cause it is a "market basket" kind of situation. It may be that this program would simply not be used otherwise. Turning to your first question, I think it can best be approached in terms of the fact that the purpose to which this proposal is addressed is basically coordination. The purpose to which the information center is addressed is mainly to achieve coordination and decisionmaking in a highly complex, highly fragmented governmental setting which we have in the metropolitan setting. We have puzzled a bit about what coordination means because we know we don't have a single decisionmaking jurisdiction that is the same as the urban area we are working with. Senator PROXMIRE. The whole purpose and thrust of this bill, however, is to provide for coordination on a comprehensive basis instead of bits and pieces kind of an operation. Mr. LOEKS. Yes. Senator PROXMIRE. And in view of the way this is set up, however, it would be perfectly possible for a city to go into the comprehensive program without using the urban information centers. And I presume that such cities that did that would have some kind of coordinating device that would have to be approved. It would be a competitive situation so the Federal department would only go along with those that have the best kind of a program. So I am wondering what additional contribution these urban information centers would make. Mr. LOEKS. I believe the additional contribution would be to place in one center, for rather quick retrieval information that is needed by the decisionmakers of local units of government in the area. At present, in places where you have well-developed metropolitan planning functions, there is some of this going on at this time. But there is need because of the kind of information Senator PROXMIRE. How widespread is that? Can you give us the names of any cities which you think would be adequately equipped to handle this without urban information centers? Mr. LOEKS. No, I cannot. Senator PROXMIRE. Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh? Mr. LOEKS. Oh, I think I understand your question. Are you asking whether or not the balance of the program could be developed without Senator PROXMIRE. Well, from your answer, I take it you feel some cities would not need this because they already have a well-established coordinating mechanism in operation. But other cities would be able to take advantage of this. Would this be primarily for the smaller cities which are not as well coordinated or as well organized or have not had the experience? Mr. LOEKS. No, Senator. I believe the real need is in the larger metropolitan areas where the complexity of the developmental situation is such that Senator PROXMIRE. What I am trying to find out is why the urban information centers should be separate and apart? Why should not this be part of the total picture? Why should it not be required everywhere? Certainly, from the standpoint of efficiency, we want to have as well coordinated comprehensively organized basis as possible. The whole thrust and purpose of the bill is to try to get away from the uncoordinated, unplanned kind of approach. Mr. LOEKS. I believe that the bill does attempt to get at that question by providing that the State would have a role in this process, too. It would encourage State efforts in this regard for areas other than the large metropolitan centers. Mr. Williams and Mr. Hartley might wish to comment on this. Mr. WILLIAMS. This is our interpretation also. Senator PROXMIRE. I do not think that the bill would have to be modified to provide that. Either we do not use this urban information center or it should be an essential part of any appropriate program and should have some sort of a coordinating device of this kind established. Mr. WILLIAMS. Perhaps my experience in these matters would be useful. A few years ago I was involved with the Association of Bay Area Governments in the San Francisco Bay area in the development of their 701 regional planning program. And pivotal to much of our experience was the desirability of establishing, in that political and physical setting, a keystone activity centered around a data and information center. We found this out very quickly, rather dramatically and I think embarrassingly to many local governments our lack of ability to relate land-use inventories, zoning classification, and the other elements and tools of local planning and implementation between one community to another. It was, in fact, a metropolitan tower of Babel. Our solution was to try and coordinate facts through some central point, to establish common standards and to create a communication network both implicitly and explicitly in this particular case this meant a data information center. I think that one of our strong suits in terms of effective metropolitan planning is that this type of an activity is almost essential. Senator PROXMIRE. That makes all the sense in the world to me, especially from the standpoint of your type of coordinating. You planners who are devoting your life to this and are experts in the area, it would seem to me you would feel that this provision for information coordination, whatever you want to call it, a single office where you could direct and control and coordinate the whole operation would be absolutely essential and be required in all cases. It would not be something you just pulled in where they want it or do not want it. The whole thrust of this bill, is to try to take at least a large section of a city, hopefully in some cases an entire city, perhaps, and plan on a really comprehensive basis whether they are going to coordinate it or not. Mr. WILLIAMS. Certainly, Senator, in the experience I have just described, this was very paramount in our considerations. I do not know if in the Twin Cities area Senator PROXMIRE. I do not mean to belabor this point, but I have been talking to the members of the staff, and they have the same problem. They feel this is a little vague and confused and not as explicit as it should be or perhaps as comprehensive as it should be. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator PROXMIRE. Senator Williams. Senator WILLIAMS. Just one question, Mr. Williams. You are the executive director of the American Institute? Senator WILLIAMS. And prior to this you were working in the San Francisco area? Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, as the planning director for Alameda County, a metropolitan county of about 1 million population. Senator WILLIAMS. What is the latest report on the mass transit system they are creating in San Francisco? How is it going? Mr. WILLIAMS. Technically, I think they are in fine shape. I understand they have some financial problems however. The reports are that perhaps some refinancing and new bond issues might be required because the bids coming in for some portions of the system are higher than anticipated. They are now going through organized debate, I believe, on this. Senator WILLIAMS. Are they constructing anything? Mr. WILLIAMS. There have been some delays. Yes, I believe they have their test track constructed in the Concord area which is in Contra Costa County. Their test equipment is being run on this track. I believe the securing of all rights-of-way is proceeding satisfactorily through their right-of-way division. And beyond that, I do not have much information. Senator WILLIAMS. Thank you very much. Senator SPARKMAN. All right, gentlemen, thank you very much. We are glad to have you with us. STATEMENT OF JAMES H. J. TATE, MAYOR OF PHILADELPHIA, PA., ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES; ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN O'SHEA, DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR, PHILADELPHIA Mr. TATE. I would like to have my associate, Mr. John O'Shea, who is the development coordinator in Philadelphia with me inasmuch as there has been some discussion about the development coordinator. Senator SPARKMAN. We have your printed statement and also your supplementary statements. They will all be included in the record. You may proceed as you see fit. Mr. TATE. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee: I appreciate the courtesy as well as the indulgence of the committee at this late hour. I had some prepared testimony before the CAB in connection with airline service in Philadelphia. It is a great privilege to appear before you as spokesman for the National League of Cities, an organization of 13,500 member cities with which I am sure you are all familiar. In that particular organization, I happen to serve as a member of the executive committee. And I do feel that I am meeting a profound responsibility, not only to my city and the local governments all over the Nation, but finally to the Nation itself in coming before you to support the demonstration cities program as I have done vigorously before a similar committee in the House. Today I would like first to pay my own tribute to the President and his administration for the development of a first-rate program which will give all of us who have struggled so long and hard with the immense problems of our cities a feeling of renewed strength in the knowledge that at long last the need for action on a massive scale has been forthrightly recognized and clearly stated and placed before the American people for genuine consideration. We do wish to state it has our unqualified support as well as our belief that substantial inroads will now be made on neighborhoods now in decline and decay at a pace that will enable us to show the public responsibility that is ours locally for the future betterment of our urban communities. Since 1949, now almost 20 years, most of our major cities and certainly all of the older ones, have been committed to overexpanding urban and social renewal projects that are essential to their survival. Our cities, including Philadelphia, are now and have been exerting every effort and using every available and conceivable resource in their attacks on physical and social blight. But however impressive these programs have been and continue to be, the disturbing factor emerges from our review of their progress that they remain just a statement of what we would like to accomplish rather than what we are in fact achieving at all. I do want to make one reference to a position which has been taken by the National League of Cities and responsible urban renewal officials of almost every city in the country with respect to the contract authority program. We are hopeful that the Federal Government will return to the contract authority basis for funding ongoing urban renewal programs. This would automatically release the $2.9 billion of title I funds authorized for urban renewal which is desperately needed to carry out existing ongoing programs. Senator SPARK MAN. Mr. Mayor, I think in your printed statement, there is a misprint. I want to clarify that $2.9. Mr. TATE. That is correct. My associate states that Senator SPARKMAN. You have $219 billion, a very sizable figure. Mr. Chairman, I recognize your superior ability as an auditor. Mr. TATE. I am sorry that mistake was made, but we can blame it on a typographical error. Senator SPARKMAN. Typewriters will make them. Mr. TATE. That is right. As a local public official and a man experienced in business, I do expect that greater efficiency and economy will be achieved in our cities if we do give them the capacity to enter agreements properly funded as their plans are approved. In so doing, you will relieve the intense frustration that we now sense in residents living in project areas and permit us to go ahead with the construction on realistic schedules of work to be done. Furthermore, the moneys required for the demonstration cities program should supplement those programs which are underfinanced now either due to inadequacy of funding or because of established priorities. I do wish to reflect with you for a few minutes on that city with which I am most familiar. And that is my own city of Philadelphia. After 18 years of urban renewal and redevelopment, Philadelphia has 68 title I projects, large and small, at some point of execution or submission in the renewal network. These represent a total commitment of a combined total of more than $435 million in Federal, State, and local funds. Over this period, our city has been in the forefront of the Nation's renewal effort-we have been setting the patterns, we have been developing the programs, devising pilot projects and new approaches, the experiences from many of which have been adopted ultimately as standard procedures and programs by the Urban Renewal Administration and the Public Housing Administration, for use throughout the Nation. As a matter of fact, the very group which just previously appeared before you, the planners, are now having a tremendous convention in Philadelphia studying the projects that we have made. But I submit to you that our cities, Philadelphia among them, are making every effort and straining their resources to the limit to meet their responsibilities to their citizenry for a decent standard of housing and a suitable neighborhood environment. For example, in Philadelphia, I would like to submit the level of our effort: 1. Since 1960, the city has been guided in its overall program by a comprehensive physical plan for its development. As a matter of fact, since 1945 we have had a system of 6-year capital programing updated each year and made binding by an annular ordinance of city council. The annual capital commitment for 1966 amounts to $157 million. Our total 6-year capital program currently approaches $1 billion. 2. In Philadelphia, we have 13,824 public housing units serving low and low-middle income families. We have been a prime demonstration city in the country for developing the used house concept which actually takes us away from the institutional living or project. type of public housing. Close to 1,000 houses have been rehabilitated and occupied under this program. Going forward with the thrust of this experience, we have a proposal now pending before the Public Housing Administration for the restoration of 20,000; 13,000 of which are vacant and derelict buildings which have been abandoned by private enterprise. They have walked away from the entire program. This same experience is ours with respect to open lots. And this, of course, is under the provisions of the 1965 Housing Act. 3. On top of that, the newly organized Philadelphia School Board has adopted a construction program extending 4 years to more or less complement or improve tremendously something which has been more 62-551 0-66-pt. 1-17 |