(4) Providing insurance for site preparation and development including cost of waterlines and sewer systems.

Urban planning assistance

Problems of urban growth and development are among the most formidable facing the Nation. The urban planning assistance program created under the Housing Act of 1954 has done a creditable job in assisting smaller local governments and metropolitan areas in meeting the diverse problems posed by population growth and physical expansion. We urge the Congress to appropriate adequate funds for this important program in the next session. The section 701 planning assistance program should be extended to municipalities with populations up to 150,000.

Preservation of open space

The explosive population growth in our metropolitan areas, particularly in the suburban sections, is devouring land at a tremendous rate. The resulting physical expansion has been so rapid as to make the preservation of some remaining land for parks, playgrounds, recreation areas-buffers against the unrelieved monotony of urban development-increasingly difficult. If we are to retain the amenities of civilized living in densely populated areas, it is imperative that all levels of government undertake immediate programs for the preservation of open space in urban areas.

The new program of Federal grants which are authorized in the Housing Act of 1961 will assist local public bodies materially in the acquisition of land to be used as permanent open space, but as the administration and congressional committees have stated the present program is but a modest start on a program to preserve one of our most vital national resources-open land.

We urge the administration and the Congress to develop long-range, comprehensive programs to assist our local governments in bringing about an orderly, healthy development of remaining open land in densely populated urban areas. Urban research

Lack of basic information in the field of urban renewal has handicapped public officials at all levels of government in the formulation of urban renewal programs and policies adequate to cope with the problems of slum and blight. The need for such information is particularly acute at the national level.

We recommended an immediate appropriation of $200,000 by the Congress to provide funds for the administration of the $5 million research program which has already been approved by the Congress.

We recommend a continuing program of federally financed urban research on a scale commensurate with the fine research programs undertaken by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Research should be undertaken on the national dimensions of slums and blight, the rate of blight formation, population trends, characteristics and construction processes.

In order to obtain full public awareness of the needs for, and benefits of, urban renewal and related programs, we urge that localities and the HHFA give full attention to ways and means of improving public and information programs.

Mass transportation needs

No comprehensive urban renewal and development program can succeed in our largest cities without full and proper attention to the problems of mass transportation. We strongly urge the passage in the next session of the Congress of the mass transportation legislation recommended by the administration and reported favorably by the Senate and House Banking and Currency Committees. We strongly urge the immediate passage of the mass transportation legislation as recommended by the administration.

Disaster insurance

The American Municipal Association calls upon the administration and the Congress to develop a plan for natural disaster insurance which will adequately protect our cities and which will allow for the maximum participation of private business.

Senator SPARKMAN. Next we have Mr. Lyn E. Davis, chairman of the realtors' Washington committee, and his associates, representing the National Association of Real Estate Boards.

If you gentlemen will come around, we will be glad to hear from

you.

STATEMENT OF LYN E. DAVIS, CHAIRMAN OF THE REALTORS' WASHINGTON COMMITTEE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REAL ESTATE BOARDS; ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIAM B. GUY, JR., VICE CHAIRMAN OF REALTORS' WASHINGTON COMMITTEE; AND JOHN C. WILLIAMSON, SECRETARY-COUNSEL OF REALTORS' WASHINGTON COMMITTEE

Mr. DAVIS. First, may I introduce my colleague, Mr. William B. Guy, of Baltimore, vice chairman of the realtors' Washington committee, and Mr. John C. Williamson, secretary-counsel of our realtors' Washington committee.

Senator SPARKMAN. I believe we have had the privilege of having Mr. Williamson before us before on many occasions. We welcome all of you here today.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator SPARKMAN. As I stated before, your whole statement will be printed in the record. You can proceed as you see fit-either read it, summarize it, or discuss it.

Mr. DAVIS. I think it has been put very briefly, so I will stick pretty close to the text.

Senator SPARKMAN. Very well.

Mr. DAVIS. We are submitting a written supplementary statement. Senator SPARKMAN. That will be printed, too.

Mr. DAVIS. We will make these statements rather brief. I will then call upon Bill Guy, of Baltimore, to go into the urban renewal and mortgage finance proposals in the bill.

First, a brief word about our association. The National Association of Real Estate Boards consists of approximately 75,000 realtors, organized in 1,475 real estate boards located in every State of the Union and the District of Columbia. Many of the provisions in the bill are covered by policy statements approved by our convention in November 1963. All of the provisions of the bill were thoroughly reviewed and studied by the realtors' Washington committee which met in Washington on February 1 and 2.

