THE UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF MAYORS, URBAN REWEWAL AND THE LOCAL BUSINESS COMMUNITY THE QUESTIONNAIRE On February 21, 1964, mayors of the 585 cities with populations of 30,000 and over were asked to report on the extent of local "business support and involvement in the urban renewal program" in their communities. The poll was undertaken by the conference of mayors in all cities eligible for membership in the conference. Noting "a vigorous campaign undertaken by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce against urban renewal," the questionnaire letters asked whether local chambers of commerce had taken official positions on urban renewal issues and if so, how their support or opposition had been expressed. RESPONSES As of March 25, 1964, replies to the questionnaires had been received at conference headquarters from 220 cities-big and small. The list of those responding runs across the population range: 147 have populations between 30,000 and 100,000; 50 have populations between 100,000 and 300,000; 19 have populations between 300,000 and 2 million; 4 have populations of more than 2 million. The returns in the poll showed that: In 156 of the 220 cities, local chambers of commerce endorsed and actively supported urban renewal programs. In 5 of the 220 cities, local chambers of commerce were on record in opposition to urban renewal. In 59 of the 220 cities, local chambers of commerce had taken no position on urban renewal. Many of the mayors, who reported uncommitteed attitudes by local chambers also noted repeated instances in which other industry organizations and local business leaders, closely allied with their chambers, had actively participated in community committees supporting renewal projects. IN SUPPORT Reports from the cities on local chamber support of urban renewal were accompanied by signed statements and other documentary evidence of that support. This is a sampling from the responses: Cleveland (Curtis Lee Smith, president, Cleveland Chamber of Commerce): "As an officer of the Cleveland Development Foundation since its formation in 1954, we have encouraged the development of Cleveland's urban renewal program." Nashville and Davidson County (Mayor Beverly Briley): The local chamber has "supported urban renewal in every facet." Pasadena, Calif. (John E. McCarthy, manager, Pasadena Chamber of Commerce): "This chamber strongly supports the local redevelopment project and was instrumental in having the local agency established." Waterbury, Conn. (Mayor Joseph F. McNellis): "The Greater Waterbury Chamber of Commerce has been and continues to be an ardently strong supporter of urban renewal." Modesto, Calif. (Cleveland Stockton, president, Greater Modesto Chamber of Commerce): "The Greater Modesto Chamber of Commerce endorses the action of the city council in establishing a redevelopment agency. The need for urban renawal is not concentrated in any single section, and the problem affects every citizen of the city." Vallejo, Calif. (Mayor Florence E. Douglas): "Our urban renewal program has had the complete support of our chamber of commerce." Salem, Oreg. (chamber policy resolution): "The Salem Area Chamber of Commerce supports the concept of urban renewal." Alexandria, Va. (City Manager Albert M. Hair, Jr.): "The local chamber has gone on record in support of the renewal program." Minneapolis (Mayor Arthur Naftalin): "Our chamber of commerce is enthusiastically in support of our programs of urban redevelopment, including urban renewal and public housing." Lynn, Mass. (Mayor M. Henry Wall): "We have had the backing of the chamber of commerce and other local business in planning our urban renewal program." Long Beach, Calif. (chamber policy resolution): “The board of directors of the Long Beach Chamber of Commerce has voted unanimously to endorse the creation of an urban redevelopment agency in the city of Long Beach." Watertown, N.Y. (Manager Ronald G. Forbes): "The local chamber actively supports the program with an urban renewal committee." Galesburg, Ill. (Manager Thomas B. Herring): "The chamber of commerce and local businessmen have been behind our efforts in this area." Norfolk (Donald W. Shriver, executive manager, Norfolk Chamber of Commerce): "The chamber has consistently supported (the local urban renewal program) and we have no apologies to offer for this support." Denver (Mayor Tom Currigan): "The chamber recently voted to vigorously support the downtown urban renewal project." East Orange, N.J. (Raymond D. Seely, executive director, East Orange Chamber of Commerce): "Our executive board and the membership as a whole are very much interested in urban renewal and are stanch supporters of the program." program." Joplin, Mo. (H. Lew Malcolm, general manager, Joplin Chamber of Commerce): "Without qualification, this chamber of commerce supports the urban renewal program in the city of Joplin." Rome, N.Y. (Mayor William A. Valentine): "Since the beginning of urban renewal project planning, the local chamber has provided a ready source of citizens interested in developing means of improving the city." Hartford (Arthur J. Lumsden, executive vice president, Greater Hartford Chamber of Commerce): "This organization has worked as a team with our city officials in every phase and effort in urban renewal in Hartford. While we think highly of the national chamber and are members and support them in 90 percent of their activities, we do feel that they have yet to learn that America has changed from a rural to an urban society." Worcester, Mass. (Mayor Paul V. Mullaney): "The Worcester Area Chamber of Commerce endorses the plan and is cooperative with the city council in efforts to make urban renewal a success." Independence, Mo. (Earl L. Annis, president, Independent Chamber of Commerce): "The chamber of commerce was the body that called the first meeting to consider urban renewal in 1956. Since then it has always urged and promoted its use." Malden, Mass. (James W. Coughlan, managing director, Malden Chamber of Commerce): "The Malden Chamber of Commerce supports the urban renewal and redevelopment program." Paducah, Ky. (Mayor Tom Wilson): "Our local chamber of commerce is a booster of the local urban renewal program." Columbus, Ohio (Mayor M. E. Sensenbrenner): "Among the most stanch supporters of the urban renewal program