electric utilities in Marshall, Missouri, a town of 13,000 people, and Berlin, Maryland, a town of 2,046, financed the entire program for upgrading street lighting in the communities they serve. Discussing his town's street lighting program, John H. Burbage, Mayor of Berlin, Maryland, commented: "We have never had a crime problem, but many of our people said they were afraid to shop downtown at night or walk to church or leave their cars parked along streets." These situations illustrate advantages realized by improved street lighting programs in those cities willing and able to undertake such programs. Cities may be able to undertake better programs for upgrading street lighting or be willing to initiate such programs with proper encouragement from the Federal government, such as the opportunity to share the financing of new street lighting facilities. With the increasing emphasis being given to the importance of combatting crime, the American Public Power Association believes that proper attention should be given to improved street lighting, and that your Committee should endorse legislation similar to S. 3786, to provide Federal grants for improved street lighting facilities. Sincerely, ALEX RADIN. LIGHTING ASSISTANCE Whereas, local publicly-owned electric systems actively promote adequate traffic control facilities, lighting on highways, in streets, alleys, parks or other public areas for the safety and welfare of residents of their communities, and Whereas, it is in the national interest to encourage the use of electricity for the protection of all citizens; Now, therefore, be it resolved: That the American Public Power Association supports Federal programs of financial assistance for improved traffic control facilities and street lighting facilities, as proposed by S. 991, H.R. 6734 and other similar bills of the 90th Congress, and urges that in awarding funds priority be given to public agencies which have initiated and seek to implement practical programs for upgrading street lighting facilities. N. E. BLANKMAN & CO., INC., August 7, 1970. Hon. JOHN J. SPARKMAN, Charman, Housing and Urban Affairs Subcommittee, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Enclosed is a statement respectfully submitted for inclusion in the record of hearings your subcommittee has held on Senate Bill 3639 and related housing bills. The statement's particular concern is the amendment to S. 3639 submitted to your subcommittee by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Its intent is to end the practice of local exclusion of federally assisted housing. A legislative draft of the amendment is also enclosed. I strongly urge subcommittee adoption of this amendment. It is important because, despite federal assistance, the housing shortage continues to be critical, especially in the major metropolitan cities and their suburban environs, where local exclusion is most frequently and flagrantly practiced. Of equal significance, it raises the entire issue of arbitrary exercise of local planning and zoning power, the core of a problem vexing those of us who are willing but legally unable to construct housing for middle and lower income families for whom the cost of available units has become prohibitive. I am president, Senator, of a firm which has invested considerable financial resources, talent and time into what planners, developers and others agree would be ideal use of some 300 acres of undeveloped land, plus the added benefits of real estate tax relief and such needed recreational facilities, only to have local officials refuse zoning changes. In the State of New Jersey where my firm has for the past eight years owned ten per cent of the entire land area of the Borough of Tenafly, we have been engaged in a frustrating effort to convince the mayor and council to authorize the zoning of our property as a Planned Unit Development (work-live-play community) in conformity with the New Jersey Planned Unit Development Act. The concept, created by one of the country's leading planning firms, Candeub, Fleissig & Associates, Newark, N.J., envisions 4,000 dwelling units, three million square feet of office space, community services structures, and substantial recreational facilities. This, instead of what the current zoning would allow, namely 239 one-family houses on one-acre lots that would each have to sell for a price in excess of $100,000. Please note that this property is located in the heart of our largest metropolitan area, less than ten minutes from the George Washington Bridge to New York City and closer to Times Square than parts of the Bronx, Queens and Brooklyn. Suburban communities have substantially contributed to the critical housing shortage while excluding middle and lower economic groups by restrictively zoning undeveloped land in precisely this fashion. Yet Vice President Agnew and others continue to urge that the suburbs be opened. Governor William Cahill predicted last week a New Jersey housing shortage of major proportions and revealed he was considering asking the state legislature to curtail local zoning power in the interest of regional planning he noted that large-lot zoning for single family homes on land valued at $15.000 an acre or more, deters construction. (Note: A one-acre undeveloped lot in Tenafly now costs more than $50,000). Although zoning is barely 50 years old, it has become a jealously guarded "home rule" prerogative of hundreds of communities across the country. Originally a concept of legally setting aside sections of the municipality for certain purposes in order to promote the public health, safety and general welfare, the practice is now being challenged widely not only for failing to achieve its stated goals, but in fact for subverting them. The solution has become the problem. Local municipalities must give serious consideration to a more judicious exercise of what has been termed their most powerful, and possibly most dangerous weapon, or it appears certain these zoning powers will be revoked by the various state legislatures that granted them. Meanwhile, the concern of the Congress for the nation's housing and the subsidies with which it hopes to implement its program must be protected from subversion by local ordinances. Please know this firm and its officers are available at the pleasure of the subcommittee to present, in person or in writing, any additional information it seeks on this pressing problem. Respectfully, NORMAN E. BLANKMAN. Following is a "Legislative Draft" of an amendment to S. 3639, proposed Housing Bill, submitted by HUD to the Senate Housing Subcommittee. LOCAL EXCLUSION OF FEDERALLY ASSISTED HOUSING SECTION A No general or special-purpose unit of local government (or other agency