Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

range plans of its own, with respect to urban areas of the county not included within a regional or metropolitan planning jurisdiction.

Making counties over 50,000 population eligible to participate directly would not discourage their cooperation in regional or metropolitan planning agencies. On the contrary, an active planning commission and staff in each of these agencies would be a great stimulus to adoption of an area wide approach.

We wish to indicate our support of the position on this matter being taken by the National Association of Counties, as set forth in the testimony of County Executive John H. Mulroy, of Onondaga County, N.Y., before the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency, Subcommittee on Housing, February 25, 1964.

Our national association's executive director, Bernard F. Hillenbrand, 1001 Connecticut Avenue NW., will be glad to answer any questions.

Sincerely yours,

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS,
By M. JAMES GLEASON, Chairman.
DAVID ECCLES, Commissioner.
MEL GORDON, Commissioner.

JEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION,

Hon. STUART SYMINGTON,
U.S. Senator,

Washington, D.C.

Hillsboro, Mo., March 23, 1964.

DEAR SENATOR: The National Association of Counties, 101 Connecticut Avenue NW., Washington, D.C., has advised me that Senate and House Committees on Banking and Currency, Subcommittee on Housing have completed hearings on the Housing and Community Development Act. The House version is H.R. 9751 and the Senate's is S. 2468.

As presiding judge of the Jefferson County Court, and as chairman of the Jefferson County Planning and Zoning Commission I wish to call to your attention the disappointing fact that the Federal Government grants to assist comprehensive planning is limited to counties under 50,000 population or where the county is a standard metropolitan statistical area, in and of itself. The result has been that Jefferson County thus far, being a county of over 50,000 population, finds itself disqualified for a Federal Government grant to assist comprehensive planning on a countywide basis.

Jefferson County is within the standard metropolitan statistical area of Greater St. Louis however, as yet no comprehensive planning has been done for the St. Louis statistical area and hence, once again Jefferson County finds itself ineligible on a county basis to securing Federal funds on a countywide basis. I might advise you however, that Jefferson County as of the past several months is participating with several other Missouri and Illinois Counties toward launching a comprehensive planning study for the St. Louis standard metropolitan statistical area through the Bistate Agency, however, no doubt a year or two will elapse before this bistate study will qualify for Federal funds.

May I advise you that the citizens of Jefferson County in the general election of 1962 by vote took a forward step in adopting planning and zoning. Our commission has a faithful and efficient body of nine laymen and we have in our employ a very capable resident planning director, Mr. D. R. Scherer, Hillsboro, Mo. Nevertheless, we find that the cost of developing planning and zoning for Jefferson County is well in excess of our county revenue available for such a project. The Jefferson County Court for 1964 has budgeted approximately $59,600 for our planning commission and this should definitely indicate that our planning commission and our county fully realize the need for planning for the future for this county. We must, however, also have Federal matching funds to finance a program with reasonable speed.

The

The Jefferson County Court and the Jefferson County Planning Commission respectfully request you make a study of the above Senate and House bills and we further urge that you lend your full support to these bills. Jefferson County commission also asks that you express your interest on behalf of Jefferson County to the Washington office of the Housing Home and Finance Agency with respect to an application of Jefferson County Planning Commission for HHFA funds, which application is now being processed by

the Division of Commerce, State of Missouri, Jefferson City, and by the Fort Worth office of the Housing Home and Finance Agency. Unfortunately, because of the 50,000 maximum under existing Federal law our application for Federal funds will involve only certain adjacent communities and unincorporated areas in Rock, Meramec, Central, and Joachim Townships. We chose this method as a stopgap procedure because of the 50,000 limitation.

Frankly, after a year exposure to the problems of planning and zoning our commission can find no rationale to the provision of section 701 of the Housing Act of 1949 as amended, denying Federal matching funds to counties of more than 50,000 population, particularly where a county with the initiative and desire to do planning finds itself in a position as we do of being located within the St. Louis standard metropolitan statistical area composed of several Missouri and Illinois counties which to date has taken no substantial steps toward creating and promoting a metropolitan planning agency, all of which penalizes Jefferson County in its efforts toward their accomplishment of a continuous, coordinated, and comprehensive planning program.

The citizens of our county, realizing the explosive growth of the county, fully appreciate the imperative necessity for planning and zoning.

Among other objectives, our planning commission has already established liaison with representatives of the Missouri Highway Commission with a view to providing the results of a proposed transportation survey to the highway commission. Our county is desperately in need of better cross county State highway system between U.S. 61-67; State Highways 21 and 30 and U.S. Highway 66. Representatives of the State highway commission have indicated a willingness to consider this research data on transportation as developed by the Jefferson County commission in the next year or two. Personally, I feel that the matter of planning and zoning is the No. 1 problem of Jefferson County at this time.

We simply must have Federal matching funds to accomplish this end and I do feel that our county will feel indebted to you for your influence to amending the Housing and Community Act of 1964 as quickly as possible and also as well as your interest following the Jefferson County application now being processed.

With kind personal regards,

HERBERT K. Moss, Presiding Judge, Jefferson County Court.

ASSOCIATION OF OREGON COUNTIES,
Salem, Oreg., March 24, 1964.

Hon. MAURINE NEUBERGER,
U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR MADAM: We respectfully request that the Housing and Community Development Act, H.R. 9751 and S. 2468, be amended to remove the provision of the present law that prohibits counties of more than 50,000 population from receiving planning assistance grants under the Federal Housing Act (701 program).

Eight counties in Oregon are precluded from receiving 701 grants under the present law-Clackamas, Washington, Coos, Douglas, Linn, Jackson, Marion, and Multnomah.

While these counties have all participated in Federal planning grants as part of regional or metropolitan planning agencies, the planning programs of these special agencies do not replace the need for each county to develop long-range plans of its own, with respect to urban areas of the county not included within a regional or metropolitan planning jurisdiction.

Making counties over 50,000 population eligible to participate directly would not discourage their cooperation in regional or metropolitan planning agencies. On the contrary, an active planning commission and staff in each of these agencies would be a great stimulus to adoption of an area wide approach.

We wish to indicate our support of the position on this matter being taken by the National Association of Counties, as set forth in the testimony of County Executive John H. Mulroy, of Onondaga County, N.Y., before the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency, Subcommittee on Housing, February 25, 1964.

Our national association's executive director, Bernard F. Hillenbrand, 1001 Connecticut Avenue NW., (NAtional 8-4701) will be glad to answer any questions about our position.

Sincerely yours,

D. L. PENHOLLOW, President.

ODESSA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,

Odessa, Tex., March 24, 1964.

Senator A. WILLIS ROBERTSON,

Chairman, Senate Banking and Currency,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR ROBERTSON: Attached is a copy of a resolution recommended by the governmental affairs committee, and unanimously approved by the board of directors of the Odessa, Tex., Chamber of Commerce recently.

We would appreciate your views on this legislation.

Sincerely,

ADOLPH J. JANCA, General Manager.

RESOLUTION

Whereas recent factual examinations of the Federal Government's urban renewal and public housing programs have revealed that substandard housing is being reduced without Federal aid just as quickly as with it; and

Whereas such recent investigations reveal that much urban renewal and public housing funds are being inequitably spent by the Federal Government in areas of the country where housing conditions are better and average family incomes are higher than in unaided areas; and

Whereas said urban renewal and public housing funds are being distributed with little or no regard to the proportionate number of substandard homes in the area, or in proportion to the percentage of low-income families present in the area; and

Whereas said investigations reveal that such urban renewal and public housing programs are, in fact, encouraging local irresponsibility by rewarding nonprogressive areas; and

Whereas in Texas, as in other States, subsidy payments and commitments are not being distributed fairly or equitably, ranging from zero to $2,341 per substandard housing unit, and from zero to $1,065 per under $4,000 income family in the various congressional districts of the State, and if distributed to all such districts based on the occurrence of substandard housing and low-income families would increase the costs of such programs more than our current Federal budget; and

