In addition to the approaches outlined, one other can be added. This would be to involve the central city actively in the new community process. This approach could reverse central city concern for compatibility of its interests with new community dedevolpment. In some senses, this would adapt the "mother city" concept from Greek city-states to a modern urban situation. The central city has both capabilities and needs that could be effectively served under this approach. Capabilities include substantial knowhow in the "business" of city operation derived directly from experience with municipal activities. Specific capabilities related to new community requirements include financial resources and financial know-how; experienced staff in the operation and construction of utilities distribution and treatment facilities; design, construction, and maintenance of street and highway facilities; an array of services in general administration, planning and zoning, urban renewal and redevelopment, public housing and community economic develop ment. Some central city needs could be met by new community development. These include expansion and modernization of its tax base; the addition of selected new types of development to the city; availability of relocation sites for families and businesses displaced by redevelopment; highway construction; as well as normal land use shifts. Of course, there are some problems inherent in this approach to new community development. Particularly critical perhaps would be problems of local and regional government arrangements; city-to-city relationships as well as county-to-city; and legal factors related to application of public funds and other governmental powers. In most cases, I understand changes in state law would generally accommodate such an approach. Some states would already permit this type of program. In some areas, sites -federal "surplus" land holdingscould be made available. The Outlook The problem of creating sound policies and programs to guide outlying metropolitan development areas is complex. I would like to stress again that the fact of the nation's urban growth is not arguable. The only issue is how this urban growth will occur. The most serious mistake we can make is to shrug off the dif ficult problems in these issues by over-simplified answers or naive solutions. At stake here is no less than the pattern for the stupendous growth forecast in U.S. urban areas during the period ahead. To focus this problem, we can recall the points made in President Johnson's March 2, 1965 message to Congress-"Problems and Future of the Central City and Its Suburbs"which pointed out that during "the next 15 years, 30 million people will be added to our cities-equivalent to the combined populations of New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Detroit, and Baltimore. Each year, in the coming generation, we will add the equivalent of 15 cities of 200,000 each. At the end of the century-in less than 40 years -urban population will double, city land will double, and we will have to build in our cities as much as all that we have built since the first Colonist arrived on these shores. It is as if we had 40 years to rebuild the entire urban United States." The value of a new communities policy in our urban areas is potentially enormous. We can discover ways to obtain these values without sacrifice of major objectives in the public interest. Central city areas could become constructively involved in the creation of new communities. There is both challenge and opportunity in the present situation. would urge members of NAHRO to explore the potentials of new community policies and programs for your own localities as well as for the nation. COMMENTS ON MR. GLADSTONE'S STATEMENT I a "new towns" experience report: Reston, Virginia... by James B. Selonick, Executive Vice-president, Reston, Virginia Many basic planning concepts have gone into the creation of Reston, Virginia. I'll touch on but a few of the more important ones. First, the result must be a total community oriented to the human being living in it. Second, these people must be able, if they so desire, to live in the same neighborhood during all stages of their lives. And, third, the environment we create should provide an absolute maximum stimulation of both minds and bodies. Obviously, all of these concepts must be imple To accomplish these objectives, we have provided a variety of housing types, ranging from conventional lots for detached houses to a 15-story highrise apartment building built 20 miles in the country and including garden apartments and clustered town houses, all within easy walking distance of each other. In addition to the physical living accommodations, we have spent literally years preplanning the community, so that when the first residents moved in, it would at once be alive with the activity we consider essential. This pre-planning will present our residents with opportunities-not control their activity. We have sold land to church organizations with predetermined population levels, establishing a point at which each commences construction; we have made arrangements for elementary, intermediate, and high school facilities with the County of Fairfax; we have planned and leased the first convenience store, which will be opening next month. We have constructed a broad range of recreational facilities: for golf, tennis, swimming, horseback riding, fishing, boating, and many others. The cultural aspect of our planning has not been ignored but rather emphasized. And, accordingly, we have art classes, pottery programs for making, extension courses available from nearby universities, a lecture series, film programs, and we have even established an art gallery that will be among the first retail spaces to open this fall. The staff of our first community center is actively operating as of today and will guide the first residents in establishing the kind of program they want. Each homeowner of Reston becomes a member of our home owners association and those living in town house clusters will also become members of cluster associations, with responsibility for maintenance and improvement of land owned in common; they will also participate in and review building plans within these areas. We anticipate that these associations will provide the base for political activity and should result in the development of a sense of community responsibility as well as the feeling of belonging. Industry In order to give the community balance and provide a substantial opportunity for residents to work near where they live, we have allocated approximately one-seventh of our total land area to house research and development and light industrial firms. We sincerely hope that our residents will take advantage of these possibilities and thereby be able to use the time saved in commuting in participating in the Reston community. The industrial area has the additional advantage of providing a tax base, which helps us pay our own way in the county. After a seemingly long gestation period, Reston has been born. Even to our own amazement, four industrial firms are already