Such housing need not be "public housing" in the old sense. Just as it could be constructed entirely by private enterprise it could be sold to residents or to private operators who agreed to the necessary conditions to effectuate the purposes of the program. The chief advantage of a new approach is of course the speeding of construction and reduction of costs. Without this, "urban renewal" often forces out the very people it is theoretically designed to benefit. To achieve the objective, however, more than revision of building codes and even long-range commitments is needed. In addition to this, a truly effective research program into the possibilities of mass produced housing components which might form an "alphabet" that could be used to create the most widely differing kinds of construction is important.12 Further, attention to our real estate and property tax structure is needed. At present, we tax improvements on real estate-such as housing-whereas there is no tax on other forms of "personal" property in which one may invest. This encourages land to be held vacant or with dilapidated housing to keep taxes down, and encourages land speculation with such properties. By not taxing the value of the land itself to the full extent of the real estate tax burden, we also encourage land specualtion with the result that prices in urban areas are often prohibitive for low-cost housing.13 Similarly, where condemnation of sites is needed, it should be authorized on a federal basis to prevent delay or spiraling of costs due to piecemeal condemnations which increase the compensation due on neighboring properties." New building systems permitting use of air rights and retention of desirable structures in communities should be encouraged, and maximum participation by residents of communities in decisions about rebuilding of their own areas is indispensable. CONCLUSION The successes of man's ventures to the moon have established that there is no limit to what can be done if the will, determination and commitment are present. Long-range decisions are required. The vehicle of a development bank provides a means of making those decisions. It is indispensable to the future that we do so. Respectfully submitted, COMMITTEE on FEDERAL LEGISLATION, Alan Appelbaum, Robert Beshar, Arthur Brooks, Alvin J. Burnett, . In such research, ways to provide a better environment with greater diversity as well as ways to reduce cost can be considered. See Symposium, "What Kind of City Do We Want? Nation's Cities, April 1967: Hechinger, "Rescue Operation for the Urban School," N.Y. Times, July 16, 1967, p. E7: Symposium on Children in High Houses and Crowded Streets and the Need for Early Planning, in "Children in a Rapidly Changing World." World Organization for Early Childhood Education, Xth Assembly 26-37 (1964). Concerning measures to see to it that employees benefit and do not lose where new methods are introduced, compare Franklin D. Roosevelt, State of the Union Message, January 3, 1938; "For economic and social reasons our. interest lies. in regularizing the work of the individual worker more greatly throughout the year-in other words, in thinking more in terms of the worker's pay for a period of a whole year rather than in terms of his remuneration by the hour or by the day." 3 State of the Union Messages of the Presidents 2840-2841 (Chelsea House 1966). See Raskin, "Pay By the Hour, the Week, the Year, for Life?" N.Y. Times Magazine, September 4, 1966, p. 6; Jones, "Guaranteed Pay Proposed by United States," N.Y. Times, June 27, 1966, p. 35. col. 1; Fanning, "The Challenge of Automation in the Light of the Natural Law," 11 Labor L.J. 875 (Oct. 1960); Hummers, "Protection of Employees Affected by Railroad Consolidations," 15 Labor L.J. 736 (Nov. 1964); Gomberg, "The Work Rules and Work Practices Problem," 12 Labor L.J. 643 (July 1961). This problem is pointed out in the Report of the President's National Commission on Urban Problems; see Prentice, "Method of Taxing Unused Land Is Scandalous." Commercial & Financial Chronicle, August 22, 1968; Stewart, "To Save Our Cities," 55 A.B.A.J. 157 (Feb. 1969). United States v. Reynolds, 90 S. Ct. 803 (2/24/70); United States v. Miller, 317 U.S. 369 (1943). 48-279-70-pt. 255 APPENDIX FINDINGS OF HOUSING STUDIES Studies of today's housing dilemma seem in agreement concerning major reasons for our failure to break the building bottleneck; 1. Existing urban renewal and other construction provides housing too expensive for former residents of rebuilt neighborhoods to live there. *** The primary objection to urban renewal by neighborhood residents is that they cannot find alternative housing because they can't pay for more expensive housing than that in which they now live. In a study . . . we found that 70 percent of the families displaced by urban renewal and code enforcement ended up paying significantly higher rents.1 2. Existing public housing with income limits on continued occupancy insures segregation of the poor, and in most cases minorities. As pointed out by the Committee on Legislation of the Federal Bar Council, such ceilings are one of the many "unfortunate features of old-style public housing. Residents' incentive to improve their earning power is stifled by such a ceiling. It promotes high turnover, low morale and high crime rates."