having official jurisdiction over regions or subareas within a state or states) shall, in the exercise of powers with respect to planning. zoning, subdivision controls, building codes or permits, or other matters affecting land use for areas that are undeveloped or predominantly undeveloped but that are in the path of development, prevent the reasonable provision in such areas of low- and moderate-income housing eligible for federal assistance in a manner inconsistent with any state or local comprehensive or master plans for such areas. SECTION B No such unit or agency shall, in the exercise of such powers for any area, discriminate against low- and moderate-income housing on the basis of its eligibility for federal assistance. SECTION C If the Attorney General of the United States, after consultation with the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, believes that either the provisions of subsections A or B of this section have been violated, he may bring a civil action in any appropriate United States district court to enforce compliance with this section. Any person who would be entitled to financial assist ance or any other benefit, direct or indirect, under a federally assisted housing program may bring a civil action in any appropriate United States district court without regard to the amount in controversy or in any appropriate state or local court of general jurisdiction to enforce compliance with, or to obtain equitable or preventive relief under, this section, and may request such relief in any court whenever relevant and in connection with a defense to any suit or action brought against such person in that court. STATEMENT of Norman E. BLANKMAN, PRESIDENT, N. E. BLANKMAN & Co.. INC., FORT WASHINGTON, N.Y. Mr. Chairman: The attached legislative draft of a proposed amendment to S. 3639 was submitted to your subcommittee by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Its purpose is to prevent the exclusion, by local zoning and similar municipal fiat, of moderate and low income housing eligible for federal assistance. Passage of this amendment is vital to breaking the logjam of delay and frustration in attempts, both public and private, to meet the critical and continuing national housing shortage. The nation has set 26 million units as a goal for the 1970's but construction has averaged only 1.3 million units since 1966 and there are current indications the annual total will fall below a million. The scope of the problem is even more dramatically indicated by demographic forecasts that it will be necessary to create in the United States between now and the year 2000, a new city of 450,000 people every 30 days. The importance of this legislation is reflected in the fact that this year an estimated 40 per cent of all housing units built in this country will benefit from federal subsidy. It is in the major metropolitan cities and their suburban environs where the shortage is especially acute that local exclusion is most frequently and flagrantly practiced. Meanwhile, this problem is no longer the concern primarily of low income groups. It has become even more acute among people with annual incomes up to $15,000. The amendment does more than remove the local barriers to federal subsidy. It raises a much broader issue: the question of a violation of constitutional rights in the exercise of the so-called “home rule” principle by local governments when they zone or "plan" their communities in such a fashion as to limit or exclude whatever elements they arbitrarily determine to be undesirable. These can be factories. These can be high rise apartments. But sometimes they are people, usually in the middle or lower economic classes. The most common method has been to zone all undeveloped property into one-. two-, and even three-acre per housing unit densities, thus effectively thwarting construction of federally subsidized housing and ignoring the pleas of Vice President Agnew, Secretary Romney and a growing number of governors, mayors and other elected officials to "open the suburbs." Passage of this amendment will lend strong support and create an important precedent for many of the same voices who are advocating regional planning and a curtailment of what has been called local government's most powerful and perhaps most dangerous weapon, zoning. More than housing and the needs of crowded cities are involved. They are spokesmen for an orderly development of the mushrooming suburbs: for relieving traffic congestion and its consequent air pollution by moving employees closer to their work; for making recreational areas more conveniently accessible to a greater number of citizens. They are also seeking some alternative to a companion problem that often leads to poor planning and dubious zoning law: the property tax structure wherever it supports increasingly expensive community services (schools, sanitation, fire and police protection), forcing the exodus of longtime residents now retired or otherwise on a fixed income and unable to meet the 100 per cent tax rise many communities have experienced in the past decade. It is anticipated many will double again in the next five years. The scope of zoning's influence was presented in an excellent special supplement on the subject in the Aug. 3, 1970 edition of a Bergen County, N.J., daily newspaper. The Record: Zoning determines where you can live, the type and cost of housing you occupy, what it will look like, who your neighbors will be, the quality of your children's education, time spent traveling to work, recreation, even the level of pollution. It cuts across income groups and geographical boundaries, wielding power over executive and factory worker alike. And Illinois attorney Richard F. Babcock, in what is regarded as the definitive volume on the subject, "The Zoning Game," accurately describes both historical background and current application of zoning in the opening sen tences: Zoning reached puberty in company with the Stutz Bearcat and the speakeasy. F. Scott Fitzgerald and the Lindy Hop were products of the same generation. Of all thees phenomena of the twenties, only zoning has remained viable a generation later. If, in the beginning, zoning owed much to the fears of Fifth Avenue merchants in New York City that the garment industry would further encroach on their elegant sidewalks, zoning can thank the residents of the North Shores and the Westchesters of this country for its remarkable survival. Babcock further noted Englishman John Dalafons' observation that it was as a means of strengthening the institution of private property "in the face of rapid and unsettling changes in the urban scene that zoning won such remarkable acceptance in American communities." The "rapid