in Columbus [is] the Columbus Area Chamber of Commerce." Cambridge, Mass. (Mayor Edward A. Crane): "The chamber has endorsed every renewal effort." Stamford, Conn. (Harry Rosenhaum, president, Stamford Chamber of Commerce): "It is rather unfortunate that the United States Chamber of Commerce is so out of touch with the constituent members of the organization all over the country." IN OPPOSITION Reports of opposition by local chambers to urban renewal included these comments: Rockford, Ill. (Mayor Ben T. Schleicher): "The local chamber of commerce is, and has been, unalterably opposed to urban renewal. Whether or not this is the position of the entire business community is debatable." Arcadia, Calif. (Mayor Elton D. Phillips): "Our local chamber of commerce, as well as the present city council, are opposed to the urban renewal program. This does not, however, preclude the possibility of an urban renewal program in the city of Arcadia at some future date when the need might be more apparent." Champaign, Ill. (Manager W. B. Browning): "The Champaign Chamber of Commerce [has] publicly gone on record as being opposed to the use of Federal funds for renewal purposes. We do not feel that the view of the chamber of commerce in this matter necessarily reflects a majority opinion of the businessmen in the area." Sioux Falls, S. Dak. (Mayor V. L. Crusinberry): "The position of this city administration and that of the Sioux Falls Chamber of Commerce are opposed to the present urban renewal progam." Lakeland, Fla. (Planning Director George A. Sanford): "The national affairs committee of the chamber has gone on record in opposition to federally aided urban renewal. This has not been, or is it now, an issue of consequence in our community." UNCOMMITTED Reports of noninvolvement by local chambers in urban renewal issues included: Newark, Ohio (Mayor David R. Evans): “Our city council adopted legislation approving an urban renewal program which was supported by many members of the chamber of commerce. They were not necessarily for urban renewal, but they have always taken the position of supporting council action whenever progress is involved." San Diego (Mayor Frank Curran): "The local chamber of commerce has not yet taken any firm position on federally supported urban renewal. At this time they might will support the program if it were oriented toward the central area, heavy commercial or industrial development." Lynchburg, Va. (Manager Robert D. Morrison): “CVI, an organization of industries in the Lynchburg area, backed urban renewal, as did the city's retail merchants association. The chamber of commerce was neutral." Springfield, Ohio (Urban Renewal Director Harry L. Norman): "The local chamber of commerce has taken no official stand in support of, or against, local urban renewal programs." Lansing, Mich. (Albert C. Boyd, executive vice president, Chamber of Commerce of Greater Lansing): "It would appear to me that many of our members are willing to accept the inevitable (if such a term is appropriate) in the case of revitalizing run-down areas of the community." Evansville, Ind. (Mayor Frank F. McDonald): "The local chamber has not openly opposed urban renewal in Evansville, nor do they contemplate doing so in the future." La Crosse, Wis. (City Attorney John K. Flanagan): “I am not aware of any formal action taken by the chamber of commerce locally, but I have been advised that the local chamber board of directors, at a recent meeting, voted 14 to 1 to support urban renewal in this community." HALL & HALL MORTGAGE CORP., Re S. 2468. Hon. JOHN J. SPARKMAN, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. As a member of Mortgage Banker's Association, we write that the testimony of Carey Winston before the Banking and Currency Committee February 26, 1964, truly represents our desires in this important legislation. We feel very strongly that the splendid performance of Federal Housing Administration should not be diminished by "chiseling" away its proper function and loading on to the U.S. Department of Agriculture and its Farmers Home Administration the responsibility of insuring and servicing loans to borrowers who are not farmers and who do not live on farms, as proposed under title V of the bill. The Secretary and the U.S. Department of Agriculture have a great responsibility in just looking after agriculture and your constituents who are truly farmers. Why crowd them into a field which Federal Housing Administration can handle better? HENRY C. HALL, A.R.A., President. CITY OF DETROIT, Hon. JOHN J. SPARKMAN, DEAR SENATOR SPARKMAN: I have learned recently that the Subcommittee on Housing of the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency under your chairmanship is considering for possible inclusion in the national housing program provisions relating to a proposed program for new community development. I have reviewed these provisions as contained in the message of the President in House Document 206 of the 88th Congress, 2d session. As an interested citizen and one concerned with the future of American cities, as a professional planner and architect, I would like to endorse the proposed program for new community development. Based on recent urban growth trends there is good reason to anticipate within the next three to four decades an expansion of the urban population of more than 60 million persons. This increment in population might be accommodated based on the extension of present urban growth patterns through the unguided processes of the present characteristic urban sprawl extending into present unbuilt upon areas in a generally uncontrolled and chaotic pattern. The alternative to this uncontrolled growth might be the achievement of attractive, efficient, and economically sound new planned communities. These need not be conceived in the pattern of the new towns developed during the past two decades in England, but might rather reflect the best aspects of the English new towns while avoiding certain of their less successful characteristics. Assuming an urban population growth of 60 million people by the year 2000 in this country, it would be possible to develop 600 new cities of 100,000 population each or 1,200 new cities of 50,000 population each. While the accomplishments of such a program would be manifestly difficult, I would strongly urge that typical pilot