Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

nator." This section provides that "There shall be established for each locality having an approved comprehensive city demonstration program an office to be known as the Office of the Federal Coordinator headed by a Director who shall be designated by the Secretary."

Section 7 states that "The Director shall perform such functions as the Secretary shall from time to time prescribe with respect to helping achieve the maximum effective coordination of Federal grant-in-aid programs undertaken in connection with comprehensive city demonstration programs." But the next sentence states that "Nothing in this section shall be construed to vest in the Secretary any authority to exercise or delegate any function or duty vested by law in any department or agency of the Federal Government other than the Department of Housing and Urban Development." This latter provision points up the fact that the Director would be a coordinator without any real power to compel the coordination of any Federal function or activity. Obviously, redtape, conflict, and confusion would be compounded by creating still another Federal office in each locality having an approved comprehensive city demonstration program. Imposing still another level in the Federal hierarchy spotlights the fact that the demonstration cities program adds up to a superstructure upon a superstructure. The anomaly of superimposing a special program on top of existing programs is indicated in the portion of section 2, "Findings and declaration of purpose," which states:

"It is further the purpose of this Act to provide the additional financial aid needed to enable cities to participate more effectively in existing Federal assistance programs."

In other words, to assist cities to be assisted.

Although the Director of the Office of the Federal Coordinator in each such locality would not have the power to compel coordination of Federal activities, he undoubtedly could exercise considerable influence over the local agencies involved. The Federal hand looms large at every stage. Section 5(a) calls for the Secretary to pay 90 percent of the costs of planning and developing comprehensive city demonstration programs; and section 6(b) calls for the Secretary to pay 80 percent of the costs of administering comprehensive city demonstration programs; and section 6(c) authorizes the Secretary to make grants of not to exceed 80 percent of the aggregate amount of non-Federal contributions otherwise required to be made to all projects or activities assisted by Federal grant-in-aid programs undertaken in connection with demonstration programs. The latter item would create the further anomaly of having the Federal Government contribute 80 percent of the "non-Federal contribution." Section 9(b) calls for the Secretary to make grants to cover the full cost of "relocation payments."

The placement of a Federal Director in every demonstration city and the excessive amounts of Federal financial participation in every stage of this superprogram are certainly not conducive to the aim to "mobilize local leadership and private initiative" referred to in the President's message. And it is very obscure just what such a super-program really would demonstrate.

5. Failure to avoid preferential treatment.-It is enough to note that this is a special program, participation in which would be determined by the unreview. able discretion of the Secretary. Less than 10 percent of the cities participating in present Federal programs would be allowed to participate in this superprogram. It would require a veritable Solomon to insure that subjective considerations did not enter into the choice of these select cities. This is especially true under a bill such as this where the criteria for selection laid down by the Congress would be vague, general, and highly subjective in nature.

In addition, it appears that certain sections and neighborhoods within a city will be preferred over other sections and neighborhoods within the same city. Thus, instead of shutting the door to preferential treatment, this super-program will provide greatly expanded opportunities for it.

6. Failure to avoid the bulldozer approach. The purported aim of the proposed act is to "rebuild America." This is a noble and lofty aim. However, urban renewal under Federal legislation has become associated in the public's mind with the bulldozer demolition approach by which much good is destroyed along with the bad. Will this proposed program be any more discriminatory in its approach? There is no sure-fire guarantee that it will.

As recently as March 20, 1966, a New York Times news story in regard to private urban renewal efforts in the Boerum Hill area of Brooklyn reflected this concern, as follows:

7

1 as if made by the Secretary of Defense, and, in event the 2 Secretaries of Defense and Housing and Urban Develop3 ment so elect, the fund established pursuant to section 4 4 of this Act shall be available to the Secretary of Housing 5 and Urban Development to carry out the purposes thereof. 6 SEC. 8. Section 223 (a) of the National Housing Act, as amended, is amended by inserting in lieu of paragraph (8) thereof, a new paragraph as follows:

7

8

9

10

11

12

"(8) executed in connection with the sale by the

Government of any housing acquired pursuant to Public
Law Eighty-ninth Congress."

[ocr errors]

SEC. 9. No funds may be appropriated for the acquisi13 tion of any property under authority of this Act unless 14 such funds have been specifically authorized for such pur15 pose in an annual military construction authorization Act, 16 and no moneys in the fund created pursuant to section 4 17 of this Act may be expended for any such purpose unless specifically authorized in an annual military construction 19 authorization Act.

