In addition to present recommendations before you, we would like to recommend that it makes good social and economic sense to put extra funds now into rehabilitating and upgrading many of the existing low-rent housing developments. Local housing authorities have in many instances, for good reasons, been unable to keep properties maintained adequately.

COMMUNITY SERVICES

Our national housing policy opens with a proud statement of concern for the "general welfare and security of the Nation * ** and its people."

In recent years as we have begun to rebuild our cities, we have been obliged, and properly so, to move to public housing a great bulk of those relocated. This will increase as we continue to rebuild. Accordingly, in our large housing developments we now have a far greater concentration of dependent and “have not" families than we ever had in our slums. This has resulted in a whole gamut of social problems. Many social agencies, public and private, have been grappling with these problems.

To the extent of available resources, our member settlements have been providing services to families living in low-rent public housing. We are currently putting several million dollars each year into such service. Our limited private resources are not enough. Each year we must turn down requests to develop much-needed services because we do not have sufficient resources.

Some examples follow of results that a little bit of money spent this way can produce:

Housekeeping

Hundreds of families are evicted from public housing each year because of poor housekeeping. Both housing authorities and welfare people believe this is a problem that can be corrected. In one city one of our member settlements did a 2-year program to see what could be done to improve housekeeping of families living in public housing. This agency worked with groups of families whom the housing authority said would have to be evicted because they were poor housekeepers. Each group was worked with over a period of 90 days. The project was evaluated by a research team from the university. There was marked improvement in the housekeeping of over 50 percent of the families. Approximately 80 percent of these families were not evicted and on a further check several months later the great majority were again rated as fair or good housekeepers.

In another city, a similar team of agencies worked together on a family rehabilitation program to assist not only in improved housekeeping but in home management as well. Here families began to pay their rent regularly, to handle their problems and the whole family picture improved.

The cost per family of this rehabilitation help ranged from $371 to $471 per family. This is slightly less than the cleaning and redecorating costs are to an authority for one apartment when a family is evicted for poor housekeeping. Yet the results are far more permanent.

In another city in order to get needed services into public housing, one of our settlements placed one worker in the housing development and he put together a team of people whose salaries are paid by public agencies or foundations.

This team included home economists, caseworkers, youth workers, workers with aged. This team worked on housekeeping, health problems, juvenile and adult delinquency, and many other family problems.

As people learned to solve their individual problems, the team then brought together the families living in the development and those from the surrounding neighborhood. Together they planned and built a playground. To equip it they ran a street fair and raised the funds.

For the first time, these citizens worked together as volunteers in a civic project that brought a permanent improvement to their neighborhood.

A new role for families living in public housing is to work with their less fortunately housed neighbors in developing a neighborhood asset.

Congress has wisely made money available through various programs in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare for rehabilitation of families, strengthening family life, vocational education, childcare, and so on. Other programs can be financed by available funds in the Department of Labor and the Department of Agriculture.

These are available to all families in our communities including those living in public housing. The fact is, however, that the whole package of services

is needed in the larger housing developments, but funds are not available for the kind of staff needed and necessary to get these services moving. If such funds are made available through the Public Housing Administration to local authorities these services could be started. These are services that local communities ask for and want. In general, local private agencies have extended their services as far as possible. Financial assistance must not now come from elswhere.

We, therefore, ask if you will provide supplemental financial assistance to PHA to provide the necessary local leadership for the development of essential services for families residing low-rent housing.

At this committee knows, we are at critical time. The essential public housing program it at a standstill and urban renewal funds are almost exhausted. Our organization is deeply impressed with the forthright action President Johnson is taken in his war on poverty. The housing legislation before you is urgently needed. The National Federation of Settlements and Neighborhood Centers ask you to give it prompt and favorable action.

Senator MUSKIE. Our last witness of the day, Mr. William C. Barr, executive director of the National Parking Association. It is a pleasure to welcome you this morning.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM G. BARR, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL PARKING ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. BARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

If I may correct the record, it is William G. Barr, executive director of the National Parking Association.

I would also like to apologize for my hoarseness. I have been making many speeches in recent weeks regarding my opposition to certain provisions of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1964.

