I visited some of the new towns in England. It seems to me they have done quite a good and comprehensive job. But they have something that we do not have. And I am not sure we will ever have. And that is the right of condemnation so that the land can be sought and the use can be prescribed, industry encouraged to move in, und the genple given employment right there in the town, most of them in vie ing distance. That has done a great deal for transportation. No irtan mass transit required there. But one witness did suggest the other day that . ve provided a good, new town program and gave incentives to the "tates and oralities to develop, locate and develop, these new towns, that The Wares undoubtedly would pass such legislation as may be necesary, netading the power of eminent domain just as they did v ta refemurs 10 urban renewal and public housing. programs of that end. Do you think that might come about! Mr. FINLEY. Yes: I am sure that that kind of leadership rough this bill would encourage the States to create State agencies or ragona. agencies. The CHAIRMAN. I assumed that you agree wita me “har ve would a6t want Federal condemnation. Mr. FINLEY. I think it is not necessary. The CHAIRMAN. Well, I think it is not necessa.7. and i to not "...d it would be a good thing; but, of course, the wrates an do what, meg wish. It is one of the powers that belong to “e Statz, 208 % .P eral Government. Mr. FINLEY. Mr. Chairman, one last opportunity to invite you and the members of Columbia and see what many people say and is a nodes fær er communities across the conlitey. The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank go very alien. Next we have Mr. Robert Meface, generi State Urban Development for. Come around. Mr. McCace. Mr. McCabe, we have your datesler. In ment. It will be printed in fill in B about 15 minutes you could present, 57% 18. STATEMENT OF ROBERT X:CABE GENERAL MANAGER. NEW YORK STATE URBAN DEVELOPMENT COEF Mr. McCARE. Yes. Mr. Chalmal. I do not Vale Do make you think that I lhrend si pada or page sale the statement because we did a because of the importatre tat the till das 7 Urban Development Com. But I would like to domanZA SNIE reactions which we care to the s Before I do that, as I have gone oner committee in the last few dy of the testimony has mated to velopment Act of 1 The CHARM Tit bill on which we are dow Mr. MCCABE. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. But we decided to consider all of the bills that are pending before us at the time we started the hearings and even that have been introduced during the hearings. We have one bill here that was introduced yesterday and will be considered along with the others. Mr. MCCABE. Well, I will not deal with the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970 except to observe, of course, that the matters that have been before this committee are of concern to the urban development corporation. Our interest parallels that of the other witnesses and is mainly in the nature of supporting strongly the flexible system of establishing development cost ceilings and strongly opposing the proposed income limits which will result in drastic rent increases in public housing. New York City's Housing and Development Administrator, Albert Walsh, has already previously given you ample analysis on this. And Mr. Charles Urstart, the New York State commissioner of housing and community renewal, has also given strong evidence of the negative effect of the proposed income limits in testifying on this bill before the Housing Subcommittee of the House Banking and Currency Committee. In this connection, section 502 of the proposed Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970 (S. 3639) will require 20 percent of the first $3,500 of a tenant's annual income for rent and 25 percent of the amount over $3,500. This is a rigid requirement that will cause great hardship for many families in the income ranges eligible to live in housing produced under this program. Note in the table below that the range of rent-to-income ratios varies widely from less than 10 percent to substantially more than 35 percent. (The following table was supplied for the record :) RENT-INCOME RATIOS, BY INCOME, OF FAMILIES FOR RENTER HOUSEHOLDS, INSIDE STANDARD Source: 1960 Census of Housing, "Metropolitan Housing, United States," table B-3. Mr. MCCABE. In the United States, in 1960-these ratios remain relatively constant despite rises in incomes and housing costs-only 14 percent of all families paid rent which equalled 20 to 25 percent of their income. Fully half of all families paid rents amounting to less than 20 percent of family income while 36 percent paid rents exceeding 25 percent of income. But in the critical group in the $5,000-$10,000 annual income range, the proportion paying more than 25 percent of income as rent falls to 7 percent while the proportion paying less than 20 percent of income for rent rises to 80 percent. This leaves a very limited group-13 percent-paying between 20 and 25 percent of in 1 ffer sta Die wat TE SYPES 6 Men Numm takes brious that the 21st N W to provide more aid, not less 12 MP NOW hàng này With regard to George May's testimony, nor only shamart ta in funding existing programs are needed, hur achiguaphy has 1. programs such as titles II and 111 of the bill a godaf programs will add badly needed balam to hanh lam t tion growth and cure the ills of centralitic I can assure you that the New York sub Corp. is dependent on more Vedel soulwha ments, section 23 and low peak benang ### suburban and new comum ut AY MAANA NE Mr. Chairman. * wy mestic ra mguluk yappa shih in witzea the Gangessen fan haria policy the L THE for every basic housing law. As it happens, that was the first housing bill that I ever put through the Senate. Mr. MCCABE. I am aware of that. The CHAIRMAN. I was a member of the Housing Subcommittee for 2 years prior to that. But the Republicans were in charge of Congress, and the chairman was a Republican. But by the time the country had righted itself, we had the 1949 act, and I had the privilege of handling that bill in the Senate. Mr. MCCABE, Mr. Chairman, all of us who have been in this business are aware of that and are deeply grateful for the kind of leadership you have given this program and because of this kind of leadership and because we really thought that maybe this declaration could become a reality. I began my own Federal career in the old Housing and Home Finance Agencies over 20 years ago. And I must say that my pride in what has been accomplished over the years throughout urban aid programs is really diminished by the sad realization of how far we really have to go in creating real viable, healthy communities. Adoption of legislation in 1970, setting this Nation on a course to a rational national urban growth policy-with a fully funded new community and urban development program-could rekindle much of the hope that we so desperately need, the hope that we are capable, after all, of making this society work. We need that ingredient of hope for all of us, but most particularly for our youth. Even though many of us were poor and struggling for survival during the long years of the depression, the one thing we could cling to was our hope-encouraged by a vigorous and creative Executive and legislative leadership that committed itself and our resources to repairing and building the Nation. We need the same kind of vigorous and creative Executive and legislative leadership and commitment of resources today. A nation that can afford billions for space excursions and for foreign global adventures can well afford to build a healthy urban fiber. We have the national resources. Our survival depends on our will to set the direction and properly allocate those resources. I hope this Congress will say that we have the will. Before discussing S. 3640, it may be helpful briefly to summarize the nature of New York State's Urban Development Corporation, and our understanding of how S. 3640 affects us. Under the strong leadersip of Gov. Nelson Rockefeller, the UDC was created by New York's Legislature in 1968 to enable the State to engage in urban development activities on a comprehensive basis, including the building of all types of housing, and commercial, industrial, and community facilities. In inner cities, suburbs, and on open land, the Corporation is able to bring together the capability for assembling land sites, for financing, and for development responsibility within a single State agency. It is empowered to undertake development projects in incorporated or unincorporated areas, with or without local invitation or approval. Moreover, the Corporation may override local planning, zoning, and building code restrictions when they impede specific project goals. These capabilities, together with its ability to use eminent domain in obtain finance me I al se impediments of motor anto But despite these ta mpo AK IN M developer, the authority to These obligatices-1 de ... be financed. Lowen vrin i ispaning frame vici The obvious sal intacts tć me Feden, som tectades Xer York State from the cut të terenie mi espetom do wASLJ for direct and semibnar ben a funing pair mi istents of the urban develope: pores The Toners teen ng mat vanad. subsidies and bonitrasside for a v- und moderate zoome for are impossible without the ranous Fedeni rau mill-1 à pr grams. Here is the first of our seven major frers „Í caniceem, 150 S. 3640. Since the existing redevil and housing pracIES IR D adequately funded to meet our needs in New York State—and à”. other States with whom we mmpete for these very same resourceswe fear any diminution, or potential KUL. I. Ising support for them through what might be interpreted as a new and competitive endeavor. During our 2 years, UDC has been invited into some 30 communities, representing over 75 percent of New York State's population, and we have in various stages of programing, planning, and design more than 25,000 units of housing and three new towns. We have two housing developments already under construction in Buffalo and Newburgh, and we expect to have a total of nearly 10,000 units under construction before the end of this year. Thus, UDC is a product of what States can do best under the American Constitution, since State governments are the possessors of the residual police power authority for involvement in matters af fecting the health, welfare, and morals of the citizenry. Our State contribution in New York is a legal container with limited fiscal power. This State agency thus is in need of substantial Federal as sistance in the activity in which the National Government is inherently vastly more efficient the raising and spending of money. Without real Federal funding participation, new communities as more than elaborate middle-class suburbs, or a meaningful scale of inner city redevelopment, is a cruel delusion. Without massive in |