State of New York for support. We were amazed at the intensity of interest shown by all of them. Equally amazing was the unanimity among such divergent groups as manufacturers and chambers of commerce, A. F. of L. and CIO, bankers, contractors, building supply dealers, real estate men, women's organizations, social agencies, and the press. I feel that the people are ahead of us in their appreciation of the importance of slum clearance and the urban renewal program in general. In Syracuse, even before the "workable program" requirement became a matter of law, we had been expanding our slum elimination activities by code enforcement and by other means. Our enforcement experience and our planning studies have made us realize the importance and the seriousness of the relocation problem. We are also aware of the importance of the conservation and rehabilitation areas which flank the areas requiring outright clearance. With respect to the renewal of such areas, may I comment on the amendment which I understand is being proposed by the National Association of Real Estate Boards. This amendment would authorize Federal insurance of local assessment bonds issued by local agencies concerned with improving these conservation areas. This proposal was brought to my attention only a few days ago and we have not had adequate time to fully analyze it. It appears, however, that it is worth considering as another tool in attacking one phase of the overall problem, specifically in eliminating undesirable and nonconforming properties. In further reference to the possibility of using the conservation and rehabilitation areas to help solve the relocation problems, may I offer these observations: Some large homes in the conservation area which are in good condition might be purchased and be used for public housing purposes. It is my understanding that this plan is possible under the existing law. In the past, such use of existing houses for housing of lowincome families was viewed unfavorably by the Public Housing Administration, but this agency, I understand, is now more openminded on the subject. Therefore, I need only call your attention to this possibility and to urge you to study it further, with a view to elaborating and improving the existing provisions covering such operations by amendments, if such are needed and are found feasible. One final matter bearing on the relocation problem: May I again suggest this year that section 221, dealing with relocation housing, be further amended to make residents of the conservation and rehabilitation areas eligible, as well as residents of the redevelopment areas, even though they may not be displaced by governmental action. This provision is needed to create some vacancies in the conservation area in order to move in families displaced from nearby redevelopment areas, a move which would be in conformance with the natural disposition of many families to remain in the general neighborhood where they live. We suggest specific language which we are providing in appendix A of my formal testimony. Before closing, may I refer to the provision in the bill increasing from $35 million to $70 million the amount which is exempted from the 10-percent ceiling on loans and grants to municipalities in any one State. As you know, I come from one of the older and most populous States, where the effects of blight are bound to be more extensive than in the newer sections of the country. Moreover, our big sister-New York City-can swallow 10 percent of any Federal aid without any material effect upon its digestion, its needs are so great. You will appreciate that this situation is repeated in many of our great States in the Nation. This additional allocation, therefore, is a vital necessity for those States which have a slum situation out of proportion to other States. May I also state that we are very much in favor of the proposed amendments to section 110 (c) of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended, full text of which is attached as appendix B in my testimony. This amendment has been prepared by the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials, who made a thorough study of the subject, and, I understand, will be elaborated on to a further extent following our testimony. In behalf of the American Municipal Association—and for myself— may I express my deep appreciation to you for listening to our views on this important legislation. (The Appendices of Mayor Mead's statement follow :) APPENDIX A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SEC. 221 (A) OF THE NATIONAL HOUSING ACT OF 1949, AS AMENDED Insert after the words "in order to assist in relocating families" the following: "from urban renewal areas and in relocating families." Delete the words "to be so displaced" after the words "in his judgment are necessary to secure to the families" in the first proviso of the second sentence of this subsection. Delete the word "so" after the words "to be needed for the relocation of families to be" and insert after the word "displaced" the word "because of governmental action" in the second proviso of the second sentence of this subsection. APPENDIX B Section 110 (c) of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended, is hereby amended by inserting after the word "improvements" and before the semicolon in clause (2) of the second sentence of this subsection: "and the provision of technical assistance to owners and tenants for repairs and rehabilitation of buildings or other improvements." Section 110 (c) of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended, is hereby amended by striking the word "voluntary" in clause (1) of the third sentence of this subsection and by inserting after the words "urban renewal plan" and before the semicolon in clause (1) of the third sentence of this subsection: "including the provision of technical assistance to owners and tenants for such repairs and rehabilitation.” Senator SPARKMAN. Thank you very much, Mayor. Senator Lehman, do you have any questions? Air pollution and public works Senator SPARKMAN. May I ask just this one question. I think I know the answer. You have not commented on either S. 1524, which was Senator Long's bill relating to loans to municipalities for public works, the smaller municipalities, and also the bill by Senator Capehart, 1565, relating to smoke abatement and air pollution and