The National Parking Association is a trade association of the some 5-billion-dollar offstreet private enterprise parking industry throughout the United States. Ninety-five percent of all the offstreet parking in the United States has been accomplished by private investment and only 5 percent at the taxpayers' expense, as a result of municipal parking programs. Obviously, therefore, we are very much concerned with the economic welfare of downtown America.

During the past 7 or 8 years, I have had occasion to visit more than 500 cities throughout this country at the invitation of local chambers of commerce, retail associations, and other related organizations, and this opportunity has afforded me an ample opportunity to observe firsthand what is happening in downtown America concerning Federal urban renewal. To be specific, a recent statistical tabulation showed that some 709 cities, including my home city of Joliet, Ill., have requested and received some 1,043 Federal urban renewal grants, with a total appropriation of some $3,300 million.

It is my observation that the vast majority of these projects-approximately 75 percent-have never been redeveloped, for the reason that there was no economic justification for the redevelopment in the first place.

What Federal urban renewal permits is one group of speculators to sell land that they can't sell to anybody else to the urban renewal authority, take it off the tax rolls, and in the majority of cases it becomes a ragweed field. If there were economic justification, it is my conviction that a private developer would have purchased the prop

erty and put it to a better use, and thus increased the tax base of the property involved.

I think it is also important to note that in many cases the taxes of private homeowners and owners of privately owned commercial establishments have increased significantly since the inception of the Federal urban renewal program because of loss of revenues to the municipality. In order for the municipality to gain the necessary revenues to carry out its services, they have been forced to increase taxes.

It is my further conviction that it is contrary to the intent of the Constitution to permit the Federal Government, or any other branch of the Government, to exercise the right of eminent domain to condemn one person's property and sell it to another person for a private use. I think a thorough investigation of this matter would reveal that there are many scandals involving speculators who, recognizing that there will be an urban renewal project, have taken options on land for a minimum amount of money, and sold it at a substantial profit for cash to the urban renewal authority. I think that this kind of thing certainly is not a proper function of the Federal Government. Furthermore, since the majority of the programs have never been completed, it would seem that it is not a necessary Federal responsibility. The National Parking Association is in favor of urban renewal, but not as a Federal responsibility. Communities such as Indianapolis, Ind., Rock Hill, S.C., and Elmira, N.Y., where citizens have exercised the intestinal fortitude to turn down Federal assistance-and the controls that go with it-and have decided by local public referendum to raise the necessary funds through a bond issue to redevelop or urban renewalize their downtown areas, have already accomplished their objective.

I think it is also important to note that, for every Federal tax dollar used in connection with Federal urban renewal projects, 12 cents is taken out just for the administration of the program; only 88 cents comes back into the area where the practical result, in most instances, is only to make a ragweed field out of the project. There are numerous examples to prove that renewal can be better accomplished at the local level.

I have also had an opportunity, during the course of extended travels, to observe firsthand public housing projects throughout this country. I think you would find that investigation would substantiate my contention that, in those areas where public housing developments have been completed, the resultant housing is no better than in those areas where there has been no public housing.

I think it is also important to point out that the Federal moneys involved for public housing go into those areas where ony 12 percent of the housing is substandard. People in unsubsidized areas where 25 percent of the housing is substandard are paying for those areas where only 12 percent is substandard. Certainly this is an inequitable approach to the situation. Housing conditions in areas that have not had Federal assistance are better than in those areas that have had Federal assistance. Again, I believe that this problem of creating housing for low-income families can be accomplished much better in other ways than by a Federal program.

As I said previously, I have had great occasion to visit and observe our country firsthand. Many people who have expressed their feel

30-944-64- -44

ings to me that there must be less Federal control, less Federal assistance, less Federal expenditures. I have asked some of these people why, then, they have favored Federal urban renewal projects. Their answer is that the neighboring city received Federal funds for this purpose, so they might as well get it, too.

This type of "me-tooism" must stop in this country. I certainly am of the conviction that the evidence indicates that urban renewal projects, and providing housing for low-income families, can better be accomplished at the local level.

Thank you, and I will be happy to answer any questions, Senator. Senator MUSKIE. As I understand it, you are against urban renewal-period.

Mr. BARR. That is correct, sir-as a Federal responsibility. I am not against urban renewal accomplished at the local level.

