ns, there

*ironmen

stakes.

h of se

less pa

stance i

met

ming d

ntage

sirability of establishing a national competition for cities to be designated as "demonstration cities."

Up until now I have dealt in generalities. I would be remiss if I failed to speak specifically of Denver's needs and plans and offer a specific suggestion on how I think this act might be improved.

Last June 26, the Denver metropolitan area experienced a $300 million flood disaster through the valley of the South Platte River. Within 3 weeks the Department of Housing and Urban Development had funded a $240,000 urban renewal planning advance, to permit us to plan the renewal, replanning, and rebuilding of a 10-square-mile area, or 10 percent of the city's total land area, which cuts through the very center of our city. Without Federal help, it would have been impossible for us to even approach this challenging job.

This Federal-local government partnership must be continued and the first task is to achieve maximum flood controls on the South Platte River and its many tributaries. With cooperation from the Congress, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Colorado Water Conservation Board, and others, work toward flood control and channel improvement is moving ahead.

Through our planning advance we are developing an overall, longterm guide for the redevelopment of the entire central section of our city. At the same time we are preparing plans for immediate action based on their economic and financial feasibility. Both our long-term guide and our immediate program plans will be completed within the next 6 weeks.

Our plans call for the rehabilitation of housing and industry, the creation of extensive parks and recreation centers, beautification of the entire river channel and valley, the creation of a historical and cultural center, possible sites for a major metropolitan college and technical center and a sports center, vital new industrial parks, improved transportation and highways facilities, mid-city sites for housing for low- and moderate-income families, the elimination of slum housing and slum industry, and the creation of a central-city tourist center. Disaster forced Denver to face up immediately to its major area of blight and to plan for its redevelopment. We are planning for the total job. Our economic and financial feasibility studies which are nearing completion will tell us the costs, the benefits, and the actions required to get the job done.

I mention this specific planning program in some detail, because it meets all the criteria so ably set forth by President Johnson. To get the job done will require Federal assistance, and every local resource that we can command. The planning is not only an example of creative federalism but also a splendid lesson in creative localism. I present the facts about my city of Denver as typical of the growing West. We ask only to participate on an equal basis with our sister cities throughout the Nation, every one of which can show a vital and present need for the benefits to be derived from the dynamic program recommended by our President.

We plan to create in the heart of our city a gateway to the West which will develop into a great national asset, a beautiful environment for the ever-increasing number of Americans who are making the decision to go West, and to live in Colorado. It will be part of our

beautiful national environment, which may be a "grand vision or a grand design," but with your help and leadership, it is one that is thoroughly feasible of achievement.

I have noted with great interest the proposal for a Federal liaison officer to be assigned to each demonstration city. I read of this proposal with mixed emotion since I favor the concept of a Federal liaison officer but disagree completely with the idea that this individual be assigned to the 72 Federal Housing Authority offices throughout the country. This does not infer that FHA is incompetent. It has performed services in the field of mortgage insurance over the past 30 to 35 years and has staff that is familiar with the financing of construction of new housing. But I do not feel FHA is equipped to assume supervision or coordination of the myriad of programs which President Johnson has envisioned for the demonstration cities program. Such liaison work requires persons with broad vision who understand and are familiar with the wide spectrum of problems confronting cities on a daily basis. Such an office, if created, must have authority to cut across all lines of endeavor and make decisions that could affect several different agencies. The occupant of this office should be a local man whose knowledge, reputation, and convictions would carry weight with both local and Federal agencies.

We in Denver have established an excellent working relationship with the Denver Federal Executive Board in our city. And this has been most helpful. What happens when a Federal-local program does not have a local coordinator with autonomy and authority is graphically illustrated by our war on poverty program. The Denver Federal Executive Board and I agree that many of the difficulties Denver has encountered in this program would have been alleviated if there had been a local Office of Economic Opportunity official in Denver with authority to make decisions. As it now stands, it is necessary to get decisions from the Kansas City regional office or from Washington a variety of matters. And you gentlemen know how dif ficult it is to transact this kind of business over the telephone or by mail.

I am not naive enough to believe that the needs of Denver or any other Western city are greater than those of Eastern cities. In fact, I believe that I am enough of a political realist to understand that some of the Eastern cities, facing overwhelming problems of slums and blight, probably will be and should be given priority.

I have described to you our efforts in the South Platte River devel opment study for two reasons: first, I believe this plan is ideally suited for the demonstration cities program; and, secondly, it demonstrates conclusively how inexorably interwined are city-State-Federal programs. Literally, scores of agencies at all levels were involved in the flood cleanup and the planning that has followed. Unless you gentlemen have had the experience of sitting in a mayor's chair, I do not think you can comprehend the feelings of frustration that occur, when sitting in a city hall 2,000 miles away, attempts are made to coordinate efforts of several Federal agencies that are deciding matters that vitally affect your city.

I feel it is not only imperative to have a Federal liaison officer for the demonstration cities program but I think it would be vital to have such an individual in every metropolitan area of our Nation right now.

al liais

this

vidtal

vid

zhou

hase

Cont

ch Pre

prigh

fret

I would recommend that such a metropolitan area liaison officer have broad powers. He could not be effective if he were simply a messenger or complaint carrier from city hall to Federal agency. He would have power to cut redtape-to knock heads together, if you please-to activate many programs that now are just dreams. Such an officer could make creative federalism work effectively, and quickly, by reinforcing it with creative localism.

If such an office is created, the mayor of the core city and his council should have a voice in determining the occupant. This could be accomplished by having the mayor and city council submit a list of five or more competent individuals to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Secretary could appoint the liaison officers from this group. Or, conversely, the Secretary could send the name of his choice to the local mayor and council for ratification. In the war on poverty, local community action programs, to gain Washington approval, must demonstrate maximum feasible participation of the community, and the poor. In the creation of a metropolitan area liaison office, I think there should be maximum feasible participation by the core municipality.

In conclusion, I urge adoption of the Demonstration Cities Act of 19666, with the amendments already suggested by spokesmen representing the U.S. conference of mayors and the National League of Cities.

I appreciate the opportunity of presenting this statement to you. Thank you.

Mr. BARRETT. Thank you, Mayor Currigan, for your very edifying and splendid statement.

You mentioned on page 5 about the coordinator. I would like to ask you a question that I have asked several of the other mayors and other witnesses who have appeared before us.

Some people seem to feel, at least have a feeling, that the Federal coordinator which the bill would set up for each demonstration city program would be some sort of a Federal dictator or czar.

Now, of course, I don't believe this. And I think that the bill is clear that he would not have dictatorial power.

But I would like to ask you the two questions I have put to these other witnesses.

Would the people who have such fears feel better, do you think, if we renamed this Federal official as a local coordinator rather than a Federal coordinator? And, second, what do you think of the idea of making the services of the coordinator optional to participating in cities rather than mandatory now as provided in H.R. 12341?

Mr. CURRIGAN. Yes. Insofar as your first question, Mr. Chairman, I think perhaps the suggestion-I would concur with it. I do think there is what in my personal opinion is usually an incorrect and unfounded though in the minds of many that the Federal Government represents the enemy, almost, and perhaps and again I think this is largely psychological or mental-but perhaps the nomenclature of local coordinating officer might dispel a few of those what I believe are really psychological barriers, and in most cases I am convinced they are totally unfounded.

So I personally think that suggestion would have merit, and I would certainly concur in that.

Insofar as the question whether mandatory or optional, I would probably indicate that optional would be our preference. We know what our resources are at home, and with the problems that are confronting us as we become an urban nation, I do not know frankly of any city that can stand on its own feet under our present legal structures. But I do think there is usually merit to anything that is optional rather than mandatory.

Mr. BARRETT. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

For the committee's benefit, we will work under the 5-minute rule this morning.

The Chair recognizes Mrs. Dwyer.

Mrs. DWYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Mayor, you are an excellent advocate for the demonstration cities program, and we are aware of your problems. Now, specifically, how much does your city need in Federal funds to carry out a demonstration city program?

Mr. CURRIGAN. In dollars and cents, I could not say whether we are talking about $1 million, $10 million, or what the figure is. For example, the specific problem, which is just one of many, that I did. cite in my prepared text, regarding our South Platte River Basin, which, again, is 10 percent of our land area-this feasibility study that is being done, again thanks to Federal assistance, will be done in about 6 weeks. I have no idea what the comprehensive plan--the cost figure, will be put on this particular project.

I wish I could be specific. I cannot be. But I am certain that it is-whatever it is, it is to do the job within, say, perhaps the next two decades-if other than the most piecemeal, we would have to have substantial Federal assistance.

Mrs. DWYER. You wouldn't know how much you would need in the next 6 years, would you, the life of this program so far?

Mr. CURRIGAN. No, I could not give that to you right at this very moment. But certainly while this I could obtain figures for the committee, and be more than pleased to send them to you for consid eration just as quickly as possible.

Mrs. DWYER. Mr. Chairman, may we have that for the record? Mr. BARRETT. They may be submitted. Without objection, so ordered.

(The information requested may be found on p. 1120.)

Mrs. DWYER. Since you do not know the figures for the city, you would not then be able to guess how much the State would need, or the entire country, for a program such as this?

Mr. CURRIGAN. No.

Mrs. DWYER. The administration, Mr. Mayor, has spoken to us of expenditures reaching $2.3 billion, and 70 cities. Testimony previ ously taken from some of your fellow mayors would indicate the general opinion that $2.3 billion is not enough and 70 cities is too few. i Could we have your thoughts on this subject?

Mr. CURRIGAN. Again, it would have to be pretty general.

Again, being closely interwined with municipal government now for approximately 17 years, I would have to think with the problems of urban America that $2.3 billion would be insufficient to do the job.

In our city it is relatively new. I can well imagine the problems in the east and midwest.

I would be inclined to think again that $2.3 billion undoubtedly would be an excellent start, but if anyone had the idea that this would be-put our urban centers, cure the ills we are trying to-not that we will ever cure them, but make anything more than a good start, I think they are kidding themselves.

Mrs. DWYER. You take the position then, of one mayor who talked about the figure of $10 billion.

Mr. CURRIGAN. They undoubtedly have done some research. Undoubtedly I would be inclined to agree with them, because I am sure they would not just pull it out of the air.

Mrs. DWYER. Mr. Mayor, I would like to ask you another question, as to your estimates of Denver needs.

We are in the process of voting $13 billion for the war in Vietnam. The war would seem to be going on far into the future. In view of this, do you think that we should limit the number of cities to something less than 70 cities we so often hear of as the top administration goal?

Mr. CURRIGAN. Well, now, in weighing this with the Vietnam situation? In spite of all of our needs of our communities-and I do think that in some respects that our cities have been let go too long on our home front. I would have to-when you are putting it on that basis, even though the decision would be very difficult, I would be very wrong in my own mind to put our local situation ahead of our needs in Vietnam. In other words, to put it bluntly, while the plight of our cities is severely critical, priorities must be assigned, and we would have to say Vietnam comes first. Of course, you have to adjust yourself accordingly later on, as we do in our own city budgets. There are things that have higher priorities. You would like to do a lot of things. But, after all, you must be practical and you must be human, and you have to draw some lines. And this would probably have to be done here, too.

Mrs. DWYER. Thank you very much.

Mr. BARRETT. Mrs. Sullivan?

Mrs. SULLIVAN. I really don't have any questions of the Mayor. I think he has made a very good, comprehensive statement.

As we get into the details and look at the $2.3 billion included in the bill, I don't think any of us believe this is a realistic figure as to what is eventually going to be needed, We know that no matter how many cities-if this legislation is passed-would be awarded the necessary go-ahead for a demonstration program, they could not use the entire amount needed in 1 year or 6 years. On the other hand, we would hope that if this legislation is passed more money would be appropriated as the plans developed and as the needs were demonstrated. Mr. Mayor, there is a further point I should make. In order to pass such a program we will need the support of Congressmen whothey may not be directly involved-but who could see, and recognize, the needs in the big cities where this kind of realistic planning is necessary. And I think we would have to figure on getting four good votes from Colorado, if this is going to be accomplished.

Mr. CURRIGAN. I would have to agree.