Therefore, it becomes essential that we create new work experiences where the labor market cannot meet this need. Many people, especially youth, require prevocational work experiences to develop positive work habits before they are ready to function in the labor market. Thus, there is need for public service projects to achieve these goals as you described them. Sincerely, EDWARD P. DUTTON, Program Director, Interagency Project. CITY OF DUARTE, CALIF., Hon. GAYLORD NELSON, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR: Regarding your letter of June 17 indicating legislation for utilization of the unemployed, there is no official stand as yet taken by the city council. However, speaking personally, I could utilize approximately three men daily throughout the year on street tree projects, including removals, trimming, and planting. At the present time our small city crew is far behind the need. Also there would be utilization of approximately three men for 2 or more year in park development projects, and we are using two men now through the Los Angeles County Bureau of Public Assistance for maintenance duties on our existing park. Duties and projects of the assigned men would not require either extensive preparation or training on our part, but the men would be exposed and trained while on the job. Although ours is a small city of 15,000 population, I personally see a great need for this type of legislation in all cities where park and recreation services are provided. Sincerely, RALPH LAUDENSLAYER, Superintendent Park and Recreation Department. THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIF., Hon. GAYLORD NELSON, DEAR SENATOR NELSON: Thank you very much for your June 17 letter seeking information about the utilization of unemployed workers on conservation projects. Let me say very emphatically that there is definitely a need for legislation to support this type of activity. Particularly those of use working in public agencies and in my case the municipal agency, we have exhausted the local taxing ability to such great extent that funds are just not available for maintenance and development of parks, roadside improvements, and timber stand improvements. Regarding the utilization of substantial numbers of workers for our programs, I think that we could utilize a dozen workers within our department, and I am sure I speak for many of the other cities throughout the country. We would, frankly, have these gentlemen working in the maintenance of the various parksites, doing such work as mowing, weeding, watering, and general refurbishing of developed areas, and in many cases working on new park construction. In Santa Clara we are about ready to break ground on a 52-acre central parksite which will involve a cost of approximately $2 million. The cost of this type of project could obviously be lowered if personnel were available to do some of the work. Our parks and recreation system here in Santa Clara is basically an urban system with many, many well developed neighborhood playgrounds so the manhours to support this type of activity would basically be in the area of maintenance and upkeep as contrasted to the actual development, tree planting conservation work which say the National Park Service or county and State park systems would be using, particularly in more sparsely populated areas. Perhaps this information is not as specific as you might have wished but if I can only leave you with one thought, it is that there is a definite need for Federal legislation to support the growing open space programs of this country, and the sooner this legislation is enacted the better off all of us will be. If I can be of any further assistance to you and your program, please feel free to contact me at any time. Sincerely, EARL R. CARMICHAEL, Director, Parks and Recreation Department. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Hon. GAYLORD NELSON, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR NELSON: Your letter of May 15 addressed to Mr. Walter A. Haas, president of the San Francisco Recreation and Park Commission, was referred to me for study and report. The staff of this department has suggested 21 projects involving the following description of work to be followed: This type of work will be employed in 21 different projects and it is estimated that a work force of 595 men could be used on a yearly basis. We sincerely hope that your legislation providing funds to utilize unskilled and unemployed workers will be favorably looked upon, and we await further word from you on your undertaking. With every good wish. Sincerely yours, JAMES P. LANG, CITY OF LA PUENTE, CALIF., June 23, 1964. Subject: Your letter of June 17, 1964, proposed employment legislation. Hon. GAYLORD NELSON, U.S. Senator, Washington, D.C.: Thank you, Senator, your inquiry is very much appreciated. Utilization of unemployed workers could be pursued to a limited extent by this city. Projects involving unskilled handwork in areas difficult to handle with machinery would be the likely uses. These would include roadside weed control, landscaping and maintenance of traffic control islands, clearance of debris in minor drainage facilities, etc. I can visualize perhaps 10 or 20 man-years of work annually. My general comments