It is not in the legislation as such-other than in general terminology-but, nevertheless, the implementation under the legislation on the administrative level can be just as destructive toward accomplishing the purposes as if it were written into the bill.

If that cannot be accomplished by administrative change-and I understand it is based here in Washington, and not out of the regional office then I certainly think, speaking from our experience, some such language should be placed into the law which would make sure that there would not be more restrictive treatment under the 202 program than there is under public housing, and other moderate-income programs such as 221 (d) (3).

We feel that your bill, S. 2468, in its many provisions, is an excellent job of trying to mold and change our housing and community development law with the times and with experience.

Some of the ways I have mentioned. We think that there is room for further consideration and further thought. There is in addition a recommendation, with which I expect to supplement my remarks, at least addressing it to you, as chairman of this committee, Senator, which will help us in the field of middle-income housing.

But by and large, this is a bill where we congratulate the sponsors on its formulation. We support and urge its consideration and its early passage.

From our point of view, as municipal officials, if you provide us with the aids and the assistance and the tools, we will vindicate your judgment by doing all we can to get the job done.

Thank you very much.

Senator WILLIAMS. That was a very profound and comprehensive statement, Mr. Brach, for the New Jersey League of Municipalities. It will give us a lot to think about.

I promised your daughters and your wife that we would adjourn shortly, for their luncheon and mine, too.

Mr. BRACH. I just wanted to add one thought, before we all go off and eat, that Mr. Williams, who is here, and has been active in the East Orange community in civic affairs, presents actually an instance of a family in the path of the freeway, who will, of course, be immediately affected by what is done in the way of relocation.

Mr. Williams is a father of five children, and he has outdone me by one. He has four daughters and a son. And, of course, being as knowledgeable of community affairs as he is, he is here just to at least contribute by his presence to this whole difficult problem, a perplexing one, of adequate relocation assistance.

Senator WILLIAMS. Fine. Thank you very much.

Mr. BRACH. Thank you very much.

(Mr. Brach's prepared statement follows:)

REMARKS OF WILLIAM L. BRACH, ESQ., REPRESENTATIVE OF THE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE NEW JERSEY STATE LEAGUE OF MUNICIPALITIES, AND CITY COUNSEL, CITY OF EAST ORANGE

Gentlemen, may I express my appreciation to the committee for the opportunity to appear here today. I would not want my own Senator, your chairman, to feel that my only purpose in being here was to be sure that he was on the job. We, in New Jersey, know that he has been hard at work for over 5 years now. We see the results of his effort in aid to migrant workers, concern for world health, new attempts in solving the mass transit snarl, hope for preserving

green acres before it is too late as well as in many other aspects of our national and international life.

Some years ago, I had the opportunity of watching the proceedings of this committee by the side of the mayor of East Orange, the Honorable James W. Kelly, Jr. Much of what Mayor Kelly said then is just as pertinent today. The problems he posed are, if anything, more urgent today-by 3 years. I would like to combine in my appearance today some views of our State league of municipalities which has long supported housing and urban renewal legislation and also some observations from the firing lines in East Orange and our neighboring city of Newark where the trials and tribulations of slum clearance, relocation, housing and highway construction are painfully immediate and in volume.

The New Jersey State League of Municipalities represents all but a handful of the State's 567 municipalities. The member communities compose over 98 percent of the State's population. It is composed of officials of both political parties, public leaders from all parts of our State. Housing and now-as-it-iscalled "Community Development" legislation affects in one phase or another almost every citizen and municipality in the state. Those that do not have slums have growing pains and even the green pasture communities are but a short pitch from some major traffic artery which within a very few years will bring the population boom to their borders. S. 2468 has added emphasis this year on community development, aid for "new" towns, further provisions for creating community facilities early before unregulated growth makes the task infinitely more complicated and expensive. Around our State there is a growing interest in intermunicipal cooperation for planning for ordered growth. This Thursday, 14 typical suburban communities, not plagued by slums but threatened by the incursion of disordered growth are meeting to discuss possible joint action on drainage and road construction. Last year they found their request for planning assistance balked by statutory limitations in the section 701 program. Our State league is very much interested in encouraging such intermunicipal action. We would like to bring back to these communities that S. 2468, if left intact, might provide just the encouragement and inducement for such a joint effort that discards municipal boundaries in the interests of better serving the needs of the area.

Growing interest and support for the community development features of S. 2468 was manifested by the thousands of participants who helped formulate goals for the metropolitan region last Spring in the very unique and imaginative program conducted by the Regional Plan Association. This was probably the most comprehensive formulation and sampling of public opinion in depth ever attempted. It clearly demonstrated a rapidly crystallizing view among our citizens of the need for greater action to eliminate the evils of slums, blight and unplanned growth.

Municipalities and municipal officials such as I do not live on the comfortable assumption that Federal funds are limitless. We do not want someone else to solve our problems. We are here because of the compelling fact that we can not meet the needs of these times and adequately serve our people from the limited sources of revenue open to us. Take my city. Like most New Jersey municipalities, our prime source of revenue is from real property. A working man living in a modest house valued at $15,000 in East Orange, earning $6,000 a year would pay about $800 in taxes or over 13 percent of his income. In our neighboring city of Newark, the tax would consume over 15 percent of his income. To regenerate our communities by taxing these people still more, would serve only to magnify rather than resolve our problems and our difficulties.

