HOUSING LEGISLATION OF 1966 THURSDAY, APRIL 21, 1966 U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING, The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:07 a.m., in room 5302, New Senate Office Building, Senator John Sparkman, chairman of the subcommittee, presiding. Present: Senators Sparkman, Douglas, Proxmire, and Williams. Senator SPARKMAN. Let the subcommittee come to order, please. We have several other Senators that have indicated they will be here, but I think we better get started. We have a very heavy schedule. Our first witness today is Hon. Neal S. Blaisdell, president, U.S. Conference of Mayors, mayor of Honolulu. Come around, Mayor Blaisdell. We are glad to have you with us. We have copies of your prepared statement. That will be printed in full in the record. You may proceed as you wish. You may read it, discuss it, summarize it, just as you wish. STATEMENT OF NEAL S. BLAISDELL, PRESIDENT OF THE U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS; ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN J. GUNTHER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AND HUGH MIELDS, JR., ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR Mr. BLAISDELL. Mr. Chairman Senator SPARKMAN. I understand you have an appendix to it also Mr. BLAISDELL. Yes. Senator SPARKMAN. That will be printed in the record. Mr. BLAISDELL. I should like, Mr. Chairman, for the record to read this statement. Senator SPARKMAN. Go right ahead. Mr. BLAISDELL. My name is Neal S. Blaisdell. I am the mayor of Honolulu, Hawaii, and the president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, both of which I represent in appearing here to comment on housing and urban development legislation now before Congress. Thank you for the privilege. I have with me Mr. John J. Gunther, the executive director of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and Mr. Hugh Mields, Jr., associate director of the U.S. Conference of Mayors. These gentlemen will be pleased to answer questions of conference policy or questions of a technical nature. We are well aware that armed conflict and threatening inflation do not provide the best of backdrop for a discussion of domestic program needs. Our testimony has been developed with full recognition and appreciation of the demands these problems pose for Congress and the Nation. But it has also been prepared in recognition of the great capability of this Nation to deal effectively with threats of war and an overheated economy and at the same time deal with the real and urgent problems now plaguing our growing urban areas. We need to give these problems and the programs we have devised to deal with them our constant and continuing attention. We cannot afford to lose the important gains we have made, and we should not risk losing any opportunity to expand and accelerate our efforts to improve the quality of American life. The programs before you are of a long-range nature. If enacted, they will have no immediate impact on the economy. They involve, by and large, programs which normally require from 6 months to 2 years of leadtime for planning and from 2 to 6 years or even more to be carried out. They are long-range commitments for future action which can be taken into full account in future budgets both national and local. It is important that the proposed programs be viewed as needed improvements developed out of the work and experience the cities and the Federal Government have had during the last two decades. They are needed refinements. They should not be viewed as proposals which are new in the sense that they are unexpected and add special and perhaps insupportable burdens on the Federal budget. DEMONSTRATION CITIES The President's proposed Demonstration Cities Act of 1966 is designed to provide increased levels of Federal financial and technical assistance to cities to undertake large-scale programs to restore the physical, social, and economic utility of the slum and blighted neighborhoods of our great American cities. The act is unique in its comprehensiveness and administrative arrangement. It requires as a condition of success a full measure of cooperation and coordination on the part of all levels of government and their agencies in programs which affect urban life. The proposal is by far the most ambitious and comprehensive yet advanced for the creative renewal and redevelopment of major neighborhoods in combination with broad scale efforts to significantly expand education, employment, and health opportunities for the residents. The objectives of the President's program have the full-and even enthusiastic support of the mayors. We have also concluded that the demonstration program is clearly in need of refinement and simplification without which there is serious question as to the program's capability to meet within the prescribed time schedule the goals set forth so eloquently in the President's message on the cities. FUNDING THE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM In our judgment, the $2.3 billion earmarked for the program is substantially less than the amount which will be required to meet the goals set forth by the President. Moreover, there is no assurance now that even any part of the $2.3 billion will be available over the projected 6-year course of the program. It is essential to the program's success that the cities have