would cover only two areas: (1) The rural versus urban local agency; and (2) the mechanics of implementation. First, your bill should provide recognition for the fact that the types and extent of work would vary greatly according to the physical nature of each individual community. I mean that unskilled handwork in an urban metropolis might involve projects completely unrelated to those deemed entirely appropriate in a mountain or rural farm community. Second, adequate economic subsidization for local planning and supervision should be provided. So often we have seen the so-called matching fund programs entrap local agencies, particularly the smaller ones, into assuming financial burdens for which they are poorly equipped to handle. Such programs, unless properly financed, usually result in futile robbing Peter to pay Paul programs which simply transfer problems from one focal point to ther. Again my thanks, Senator Nelson, for this opportunity to express my views on your very interesting legislative proposal. Respectfully, GORDON L. OEHL, City Manager. Hon. GAYLORD NELSON, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR NELSON: Your letter of June 17, relative to the possibility of utilizing unemployed workers on conservation projects for our agency has been received. We are only too happy to try and furnish you with the information which you have requested. 1. If funds were available, we could utilize a substantial number of workers in our program. 2. The specific kinds of projects which could be done without extensive preparation are: (a) Airport-Landscape airport frontage. (b) Golf course-Clearing brush, tree planting, and maintenance. (c) Sewage treatment plant-Cleanup, handwork, tree planting, fencing. (d) Sanitary disposal area-Clearing firebreaks, building roadways, fencing. (e) Additional city properties-Brush clearing, fence repair, painting. 3. The estimated number of man-years of work which might be usefully undertaken in the immediate future would be approximately 5 man-years. By the way, I would greatly appreciate your passing on my best regards to Senator Lee Metcalf of Montana, who is a personal friend of mine. DEAR SENATOR NELSON: I was pleased to receive your letter of June 17, concerning the utilization of the unemployed on conservation projects. We have several areas within our jurisdiction which need constant maintenance, development, and improvement-the county fairgrounds, Kelly Lake, Pinto Lake, Ramsay Park, road rest areas, and picnic areas adjoining the Pajaro River. Without any extensive new preparations, our most difficult task is to maintain and improve what we have. At the fairgrounds, a few prisoners have been used. We even solicit volunteers at Pinto Lake which is our best hopes for a regional park-water area for fishing, boating, beauty, and partial primitive area. We are endeavoring to preserve the green belt around this town and within the township. Without care and attention, housing developments creep in, and ranchers pump water out of the lake for selfish purposes. I would guess that within a 5-year period, we will lose half of what is now public landsprimitive, open, undeveloped for park-recreation purposes, neglected because manpower is short and funds not available to protect our resources in the public interest. We could use 50 men working 40 hours a week to preserve and improve what we now hope to conserve and use in the near future. Removing tullies, planting grass, landscaping the areas around and adjacent to these lakes, thinning dead wood from tree areas, pruning, etc., installing equipment for public use, painting, repairing small buildings, maintaining the park areas, cleaning areas along miles of river fringe, roadside areas, help with developing sideroads, bicycle and hiking paths, park area maintenance, etc. are a few needed projects at present. I am pleased to hear from you and congratulate you on your courage to make this attempt to help communities to help themselves. DEAR MR. NELSON: This is to answer the questions posed in your letter of June 17. If funds were available to this department now and in the future, we could utilize an almost unlimited number of workers, even if those workers were from the ranks of the unemployed and possibly the unskilled. Projects would range from continual clearance and cleaning of regional and areawide parks and playgrounds; reforestation; development of roads, paths, trails, and roadside rests; and other public works; and the utilization of such personnel as would have skills or could be trained for recreation leadership activities. One needs only to recollect the wonderful public works built in the 1930's by the National and State agencies, one of which was the Works Progress Administration. The departments which have projects of the size of this one, and with the potential yet untouched, could use this type of effort into an undetermined future. The matter of supplies and equipment, of course, would have to be handled, and the kind of public works that could be accomplished would depend directly on the kind of money available for supplies, equipment, and materials. Sincerely, WM. FREDERICKSON, Jr., CITY OF SAN GABRIEL, CALIF., June 24, 1964. Senator GAYLORD NELSON, Committee on Public Works, DEAR