Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

be the responsibility of the local municipality through public referendum to decide what to do, not the Federal Government.

Senator MUSKIE. So, it is your position-you have tried to make it clear and you disagree with me if I misstate your position—that wherever there is economic justification, private enterprise or local government will do it.

Mr. BARR. That is right.

Senator MUSKIE. If there is no economic justification, nobody should do it.

Mr. BARR. No, sir; that is not my position.

Senator MUSKIE. Who should do it?

Mr. BARR. In that case, if there is no economic justification and the local municipality through referendum decides that something should be done anyway, then they should have the right to do it and pay for it.

Senator MUSKIE. Suppose they decide not to? Then it should be allowed to rot?

Mr. BARR. I won't say it should be allowed to rot. I would say it is not a responsibility of the Federal Government.

Senator MUSKIE. What happens? Why do you run away from that situation?

Mr. BARR. I think the situation you present, Senator, is a hypothetical one.

Senator MUSKIE. The whole basis of your argument is hypothetical. Mr. BARR. No; it is not, sir.

Senator MUSKIE. Yes. You said if the urban renewal program were not operating in these 1,000-some-odd situations which you mentioned that is hypothetical-you said if it were not, in every case where there was economic justification either private enterprise or local government would now be doing the job.

Mr. BARR. Senator, you have misunderstood me. I said in the 1,043 projects where the majority of them have not been redeveloped it is because there was no economic justification for the redevelopment. On the other hand, in those cases where the projects have been completed, I am sure they would have been accomplished if not by private enterprise then by local referendum.

Senator MUSKIE. Aren't you talking about a hypothetical situation? Mr. BARR. No; in Indianapolis, there was not economic justification for much of the redevelopment.

Senator MUSKIE. I am talking about the whole postulate of your argument. You are talking about a situation that does not exist now and you are drawing conclusions about it and when I question you on the same situation you criticize me for posing a hypothetical question. The whole argument is hypothetical.

Mr. BARR. Senator, I am talking about situations that actually exist. I am talking about projects that have been taken over by the urban renewal authority that have not been redeveloped.

Senator MUSKIE. Let me ask some questions and you can answer them or not and the record will speak for your position.

Mr. BARR. Yes, sir.

Senator MUSKIE. One, in every situation where a Federal urban renewal program is now operating, do I understand your position to be that the Federal Government ought not to be in it?

Mr. BARR. That is right.

Senator MUSKIE. Do I understand your position to be that if every one of those situations where there was economic justification either private enterprise or local government would be doing the job?

Mr. BARR. Yes, sir.

Senator MUSKIE. That in every situation where there is no economic justification what do you say should happen there?

Mr. BARR. The local community should decide.

Senator MUSKIE. I have postulated that local government doesn't and private enterprise doesn't, then what happens?

Mr. BARR. This situation doesn't exist, to my knowledge, sir.

Senator MUSKIE. If it did, what would happen?

Mr. BARR. Then the property would rot if neither did.
Senator MUSKIE. Then it should, in your judgment?

Mr. BARR. It should, in my judgment; yes.

Senator MUSKIE. You are against public housing, period.
Mr. BARR. As a basic concept, I am, sir.

Senator MUSKIE. Is there any other concept?

Mr. BARR. I think there are other approaches to the matter of taking care of providing housing for low-income families.

Senator MUSKIE. But you are against public housing?

Mr. BARR. As it is administered by the Federal Government and as designed by the legislation.

Senator MUSKIE. Are you against public housing as a function of the Federal Government?

Mr. BARR. Yes.

Senator MUSKIE. Are you against it as a function of State government?

Mr. BARR. Yes; I am.

Senator MUSKIE. Are you against it as a function of local government?

Mr. BARR. No, sir.

Senator MUSKIE. In a situation where the local government fails to take the opportunity, the people should go unhoused?

Mr. BARR. No; I think the local government, of there were no other source, would take care of their own.

Senator MUSKIE. Suppose it doesn't?

Mr. BARR. Suppose it doesn't, again I believe the answer is no, in terms of any Federal responsibility.

Senator MUSKIE. You think they should go unhoused?

Mr. BARR. I don't think that would happen, sir.

Senator MUSKIE. If the local government doesn't take the responsibility, what then?

Mr. BARR. Sir, it is my conviction that they will take the responsibility.

Senator MUSKIE. In other words, you are not interested in facts that disagree with your philosophy?

Mr. BARR. Sir, the question of fact is that because there has been such Federal assistance available, communities are too quick to look for Federal assistance rather than taking care of their own.

