up a national land policy, but its basic focus is ecological or physical; and while social consequences are involved, they are not the primary aim. What I am concerned about is orderly urban development. Involved would be an attack upon sprawl, encouragement of the use of mass transportation, and provision of greater opportunities for dispersal of lower-income housing.

Proposals for advanced acquisition of land for urban use were first made as long ago as 1937 and were defeated largely because of political concerns. But the arguments for it, both economic and social, are impressive. There has been some progress towards Federal assistance for advanced acquisition of land by public agencies and it was achieved because proposed housing legislation faced the issue. We have an open space program, subsidies for loans for advanced acquisition of land for public use, and financial assistance for new communities. If the Federal Government can encourage state land use plans for ecological goals, it should be able to assure that such activity does not vitiate necessary urban growth and establish a program which would encourage orderly urban development.

I would now like to turn my attention to the most critical feature of the legislation you are considering. I am referring to the need to link housing assistance programs and community development programs in ways which not only will facilitate orderly urban growth, but also will facilitate availability of multi-priced shelter throughout the metropolitan regions of the Nation for families of all incomes and races. This, in my view, is the most pressing housing problem facing the country. Indeed, the bill recognizes it as such. Among the eligibility requirements for community development grants is the formulation of a program which includes any activities necessary to provide adequate housing in a suitable living environment for low- and moderate-income persons who are residing in the community or who are employed in or may otherwise reasonably be expected to reside in the community. "By the same token, one of the conditions of eligibility for housing assistance grants is activities designed to promote greater choice of housing opportunities and to avoid undue concentrations of assisted persons in areas containing high proportions of low income persons." These provisions are salutary. I fear, however, that the bill cannot achieve its express goal of promoting greater choice of housing opportunities for lower income families. There are several inherent weaknesses which in my view, necessarily would prevent achievement of this essential goal.

First, community development and housing assistance grants would be made for the most part to individual localities in metropolitan areas. But the problems of housing and urban development in metropolitan areas are metropolitan-wide and can be resolved only on that basis. I recognize that in both the community development and housing assistance parts of the bill a priority would be given to two or more units of general local government which combine to conduct single programs. I doubt, however, that this would afford sufficient inducement to encourage metropolitan-wide proposals, particularly with respect to housing assistance programs.

The members of this Committee are well aware that many suburban communities have exhibited strong aversion to taking the steps necessary to facilitate residence of lower-income families, especially those who are members of minority groups. To be sure, there have been some instances in which a number of jurisdictions in metropolitan areas have agreed to so-called "fair share" plans which would permit free access to housing for lower-income families throughout major portions of the metropolitan area. These, however, have been few and far between. Moreover, results have been spotty. Mr. Chairman, I believe these voluntary "fair share" approaches can achieve results and should be encouraged. As you undoubtedly know, last month Senator Taft introduced legislation, "The Demonstration Housing Location Housing Act of 1973," that would provide such encouragement in the form of grants to local governments or local public agencies. I do not believe, however, that sole reliance on voluntary "fair share" plans is the answer. Many suburban jurisdictions have taken extraordinary steps, such as adopting bizarre zoning laws and other land use controls, which necessarily have the effect and often the purpose of keeping out the poor. It is extremely doubtful that these communities can be counted on to participate voluntarily in "fair share" plans.

The basic approach of the bill is one of voluntary participation. Housing assistance grants would be made to suburban governments only if they elect to apply for them. In light of past experience, it is doubtful that many will so elect unless strong incentives are provided to persuade them to do so. The only such incentive I can find in the bill is contained in Section 112(a) (3), which requires applicants for community development grants to formulate a program "which includes any

activities necessary to provide adequate housing in a suitable living environment for low- and moderate-income persons who are residing in the community or may otherwise reasonably be expected to reside in the community." I believe this provision points in the right direction, but it is not nearly strong enough. Under the bill as it now stands it is likely that affluent suburbs will receive their fair share of community development grants while providing little housing for lower-income people.

There is one additional provision which, it seems to me, necessarily would have the effect of concentrating most of the lower-income housing in the central city, where the poor already are strictly confined. Under the allocation formula for housing assistance grants set forth in Section 124(b) entitlements are based on three factors: population, extent of poverty (counted twice), and extent of housing overcrowding. Under this formula and lacking a metropolitan approach, the great bulk of housing assistance funds necessarily would go to central cities. Even those suburbs that have the best of intentions would simply not be entitled to very much in the way of housing assistance grants if their populations are relatively low, if they are affluent, and if they have little housing overcrowding. This provision, in my view, is seriously flawed. It would have the effect of accepting the status quo of racial and economic stratification in metropolitan areas and assure that this pattern is perpetuated and even intensified.

The basic weakness, Mr. Chairman, lies in dealing with the housing problems of metropolitan areas on the basis of the individual jurisdictions that make up these metropolitan areas. The problem is one of people, not local governments, and it cannot be satisfactorily resolved through passive acquiescence to the status quo of the minority poor central city surrounded by the noose of white, affluent suburbia.

Some way must be found to provide housing within the means of lower-income families on the basis of rational, practical considerations such as the location of jobs-and to afford the poor something resembling freedom of housing choice throughout metropolitan areas. We must do this not merely for the sake of the poor, but in the interests of the well being of our metropolitan areas. They are, in fact, single social and economic units, not unrelated groups of local jurisdictions, and our housing programs must recognize this basic reality.

In 1971, Congressman Ashley introduced what I consider an innovative and creative measure that promised to do just that. Title V of the proposed "Housing and Urban Development Act of 1971" called for the establishment of metropolitan housing agencies which would have had responsibility and authority for developing long-range plans for the location of subsidized housing, based on a number of rational and sensible factors. Unfortunately, this proposal was abandoned before the bill left the Committee. I commend it to your attention and urge that the Committee again give it serious consideration. I also recommend that to assure cooperation by suburban jurisdictions that otherwise might be reluctant to have lower-income families living within their borders, eligibility for community development grants be tied strongly to full cooperation with the metropolitan housing agency in developing and implementing its plan.

Having made this recommendation I must qualify it by admitting that it is not foolproof. Some suburban communities may have so strong an aversion to the poor that they are willing to forego Federal benefits under community development grants so as to continue their exclusionary policies and practices. This will vary from metropolitan area to metropolitan area, and indeed, from suburban jurisdiction to suburban jurisdiction, depending upon their need for community development funds, the mood of the community and the strength of their leadership. In any case, it represents the best chance to reve-se the pattern of racial and economic separation which is at the root of so many of the social and economic problems besetting metropolitan areas.

Mr. Chairman, for some eight years I had the privilege of working in close cooperation with this Committee in developing some of the most important social legislation in the Nation's history. Through that experience, I learned to have great confidence in the wisdom and compassion of its members. The bill you are considering a product of the Committee-reflects that wisdom and compassion. I wish to stress that my recommendations for strengthening the bill in no way diminish my admiration for the basic approach it takes and the essential soundness of its provisions. I very much appreciate your inviting me to appear before you in that it not only gave me an opportunity to visit with old friends and colleagues but, more importantly, to be a part of the important legislative process in which you are engaged.

Mr. BARRETT. Thank you, Dr. Weaver, for bringing us a very good statement. Dr. Weaver, I have two short questions I would like to ask you now.

As you no doubt know, the most common objection to our housing block grant proposal deals with the capacity of the cities to handle the block grants for housing. Do you think cities could do so efficiently, with technical assistance and guidance from HUD?

Dr. WEAVER. This of course is in the area of prophecy and conjecture, and since I no longer have to do that officially, I probably can do it with less restraint than I would have done some years earlier.

I would answer briefly that it depends upon which ones you are talking about. Obviously, there are some and many that can and have had the experience, others that I think can learn. I believe we are in a period where our choices are no longer whether or not we are going to have these programs operated with the degree of centralization that they had in the past, or whether we are going to have a greater degree of local determination. I think the issue is whether or not we are going to have any degree of national goals and any degree of national real looking at the programs and offering assistance, or whether we are going to simply say, here is the money and you go ahead, spend it for whatever you want to spend it for and do whatever you want to do.

I think the desirable approach is one which stipulates a reasonable degree of concern for national priorities, a reasonable degree of surveillance, and a reasonable degree of technical assistance. No one can, I think, categorically say it is going to work. But heavens, if you have bad administration, even with a great degree of Federal supervision, you can have some pretty bad results, as we have seen.

Mr. BARRETT. My other question, Dr. Weaver. Do you think cities would go overboard in using block grant funds on, let us say, helping with rehabilitation and the existing housing stock, and thus neglect the production of new units?

Dr. WEAVER. Well, I think it all depends upon the sort of program they are given. A program such as this, which recognizes that there is no magic in housing allowances and there is no inherent deviltry in production-oriented assistance or subsidies, would give them an option. I can say, from my own experience that after they get into the operation and many of them already having been in the operation, they soon recognize the difficulties of rehabilitation. So, I have a feeling that there might be a philosophical tendency to do this, because it sounds so appealing, and it is also supposed to be so much more economical that has yet to be proven-but it is so much more difficult. I have a feeling that if they have flexibility, those that have sophistication will want to get a workable mix. Finally, of course, I am of that school which feels that housing allowances alone and housing allowances in tight housing markets would become so inflationary that they would create an undesirable situation.

So I think all of those things will have a built-in propensity toward directing to the balance which, I hope, would be encouraged by the overall type of national priorities and national program that this bill is philosophically or by provision tied into. So that the Federal Government would be giving some direction, not saying you have got to do it, but pointing out what the costs are if you do not do it, and what the benefits are if you do do it.

So I would say that this is a workable bill, and like any other bill, it will have its rough edges, and it is not going to be perfect. But I think it is workable. I think, if I may use the phrase at this point in time, that it is probably a bill which has some capacity to meet the trends and meet the mood of those who have a serious concern for housing in the country.

Mr. BARRETT. Thank you, Dr. Weaver.
Mr. Ashley?

Mr. ASHLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Weaver, let me say that it is a particular delight to welcome you this morning. Your presence here certainly reminds all of us of calmer days in Washington. I think that your statement is first rate, because it deals in hard, concrete terms with the provisions of this bill. It points out what you feel to be its inadequacies in a way that, I can assure you, is not offensive at all to me, or, I am sure, to Mr. Barrett. The statement, it seems to me, really focuses on the basic goals that we share in terms of what our housing community development delivery systems should be aimed at. I think that is a very good thing to do. There are times, as you know, when the art of the possible tends to shape the specific legislation, as distinct from an approach which perhaps more clearly reflects the ultimate objectives that we as a society, have set for ourselves.

I would like to ask several questions and perhaps make a comment or two. Starting on page 3 of your testimony, when you referred to "the need to reverse the trend toward racial and economic stratification, to establish choice as the factor that determines where people live." Of course, as you know, I am fully committed to this objective. It is a fact, of course, that we now do have civil rights statutes, which are helpful in this effort. We have court decisions that continue to be handed down which further our progress.

As far as the basic problem in terms of choice is concerned, it seems to me this may well be a matter of supply. We seem a little less caught up these days on the matter of where blacks can live, if they can afford to live in a given community. What we are concerned about, it seems to me, is the availability of housing, both new housing and existing housing, within the means of families, particularly of low and moderate income, and even somewhat higher than moderate income today, as it turns out, with the median-priced homes now somewhere at the high $30,000 level.

We, of course, will not abandon supply. It seems to me that the administration approach does. We do not opt for existing housing or put particular emphasis on existing housing as distinct from new housing. What we try to say is that each community should have a range of options from which to draw in its effort to be responsive to its particular housing needs. It is quite true that among these options there is rehabilitation and other options that are not supply-oriented, but there are options that are supply-oriented as well. I wonder if we can do any better than that at this juncture.

Dr. WEAVER. Well, I think that I would agree completely with what you have said, and as I said, I think the philosophical problem does not exist here. I think we have both of the same objectives and ends. I think that maybe I can answer that and comment on that by commenting on something else. One of the reasons why I am very fearful about going to the housing allowance as the method of solving the

problem of low- and moderate-income housing is because of one of the things it is supposed to do and does not do. It is supposed to guarantee wider choices. It guarantees wider choices within certain constricted markets, but if you have an area where the jobs are, and where the cheapest housing rents for $450 a month, there is no housing allowance that I can possibly conceive of, except by an act of God, that is going to be able to bring that housing down to be rentable to somebody with low and moderate income. So, you have got to have a production oriented type of activity, if you are going to provide any housing in that particular area for your low- and moderate-income families.

Mr. ASHLEY. I agree. As I understand the administration approach, if we have a fully operative housing allowance system-a doubtful matter at best-they would then cut out any support for the supply side, on the basis that the private market would respond to the $8 to $11 billion a year that would be flowing into the pockets of people for shelter.

Dr. WEAVER. I think it would respond by raising the rents for them and for everybody else.

Mr. ASHLEY. That is the first thing it would do. But I have never found builders, either in private or public talk, who do not admit that they would rather build for the family that can afford a $60,000 house.

Dr. WEAVER. Sir, this is particularly true in rental housing. They would much prefer to build luxury rental housing than low- and moderate-income housing for a very good reason. It is more lucrative, and it has got less problems.

Mr. ASHLEY. Precisely. They are totally responsive to our economic system.

Dr. WEAVER. If you believe in the system, this is inevitable. Mr. ASHLEY. That is right. I am glad that you pointed out on page 4 that under our bill new public housing could be built, because most certainly, it could be under the financing mechanism that you go on to describe. But I think that there has been a tendency to overlook that. It is quite true that we do focus on management in that part of the bill, but we do make provision for new public housing under the block grant.

Dr. WEAVER. It seemed to me that this was possible, but even, in reading your statement, if I may say so, you say that there would be no more housing under section 137, or whatever it is. But what you are saying is under existing law. But it could be, somebody might assume that under no other law would there be any building.

Mr. ASHLEY. That is right. We were talking about the 1937 act, which goes to the 40-year annual contribution contract type of financing, and not to the continued availability of public housing construction.

Dr. WEAVER. Somebody else, a lawyer friend of mine, pointed out. that the annual contributions were limited, so you could not have any increase in the amount of public housing. I insisted that you did. not have to use the annual contributions, you could use the block grants in lieu of annual contributions.

Mr. ASHLEY. Thank you, too, for your comments on the metropolitan housing proposal. I must say that your word "abandon" with respect to this proposal is not entirely accurate. You do not "abandon" your wallet if it is being fleeced. [Laughter.]