so forth. Mr. MEAD. I will have to confess I am not too familiar with that. Senator SPARK MAN. I will say that someone has testified before us representing the League of Municipalities. Mr. CLARK. Could I say, Senator, on behalf of the latter bill, which is the smoke abatement, air pollution bill, we strongly supported it. It's very badly needed in my jurisdiction where we have a difficult air pollution problem, particularly with small industries that are giving out odors, noxious odors too, and do not have the financing to get the money necessary to put in the necessary equipment. We would also hope that some tax amortization might be given for the installation of that machinery also in order to put the carrot in the hands of our Government as well as the stick. We are using them both to the best of our ability. With respect to the bill which has to do with the small municipalities for public work purposes, I think, Mayor Mead, that our association is in support of that bill also. Senator SPARKMAN. Testimony has been given in behalf of the League of Municipalities Mr. CLARK. It's the American Municipal Association which we represent. Senator SPARKMAN. It was the League of Municipalities that testified on behalf of it, but you think the mayors would have the same attitude? Mr. CLARK. Yes; I think so. Senator SFARKMAN. By the way, you were mentioning the small industries giving out disagreeable odors, and it brought to my mind a sign I read quite frequently because it's on my way to the Capitol. A sign on the side of a building says, "Disagreeable odors you smell do not come from this building. Thank you very much, gentlemen. Now, Mayor Clark wants to testify on behalf of the city of Philadelphia, is that right. Slum clearance and urban redevelopment STATEMENT OF MAYOR JOSEPH S. CLARK, JR., ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, PA. Mr. CLARK. Senator, I have a feeling of my own futility in connection with this part of my testimony because I have a strong feeling I am talking to two friends who don't need to be converted. Again, with your permission, I would like to file a rather voluminous 17-page statement. Senator SPARKMAN. We would be very glad to have it, and then have you summarize it, if you will. (The material referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF JOSEPH S. CLARK, JR., MAYOR OF PHILADELPHIA Let me now switch hats and speak to you as the chief executive of the country's third largest city. I have been the mayor of Philadelphia since January 1952, and I therefore speak to you with a conviction bred of intimate, day-to-day efforts to come to grips with the many municipal problems affected by our lack of adequate urban shelter. Despite strenuous efforts to check the weeds of blight and deterioration from choking urban development, we still make little headway because of limited resources. The time to act is now, and it is necessary to act boldly. An additional $500 million for slum clearance and rehabilitation, a Government-stimulated middle-income housing program, and 200,000 publichousing units annually are certainly called for just to keep our heads above water. Let me start out on the positive side. It was with a sense of great relief that we in Philadelphia learned that the housing amendments of 1955 contained provision for an additional $500 million with which to continue the basic slumclearance and urban-renewal program. There can be no doubt that this program-in concept if not as yet in execution-is one of the outstanding contributions which our area has made to the science of modern living. It is still a relatively new program, and we are still experimenting, probing, searching for the most effective way to use it. But one thing we have learned all too well-and that is that any activity of this type is tremendously costly. Let me use my own city as an example. There are over 100,000 dwelling units in those city sections which are so badly blighted as to have been certified for redevelopment. We have worked assiduously on this problem ever since World War II and have now succeeded in tearing down just 2 percent of our slumsand we have spent nearly $7 million in the process of doing so and redeveloping the land. The figures for the redevelopment areas do not, of course, take into account substandard units scattered in lesser concentrations elsewhere in the city. These too must eventually be torn down or rehabilitated. Nobody knows exactly how many such houses there are today, for the census count was taken 5 years ago and no one has counted the number added since. The one sure thing is that there are more, since we have not yet learned to check the creeping spread of blight. While larger than most, and therefore faced with a proportionately larger problem, Philadelphia is only one of many cities needing Federal funds for this purpose. The Census Bureau rang up a total of more than 11 million substandard nonfarm dwellings-including over 6 million urban units—in the country as a whole in 1950. As has been widely recognized, the cities just do not have the funds to deal with this problem. Frankly, at present tax levels Philadelphia is close to being broke. Today the Federal Government takes 74.6 cents out of each tax dollar, and the State takes another 11.8. Our cities cannot meet their pressing needs out of the remaining 13.6 cents. We in Philadelphia have called on the States for help with this problem but the State is worse off financially than the city and can offer only slight additional redevelopment aid. Meanwhile the cities have a long list of necessary functions on which to spend their fractional tax share-and the cities with the largest slums are, by that condition, the very ones most handicapped by declining real-estate taxes, their largest single source of revenue. Hence, the cities must turn to the Federal Government for help. The initial $500 million authorization for this type of activity had almost all been committed by December 1 of last year-it being anticipated that the remainder will be earmarked by the end of this fiscal year. Furthermore, that authorization was originally intended for the redevelopment type of operation alone. That operation is still very far from being accomplished, of course. Yet, under the Housing Act of 1954, title I grants are to cover a variety of additional activities, ranging down even to encouraging