* 3. Unemployment and job insecurity are a major drag on the building industry. From the worker's perspective, unemployment rates in this industry have been twice as high as in other industries. Problems of seasonable employment are intense ... On an annual basis, unemployment in construction has almost doubled other fields." Employees face: Wide fluctuations in productivity, year to year, season to season; high rate of unemployment; fairly high hourly wages, relatively lower annual incomes; highly competitive employers; highly competitive craft unions; jumping from employer to employer and from place to place; weather a constant source of uncertainty... 4. New methods and industrialized building could reduce costs and speed rebuilding. The conclusions from an investigation of the cost of housing built in the United States by conventional methods and a comparison of the major cost factors in the United States with European industrialized system building . . indicates potential savings ranging between 23 and 27 percent if building systems were utilized in the United States." Mass production need not, however, mean monotony. An "alphabet” of building materials could be created to construct many types of buildings from basic units, just as there are myriad options on automobiles. 5. Work rules established to try to limit job insecurity tend to raise building costs and block new methods. Thus in a situation which reached the Supreme Court a rule provided : No member *** will handle material coming from a mill where cutting out and fitting has been done." According to the National Commission on Urban Problems: The work rules practiced at the local level and incorporated in agreements between management and labor that impede the use of technological innovations appear to fall chiefly into the following categories: Onsite rules, requiring certain work to be done on the premises and prohibiting or limiting the use of prefabricated products ; 1 Hearing before the National Commission on Urban Problems 355 (Gov't Printing Office 1968); see also Weaver, The Urban Complex, ch. II, III, VI (Anchor ed. 1966). 2 National Housing Goals, Hearings before the Subcommittee on Housing. Committee on Banking and Currency, House of Representatives, 91st Cong.. 1st Sess. 596 (1969); see also Community Service Society of New York, Report of the Committee on Housing and Urban Development (1968); New York State Bar Association. Bulletin of the Committee on Federal Legislation 18 (January 1969), 115 Congressional Record No. 33, S2015, S2018 (daily ed. 2/25/69). 3 Building the American City: Report of the National Commission on Urban Problems (Gov't. Printing Office 1968). H. Doc. No. 91-34, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1968), hereinafter referred to as Douglas Commission, p. 472. See also Givens, Job Security in the Building Industry-and High Quality Low-Rent Housing, CCH Labor Law Journal, August 1967. p. 469, n.2. Douglas Commission 472. 5 Douglas Commission 448. See also Schlefer, Industrialization of Housing: Today's Potential (Library of Congress, Legislative Reference Service 1967); New York State Bar Association, Bulletin of the Committee on Federal Legislation 18 (January 1969), 115 Cong. Rec. No. 33, S2015, S2018 (daily ed. 2/25/69). NLRB v. National Woodwork Manufacturers Association, 386 U.S. 612 (1967). Restrictions against the use of certain tools and devices; Requirements for excessive manpower on the job, including what appear to be irrational limits on the variety of work certain categories of workers may perform.' 6. Building codes, zoning rules and other local ordinances tend to block mass production of housing. . Costs .. can be cut if large-scale or industrialized production is combined with the most progressive existing products or techniques. To do this, we must . . remove the barriers to large-scale distribution brought on by restrictive building codes and practices, subdivision regulations, and zoning ordinances." In fairness it must be said that there are extenuating circumstances, notably the nature of employment in the construction industry. Unlike auto workers or butchers or postal clerks, many building craftsmen have no permanent employer. They are engaged through a union hiring hall for a specific job, and when that job is finished, they must wait until another contractor is able and willing to hire them. Furthermore, their employment is not only casual; it is also seasonal. Despite the progress the industry has made in countering adverse