Whereas said urban renewal and public housing programs discourage individual and local initiative and foster erosion of the strength of our federated system of government and free enterprise system by taxing low- and middleincome families to subsidize higher income families; and

Whereas the Federal Government's overhead expenses amount to 12 percent of all funds otherwise available from the tax-collected resources of the programs; and

Whereas the Federal urban renewal and public housing programs would be expanded by $1.4 billion and $6.6 billion, respectively, by S. 2468 and H.R. 9751, now pending in the Banking and Currency Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives, which, if enacted would further increase these unsuccessful, wasteful, and inequitable subsidies: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Governmental Affairs Committee and the Board of Directors of the Odessa Chamber of Commerce on this, the 17th day of March 1964, That all efforts of responsible citizens should be directed toward the defeat of S. 2468 and H.R. 9751, and toward the termination of the existing urban renewal and public housing programs at the earliest possible time. Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be immediately forwarded to Senator A. Willis Robertson, chairman of the Senate Banking and Currency Committee, and to Representative Wright Patman, chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee, and that the citizens of Odessa and Ector County, Tex., be made cognizant, by all means available, of the contents of the reports of said investigations, and of this resolution.

Attest:

C. W. BARCLAY, President.

A. J. JANCA, General Manager.

U.S. SENATE,

Senator JOHN SPARKMAN,

COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY,
March 26, 1964.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Housing, Committee on Banking and Currency, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR JOHN: Have received a letter from Herbert K. Moss, presiding judge of the Jefferson County court, Hillsboro, Mo., with reference to the Housing and Community Development Act of 1964.

Judge Moss points up the difficulties being encountered by some of our metropolitan counties under the limitation of section 701 of the Housing Act of 1949 which denies Federal matching funds for comprehensive planning for counties in excess of 50,000 population. It is my understanding that the hearing record on S. 2468 is still open. If there is no objection, I would appreciate

the enclosed excerpts from Judge Moss' letter being included in the record for the subcommittee's consideration. Kindest regards. Sincerely,

EDWARD V. LONG,

U.S. Senator.

"As presiding judge of the Jefferson County court, and as chairman of the Jefferson County Planning and Zoning Commission, I wish to call to your attention the disappointing fact that the Federal Government grants to assist comprehensive planning is limited to counties under 50,000 population or where the county is a standard metropolitan statistical area, in and of itself. The result has been that Jefferson County thus far, being a county of over 50,000 population finds itself disqualified for a Federal Government grant to assist comprehensive planning on a countywide basis.

"Jefferson County is within the standard metropolitan statistical area of Greater St. Louis, however, as yet no comprehensive planning has been done for the St. Louis statistical area and hence, once again Jefferson County finds itself ineligible on a county basis to securing Federal funds on a countywide basis. I might advise you however, that Jefferson County as of the past several months is participating with several other Missouri and Illinois counties toward launching a comprehensive planning study for the St. Louis standard metropolitan statistical area through the bistate agency, however, no doubt a year or two will elapse before this bistate study will qualify for Federal funds.

"May I advise you that the citizens of Jefferson County in the general election of 1962 by vote took a forward step in adopting planning and zoning. Our commission has a faithful and efficient body of nine laymen and we have in our employ a very capable resident planning director, D. R. Scherer, Hillsboro, Mo. Nevertheless, we find that the cost of developing planning and zoning for Jefferson County is well in excess of our county revenue available for such a project. The Jefferson County court for 1964 has budgeted approximately $59,600 for our planning commission and this should definitely indicate that our planning commission and our county fully realize the need for planning for the future for this county. We must, however, also have Federal matching funds to finance a program with reasonable speed.

"Frankly, after a year exposure to the problems of planning and zoning our commission can find no rationale to the provision of section 701 of the Housing Act of 1949 as amended, denying Federal matching funds to counties of more than 50,000 population, particularly where a county with the initiative and desire to do planning finds itself in a position as we do of being located within the St. Louis standard metropolitan statistical area composed of several Missouri and Illinois counties which to date has taken no substantial steps toward creating and promoting a metropolitan planning agency, all of which penalizes Jefferson County in its efforts toward their accomplishment of a continuous, coordinated, and comprehensive planning program."