homeowners to conserve still healthy dwellings. I don't mean to suggest that the increased emphasis on urban renewal in its most comprehensive form was not a welcome step forward. Philadelphia has been trying to attack some of the broader phases of the problem for several years now, and has recently stepped up its efforts to develop a truly integrated and practical operation, in which each of the diverse city activities would complement the others. We have already learned that branching out beyond the redevelopment areas-to prevent as well as cure the slum problem of an entire city-will require broadened financial support. Finally, I have said already that this whole program was still an experimental one. Because of that, and the fact that many cities have been slow to start this type of activity, the actual expenditure of the original authorizaion has been misleadingly slow. Now that we have acquired some experience in this field, however, and as the number of municipalities participating in the program increases, this will no longer be true. It would not surprise me in the least to find a second $500 million authorization exhausted in half the time the first one was, and the need for added funds to really do the job once more demonstrated. For all of these reasons, I strongly urge the importance of authorizing the full $500 million proposed. But I would also recommend that the full amount be authorized at once, rather than leaving a part of it to the discretion of the President. Presumably, the purpose of this optional provision is to provide for flexibility, so that, for example, added funds might be made available should the $200 million authorized for fiscal 1956 be exhausted before the second $200 million becomes available. Surely this could better be handled by simply raising the 1956 authorization to $300 million. The need is clear cut. The availability of funds should be equally so. There is another facet, however, in which greater flexibility might profitably be introduced. This is in the allocation of funds between States-the general rule now being to limit an individual State to 10 percent of the total authorization. Some exception is already provided for those States which have demonstrated both their need and their readiness to act by already utilizing their share of the authorization-such States being permitted additional grants up to a combined total of $35 million. In anticipation of the full commitment of this reserve, the 1955 amendments would authorize the use of another $35 million in this manner. But this bears little relationship to the actual variation between States in the magnitude of the problem. In our case, for example, Pennsylvania's $50 million share has been completely committed, Philadelphia has been allocated $10 million of the special $35 million, and we still have a large backlog of projects to be developed. It is my belief that, just as the Eastern States defer to those of the West in federally sponsored waterpower and soilconservation measures, so the largely rural and mountain States might well be asked to permit urban redevelopment money to be used where it can do the most good. The simplest procedure for doing so would be to let the whole question of State allocation be determined administratively and I would certainly like to see a change in the law to this end. Another way in which greater flexibility would be an extreme advantage would be authorization for commitments to be made to cities on a long-term rather than a project-by-project basis. Our workable program, for example, sets forth plans designed to rid the city of its major slum problems during a 27-year period. We know where we would like to go, in other words, but it is difficult to progress rapidly and smoothly if we cannot be sure funds will be available for more than the project we happen to be working on at the moment. If we could, for example, get a preliminary commitment from the Federal Government that we could count on $6 million over the next 6 years, we could go ahead with specific plans without the danger that we will raise people's hopes only to disappoint them at a later date. Such an arrangement would have no effect on the standards we are required to meet. It is merely a question of making possible an advance commitment for the funds we would expect to be allocated eventually in any case. One final point, if I may, before we leave the subject of urban renewal. The development of this whole program has been seriously slowed, not only by the fact that it is a relatively new and untried operation, but also by the way in which it has been administered. Difficulties encountered have stemmed partly from specific administrative regulations, partly from the failure to provide a staff large enough for the job and to carry on a truly decentralized operation. This has led to such anomolies as the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority's being unable even now, 10 months after the 1954 act was passed, to get any specification of what standards FHA will require for insurance on houses being rehabilitated. As a matter of fact, a glance at the list of States which have actually received capital grants during the 6 years of the program's operation is revealing, to say the least; only 6 of the 52 jurisdictions had actually received such grants as of March 31, 1955.1 If the program is to have its full effect, it is certainly essential to provide sufficient appropriations for a staff adequate to administer it. Our gradually accumulating experience has made abundantly clear one other fact: The extent of any city's redevelopment and renewal activities is strictly limited not only by the question of financing but by the volume of housing available to the families displaced thereby. You cannot tear out a slum, create an open space, even enforce a housing code unless there is some place for the families who must move out to go. This raises directly a question which is, in fact, much broader and more immediate in its implications than the limitation it puts on any individual slum-clearance operation. I refer to the truly serious lack of decent housing for low- and middle-income families which, to my way of thinking, is one of the major challenges to the Nation today. 1 Urban Renewal Project Directory, Urban Renewal Administration, Housing and Home Finance Agency, Washington, 1955. |