weather conditions, construction jobs are more plentiful in summer than in winter, and even in the favorable months they may be interrupted, sometimes for days, by inclement weather. Finally, the building industry is more sensitive than most to general economic conditions. It is a typically boom-bust industry. All these elements help to explain three policies characteristic of building trades unions. One is the practice of insisting on high hourly wage rates, the only means by which mechanics can assure themselves of a good annual wage. Another is the tendency to resist technological changes that reduce employment opportunities, at least in the short run. A third-and this especially concerns us here-is the pattern of restricting entry into the industry by rigid controls of apprenticeship programs. (Associated with that pattern is the practice of favoring relatives of members over others in selecting apprentices.) Is there some way, one naturally wonder, of so modifying the character of the industry that unions would find it easier to adopt more reasonable wage and membership policies, and to accept technological change? The Committee on Federal Legislation of the New York County Lawyers' Association thinks there is. In the Senate Report on the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, it finds a promising recognition of the need for a long-range program if the goal of "a decent home and a suitable living environment for every American family" is to be reached. But, it insists, not any kind of long-range program will do. To be effective it must be based on "firm commitments and longterm financing." It should be one, that is, that enables builders to enter into contracts extending over many years, with every assurance that the money will always be there. Such a program, the committee argues, if undertaken on a big enough scale, could destroy the fear of unemployment in the industry. Once that is accomplished, unions would find it very hard to rationalize not only inflated hourly wages and opposition to technological change, but also restrictions on membership. In return for job security, which contractors would now be able to offer their union employees, they could reasonably be expected to follow practices that prevail in industry generally." 8. Short-range commitments raise housing costs and delay results. *** Any kind of construction requires, after its authorization, a considerable time before labor can be employed in which to make engineering, architectural and legal preparations." Housing takes time to build. It requires continuity of action and money. It has suffered too many times in the past from both (1) the lack of sufficient funds to make commitments into the future large enough to meet the goals which Congress and the President have approved, and (2) wide variations in the amount of funds provided from one year into the next."1 9. Local property tax systems imposing heavy burdens on improvements rather than on land itself discourage new building. 7 Douglas Commission 467. Douglas Commission 16. American magazine, 8/17/68, p. 93 (editorial). 10 Herbert Hoover, State of the Union Message, 1930. Our studies have shown that in relation to market value, land tends to be assessed at a lower percentage than are buildings and improvements. Housing therefore bears a larger proportionate share of the local tax burden than does land. To assess both at market value would therefore not only be more just, but by diminishing the relative burden borne by improvements, should lead to a greater investment in them and would encourage more construction in housing ✶✶ ✶ 12 *** It must be obvious to anyone that heavy taxes on improvements are bound to discourage, inhibit and often prevent improvements *** and it must be obvious***that*** taxes on the location cannot discourage *** improvements [but] put pressure on the owners to put their sites to better use * * * 13 On the basis of these facts, recommendations have been made for new steps in an effort to find ways to benefit all groups involved in the problem through liberating the potential of modern technology. The basic tool for this purpose suggested in several recent reports has been long-term commitments in housing programs. As Daniel P. Moynihan has stated, "Somehow a greater regularity of effective demand must be provided the housing industry, and its level of production must be increased." 