Hon. A. WILLIS ROBERTSON, FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, U.S. Senate, Committee on Banking and Currency, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The views of this Corporation have been requested on §. 2226, a bill to authorize the Federal Housing Commissioner to make expenditures to correct substantial defects in one- to four-family dwellings covered by mortgages insured under the National Housing Act, or to compensate homeowners for such defects. As you are aware, since the expiration of the term of former Chairman Erle Cocke, Sr., Mr. James Saxon, Comptroller of the Currency, has been Acting Chairman of the Corporation. Inasmuch as Mr. Saxon, as Comptroller of the Currency, will express his views on the subjects in which you are interested, I cannot express the official position of the Corporation on these matters. Accordingly, the views presented herein represent my own personal viewpoint on S. 2226. It is my opinion that S. 2226 concerns matter unrelated to the functions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Therefore, I deem it more appropriate for your committee to be guided by the views of the Federal Housing Administration with respect to the advisability of the legislation proposed by S. 2226, since that agency is more cognizant of the need for such legislation and would be responsible for the administration thereof. Of course, these views being personal, they have not been submitted to the Bureau of the Budget for advice as to their relationship to the program of the administration. Sincerely yours, JESSE P. WOLCOTT, Director. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, October 18, 1963. Hon. A. WILLIS ROBERTSON, Chairman, Committee on Banking and Currency, DEAR SENATOR: This is in response to your request of October 10, for the views of the Department of Justice on the bill (S. 2226) to authorize the Federal Housing Commissioner to make expenditures to correct substantial defects in one- to four-family dwellings covered by mortgages insured under the National Housing Act, or to compensate homeowners for such defects. This bill, although not identical in text, is similar in purpose to S. 1200. That bill is the subject of a separate report which this Department is submitting to the committee. As indicated in the report on S. 1200, whether or not legislation such as this should be enacted involves questions of policy concerning which the Department of Justice prefers to make no recommendation. Sincerely yours, NICHOLAS DEB. KATZENBACH, 88TH CONGRESS 18T SESSION S. 2232 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES OCTOBER 11 (legislative day, OCTOBER 10), 1963 Mr. SPARKMAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking and Currency A BILL To amend title I of the Housing Act of 1949 to authorize relocation payments thereunder in certain additional cases for losses resulting from the displacement of property from an urban renewal area. 1 2 3 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 106 (f) (2) of the Housing Act of 1949 is 4 amended by striking out "resulting from their displacement 5 from an urban renewal area” and inserting in lieu thereof the 6 following: "resulting from their displacement, or the dis7 placement of any of their property (except property which 8 they are required by State or local law or franchise to move 9 at their own expense), from an urban renewal area". COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, B-141002. Hon. A. WILLIS ROBERTSON, Chairman, Committee on Banking and Currency, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your letter of October 15, 1963, acknowledged October 17, requests our comments on S. 2232 entitled "A bill to amend title I of the Housing Act of 1949 to authorize relocation payments thereunder in certain additional cases for losses resulting from the displacement of property from an urban renewal area." We have no information or special knowledge as to the need for the proposed legislation nor are we able to determine from the language used just what types of property interests are intended to be included within its provisions. It is our understanding of the existing provision proposed to be amended (which was added to the Housing Act of 1949 by sec. 305 of the act of August 7, 1956, 70 Stat. 1110) that it was intended to provide for payments to persons and businesses displaced from homes or places of business located in an urban renewal area to compensate them for moving expenses and actual direct losses of property incident to such displacement and not otherwise compensated for. The proposed amendment would appear to be subject to the interpretation that payment could be made to any person or business establishment having any legally recognized form of property interest which would be affected by an urban renewal project. We suggest that if favorable consideration should be given to the bill it should be revised to define more precisely the kinds of property or interest for which compensation is intended to be authorized. It is of course obvious that any broadening of the classes of interests for which compensation is authorized will increase the costs of the urban renewal program. Whether such increased cost is justified is a matter of legislative policy for determination by the Congress and we make no recommendation with respect thereto. It is noted that in the phrase proposed to be stricken from section 106(f) (2) of the Housing Act of 1949 "resulting from their displacement from an urban renewal area" the italic word "from" actually is "by." Sincerely yours, JOSEPH CAMPBELL, Comptroller General of the United States. Hon. A. WILLIS ROBERTSON, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Washington, D.C., March 30, 1964. Chairman, Committee on Banking and Currency, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your request to the Secretary of Defense for the views of the Department of Defense with respect to S. 2232, 88th Congress, a bill to amend title I of the Housing Act of 1949 to authorize relocation payments thereunder in certain additional cases for losses resulting from the displacement of property from an urban renewal area. The Secretary of Defense has delegated to the Department of the Army the responsibility for expressing the views of the Department of Defense thereon. The purpose of the bill is to amend title I of the Housing Act of 1949 in certain respects as stated in the title. Section 106 (f) of the Housing Act of 1949 as added by the act of August 7, 1956 (70 Stat. 1091, 1100), as amended (42 U.S.C.A. 1456), provides for certain relocation payments to individuals, families, business establishments, and nonprofit organizations for their reasonable and necessary moving