in operation at Reston, with three more having purchased land and having scheduled themselves to be in operation within the coming few months. The attraction is obviously what we have created at Reston, since there is ample land cheaper, closer to town. The first residents are with us and represent a gratifyingly broad range of income. Our first town houses, ranging in price from $23,000 to $46,000, have been purchased by a very substantial number of people earning under $10,000 and almost as large a number of people in the over $20,000 category. The first sampling of our rental units, which range from $125 a month to $270 a month, leads us to conclude that this range will be substantially increased by the rental segment of our housing. We believe that the people attracted by the environment we are creating will be compatible within a wide range of income; segregating housing within narrow price categories is a distasteful alternative. Obviously five years will be required to determine the soundness of this proposition. But our first residents are pleased and our units are selling. Our next housing units will be under construction next year and will begin at a slightly lower range, about the $18,000 area. Low-cost Housing A possibility of going below this price, in relation to our land development and basic construction cost, seems remote. Our best opportunity for low-cost housing is in the rental field, where various federal programs. are available to us. Next year, approximately 100 units of housing for the aging will be under construction under a Section 202 program and we are prepared to construct a building under Section 221 (d) 3 as soon as a sufficient number of qualified workers, or prospective workers, from our industrial commercial areas indicate the need for such accommodation. We have said that we will provide housing for anyone who works at Reston and we intend to fulfill that commitment. Much that we propose should stimulate the appetite and cultivate the tastes of our residents, thereby enabling them to partake of the ob viously superior cultural and educational facilities available in the central city. We are convinced that people involved in the community. with a renewed sense of identity and belonging, will make better citizens. This is clearly the challenge for all of us. (Mr. Fay subsequently supplied the following information for the record :) NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT OFFICIALS, Hon. JOHN SPARKMAN, DEAR SENATOR SPARKMAN: Subsequent to our testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Housing, you introduced S. 3282, a bill to improve the operation of downtown urban renewal activities, for consideration in connection with the proposed housing legislation of 1966. NAHRO strongly supports this bill and is heartened by your leadership in introducing such a measure in this session of Congress. As you know, our association has long advocated improvements in existing legislation designed to give the urban renewal program more flexibility in dealing with special situations. Although this association's traditional interest has been housing, we have come to recognize that all aspects of urban life must be sound before we can achieve our national housing goals. Thus, cities must undertake programs that balance residential and nonresidential efforts. We are faced with a circular dilemma that can only be resolved by a determined effort on the part of the Federal Government to intercede in the downward spiral of urban central city decay. Revitalization is necessary to attract industry and commerce; industry and commerce are necessary for increased employment; and all are necessary for continued city revitalization. The problems of the urban core are well known and need not be reiterated here. Solutions to much of the urban decay that not only reduces city tax bases, but burdens the community with manifold social problems, must be found, largely, within the framework of a large-scale civic effort for revitalization of the urban core. Such an effort would be impossible in the absence of Federal financial assistance. It is severely handicapped under the conditions that now restrict Federal aid for downtown renewal. The planning, financing, and timing requirements for Federal urban renewal grants were developed in a context of small residential redevelopment projects. Large-scale downtown renewal does not fit into this mold: It deals with a different type of blighted area, requires longer periods to plan and execute, and provides different kinds of public facilities which are as necessary as schools are to residential neighborhoods, but which are not eligible for credit toward the local share of project costs. NAHRO feels that your bill, S. 3282, can provide the urban renewal program with the flexibility it needs to meet this challenge by adjusting the requirements of the present program to facilitate a comprehensive downtown development program. It would, among other things, provide a definition of "blight" appropriate to central business districts, allow a suitable period for program execution, permit credits as noncash grants-in-aid for facilities that are needed to sup-. port these areas, waive the residential requirement, and encourage historic preservation. We welcome the opportunity to support you in your efforts to improve our existing tools for the revitalization of our cities. S. 3282 is an important bill. We hope it is enacted into law. Sincerely yours, FREDERIC A. FAY, President. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOUSING Hon. JOHN J. SPARKMAN, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR SPARKMAN: In accordance with our conversation following NAHRO President Fred Fay's testimony, we are submitting this letter to clearly explain the reason why we recommend the provision of federal grant-in-aid assistance for code enforcement programs in slum and blighted areas as an interim program to provide immediate relief of bad housing conditions. We recognize the use of concentrated code enforcement programs as authorized under Section 117, as a technique for arresting the decline of residential neigh borhoods which, although basically sound, show signs of becoming seriously blighted. In such areas, systematic housing code enforcement, in addition to public improvements, can serve as a final treatment just as clearance, redevelopment and rehabilitation projects under Title I serve as a final treatment. With the availability of federally assisted concentrated code enforcement programs, localities now have a full range to grant-in-aid programs to use as a final treatment for areas ranging from basically sound to outright slums. However, as you know, these programs are all long-range programs which are executed only after a long period of planning. Even though it will be much quicker to execute concentrated code enforcement programs under Section 117 because of the rela tively simple application procedure, these programs will only be used in areas which qualify and warrant concentrated code enforcement and many more areas will be scheduled for Title I redevelopment and