What then are some of our most pressing needs that S. 2468 can help meet? One of the foremost concerns, and one of my reasons for being here at the request of our mayor, James W. Kelly, Jr., is because we are concerned with securing "relocation justice, justice for property owners, for tenants, for small businessmen, for anyone whose lot is to be in an area which must be acquired for public use. Our American tradition of free enterprise and concern for property recognizes as a matter of constitutional protection that a man's property cannot be taken unless he be given fair compensation. Yet there is no one, at all familiar with our renewal and highway program who would contend that our present provisions for relocation payments repair the loss or make whole those who must move to make way for progress. We lawyers speak about damnum absque injuria; we talk of persons suffering injury without having a remedy. We cannot dispose of these people and dispense with their loss by merely letting a Latin phrase roll off our tongues. S. 2468 is a step towards achieving what I have called "relocation justice." Yet, if we are to satisfy the requisites of jus

tice for those who must relocate in the public interest we must extend the principles of reimbursement and eliminate artificial restrictions. For example, in my city a well-established small businessman compelled to move because of construction of the East-West Freeway which is part of the interstate highway program will receive $3,000 in moving expenses. It will cost him over $10,000 to move his equipment, machinery and tanks, rebuild his counters to suit his particular business. He will lose considerable income over a period of at least a year until he establishes a new following. Why must he pick up the bill for the difference? His only offense was that he was unfortunate enough to be located in the path of a new highway. I would urge:

1. That differences in treatment of owners, tenants and businesses for those displaced by urban renewal and those displaced by highway construction and other similar public improvements be eliminated. It is rank discrimination to draw an artificial geographic boundary around a renewal area and treat persons inside one way-persons outside yet another.

2. That artificial restrictions and limitations in the law be replaced by criteria designed to achieve what I have called "relocation justice”—that is, some assurance that the loss involved in relocating those who must be moved be borne by us all.

3. That consideration be given to the less visible aspects of loss, such as loss of revenue while a building remains vacant awaiting condemnation or in some instances a decision as to whether a building is to be taken or not.

Before passing on, I would like to emphasize again that we are cognizant of the new provisions embraced in S. 2468 and welcome these as a concrete step ahead in achieving fair treatment for relocatees.

In conjunction with relocation, the proposals for expanding section 221(d) (3) are most welcome. Further authorization is needed if our renewal program is to include housing for the vital center of our populace. There has been a considerable "softening" of the luxury housing market in our area and throughout the State. Without section 221(d) (3) we, in New Jersey, would be without any effective means of bridging the gap between public housing and new FHA construction under the conventional programs. I would add one observation here. If such housing as is built under section 221(d) (3) is to meet the entire need, all restrictions on occupancy should be eliminated except income. S. 2468 liberalizes the treatment of single persons for public housing occupancy, by no longer limiting such occupancy to elderly persons. It, however, does not use the same criteria for section 221 (d) (3) but yet the same underlying public policy should prevail. If a person be of limited income whether by reason of age, physical impediments or lack of training or skills, that person should be eligible as a tenant. It is difficult to explain to people suffering from income limitations the justifications for these distinctions that seem to forever plague us.

The job of launching a massive atack on blight in cities with enormous slum areas has strained the financial resources of our central cities and urban areas to the limit. With rising welfare costs, loss of rateables from areas acquired for renewal or for highways, with loss of business to shopping centers along the highways, our cities face a desperate struggle in meeting their share of the cost of renewal. The pace of renewal is thus set not by the urgency of the task but by the ability of the city to budget its share. To some degree this is unavoidable. In keeping with the declaration of war on poverty issued recently by the President, it would seem to me that certain considerations should be given to cities who are now absorbing the heaviest share of maintaining the indigent. To some extent, section 303 accomplishes this. I would urge that the Federal share in such cases be increased to 80 percent and that the local share conversely be limited to 20 percent. Also, consideration should be afforded in calculating the municipalities noncash contribution to loss of taxes after demolition. Presently the noncash share includes taxes while structures stand on the site. There is a difference, visible at least in our area, between the timelag in restoring renewal land to the tax rolls in the most seriously blighted areas of heavily populated cities than has been the case in the less afflicted and thus better off suburbs. This would help cities absorb the loss where the task of finding a redeveloper willing to accept the risk in the real renewal trouble spots involves considerable time delays.

We welcome the expansion of the direct loan program for elderly. Our city has one such project planned under city auspices and another one is under consideration by one of our religious denominations. We are happy to see provision for expanding this program. I might add that my experience in dealing with

the community facilities administration in behalf of our project has been a most salutory one. We were extended full cooperation, and, here is something you probably do not hear often, we felt that our application was handled expeditiously. It is heartening to see in reading S. 2468 how much thought has been given to molding and tailoring the housing, renewal, and community development programs to the changing needs of our Nation. Your action in approving this legislation is a renewed vote of confidence to those of us on the municipal level who are working to make community life safer, healthier, happier, and more satisfying. Speaking for the many, many local officials of our State, if you give us the tools, we will vindicate your faith in us and our communities. We will rededicate ourselves to making the regeneration of our cities and towns a reality.

Thank you for allowing me to be here today.

(Whereupon, at 1:20 p.m., the hearing was recessed until 10 a.m. Wednesday, February 26, 1964.)

30-944-64-50