SENATOR NELSON: Am in receipt of your letter of June 17, in regard to Federal legislation to provide funds for different agencies having projects to work on. This program sounds to me to be a repeat of the former CCC program as started by President Roosevelt. At that time, during the depression years, it had a reason for existing. During our present boom era it does not. I cannot, in my own mind, see how such a program will help to instill any ambition or individual initiative in our young people or those on relief. I am also concerned that the Federal Government is attempting to influence widespread areas of endeavor which, in my estimation, should be a State or local problem. Please do not create another Federal monster to help dash the ambitions and aggressiveness that a normal American boy or girl is endowed with. Our Federal Government was originally instituted to guide our country's international destiny and to protect the individual's rights-not to be a welfare agency. Please excuse my bluntness, but I have dim hopes that some day we will get back on the right track. The use of the $3 billion foreign extravaganza could be better used to conserve and exploit our national natural resources and thus create many worthwhile jobs. Thank you for allowing me to express my views. Respectfully yours, FRANK H. CARPENTER, Director, Parks and Recreation Department. CITY OF FULLERTON, Fullerton, Calif., July 16, 1964. Hon. GAYLORD NELSON, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR NELSON: We have considered your recent letter regarding potential legislation to provide funds to governmental agencies to utilize unemployed workers on conservation projects. If funds were available, the city of Fullerton would not be in a position to utilize any number of substantial extra workers on park development, roadside improvement, or timber stand improvement, inasmuch as the great majority of our capital improvement programs are performed by private contractors as required by the State of California competitive bidding regulations. We attempt in every way possible to maintain a small group of maintenance employees in our park and other departments in order that we might provide efficient, effective maintenance of our park areas at a low cost to our taxpayers. We would feel that the program such as you propose would, in essence, be a "make work" program which would be in direct opposition to our current practices. Many of the communities in the Orange County area of California have steadfastly resisted the development and encouragement of federally supported programs which finance problems that should be solved at the local level. I am sure that this area would react in a like manner to your proposed program. Very truly yours, Subject: Unemployed workers program. Hon. GAYLORD NELSON, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. HERMAN A. HILTSCHER, City Administrator. STANISLAUS COUNTY, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, DEAR SIR: Reference is made to your letter of June 17, 1964, advising us of your interest in legislation to provide funds to Federal, State, county, and municipal agencies to utilize unemployed workers on conservation projects such as park development, roadside improvement, etc. I regret the delay in answering your letter but wished to discuss the matter with individual members of our board of supervisors before answering your inquiry. Currently we have two such programs underway within our county. One is the rather extensive use of inmates from the county jail and the other is the use of welfare workers. It is common practice in California for counties to utilize inmate labor and from the several year's experience which we have had, found them to be not too unsatisfactory. I phrase this in a somewhat negative fashion because public works operations use equipment to perform most functions. The use of manpower unto itself on roadside improvement is practically nonexistent today. The principle area where this manpower can be used is in our park development and each day we will use from 20 to 30 inmates at our various community and regional parks, doing basically menial type work. From our limited experience we are not as enthusiastic with the welfare workers on public works projects. As you may be aware, California has a most generous welfare program and the latest wrinkle is to ask the unemployed fathers to "work out their time" on public projects. Due to extremely good weather and the availability of work this past winter, the program is not yet expanded into anything that can be fruitfully commented upon. However, a generalization would be that often inmates possess work skills which can be useful in park development (carpentry, plumbing, etc.) over that which unemploved persons have. Often the inmate is of a higher caliber than the unemployed for he is usually doing time for drinking or some other misdemeanor, and has a regular job to return to upon his release. Our board's reaction was if such a program were to be instituted, what kind of rules and regulations might be attached. Experience in working with the State of California in the welfare programs finds that the administration and overhead costs can be high. Further, since California has been a leader in |