14 RELIGIOUS ACTION CENTER, UNION OF AMERICAN HEBREW CONGREGATIONS, Washington, D.C., June 25, 1970. Re S. 3639-Additional Provision on Local Exclusion of Federally Assisted Low and Moderate Income Housing. Hon. JOHN J. SPARKMAN, Committee on Banking and Currency, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Union of American Hebrew Congregations has a long standing concern with the moral issues involved in fair housing opportunities for all American people. The above bill, which attempts to eliminate local exclusion of federally assisted housing for low and middle income groups, has just been called to our attention. We understand that this proposal has the support of Secretary Romney, and that the Bureau of the Budget takes the position that its enactment would be consistent with the objectives of the Administration. The whole problem of inhibiting provisions with reference to planning, building codes, etc., is difficult and complicated, but the proposed legislation attempts to assure that those complexities will not be used as a means of artificially or arbitrarily continuing discrimination against the construction of low and moderate housing under federally assisted programs. Without the passage of such legislation, the promise of equality in housing opportunity cannot be realized for all of our people. Therefore, we hope that you will achieve passage of this legislation and we assure you of our support in your efforts to accomplish this Sincerely, MARVIN BRAITERMAN. 12 Douglas Commission 18. See also Impact of the Property Tax: Its Economic Implications for Urban Problems (Committee Print, Joint Economic Committee 1968); Netzer, Economics of the Property Tax (Brookings Institution 1966); Prentice, Method of Taxing Unused Land is Scandalous, Commercial & Financial Chronicle, 8/22/66; Symposium, What Kind of City do we Want, Nation's Cities 25 (April 1967). 13 Symposium, Financing our Urban Needs, Nation's Cities 36 (March 1969). 14 Moynihan, Toward A National Urban Policy, The Public Interest, No. 17, p. 14 (Fall STATEMENT OF SCOTT KEYES, PROFESSOR OF URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING, UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN My name is Scott Keyes. I am a Professor of Urban and Regional Planning at he University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. I appreciate the opportunity to Appear before the Subcommittee to present my personal views on S. 3640, the roposed "Urban Growth and New Community Development Act of 1970.” Before proceeding. I should make it clear that I am speaking as an individual, ot as a representative of the University of Illinois, or any other organization with which I happen to be associated. I am appearing in support of this bill. However, my testimony will be limited o Title I, which has to do with the development of a national urban growth olicy. In general, the thrust of my remarks is twofold: first, that caution should be exercised in setting forth what we hope to accomplish by such a policy; and Second, that the Act should go further than it does in establishing a cooperative federal-state-local planning relationship to develop and implement policy in this Held. To support this point of view, I would like to develop briefly, with the aid of a few charts, what growth policy means to me; what I think the implications of growth policy are for planning in general; what I believe to be the type of approach needed if we are really to come to grips with the problem; and finally, what some of the organizational and procedural implications of such an approach might be. Against this background, I will conclude with a few specific comments on the bill under consideration. There is no need at this point to argue the case for growth policy. Various pieces of legislation have pointed in this direction for several years now, while activities under Section 204 of the Housing Act of 1966 and more recently the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968 have increasingly brought to the foreground the need for what the present bill refers to as ". . . a guide in making specific decisions at the national level which affect the pattern of urban growth and . . . a framework for development of interstate, state, and local growth and stabilization policy." [Sec. 101. (c)] I find it helpful to think of growth policy as continuously renewed sets of strategic decisions concerning the location of activity and the growth of population at various levels: in the nation, by broad regions; in the region, by urban and rural areas; and in specific urban areas, by central city, suburb, satellite city and their immediate environs. This conceptualization is illustrated in Exhibit One. Perhaps the most significant observation to make at this point is that the need for making these sets of strategic decisions adds a whole new dimension to the field of planning. I have attempted to illustrate this point in Exhibit Two. In its earlier days, planning was scarcely more than a response to immediate problems, with little thought given either to the relationship of these responses to each other, or to future needs. From these earlier days we moved to the situation which prevails today, which I sometimes like to call Level Two, in which we place a great deal of emphasis on the projection of future requirements, and also give some thought to the interrelationship of plans for different areas and functions. |