"The citizens of our county, realizing the explosive growth of the county, fully appreciate the imperative necessity for planning and zoning.

"Among other objectives, our planning commission has already established liaison with representatives of the Missouri Highway Commission with a view to providing the results of a proposed transportation survey to the highway commission. Our county is desperately in need of a better cross county State highway system between U.S. 61-67; State Highways 21 and 30

and U.S. Highway 66. Representatives of the State highway commission have indicated a willingness to consider this research data on transportation as developed by the Jefferson County commission in the next year or two. Personally, I feel that the matter of planning and zoning is the No. 1 problem of Jefferson County at this time."

(The following letter was sent to both Senators Hayden and Goldwater:)

Senator CARL HAYDEN,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.

TUCSON HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION,
Tucson, Ariz., April 6, 1964.

DEAR SENATOR HAYDEN: We would sincerely appreciate it if you would use your best graces with the Subcommittee on Housing of the Committee on Banking and Currency with regards to H.R. 9751. This bill includes a great number and wide range of important proposals, and we would like to make a few brief comments on some of the items we consider of prime importance. We feel the loan-to-value ratios under the section 221(d)(2) sales housing program should be amended so as to bring the mortgage amount limitations in line with prevailing housing costs. Also, single individuals (without age limit) should be permitted to buy under section 221(d)(2) and to rent under section 221(d)(3), where, in the discretion of FHA, this will carry out the purpose of these programs.

Section 805 of H.R. 9751 adds one amendment to FHA's section 221 program of sales and rental housing for low- or moderate-income families. Section 805 would open this housing to individuals over 62 by amending the definition of families. It would be more flexible and make the program more useful generally, to eliminate the proposed age limit. Also, in light of increased land and construction costs, it would aid the section 221 sales housing program to increase the maximum dollar amounts under this section, as the bill does under the basic section 203 program.

A suggested amendment has been proposed by the National Association of Home Builders, as follows:

"SEC. 805. Section 221 of the National Housing Act is amended by:

"(1) Adding at the end of section 221 (c) the following sentence: 'Any person may be construed to be a family within the meaning of the terms "family" or "families" as those terms are used in this section 221 when in the discretion of the Commissioner this will carry out the purpose of the section.'"

"(2) Amending section 221 (d) (2) by striking out '$11,000', '$18,000', '$27,000', '$33,000', and '$15,000', '$25,000', '$32,000', and '$38,000' and inserting in lieu thereof $12,000', '$20,000', '$30,000', '$36,000', and '$16,000, $27,000', '$35,000", and '$41,000', respectively."

We also oppose the provision in H.R. 9751 under section 204 which would authorize FHA to correct "structural or other major defects affecting the livability" of 1- to 4-family housing built with FHA inspections. We believe that giving FHA the authority to pay the claims of owners, or to fix defects or acquire title to properties, within a period of 4 years after insurance of a mortgage, is unwarranted by any real standard of need. We think it will very likely result, on the basis of very minor defects and imperfections in materials or warkmanship, in a constant harassment of homebuilders, of FHA and of Members of Congress.

We would like to point out that owners can already sue builders for any major hidden defects which may be a builder's responsibility. FHA already has strong persuasive powers to make builders comply with owners' complaints under both the existing warranty provisions and under FHA's general power to refuse to do business with builders and lenders. Moreover, FHA inspections are always made on new construction by experienced inspectors, paid by FHA to protect its mortgage insurance funds and the Government against any serious defects in construction or deviations from FHA inspections. Naturally these inspections also operate to protect new home buyers even though not made for that purpose. We urge you to voice your opinion against section 204.

We will appreciate anything you can do in support of our opinions on these sections.

Very truly yours,

ROBERT W. MEDEARIS,

President.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »