to everybody in Miami County or everybody in the country for that matter. Then these people could own a home like this. The CHAIRMAN. Well, we will certainly talk to the housing people to see where the loophole is in this thing. I don't see it. Senator SPARKMAN. If I understand correctly the recommendation of the housing people, when they were before us, they are proposing to consolidate section 8 of title I with section 203. I suppose if that is done, and I see no reason for its being done, but if it is done, it would be your suggestion that this be transferred right over with it. Mr. WALLACE. Yes, sir, Senator. The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions? Thank you very much, Mr. Wallace. I think you certainly have an idea with a lot of merít. Will you work a little bit with the staff? Mr. WALLACE. I will be glad to, Senator. The CHAIRMAN. Our next witness will be Mr. Tuemmler, of the American Institute of Planners. Mr. Tuemmler, you proceed in your own way. STATEMENT OF FRED W. TUEMMLER, AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PLANNERS Mr. TUEMMLER. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Fred W. Tuemmler. I am a member of the American Institute of Planners and chairman of its special committee appointed a few weeks ago to study the proposed Housing Act of 1954 and to make recommendations for action to be taken by the institute at its 37th annual meeting which took place this year, March 11 to 14, at Dayton, Ohio. A resolution was adopted at that meeting by the board of governors and I have been asked by Prof. John T. Howard, newly elected president of the American Institute of Planners, to submit it to you, and to comment briefly on a few of its salient points. We appreciate, Mr. Chairman, the opportunity that has been afforded to us to appear before your committee this morning. The American Institute of Planners, as provided for in its constitution, is devoted to the "planning of unified development of urban communities and their environs and of States, regions, and the Nation, as expressed through determination of the comprehensive arrangement of land uses and land occupancy and the regulation thereof." The nearly 1,200 members of the institute are to be found in most of the official planning bodies and many of the redevelopment agencies, at Federal, regional, State, and local levels of government throughout the country. They are at work in all the major metropolitan areas and many of the cities and urbanized counties. A small percentage are in colleges and universities where their energies are devoted to training the men and women needed to carry on with direct purpose the important work of guiding the communities' design and development and devising the means and measures to prevent and protect these communities against their physical, economic, and social deterioration and decay. The pending legislation, therefore, is of vital interest to the planning profession and to planners everywhere. The American Institute of Planners was among the supporters of the Housing Act of 1949, and since its enactment many members have played significant roles in the beginnings that have been made in the big task of ridding our cities of slums and creating a healthy urban environment through redevelopment. We are aware, however, that the processes of urban degeneration and obsolescence have been moving at a faster rate than our rebuilding. To stay the hand of decadence, additional help is needed and we are pleased that the Administration has accepted the major proposals of the President's Advisory Committee on Government Housing Policies and Programs for furnishing Federal assistance in this field. The pending legislation holds the promise of providing the planner with additional and more effective weapons to fight blight and arrest urban decay, thus insuring a longer, healthy life expectancy for existing old communities while the work of clearing, replanning and rebuilding outworn areas goes on. For these reasons, the American Institute of Planners, in its resolution has given general support to the bill now under consideration. In doing so, it endorses certain provisions of the bill, urges the inclusion of several additional provisions, and clarifying sections, and recommends other modifications. I should like now to read the resolution, and afterward to comment briefly on one or two items: I have the original of this, which I would like to submit for the record. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it will be made a part of the record. Mr. TUEMMLER. There is also a letter of transmittal from Mr. Howard. The CHAIRMAN. It will likewise be made a part of the record. (The letter and resolution follow :) AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PLANNERS, Hon. HOMER E. CAPEHART, Committee on Banking and Currency, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR CAPEHART: I have the pleasure to transmit herewith a resolution of the American Institute of Planners offered in support of the proposed Housing Act of 1954. This resolution was prepared during the annual meeting of the institute just completed, by a committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Fred Tuemmler, who has given the bill and the subject extensive study. I have asked Mr. Tuemmler to appear before your committee on behalf of the institute. He wil present this resolution to you and will provide a supplementary report as well. Very truly yours, JOHN T. HOWARD, President. RESOLUTION OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PLANNERS SUPPORTING THE PROPOSED HOUSING ACT OF 1954 Be it resolved, That 1. The American Institute of Planners supports the general principles which underlie the pending bills, H. R. 7839 and S. 2938, identical bills known as the proposed Housing Act of 1954, as an aid to urban housing improvement and as a stimulus to metropolitan planning. 2. The American Institute of Planners recommends that long-term credit for existing old and obsolete dwellings, under the provisions of title I of these bills, be extended only on mortgages or loans for purchase or rehabilitation of properties which are located in areas designated by local public agencies and which are in full conformance with the general planning for the locality. Subject to this qualification the institute also endorses the provisions of section 220 in the proposed bills providing for mortgage insurance of rehabilitable buildings on the same basis as mortgage insurance for new structures. 3. The American Institute of Planners endorses the provision contained in the porposed title IV for the amendment of title I of the Housing Act of 1949 to provide for the recognition of urgan renewal areas, urban renewal projects, urban renewal plans, Federal aid to rehabilitation and conservation efforts, the establishment of demonstration programs, and an urban renewal service. The American Institute of Planners urges the adoption of a financial formula which will assure that local communities are not required to contribute more than one-third of required costs for redevelopment or rehabilitation. The institute urges, further, the adoption of additional provisions in title IV which will assure that local public agencies make determinations as to the area of urban renewal projects, and which will require the adoption of objective Federal standards governing programs of planning and rehabilitation. The institute endorses the provisions of title IV by which nonresidential areas can be redeveloped for commercial, industrial, or other purposes in accordance with the urban renewal plan. 4. The American Institute of Planners endorses the provisions contained in the proposed title VII for Federal matching grants to State, metropolitan, or regional planning agencies for metropolitan or regional area planning; to State planning bodies for planning assistance to communities under 25,000, and recommends that counties be eligible for such aid. The institute urges that the bills specifically authorize expenditure of funds for training programs for increased personnel necessary to carry out the purpose of this title. 5. The American Institute of Planners urges the adoption of effective measures to support the financing of private and public housing construction and in adequate volumes to meet national and local needs of all sections of the population. 6. The institute recommends clarification of the definition of urban renewal projects to make possible the inclusion within urban renewal programs of open land necessary for sound community development and growth. 7. The board of governors of the American Institute of Planners authorizes and directs the transmittal of copies of this resolution to the committees of the Congress of the United States concerned with this legislation and to their individual members. The president of the institute is hereby authorized to appoint one or more representatives to attend the congressional hearings to urge the passage of this legislation. The foregoing resolution was adopted March 13, 1954, by the board of governors of the American Institute of Planners at the 37th annual meeting of the institute in Dayton, Ohio. Attested to by JOHN T. HOWARD, President. PERRY L. NORTON, Executive Director. (The following was submitted with reference to the above:) MEMORANDUM FROM HOUSING AND HOME FINANCE AGENCY ON FEDERAL FINANCIAL AID FOR TRAINING PLANNING PERSONNEL-PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO HOUSING BILL OF 1954 In testimony before the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency on S. 2938, Mr. Fred W. Tuemmler, representing the American Institute of Planners, recommended that the bill be amended to "authorize the expenditure of funds for training programs for the increased personnel required to carry out effectively the planning assistance which would be provided for by the grants" contemplated by the bill. Mr. Tuemmler read to the committee a resolution of the American Institute of Planners adopted by the institute's board of governors on March 13, 1954, which urged that the housing bill of 1954 specifically authorize expenditure of funds for training programs for planning personnel needed to carry out the purposes of title VII of the bill. It is quite true that federally assisted planning programs as well as federally assisted urban renewal programs will create an increased demand for trained city planners and that there is already a shortage of personnel in this field. However, it nevertheless would be inappropriate for the Federal Government to help pay for the training of planners. This more properly a function of universities and colleges, both privately endowed and State-aided, of private foundations and scholarship funds, and of the planning, engineering, architectural, and related professions and their societies. By aiding our local communities to undertake slum clearance and urban redevelopment and conservation programs and by aiding municipal and regional planning, the Federal Government will, of course, indirectly stimulate the training of additional planning personnel. Direct subsidies for this purpose, however, are no more warranted than direct subsidies for training persons in many other professions and sciences which contribute to the general welfare and which are in need of additional personnel. Mr. TUEMMLER. In commenting upon these points, we should like to make it clear that in endorsing the urban renewal idea we regard the expanded concept not as a substitute for, but as a supplement to slum clearance and urban redevelopment. Conservation measures to protect older areas against the forces of blight, and salvation plans to upgrade and restore to usefulness neighborhoods which are heading downhill, while important in an overall scheme for civic betterment, do not take the place of slum removal and rebuilding. It is hoped, therefore, that slum clearance and redevelopment projects will continue to have a validity in their own right without being restricted solely to those that are part of larger areas in which rehabilitation is proposed. Much of the existing State and local legislation will require amendments to enable communities to take advantage of the new concept as defined under urban renewal-and it would be disastrous if the slumclearance and urban-redevelopment programs now under consideration in these areas were hindered or delayed because of the need for bringing State laws into conformity with Federal legislation. A much simpler procedure, of course, would be, wherever possible, to let the term "redevelopment" or "redevelopment area" include the larger meaning. Furthermore, we are concerned about the failure to include in the bill an additional authorization for the expanded purposes of the Housing Act. Failure to do so cannot help but result in either curtailment of the programs for which funds were authorized in the present act or in the requirement that supplementary authorizations be provided later for the larger program in the future. In urging the adoption of a financial formula which will insure that local communities are not required to contribute more than one-third of the amount required for the cost of redevelopment or rehabilitation, the institute is mindful of certain inequities which have resulted from the ruling that cities cannot be reimbursed for the cost of certain types of public facilities. Clarification of the language in the bill so that the city's responsibility will be clearly delineated is desirable. The institute considers of great importance its recommendation that the local public agencies be responsible for determining the areas for urban renewal projects. A clarification of the definition of urban renewal projects so that open land necessary for sound community development and growth be permissibly included within an urban renewal program is desirable. While the definition under section 411 of the bill-section 110 of the act as amended, page 82, lines 1 to 6-appears to take this need into account, the restrictions imposed by section 103 of title I of the act of 1949, which are continued under section 405, subsection A, has resulted, in the administration of the act thus far, in open land having been excluded. In endorsing section 701 of title VII, the institute has recommended that counties be eligible for the planning grants authorized for cities under 25,000 and metropolitan and regional jurisdictions. Many counties adjoining cities are not part of legally defined metropolitan areas but are urbanizing and face the problems of rapid community expansion. These are in as great need of the planning grants offered as are other official agencies for which assistance is proposed. The recommendation that the bill specifically authorize the expenditure of funds for training programs for the increased personnel required to carry out effectively the planning assistance which would be provided for by the grants stems from our knowledge that even now the number of trained planners is in short supply. In support of this statement, I have here a copy of the March 1954 proceeding of the American Society of Civil Engineers, separate No. 423, entitled "The Training of City Planners," by Howard K. Menhinick, regents' professor of city planning at Georgia Institute of Technology. In this article Mr. Menhinick says: The result of the rapidly increasing utilization of planning as an aid in the solution of the pressing problems that are facing cities is an acute shortage of well-trained city planners. This shortage appears likely to continue for some years because too few first-rate men are being trained for the profession. This is largely a result of the fact that not many college students know about the challenging needs and opportunities afforded by the comparatively new and rapidly developing profession of city planning. Today much city planning is being done by well-meaning but incompetent persons. There is not the needed competition for jobs that would weed out those who are not qualified. Cities suffer and the prestige of city planning as an important function of government is lowered. The American Institute of Planners fears that some cities, in their eagerness to embark upon a planning job, may do so with personnel ill equipped for the task and that much bad planning may result. Planners are not made such by mere designation but by training and experience. The institute believes that the planning profession plays a fundamental role in the execution of any programs for urban renewal, conservation, rehabilitation, or redevelopment, for these programs will be of little consequence unless in each case they are part of the larger, comprehensive scheme for the community. The planner is concerned with the fitting together in harmonious relationship and balance of all the complex elements that make up his environment. Due recognition was given to the planner's responsibilities in the report of the President's Advisory Committee and by the President himself in his message to Congress. We, of the American Institute of Planners, are dedicated to the task of planning, building, and preserving our communities, large and small, so that within them we can maintain the desirable neighborhoods of good homes in a suitable environment for adequate family life. To this end we respectfully urge, with the modifications referred to in our resolution, the enactment of the proposed Housing Act of 1954. The CHAIRMAN. Any questions, Senator Bush? Senator BUSH. No, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Payne. |