programs illustrating the great benefits to be achieved through the development of sound examples be given serious and favorable consideration by your committee. Enactment of the provisions contained in President Johnson's proposed program for new community development would set the stage for the planning and construction of a significant number of new towns as an effective demonstration of the merits of the new town concept. Such a program could take advantage of all of the previous knowledge gained in the development of the English new towns, of the Greenbelt towns built in the 1930's, and of the new town experience in other nations of the world. I am convinced that the available knowledge in the design professions in America would provide assurance of soundly conceived and economically feasible demonstration projects. If during the coming four decades, private investors and developers would recognize the great advantages of new towns, and would, therefore, support intelligently planned urban growth in the metropolitan areas of this Nation as a far superior alternative to the present often aimless peripheral sprawl. The new programs proposed by President Johnson providing the FHA insured private mortgage loans to private developers for land acquisition and development and for the construction of basic community improvements, would represent an important stimulus for the building of new towns. The more progressive large-scale homebuilding organizations have demonstrated a growing belief in the values of comprehensive advanced planning for large urban residential, industrial, and commercial projects with reasonable encouragement from the Federal Government of the kind provided in the proposed program. I believe that the homebuilding industry of America, working in close cooperation with the design professions of architecture, landscape architecture, and engineering, could dramatically demonstrate the advantages of reasonably guided growth over the present all-too-common peripheral sprawl. As a professional who has been for 30 years studying the problems of rational urban growth, as a private citizen concerned with the future welfare of urban America, I strongly endorse favorable consideration by your committee of the proposed program for new community development contained in the message of President Johnson. A further compelling logic in the new town program lies in the legislature presently enforced which requires that every metropolitan area having more than 80,000 people must have a comprehensive metropolitan land use and transportation plan in process of development by July 1 of 1965 or forfeit further Federal financial assistance under the present program of Federal aid for highway construction. Respectfully submitted. CHARLES A. BLESSING, FAIA. Hon. JOHN J. SPARKMAN, Chairman, Housing Subcommittee, NATIONAL HOME IMPROVEMENT COUNCIL, DEAR SENATOR SPARKMAN: The National Home Improvement Council, representing local remodeling interests as well as the national organizations listed on this letterhead, requests that upcoming housing legislation now being considered by your committee include provisions to raise the title I loan program from the present level of $3,500-5 years to $5,000-7 years for the following reasons: 1. Many banks are making $5,000-7-year loans at much higher interest rates than title I. An increase in title I limits will give homeowners the advantage of lower interest rates and provide substantial savings for them. 2. While some banks are making larger loans, in many cities other lenders will not do so without FHA backing-hence the need for the suggested increase to provide necessary funds to improve housing in those areas. 3. Much middle and lower income housing is deteriorating in substantial ways and needs larger amounts to keep up with stricter code requirements now being enforced. 4. Costs for materials and labor have gone up since the present ceiling was set; $5,000 today probably buys no more than $3,500 did then. 5. The 203 (k) program-which was supposed to take care of larger scale remodeling has not caught hold hence the need for an increase in title I. 6. Families have overall higher earnings than years ago and many of these families aim at bringing about substantial improvements to their homes-"not just the necessary items." Encouraging this is especially important in older suburbs where modernization is very much needed to help maintain sound and attractive neighborhoods. When the 203 (k) program was first introduced this organization, in cooperation with the Douglas Fir Plywood Association, held a series of 203 (k) conferences in Washington, Chicago, Houston, and San Francisco. Remodeling leaders from these areas met to determine what steps were needed to be taken to put over the 203 (k) program. It quickly became apparent from these conferences that there would be some "foot dragging" on 203 (k) and that an adequate substitute would be an increase in title I to $5,000-7 years. Continuing reports coming into the council from throughout the Nation bear out the need and desire for an increase in title I limits. The home remodeling industry is presently a $11.3 billion yearly business. The title I program has played an important role in encouraging the development of this industry and the betterment of the Nation's housing. For the reasons outlined above and many more, title I should be increased at this time. Cordially, EDGAR V. HALL, WASHINGTON PLANNING & HOUSING ASSOCIATION, INC., Re Housing and Community Development Act of 1964 (S. 2468). DEAR SENATOR SPARKMAN: The Washington Planning & Housing Association hereby expresses its strong support of the objectives and major provisions of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1964 (S. 2468). We hope that your subcommittee will favorably report this important measure to the Committee on Banking and Currency at an early date. The Washington Planning & Housing Association is a private, nonprofit, nonpartisan citizens' organization established 30 years ago to seek improved housing conditions in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area. Today the association has a membership of more than 600 citizens drawn from all over the area and representing many groups and a cross section of interests. Recognizing that adequate housing is but one facet of the overall problem of |