and unsettling changes in the urban scene" remain applicable today. But the practice of zoning is now being challenged widely, not only for failing to achieve its stated goals-promoting the public health, safety and general welfare-but in fact, for subverting them. Zoning the solution, has become zoning the problem. New Jersey Governor William T. Cahill said last week that the critical lack of housing in his state may force an overhaul in local zoning regulations that could lead to an end to home rule by municipalities. The state needs to build 120,000 housing units annually and the current rate is only a third of that figure. The governor blamed zoning of individual houses on plots up to three acres as a major cause. In that same state, the eight-year struggle between my firm and municipal government over the best use of a large piece of undeveloped land in many ways is a mircrocosmic reflection of the classic conflict, housing versus zoning, presently raging across the nation. The property represents one-tenth the entire land area of the Borough of Tenafly. After investing considerable financial resources, time and talent into what planners, developers and others agree would be ideal use of the land—plus a substantial reduction in the heavy borough tax burden and available land for both community services and much needed recreation facilities-the planning board refuses to make zoning changes. Instead of the work-live-play self-contained community encouraged under the New Jersey Planned Unit Development Act, current zoning would require construction of 239 one-family houses on one-acre lots with an individual market value in excess of $100,000. The nationally prominent planning firm engaged by our firm to present the "best use" proposal for the land envisioned 4.000 dwelling units and three million square feet of office space covering only four percent of the land and leaving more than enough still undeveloped for the recreation area and services structures. The property itself is situated in the heart of one of the nation's most critical housing areas, less than ten minutes from New York City. The governor has noted that large-lot zoning for single family homes on land valued at $15,000 an acre is a deterrent to construction. In Tenafly, a one-acre undeveloped lot now costs more than $50,000. It is in precisely this fashion that suburban communities have contributed substantially to the housing shortage, excluding lower economic groups by restrictively zoning undeveloped land. Zoning in Bergen County, N.J. and its attendant causes and effects mirror the rest of the country. The Record's supplement listed this summary in part: All but the top 20 per cent of wage earners, by national average, are effec tively priced out of the single-family housing market. Young couples and singles find it difficult, sometimes even impossible, to obtain housing near where they grew up. After decades of living in a community, retired residents and others on fixed incomes are being forced by spiraling local taxes to move from their homes and seek cheaper housing elsewhere. Low wage earners and minority workers travel long hours daily to subur ban jobs. They can't find nearby housing within their means. Ironically, industry, courted to suburbia to help pay the rising cost of local government, threatens to move out or delays expansion because of a limited labor supply. Many municipalities, 35 of them in Bergen, ban apartments. Gov. Cahill's zoning comment prompted immediate opposition from supporters of "home rule." Many university spokesmen on both law and planning agree that challenges to municipal zoning are more likely to come from the courts than from the state legislatures since lawmakers tend to reflect the mood of their constituents. Local municipalities must give serious consideration to a more judicious exercise of their zoning powers or be prepared to lose them. Meanwhile, however, the Congress must make certain that its efforts to relieve the housing shortage through federal subsidies are not thwarted by local zoning regulations and so-called master plans set up expressly to exclude such federal assistance. CITIZENS' HOUSING AND PLANNING Senator JOHN SPARKMAN, COUNCIL OF NEW YORK, INC., Chairman, Subcommittee on Banking and Urban Affairs, Committee on Banking and Currency, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR SPARKMAN: On June 30th we requested an opportunity to appear before your Sub-committee, and have subsequently understood that it was impossible to provide us time but that you would welcome a written statement. In response to that invitation I should like to submit these views of the legislation. In general we strongly endorse the basic principle of the bill which seeks to simplify and harmonize the many programs in housing and urban development by dividing mortgages into two categories-those for single family and those for multi-family structures. We are also in sympathy with the proposal to further subdivide these categories into the unassisted and assisted sectors. Those of us who here in New York City have been struggling with rising costs in a market, which, regrettably perhaps but none the less inevitably differs grossly from the housing market in other less densely populated sections of the country. have been frustrated constantly by the imposition of construction cost limitations per room even when these are modified to cover so-called high cost areas. In the past two years it has been almost impossible to construct public housing here in New York City. Only the wisdom of your committee in increasing the ceilings in the 1969 Act has given us any hope of even a temporary amelioration. We are therefore in this case in support of the basic idea in the new legislation which would remove fixed numerical dollar limits on construction cost. We enthusiastically support the notion that housing units would be eligible for subsidy on the basis of costs in a specific market area. We believe that this principle as enunciated in the bill would enable the Secretary of the Department to set realistic limits which would not wastefully subsidize extravagant design, but which would tend to equalize cost differences in the several parts of the country. We hope that in its final wording the bill will encourage the Secretary to provide adequate design and not to encase the housing program in standards which will lend themselves to rapid obsolescence. We all want the government's money to be invested in worthwhile humane structures with a long future usefulness. Shoddy is never economical. At the same time we wish to register our strong objections to the income ceilings insofar as they affect high cost areas such as New York City. If it is true |