that assurance. Therefore, the $2.3 billion should be made available under contract authority immediately upon enactment of the bill. We want and we need a firm commitment from the administration and the Congress that both mean business in this program. The only way that commitment can be made real is to set up the obligational authority so the funds will be there when the cities require them. The conference is concerned that as contemplated, the program will apparently be limited to a small number of cities. The great promise this program holds for improving urban life has engendered great and widespread interest throughout the Nation. Many cities already feel it is a matter of great urgency that they become among the chosen, and my city is no exception. Already there is great concern about being cut out. The kind of highly competitive situation which is developing is obviously undesirable. It is distracting from the prime goals of the program. It endangers the program's usefulness by inducing cities to make promises to the poor and disadvantaged in target areas which they cannot keep if they lose in the competition. It is imperative that the program to have maximum impact be open to all cities on a firstcome, first-serve basis. HUD's guidelines for selection should provide that the initial group of approved programs encompass a variety of cities by population size and geographical distribution. PLANNING GRANTS The problem of assuring widespread participation should be handled by making it possible for any city in the Nation to apply for and receive grant funds to initiate planning for a demonstration project. This could be accomplished by amending the Housing Act of 1949 to permit 100-percent planning grants out of title I (urban renewal) grant funds. FUNDING OTHER GRANT PROGRAMS The Demonstration Cities Act, as proposed, provides 80 percent of the local share of the cost of those Federal grant-in-aid programs which must be carried out in conjunction with the local demonstration project. Thus, unless adequate Federal funds are available in the first place for the complementary programs, particularly urban renewal and OEO projects, and unless they can be readily scheduled into the demonstration project, the project cannot be carried out and no 80 percent Federal grant can be made. Urban renewal is a good case in point since it will constitute the base program from which the demonstration program will have to work. pleased to answer questions of conference policy or questions of a technical nature. We are well aware that armed conflict and threatening inflation do not provide the best of backdrop for a discussion of domestic program needs. Our testimony has been developed with full recognition and appreciation of the demands these problems pose for Congress and the Nation. But it has also been prepared in recognition of the great capability of this Nation to deal effectively with threats of war and an overheated economy and at the same time deal with the real and urgent problems now plaguing our growing urban areas. We need to give these problems and the programs we have devised to deal with them our constant and continuing attention. We cannot afford to lose the important gains we have made, and we should not risk losing any opportunity to expand and accelerate our efforts to improve the quality of American life. The programs before you are of a long-range nature. If enacted, they will have no immediate impact on the economy. They involve, by and large, programs which normally require from 6 months to 2 years of leadtime for planning and from 2 to 6 years or even more to be carried out. They are long-range commitments for future action which can be taken into full account in future budgets both national and local. It is important that the proposed programs be viewed as needed improvements developed out of the work and experience the cities and the Federal Government have had during the last two decades. They are needed refinements. They should not be viewed as proposals which are new in the sense that they are unexpected and add special and perhaps insupportable burdens on the Federal budget. DEMONSTRATION CITIES The President's proposed Demonstration Cities Act of 1966 is designed to provide increased levels of Federal financial and technical assistance to cities to undertake large-scale programs to restore the physical, social, and economic utility of the slum and blighted neigh borhoods of our great American cities. The act is unique in its comprehensiveness and administrative ar rangement. It requires as a condition of success a full measure cooperation and coordination on the part of all levels of governmen and their agencies in programs which affect urban life. The proposal is by far the most ambitious and comprehensive v advanced for the creative renewal and redevelopment of major ne borhoods in combination with broad scale efforts to significant expand education, employment, and health opportunities for the redents. The objectives of the President's program have the full-and er enthusiastic support of the mayors. We have also concluded the demonstration program is clearly in need of refinement and sim; fication without which there is serious question as to the progra capability to meet within the prescribed time schedule the goals forth so eloquently in the President's message on the cities. |