Senator MUSKIE. By local government.

Mr. BARR. By local government, or local people themselves deciding through referendum in the community.

Senator MUSKIE. You are not against it as a function of local government?

Mr. BARR. Not if decided by a referendum, Senator.

Senator MUSKIE. You are not against it as a function of State government?

Mr. BARR. Yes. I am opposed to it as a function of State govern

ment.

Senator MUSKIE. So, it is your position you are against urban renewal as a governmental function except at the local level?

Mr. BARR. And then only if decided by the people in the community involved.

Senator MUSKIE. It is your position that, in every instance where urban renewal is now operating, if there were elements of economic justification present, that urban renewal would now be taking place without the Federal program?

Mr. BARR. That is right, Senator. If I may just describe one instance, for a moment, in my home city of Joliet, Ill. We have an urban renewal project known as the Bluff Street project. That is a street along the waterway that goes along Lake Michigan to the Mississippi River. Much of the sewage from Chicago flows down this waterway, and presents a problem of pollution to the city of Joliet. The properties on Bluff Street have been, for many years, substantially deteriorated and vacant. They were for sale to any developer who could figure out, from an economic point of view, a way profitably to redevelop the area.

This area was sold to the urban renewal authority at a price that no one else would pay and today it is a ragweed field. One of the planning schemes involved is to build a luxury apartment building on this Bluff Street site. No developer-and I happen to be the president of a major construction company, as well, in the area—in his right mind would find it economically feasible to develop an apart ment house-a luxury apartment house in this site overlooking such a polluted waterway. Consequently, the site had not been developed. In order for the city of Joliet to meet the Federal requirement of matching funds, it has resorted to the parking meter revenue funds. This is, I believe, an improper source for matching funds from the community.

Senator MUSKIE. Getting back to my question; your position is that, if the Federal urban renewal program did not exist, that private enterprise or local government would have moved into every area where urbzan renewal is now working if there were economic justification?

Mr. BARR. Yes, Senator.

Senator MUSKIE. The next question is this: If there were no economic justification, such as would support an effort by private enterprise, is it your position, then, that the area should be allowed to

rot?

Mr. BARR. I think it is a responsibility of the community to decide whether the area should be allowed to rot or not.

Senator MUSKIE. The postulate of my question is, if private enterprise or local governments doesn't move into the area, it is your position that it should be allowed to rot?

Mr. BARR. My position is not the Federal Government but the local people in the community should decide what is to become of the area. Senator MUSKIE. You didn't listen to my question. I said if private enterprise or local government, and this is where you have placed your faith, if neither of them choose to develop an area of this kind then, in your judgment, it ought to be allowed to rot.

Mr. BARR. If it requires the Federal Government to come to the assistance, yes, it should be allowed to.

Senator MUSKIE. I didn't put any "ifs." I simply want to get your position clear. You said in every area where urban renewal is now working that if the Federal Government had not gone in private enterprise or local governments would if there were economic justification. Mr. BARR. That is correct.

Senator MUSKIE. So, I want to make it clear that your judgment is that if private enterprise and local government do not move in, then those areas ought to be allowed to rot.

Mr. BARR. That is correct, sir.

Senator MUSKIE. That is your position?

Mr. BARR. In terms of any Federal responsibility.

Senator MUSKIE. Granted.

Mr. BARR. Sir, I think the question is somewhat unfair in that it is my conviction again that these properties would not be allowed to rot. Senator MUSKIE. You said, if I understand, that you would do nothing about these areas unless there is economic justification, and that if there is economic justification that private enterprise or local government would certainly do the job. Do I understand that to be your position?

Mr. BARR. There is a twofold answer, Senator. In the first place, if there is economic justification, private enterprise will do it.

Senator MUSKIE. What assurance do you have of that?

Mr. BARR. Senator, for an example, in communities like Newark, N.J., where there are 15 urban renewal projects, only one has been completed.

Senator MUSKIE. I haven't suggested in my question that private enterprise would never do it. You, on the contrary, said that private enterprise would always do it. I would like to know the basis for that assumption.

Mr. BARR. I say private enterprise will always do it if there is economic justification. If there is not economic justification, it should