18

20

SEC. 10. Section 108 of the "Housing and Urban De

21 velopment Act of 1965" (79 Stat. 460) is hereby repealed.

89TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION

S. 3417

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 26, 1966

Mr. DODD introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking and Currency

A BILL

To amend section 101 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965 to permit occupants of public housing to qualify for tenancy in housing assisted under the rent supplement program.

1

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That (a) section 101 (c) (2) of the Housing and Urban

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

(1) by striking out "or" in clause (D),

(2) by redesignating clause (E) as clause (F),

(3) by adding after clause (D) the following:

"(E) occupying low-rent housing assisted un

1

2

3

4

5

6

2

der the provisions of the United States Housing Act of 1937; or".

(b) Section 101 (e) (1) (B) of such Act is amended

by striking out "or housing" and inserting in lieu thereof

", low-rent housing, or housing".

(c) The heading of section 101 of such Act is amended 7 by striking out "OR OCCUPANTS OF SUBSTANDARD HOUS

8 ING" and inserting in lieu thereof "OCCUPANTS OF SUB

9 STANDARD

10 HOUSING".

HOUSING, OR OCCUPANTS OF LOW-RENT

(The following material was submitted for inclusion in the record.) STATEMENT OF THOMAS J. MCINTYRE, UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE of NEW HAMPSHIRE, REGARDING CREDIT FOR THE MARCY-WASHINGTON STREET URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT, PORTSMOUTH, N.H.

Mr. Chairman, in order to allow the Subcommittee on Housing ample opportunity to study a proposed amendment which I intend to introduce, I would like to submit the text of legislation which would authorize credit for certain expenditures made by the City of Portsmouth, New Hampshire, for the improvement of Prescott Park, which would be eligible as a non-cash, local grant-in-aid for the Marcy-Washington Streets, Projects, N.H. R-1.

This urban renewal project, known locally as the Strawbery Banke Project has received nation wide publicity as a unique civic attempt to use the device of urban renewal as a tool of historic preservation. About a year ago, I made a statement on the floor of the Senate which described Strawbery Banke and its unique character. I would like to submit that statement for the record.

Mr. Chairman, it is my hope that the Subcommittee on Housing, after a careful study of the circumstances surrounding this project, and the importance of the Prescott Park to the project, will approve the language of the bill which I now submit.

A BILL To make certain expenditures by the city of Portsmouth, N.H., eligible as local grants-in-aid for purposes of title I of the Housing Act of 1949

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of American in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding the extent to which Prescott Park, situated adjacent to Urban Renewal Project New Hampshire R-1 (Marcy-Washington Streets) in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, may benefit areas other than the urban renewal area, expenses incurred after January 1, 1954, by the city of Portsmouth in developing and improving such park shall, to the extent otherwise eligible, be counted as local grants-in-aid for such project.

[From Congressional Record, June 8, 1965]

FROM BLIGHT TO RESTORATION-STRAWBERY BANKE RECREATES COLONIAL
ATMOSPHERE IN PORTSMOUTH, N.H.

Mr. MCINTYRE. Mr. President, May 29 marked the historic opening of one of the most unique urban-renewal projects in the country-the Strawbery Banke colonial restoration project, in Portsmouth, N.H.

From blight to colonial restoration, this effort to recreate a typical 18th century community represents an investment of millions of dollars and the time and tireless energies of hundreds of local residents of the seacoast area.

The completion of the first two houses on the 9-acre site-Governor Goodwin Mansion and Chase House-signals only the beginning of a new era for Portsmouth.

Dating back to 1953, when the Portsmouth City Council authorized the Portsmouth housing authority to file an application to survey the South End as a possible urban-renewal area, we have seen the first such project in the United States to have historic preservation as the major reuse develop into a reality. Fearing that the city's rich historical tradition would fall prey to bulldozers and earthmovers that were tearing down the old, to make way for 20th century progress, in 1958 a concerned local citizency formed a nonprofit corporation, with 387 original incorporators. Final approval for the plan was announced by the Urban Renewal Administration in 1959; in 1961, title was transferred to the housing authority; and in 1963, the first stages of demolition activity were underway.

Mr. President, for all those who are interested in seeing history in the making, I heartily recommend a visit to this charming area, which also records on its guest book visits from such historic figures as George Washington, Lafayette, Prince Louis Philippe, John Paul Jones, and Paul Revere, who is alleged to have made a mighnight ride to Portsmouth 4 months before his heralded trip to Lexington and Concord.

In order to bring some of the historical significance of this area to the attention of Senators and other readers of the RECORD, I ask unanimous consent that

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »