creases in funding levels for renewal, housing, health, welfare, recreation, education, and related areas, improvement and extension of Federal statutory authority also is an empty gesture.

In the respective areas of split responsibility within the Congress for writing substantive legislation and, separately, for funding it, I must hasten to add that urban programs traditionally have fared far better in the former than in the latter. From this committee, and its counterpart in the House, inventive and constructive program statutes have emanated in abundance. But they have seldom been accompanied by the appropriations to carry them through to success.

Our concern with new public programs for new community development in many ways parallels that of the Congress. We are attempting now, in UDC, to help the Governor of New York develop a strategy and a program for new communities in New York State. And our overall support for and interest in national legislation such as you are proposing is very keen, indeed. But we do have, as I indicated, several major concerns about S. 3640. Let me go through three of the most important ones.

The first has already been alluded to. While clearly not intended by its sponsors, one of the unintended side effects of the bill could be to draw off what support is left for existing urban development and city rebuilding programs. It is essential that the new program authorities envisaged in the bill be additions in capability-and appropriated funding levels rather than substitutes for existing programs which might serve to spread their already inadequate dollars more thinly.

The current programs must go forward at increased funding levels if the new activities authorized by S. 3640 are to have any impact at all on the malaise of our cities. Thus new activities authorized in S. 3640 must be more clearly presented as additions to the present effort.

Second, the "Urban Growth Policy" prepared by the Council on Urban Growth must include preparation, and continuous reevaluation, of an urban settlement policy and plan. The Community Development Corporation should be required to weigh new community development proposals in the light of this settlement plan. This is a national program of new community assistance, funded by the National Government. Narrow pursuit of solely local or State aims, subsidized with national revenue, would be self-defeating.

Third, equally self-defeating is the requirement in several sections of S. 3640 of conformity with local comprehensive planning and land use (e.g. zoning) controls. The studies of the Douglas Commission, a host of current court cases, and experience in this area indicate that local zoning too often has been used for purposes not consistent with a national urban growth policy.

In this connection, I strongly support the recommendation of the Secretary of HUD, George Romney, that there be national legislation to curb use of zoning that prevents provision of low- and moderate-income housing.

Since a large part of the current urban crisis, and of the need for S. 3640, is due to the prevailing laissez-faire local land use control system, if the new community developments assisted under this bill were to be put in that system, we would have a contradiction in purpose.

Instead, developments should be consistent with carefully stated national objectives. The financing aids should be made available only to State and we would hope, regional-bodies empowered to override local planning and zoning restrictions, and capable of imple menting a national growth and settlement policy.

One final overall comment. The title II "Development of New Communities" program—if it is funded as a net addition to present urban programs-offers urgently needed balance to present programs. The important point here is that there are only three general zones where new urban development can be situated: central cities, suburbe, and outlying undeveloped areas. Given the expected growth of popu lation, together with need for rebuilding central cities, the implication should be clear that central cities already are intensi rej y developed. Particularly in the central cities, but elsewhere too, there is no longer enough economically usable land for us to go on with the promiscuous "Kleenex" land use policy we have relied uponuse it once and throw it away.

Of the "Big 6" central cities in New York State, on. Arang ha much vacant land. In addition, the central cities are being in anda'mi with the unresolved issues of poverty, racial enace, duro, fora, og v the politics of participation and confrontation, and Eiket ora, and economic obsolescence, making it nearly impossinte for them. % noid the line, let alone absorb future population growiʼn gesetzea

Suburbia, on the other hand, is dominated by a porn at en toasty a very understandable sigh of relief at na ing weared toe gera, baza of the central cities. The suburbs have encaged ared them were a fold a system of zoning, building restrictions, and a sum of strongly resists increases in density, are cized comig starGALER and possible tax increases. Their low density gates Unit local preference and local law-tanya sokn 1 gegn de the facilities and housing needed to ieme noNA O JUNE, That leaves undeveloped land

or just beyond their fringe-as the the anomaly of an increasing 3000. housing production.

Many million more Americana

It can't be done quickly in the ventra
we had better get on win a program fo
in undeveloped and rural a

there, but many people in

development and would welcome NEW YOR

New communities in moetented anakro. retain their basic character, and you d mobility-a afery Taberg win ing the range of snore in hotargandi re Planned Carewak vrat denoncest areas also ITS T

...

Aggregation of the bower g rate, maig to worous of wax and substantially led spoorwing for

(b) new alterative for a ser aid of urad

open space and rate and veter that we go. auc

in the needless Jos of veinture land. No more verd de sud i justifying a large-wae ter communities effort at the Feders level.

In summary, I believe that S. 3640 is a strong beginning toward an effective response to the urban development, population growth, and city rebuilding pressures and needs of the country. The committee should be congratulated on this strong beginning. However, I do believe it is in substantial need of strengthening, modification, and refinement.

And, Mr. Chairman, in a section-by-section analysis, we have sought to suggest some things that the committee might wish to consider in the way of refinement and strengthening.

In New York State and in the Nation millions of additional citizens will be added to the population in the coming decades. They cannot live in already overstrained central cities, nor in the present boundaries of chaotic, inefficient, sprawling suburbs.

These millions will live either in high-quality urban environments if we mount an effective program to build well-planned new urban developments or they will live in congested, monotonous, unattractive additions to present sprawl.

Two implications are clear, Mr. Chairman. First, that the public and private costs of housing and servicing this population growth will have to be borne-whether in a new community program or in more-of-thesame suburban areas. New, planned urban development will not be an additional cost, and the product will not be more expensive. They certainly will be far superior in form, function, esthetics, and quality of living space and services. Thus, new community development is an alternative way of meeting costs that will have to be incurred anyway. Second, if a fully effective bill were passed today, more than half the decade would be gone before the first significant number of families moved into the housing created by it. Starting at full speed to get geared up now-followed by running at full speed-still will mean 5 years before appreciable, visible, new hardware can start to appear.

I urge you to watch the "population clock" in the Commerce Department's lobby if this last point is not taken seriously.

Let me congratulate the committee on its excellent start toward these urgently needed new laws for America's inevitable urban future. I share the committee's concern with developing the most effective legislation possible, and shall be glad to provide any additional information or assistance that might be helpful.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. McCabe. That is a very fine statement. I appreciate your section-by-section analysis, and we are very glad to have that.

Let me ask you two very brief questions because the time is about

to run out.

Does the New York Development Corp. have condemnation rights? Mr. MCCABE. Yes, sir; it does.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that used in acquiring land in any of those? Mr. MCCABE. So far, it has not had to be used, Mr. Chairman, we have been able to buy

The CHAIRMAN. By negotiation.

Mr. MCCABE. Negotiation. And a lot of our activity is in urban renewal areas where condemnation was used, but we feel that any new community program really must have the power of condemnation to really be effective to do the kind of job we are talking about.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, I suppose the very fact that the power exists helps in negotiations.

Mr. MCCABE. It helps very much, Mr. Chairman, in negotiation. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

(The complete statement of Mr. McCabe follows:)

STATEMENT OF ROBERT E. MCCABE, GENERAL MANAGER, NEW YORK STATE URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

INTRODUCTION

In my judgment, S. 3640 is the most important domestic urban legislative proposal since the historic Housing Act of 1949 in which the Congress, for the first time, established our National Housing Policy of a "decent home and a suitable living environment for every American family."

With much excitement and hope that we could make this Declaration a reality, I began my own Federal career in the old Housing and Home Finance Agency more than 20 years ago. My pride in what has been accomplished, through many of our urban assistance programs, is diminished by the sad realization of how little we have managed to achieve in building a healthy urban society-and how far we still have to go in creating viable 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 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 leadership of Governor Nelson Rockefeller, the UDC was created in 1968 by New York's Legislature 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 land assembly, give the Corporation flexible powers to participate in urban development at any stage from intial feasibility studies through the managing and/or long-term financing of projects.

UDC's participation may be in any degree; that is, UDC may perform all of the development tasks involved, using itself (or a subsidiary) as initiator, developer, construction contractor, financier, and manager-or it may undertake any of them, singly or in combination.

In short, UDC either can "lateral" a development package to a private party at any point (or it may receive a "lateral") - -or UDC may carry the ball itself all the way. UDC can develop projects at any scale from a housing, commercial, industrial or public facility structure, on a single site, to a combination of any or all of these-in a new town, an expanded town, or a "new-town-in-town." These very significant powers give UDC substantial advantages. It can over

come restrictive local codes and zoning ordinances. It can obtain financing at favorable rates. It can assemble land without the impediments of holdout land

owners.

But despite these very important advantages which UDC has as a developer, there are no direct financing subsidies involved. UDC has authority to sell up to $1 billion in bonds for financing its activities. These obligations—if they are to be sucessfully marketed-must finance UDC, however, within a self-sustaining framework.

The obvious fiscal limitations of our Federal system precludes New York State from the kind of revenue and expenditure effort necessary for direct and signigcant help in funding public aid aspects of the urban development process. Thus, projects requiring land write-down subsidies and housing assistance for low and moderate-income families are impossible without the various Federal urban grant-in-aid programs. Here is the first of our seven major areas of concern about S. 3640. Since the existing renewal and housing programs are not adequately funded to meet our needs in New York State and all the other States with whom we compete for these very scarce resources-we fear any diminution, or potential diminution, in existing support for them through what might be interpreted as a new and competitive endeavor.

After two years, UDC has been invited into some 30 communities, representing over 75% 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 affecting the health, welfare, and morals of the citizenry. Our State contribution is a legal container with limited fiscal power. This State agency thus is in need of substantial Federal assistance in the activity in which the national government is inherently vastly more efficientthe raising and spending of money.

Without real Federal funding participation, new communities as more than more-elaborate middle-class suburbs (or a meaningful scale of inner city redevelopment) is a cruel delusion. Without massive increases in funding levels for renewal, housing, health, welfare, recreation, education and related areas. improvement and extension of Federal statutory authority also is an empty gesture.

In the respective areas of split responsibility within the Congress for writing substantive legislation and, separately, for funding it, I must hasten to add that urban programs traditionally have fared far better in the former than in the latter. From this Committee, and its counterpart in the House, inventive and constructive program statutes have emanated in abundance. But they have seldom accompanied by the appropriations to carry them through to success.

Our concern with new public programs for new community development in many ways parallels that of the Congress. We are attempting now, in UDC, to help the Governor of New York develop a strategy and a program for new communities in New York State. And our overall support for and interest in national legislation such as you are proposing is very keen. But we do have, as I indicated, several major concerns about S.3640. Let me go through three of the most im portant ones before commenting on specific sections of the Bill.

The first has already been alluded to. While clearly not intended by its sponsors, one of the unintended side effects of the Bill could be to draw off what support is left for existing urban development and city rebuilding programs. It is essential that the new program authorities envisaged in the Bill be additions in capability-and appropriated funding levels-rather than substitutes for existing programs which might serve to spread their already inadequate dollars more thinly.

The current programs must go forward at increased funding levels if the new activities authorized by S.3640 are to have any impact on the malaise of our cities. Thus new activities authorized in S.3640 must be more clearly presented as additions to the present effort.

Second, the "Urban Growth Policy" prepared by the Council on Urban Growth must include preparation, and continuous re-evaluation, of an urban settlement