The administration bill, in our opinion, is a most complex measure about a subject which grows increasingly complex. It is difficult to assess the bill without at least touching on the underlying philosophy which must have motivated its authors. I refer, of course, to the relentless and almost impatient drive, which seems to emanate from almost every page, for the complete involvement of the Federal Government in the problems of community planning and community life. First, with respect to public housing, our views will come as no surprise to this subcommittee. If there is one fixed star in the constellation of our ideas it is the belief and conviction that the public ownership of family shelter is inherently wrong. This represents the major reason for our opposition to public housing. At the same time, we recognize that there does exist, and probably always will, a substantial number of families who are unable to afford decent and adequate shelter without some form of subsidy. However, we believe that the source of this subsidy should be the local government; and we believe this not withstanding the fact that real estate represents the major source of additional revenue of local government.

Thus we cannot support section 404 of the bill relating to leasing of privately owned housing units by local housing authorities. Certainly this alternative has decided advantages over public housing because (1) the leased housing would continue to be privately owned, and (2) it would remain on the local tax rolls. Nevertheless, we disagree that there is a need for Federal subsidies in this area. Local governments should accept this financial responsibility.

The second provision I shall discuss is that part of title II of the bill which would create a new title X in the National Housing Act. Title X is divided into two parts. One would involve mortgage insurance for residential and related uses in connection with new subdivisions in existing communities; and the second would involve mortgage insurace to assist in financing the cost of land development for self-contained new towns.

The administration has produced no evidence of the need for this far-reaching involvement of the Federal Housing Administration, and the Housing and Home Finance Agency, in the land development and planning of new subdivisions and new communities. While we do not condone some of the planning which has produced what the editorial writers call "suburban sprawl," we point out that, in general, private enterprise, with the cooperation of local government and present land planning assistance of FHA, has done a good job in assembling land and planning subdivisions.

Changes are taking place in suburban development-changes, for example, emphasizing "clusters" instead of monotonous, dreary, lookalike developments. According to a recent article in the New York Times magazine, February 9, 1964, these trailblazing cluster developments have been spectacularly successful, and the article cites an authoritative report by the American Conservation Association, on 56 of these projects, that the verdict of the marketplace is "Yes." The article also goes on to state that about 20 "new towns" are now in the design or building stage, including Reston in nearby Virginia and the Rouse development near Baltimore. These are only current examples, and are submitted as evidence that there is no need for the Federal Government to enter the picture with promises of $50 million in mortgages, in order that the Federal agency-not private enterprise and local government-will be able to control the planning of these new towns.

The proposal for $50 million in mortgages for new towns poses the threat of Federal dominance over all aspects of community development. While we recognize that the site for a new community must be approved by the appropriate governmental unit-which could be the county or any type of municipal agency-nevertheless, we note that the Administrator of the Housing and Home Finance Agency must approve the complete plan for the new town and that this approval must involve his satisfaction that the new town will meet the housing needs of various kinds of families. Does this mean that the Administrator will insist on predetermination as to how many low-income families must be provided for, how many moderate-income families, how many upper-income families, individuals, preschool children, elderly persons, and so forth? This, we respectfully submit, is too great a power to vest in any one public official much less a Federal official, regardless of his ability and experience in the area of community planning and human relations.

The Administrator would also require that the new town be well planned so as to establish sound land-use patterns, encourage efficient use of municipal and public services, and promote economic growth and employment opportunities. As we understand this provision, before the $50 million mortgage is endorsed by the Federal Housing Commissioner, the Housing and Home Finance Administrator would have the power to force his standard of every aspect of community life onto the plan for the new community. This could conceivably include the composition of the shopping centers, the nature of the industries to provide employment opportunities, the location of schools, churches, and recreational facilities. The proposal is not only unnecessary but, in our considered opinion, represents a giant step toward the federalization of the communities of tomorrow. We strongly urge the subcommittee to reject this proposal.

There are provisions in the bill which we support. There are provisions which we oppose. Some of these will be covered in our direct testimony. With respect to others, as I mentioned earlier, we are submitting for the record a supplemental statement setting forth the recommendations of our association. We will also propose amendments to the bill, and these, including proposed statutory language, will be covered in Mr. Guy's statement.

We commend these to the sympathetic consideration of the subcommittee.

If I may, I would like to turn the mike over to Mr. Guy, who will continue.

Senator SPARKMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Davis. May I say, before Mr. Guy starts, I have an appointment I am running late for, and I am going to have to go. I am going to ask Senator Clark to take charge of the meeting and to proceed.

There are a couple of things that I just want to ask. I hope you will bring it out in the course of your testimony.

I remember 15 years ago when we were having hearings on public housing, the representatives of the Real Estate Board made the proposition and it has been repeated a good many times since that timethat recognizing the fact that there were families that needed help, if the Federal Government was considered to be obligated to help out, the better plan, rather than furnishing housing and subsidized rentals would be simply to make payments in the nature of relief payments toward the payment of the rent.

Now, there is a provision in this bill that perhaps does not provide exactly that, but does provide for some kind of a rent-subsidy plan. I do not know the difference. But the bill does provide for a rent subsidy for a certain number of units. I hope you will comment on that particular section.

Second, I would like to ask you about an experimental project-and I am sorry I will not be able to stay for the answer, but I hope you will bring it out in the discussion. I was rather intrigued to read recently in the newspapers of the development of the housing project in Tulsa, Okla., under private auspices. I believe Dick Hughes, of Texas, headed it up-he and his associates. I realize that it is too early to know how well it is going to work or whether or not it is going to work, and I believe that it contained an element of this rent subsidy, too. I would like for you to comment on that if you will. As I say, I am sorry I

cannot wait for the discussion, but I will read it carefully. Do you want to say something about it now?

Mr. DAVIS. I can answer both questions very shortly.

Senator SPARKMAN. Fine.

Mr. DAVIS. In the first, as far as the rent subsidy is concerned, our association feels that the poor people and we have them, we have got to take care of them, we recognize that-we feel that that is a local obligation and not a Federal obligation. The Federal Government should encourage the local government to do everything possible to aid and assist poor people that cannot provide for themselves.

The Tulsa proposition is an FHA 221(d) (3) at 33% percent interest, the subsidized interest rate. Yes, it is too early for us to know exactly how it is going to develop, but it is still subsidized on the Federal level, and we still feel like that the care of our poor people, we should take care of our own on a local basis and at a local level. And as I pointed out in the testimony, it will come out of real estate taxes, but we in the real estate business feel that we should let our taxes be raised sufficiently to take care of our own poor.

Senator SPARKMAN. I notice you say that the Federal Government should encourage the local government to do what it can. How could the Federal Government encourage it?

Mr. DAVIS. By taking away things that are so easy to get. It is so easy for them to come to Washington to get what they need or what they think they need. If you shut that off, they wouldn't be coming to ask you these questions.

Senator SPARKMAN. I was just wondering what you meant by "encourage." You would encourage it in a reverse way?

Mr. DAVIS. If you cut it off, I don't think they would be coming back.

Senator SPARKMAN. All right, thank you very much, and I apologize to you for having to leave, but I feel I must go.

Mr. Guy will be our next witness.

(Whereupon, Senator Sparkman retired from the hearing room.) (The prepared statement of Mr. Davis follows:)

STATEMENT OF LYN E. DAVIS, DALLAS, TEX., CHAIRMAN OF THE REALTORS' WASHINGTON COMMITTEE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REAL ESTATE BOARDS

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate this opportunity to present the views of the National Association of Real Estate Boards in regard to S. 2468, the Housing and Community Development Act of 1964, introduced by the chairman at the request of the administration.

My statement will be brief. I will then call upon Mr. William B. Guy, Jr., of Baltimore, Md., vice chairman of the Realtors' Washington Committee, who will present a more detailed statement regarding the major urban renewal and mortgage finance proposals in the bill as well as proposed amendments to the current urban renewal legislation.

First, a brief word about our association. The National Association of Real Estate Boards consists of approximately 78,000 realtors organized in 1,475 real estate boards located in every State of the Union and the District of Columbia. Many of the provisions in the bill are covered by policy statements approved by our convention in November 1963. All of the provisions of the bill were thoroughly reviewed and studied by the Realtors' Washington Committee which met in Washington on February 1 and 2.

The administration bill, in our opinion, is a most complex measure about a subject which grows increasingly complex. It is difficult to assess the bill without at least touching on the underlying philosophy which must have motivated its authors. I refer, of course, to the relentless and almost impatient drive,