the legal bounds of those provisions or of any particular statute."

The Bureau of the Budget approved the general purpose and objectives of these "Commission" bills; however it suggested that the study might best be conducted by a body clearly part of the legislative branch.

Under these circumstances, the Committee on Public Works established the Select Subcommittee on Real Property Acquisition and directed it to make a comprehensive and objective, bipartisan study of the acquisition of property under all Federal and federally assisted programs. The subcommittee is fortunate in having Representative Clifford Davis of Tennessee as it chairman and Representative Howard Robinson of New York as ranking minority member. This is the first study of its kind ever undertaken by the Federal Government and, simply stated, the subcommittee task is to determine whether owners and occupants of property affected by these programs are fairly and equally compensated under current agency practices and traditional standards of compensation, considering the value of their property, the expenses they incur in relocating their homes and businesses, and the interests of the general taxpayer. Federal concepts of just compensation

A brief review of a few of the basic concepts of compensation under Federal law will help to pinpoint the more significant problem areas.

As we have seen, the fifth amendment guarantees just compensation when private property is taken for public use. The Constitution does not, however, provide any rules or techniques for implementing this guarantee. Congress has not attempted to establish broad legislative policies on the subject. And it has been left to the courts to develop the basic principles and standards