expenses and any actual direct loss of property except good will or profit "resulting from their displacement from an urban renewal area." The bill would amend section 106 (f) (2) in which the above-quoted words appear, to substitute for the quoted words the following language: “resulting from their displacement or the displacement of any of their property (except property which they are required by State or local law or franchise to move at their own expense), from an urban renewal area." The Housing and Home Finance Agency, through its Urban Renewal Administration, administers a program of financial assistance to local communities for urban renewal projects which was initiated pursuant to title I of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended. Federal grants-in-aid of these projects include funds for relocation payments to the extent of Federal responsibility therefor. Rules and regulations governing relocation payments authorized under the laws cited above are prescribed and administered by the Housing Administrator. The military departments of the Department of Defense have no participation in the urban renewal programs and accordingly are not affected by the provisions of law to which this bill pertains. Since S. 2232 is of no interest to the Department of Defense, the Department of the Army, on behalf of the Department of Defense, defers to the views of the Housing and Home Finance Agency which is primarily concerned with this measure. Enactment of this measure will have no effect on the budgetary requirements of the Department of Defense. This report has been coordinated within the Department of Defense in accordance with procedures prescribed by the Secretary of Defense. The Bureau of the Budget advises that, from the standpoint of the administration's program, there is no objection to the presentation of this report for the consideration of the committee. Sincerely yours, STEPHEN AILES, Secretary of the Army. HOUSING AND HOME FINANCE AGENCY, Subject: S. 2232, 88th Congress (Senator Sparkman). Chairman, Committee on Banking and Currency, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your request for the comments of the Housing Agency on S. 2232, a bill to amend title I of the Housing Act of 1949 to authorize relocation payments thereunder in certain additional cases for losses resulting from the displacement of property from an urban renewal area. The urban renewal relocation provisions presently authorize payment for "reasonable and necessary moving expenses and any actual direct losses of property resulting from the displacement of a business concern from an urban renewal area. The proposed legislation would authorize relocation payments to an additional class of business concerns; those whose property, rather than their business establishment itself, is displaced from the urban renewal area. This provision would permit relocation payments to firms such as outdoor advertising companies whose signs or billboards are displaced by urban renewal projects; firms which have installed property such as coin-operated jukeboxes, cigarette vending machines, and similar equipment; firms which have stored goods in warehouses; and many other business concerns which operate or maintain many types of property in or with business concerns located in urban renewal areas. The Housing Agency cannot recommend enactment of this legislation. The business concerns to whom relocation payments would have to be made under this proposal would be very difficult to locate and identify since they have no necessary relationship to the ownership or tenancy of real property in the urban renewal area. The cost of moving the various types of vending machines and almost all of the other property for which payment would be authorized by this bill would usually be trivial. In addition, in the case of most of the types of property for which relocation payments would be authorized by this billsigns, vending machines, etc.-the necessity for removing the property from the location can arise from a variety of causes which are a normal incident of the business being conducted by the owner of the property. The costs of such removal are usually, therefore, an accepted business risk. In view of the urgency of your request for our report, this report is being sent to you prior to clearance with the Bureau of the Budget. As soon as the Bureau's views are obtained, we will send you a supplemental report. Sincerely yours, ROBERT C. WEAVER, Administrator. Hon. A. WILLIS ROBERTSON, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Chairman, Committee on Banking and Currency, DEAR SENATOR ROBERTSON: Reference is made to your request for a report on S. 2232, a bill to amend title I of the Housing Act of 1949 to authorize relocation payments thereunder in certain additional cases for losses resulting from the displacement of property from an urban renewal area. The bill does not appear to relate to any matter within the jurisdiction of this Department or to affect any matter upon which the Department would be in a position to give helpful information or advice. Accordingly, we have no comment to offer with respect to the merit of the bill. We welcome the opportunity to submit recommendations on any measure where possibly the activities of the Department may be involved or where its experience may be of value. Sincerely yours, GEORGE E. ROBINSON, Deputy Administrative Assistant to Secretary of the Interior. Hon. A. WILLIS ROBERTSON, TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Washington, D.C., December 18, 1963. Chairman, Committee on Banking and Currency, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your request for the views of this Department on S. 2232, to amend title I of the Housing Act of 1949 to authorize relocation payments thereunder in certain additional cases for losses resulting from the displacement of property from an urban renewal area. The proposed legislation would amend section 106(f) (2) of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1456 (f) (2)), to broaden the eligibility for relocation payments under title I to include losses resulting from the displacement of property from an urban renewal area. Under existing law, such payments may be made for losses resulting from the displacement of individuals, families, business concerns, and nonprofit organizations from an urban renewal area. Since the proposed legislation is not of primary concern to this Department, the Treasury has no comment to make on its merits. The Department has been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection from the standpoint of the administration's program to the submission of this report to your committee. Sincerely yours, G. D'ANDELOT BELIN, General Counsel. |