rehabilitation. Therefore, many slum and blighted areas will still lie unattended between the period intervening between planning and execution. This does not take into account the many areas, rural and urban which are located in communities without urban renewal plans (many of which choose not to use urban renewal). The federal government still lacks an interim program to provide immediate relief to inhabitants of slum, blighted and other deteriorated neighborhoods which are already pending final treatment or have yet to be designated for such treatment. There is an urgent need to provide assistance to localities for intensive code enforcement in the worst slum and blighted areas merely to protect health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of such areas until such time as a final renewal treatment is executed. Whereas, under Section 117 eligible activities include the provision of certain public improvements which are necessary for the final restoration of a residential neighborhood through concentrated code enforcement programs, no public improvements would be necessary as eligible activities in the interim intensive code enforcement program herein proposed. The only costs involved in this type of program would be those strictly related to enforcing housing and related codes-mainly the cost of inspectors and supervisory personnel and attendant administrative costs necessary to police the slum and blighted areas in question. The cost of such policing activities is relatively higher than the cost of the inspection activities involved in concentrated code enforcement programs be cause the number of inspections and re-inspections per dwelling unit, would be much higher. The incremental financial burden on localities, if they were to support the costs of these routine activities and expanded intensive activities in the slum and blighted areas, would be so burdensome that it is highly unlikely that adequate local funds are now, or would be, available. Moreover, in Community Action Programs and other programs administered by the Office of Economic Opportunity, many social and educational programs are available to slum and blighted areas; yet no housing program is available unless it is a demonstration program or an activity under an authorized Title I urban renewal program. This leaves a serious gap in the package of programs available from the federal government to assist localities to deal comprehensively with social, economic and physical development problems of the slums. The program we propose would especially supplement activities under OEO programs and greatly assist in closing this gap. Finally, localities are already legally responsible for enforcing minimum housing standards in all areas under their jurisdiction. Those localities attempting to do an effective job of code enforcement are caught between two crucial priorities whereby attention to one is given at the expense of the other. The two priorities are: first, arresting the decline of residential neighborhoods which are basically sound before they become seriously deteriorated and blighted; and, second, that of providing immediate relief of the worst housing conditions in slum and blighted areas. This dilemma can only be solved when there are sufficient financial resources available to cover the costs of handling both jobs. But, more localities lack sufficient financial resources to do both and we believe it is only logical that federal assistance be provided for both. Code enforcement is a readily available tool which can be put to immediate use to alleviate bad housing conditions in slum areas of many localities. By readily available, we mean that no additional governmental action is required, such as state enabling laws, city-council action, referendum as is the case in urban renewal. If provided sufficient funds, localities could move quickly into the areas in question and greatly relieve poor housing conditions. In turn, since many of the areas we speak of are areas of social unrest and tension, much could be accomplished to relieve the explosive situations confronting many localities throughout the nation. While it is recognized that more is required in our truly depressed areas, to the extent that bad housing conditions contribute to the explosive climate in these areas immediate action by local government through intensive code enforcement would do much to relieve one of the chief factors contributing to the social unrest in such areas. Here again, we would like to point out that the intensive code enforcement programs we speak of would be merely to police the bad housing conditions in their areas as an interim program and not final renewal treatment. In such a program the objective would be merely that of answering minimum housing standards to protect health, safety and welfare. No public improvements are envisioned in this program, nor would it be necessary to provide the range of services eligible under Section 117 concentrated code enforcement. We are available for additional information and will be pleased to assist the Sub-Committee to draft this proposal in proper legislative form. We thank you for the opportunity to elaborate on this most important matter. Very truly yours, JOHN D. LANGE, Executive Director. Senator SPARKMAN. I see Senator Mondale is here. Senator Mondale will have just a brief statement to make. STATEMENT BY WALTER F. MONDALE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Senator MONDALE. The subcommittee will hear from Mr. Ed Christianson, who is the chairman of the Minnesota Farmers Union, and the newly elected vice president of the National Farmers Union. He is an old friend of mine and one of the great Minnesotians of our day, a distinguished and gifted spokesman for the American family farmer, but also, as is characteristic of the leadership of that organization, a man interested in the broad spectrum of American life. He shares the concern of the chairman of this committee and others about the quality of rural life in America today. And he comes here personally, along with the assistant chief counsel for the Farmers Union, to speak up for a balanced program to include those provisions necessary for adequate rural housing as well as the demonstration cities program and others for adequate housing in our urban communities. I appreciate this opportunity to personally introduce him and his able assistant, Mr. Blue Carstenson, and to heartily endorse the objective which he seeks a better life for the people of rural America. Thank you so much." Senator SPARKMAN. Thank you, Senator Mondale, and we shall be glad to hear from Mr. Christianson and Mr. Carstenson. Senator MONDALE. Thank you very much. Senator SPARKMAN. Now, Mr. Edwin Christianson and Mr. Blue Carstenson. STATEMENT OF EDWIN CHRISTIANSON, VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL FARMERS UNION; ACCOMPANIED BY BLUE CARSTENSON, ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR Mr. CHRISTIANSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Edwin Christianson. I am vice president of the National Farmers Union, and our presentation to your committee today will be |