Senator MUSKIE. But you actually cannot conceive of a situation where there is a housing need which the local government refuses to face up to?

Mr. BARR. I cannot conceive of a situation where there would be no housing for people involved, as you have said, where the local government would not take care of it if there were no other way to accomplish it.

Senator MUSKIE. Then you want to stand on that record?

Mr. BARR. Yes, sir.

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you very much, sir.

Mr. BARR. Thank you, Senator.

Senator MUSKIE. That concludes the hearings for this morning. (Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the hearing was adjourned until 10 a.m., Tuesday, February 25, 1964.)

HOUSING LEGISLATION OF 1964

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1964

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING,
Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a.m., in room 5302, New Senate Office Building, Senator Harrison A. Williams, Jr., presiding.

Present: Senators Williams, Douglas, Muskie, Tower, and Javits. Senator WILLIAMS. I am sorry we are starting a little late.

We are honored to have Mayor Raymond Tucker, one of the Nation's most imaginative mayors, with us this morning to be our leadoff witness on the housing bill.

Mayor Tucker is a frequent visitor to Washington, and is helpful in many fields, certainly in housing, and last night was the principal speaker at the National Housing Conference dinner.

I hope someone will put your talk in the Congressional Record, Mayor. I had to leave before you spoke last night. I want to read it. STATEMENT OF RAYMOND R. TUCKER, MAYOR OF ST. LOUIS AND PRESIDENT, U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS; ACCOMPANIED BY C. L. FARRIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, HOUSING AND LAND CLEARANCE AUTHORITIES; JOHN J. GUNTHER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS; AND HUGH MIELDS, JR., ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS

Mr. TUCKER. Senator, you showed rare discretion when you left.

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, my name is Raymond R. Tucker. I am the mayor of St. Louis, and I speak today on behalf of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, of which I am president, as well as my own city.

At the 1963 Annual Conference of Mayors, the mayors approved five resolutions which relate to the legislation now before you. These resolutions, appended to my statement, deal with urban renewal, housing, community facilities, urban water supply and sewage disposal, and recreation, parks, and open space land.

They anticipate much of the legislation which has been proposed by the administration for enactment by this Congress. As you review them, you will find that they generally support the line of action proposed by the administration in the housing and community development bill of 1964.

You will also find that these resolutions strongly reaffirm local local government's support for continued and increasing Federallocal cooperation in meeting urgent urban problems of growth and development. They also reiterate our convictions that Federal technical and financial aid and involvement is essential if we are to be able to continue to act with effectiveness and with reasonable speed. Further, these resolutions reflect our conviction that Federal aid in no way weakens the ability of local government to continue to make local public policy decisions.

Mr. Chairman, I have submitted to the committee a detailed statement of our position. I would request that this full statement be printed in the record, and I will summarize it in my oral presentation.

Senator WILLIAMS. Very well.

Mr. TUCKER. The administration's bill includes an impressive range of recommendations, and we are pleased with the extent to which our more pressing problems are singled out for remedial action.

It is a good bill. We of the U.S. Conference of Mayors also think it should be a better bill, and we earnestly suggest some improvements: Urban renewal authorization: The 2-year $1.4 billion increase in the urban renewal capital grant authorization called for in the administration's bill falls far short of meeting demonstrated needs, and the timespan is too limited. We believe an additional $4 billion ought to be authorized.

Central business districts: Any legislation passed this year should recognize the special problems in central business districts of cities whose commercial, industrial, and cultural functions are vital to the whole community.

We strongly recommended that section 102 of Senator Clark's bill (S. 2031), which has been endorsed by the Executive Committee of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, be incorporated in the legislation to strengthen our ability to deal effectively with these problems.

Relocation: New aids in the relocation process are provided in the administration's bill, and we support any measures which will soften the impact of displacement.

We believe that additional measures should include further help for small business-such as amendments of Small Business Administration legislation to permit low interest loans for full relocation purposes.

The Clark bill makes SBA loans available to tenants as well as owners affected by any governmental action, and we favor this provision: Rehabilitation: Rehabiliation of older housing as a resource is seriously lagging. Much more needs to be accomplished, and we think language in the Clark bill should be included in legislation covering this area.

Among other things, it would permit local public agencies to acquire and rehabilitate-or repair and sell at a writedown-any number of structures within a renewal area where such procedures are economically feasible.

Low-rent housing: New ideas, new approaches designed to capture general public acceptance and support are needed to do a more effective job in the field of federally aided low-rent public housing. Title IV of the administration's bill furthers these general objectives and has our support.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »