ber of them, but you go on and advocate amending the it not become just a greatly expanded urban renewal pr than a demonstration city program? I have difficulty understanding this demonstration pro onstration" means something that is going to show strate something to the other areas. But how are we that and have wide distribution at the same time? And you seem to recognize this in asking for add saying that what is proposed by the Administration i It seems to me that it is quite a problem. Mr. BLAISDELL. It is a problem, Mr. Senator. It is course, that the amendment of this particular title wou with the additional funds that we feel are going to be r not think it will because of that becoming merely an ov renewal program. Senator SPARKMAN. Are not your urban renewal pro a demonstration within themselves? Mr. BLAISDELL. I think they are. Senator SPARKMAN. The fact that they work well in comes a demonstration for other cities. Mr. BLAISDELL. Yes, definitey. I think all of these Senator SPARKMAN. Why, then, should we have a program? Why should we not expand the urban ren that we have, and add to it the features that we need? Mr. BLAISDELL. Well, I think the urban renewal pro encompass the comprehensive effort that is being ma demonstration cities program. Mr. Gunther could probably do a better job than I a Senator SPARKMAN. I have been looking over some this bill. And it seems to me that mayors ought to 1 carefully. For instance, in section 4, it lays down what is a program. All of these decisions are going to be ma mayors and not by the local city, but by the Secretary ington. And it seems to me that requirements under i 5, 6, 7, 8 pretty well cover everything. It seems to me, literally, the Secretary has the rig where you shall locate your school and whether or n school and how many schools you have and everything the city. It seems to me city planning ought to be do level. And I agree that there ought to be a requirem sive planning. And we have that now in the requirem able program. By the way, talking about local housing codes, a wor requires the community to have a satisfactory housing c given additional assistance to cities to develop an up-t conjunction with their workable program and have ma ment. Then, after giving the Secretary the right to say wh has sufficient number of schools and sufficient number o sufficient number of fire stations and sufficient number thing included under those projects, it goes still further HOUSING LEGISLATION OF 1966 225 making the determination under subsection (b)—that is all eight of those he shall give maximum consideration to these others." I don't know. We are experiencing something now that doesn't apply to all cities in all States. It just applies to 17 Southern States under the 1964 Civil Rights Act where they are giving guidelines. Now, in that act, it is specifically provided that there shall be no requirement for busing of students. Yet, there are guidelines requiring busing in the 17 States. It says that there shall be no use of percentages in maintaining balances. Yet, the guidelines require that very thing in the 17 Southern States. They do not require it in Chicago. I saw in the Chicago papers recently a study as to the distribution of teachers by breakdown and so forth. Many of the schools have not a single Negro teacher in them even though they have both Negro and white students. Yet, in our sections, they require those things to be done on a percentage basis. I am afraid of anything that gives the right to somebody here in Washington to set guidelines. It seems to me that is what is done. And it seems to me it is something that mayors of individual cities ought to be very much concerned with. What do you think of that? Mr. BLAISDELL. John, you field that. (Laughter.) Mr. GUNTHER. Senator, the mayors met with the Secretary on February 4 and raised similar questions when they first saw the demonstration city idea. They view the standards that are provided in there as a requirement imposed by Congress that local planning meet these criteria. Senator SPARKMAN. Now, wait a minute. In the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Congress wrote into the law there should be no requirement for busing. Yet, we have guidelines that require busing of students. So I am afraid of guidelines despite what Congress may write. Mr. GUNTHER. In the demonstration city program, we hope that the Congress in its judgment will set down criteria for local officials to meet, for local officials to know what they have to do with local planning, what kind of standards to follow in order to get the funds that Congress makes available. We feel that this is an obligation of the local citizen. The mayors believe this is a way the Congress wants them to plan. Senator SPARKMAN. But you undercut that, it seems to me, when you give the broad powers that this bill gives to the Secretary to determine whether you have done those things. Mr. GUNTHER. If it does that, we want you to Senator SPARKMAN. And I think you ought to give very careful consideration to that. Mr. GUNTHER. The mayors, Senator Sparkman, would like for the Congress to give them broad planning flexibility. They want Congress to say that is one of the problems. You ask why not just do a little bit more under the urban renewal program. One of the problems is that urban renewal is a limited program of rehabilitation and rejuvenation. It has worked very well. However, it does have limitations. 4 There are certain things you cannot do. There are needs. You cannot provide the health facilities for the You cannot provide some of the centers for the elde city does not have the money to put them in. You car struction funds from the Federal Government. And this is what this bill provides. It permits you tack on human as well as physical deterioration. Senator SPARKMAN. Why do you not amend the Pov vide that instead of writing it in indirectly in this that Congress ought to lay down the laws. And I do a Secretary, any Secretary, I do not care who it is, here ought to have the power to tell the mayor of Honolu got to do and what he cannot do. Mr. GUNTHER. We do not believe he should either. Senator SPARKMAN. I believe this bill does that. Mr. GUNTHER. Then we want to change it so it does Senator SPARKMAN. All right, I want you to study it I do not see where we tell mayors that their cities ca plans and those plans will be acceptable. What we d the Secretary should make a determination as to whe sufficient. Now, the bill reads that very clearly. Mr. GUNTHER. We will work with your staff and subcommittee, Senator, to make certain that the bill does not say that. Senator SPARKMAN. I have a great deal of sympathy that will give us a renewal of the cities throughout this in thorough sympathy with it. But I believe we ou careful as to where we vest the power. Mr. GUNTHER. Yes, sir. Mr. BLAISDELL. I agree with you wholeheartedly. Oh, Senator Proxmire. Senator PROXMIRE. On page 2, you say, In our judgment, the $2.3 billion earmarked for the progra les sthan the amount which will be required to meet the goal President. Moreover, there is no assurance now that even an billion would be available. Can you give us an estimate as to what you thin adequate amount to meet the requirement? Mr. BLAISDELL. I have absolutely no figure in min I have heard that some of the cities have in their t reference to the fact that $2.3 billion would only be program. Frankly, the city and county of Honolulu is not at we can put a dollar sign on what we consider our req Senator PROXMIRE. The reason I raise that point i Mr. Weaver testified here, I was concerned about th about the possibility of some 35,000 individual dwel volved in an operation in a single city. And with the involved, not all those 35,000 houses would have to and rehabilitation is not reconstruction and so fort seemed to me that that $2.3 billion was a pretty modes HOUSING LEGISLATION OF 1966 227 At the same time, we have to be, of course, conscious of the demand on the Congress for funds. And if $2.3 billion is not enough, or are you thinking in terms of, say, twice that or three times that? You say it would hardly make a nick? Mr. BLAIDSELL. I would say-well, frankly, I cannot say because I have absolutely no comprehension of the extent and the cost of this program. In my capacity, I discuss this Senator PROXMIRE. It is called a demonstration program. It is not expected to do the job of the other programs. Mr. BLAIDSELL. It involves practically all of the programs. Senator PROXMIRE. On page 1, you say that you think this would not create any inflationary problem. And I think you are right because the first year is only $12 million. However, if we are lucky enough to have continued high employment and prosperity in the coming years, to what extent can we turn this off or slow it down or postpone it in the event, say, in 1968 or 1969 we are still going very strongly, we have inflationary factors in the economy and it seems wise to slow down considerably? Does it have this much flexibility, in your judgment, or would it be very difficult to slow or stop without serious inefficiency and waste? Mr. BLAISDELL. I think it can be slowed down. Mr. GUNTHER. I think, also, Senator, we have discussed it with the mayors and they are as concerned about inflation as practically anyone because it is playing havoc with their budgets. The big problem is if you are going to have to slow down some programs, you have got to select some priority. And this is one of the areas in which the Congress can make It can make these decisions on the Federal funds. You can decide on a stretchout. You can decide whether you want to stretch out a program that is aimed primarily at the poverty area or whether you want to stretch out a program that might be less aimed at these areas, these priority areas, Senator Douglas mentioned a while ago. You can select these programs here at this level in the Congress. And the cities, of course, will go along with the way you make the money available. Senator PROXMIRE. On the basis of your experience as representatives or city officials, do you feel that it would be possible without gross inefficiency to arrest the program, at least to slow it down sharply, and do so to combat inflationary pressures? Mr. BLAISDELL. Yes, sir; I do. Senator PROXMIRE. All right. Senator SPARKMAN. Thank you very much, gentlemen. I appreciate having your testimony. Mr. C. David Loeks, president, American Institute of Planners, who will be introduced by our colleague from Minnesota. STATEMENT OF WALTER F. MONDALE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Senator MONDALE. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, I have the privilege today of introducing Mr. C. David Loeks, who is president of the American Institute of Planners and staff director of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Planning Commission of Minneapolis. Since 1958 this commiss carrying out topflight programs to deal with the plann of seven counties comprising the greater Twin Cities area. These programs under the directorship of Mr. Loeks national attention and praise to the commission. For example, their joint program for land use and t planning, in which local governments participated dire oping the metropolitan plan, has had a most impressive from local governments in Minnesota and those inter quate planning. Mr. Loek's commission also helps local governments ters as open space planning and highway location matte Minnesota law it serves the State legislature on metro lems. For 5 years, I served as the attorney general of Minn an opportunity to work with Mr. Loeks as he discharge sibilities. He is a nationally recognized man in his f has fought in the trenches of governmental planning fo Minnesota is very proud of Mr. Loeks. I am pleased to to you, for I know you will find his testimony interestin Senator SPARKMAN. Thank you very much, Senator ciate that. Mr. Loeks, we are glad to have you with us. STATEMENT OF C. DAVID LOEKS, PRESIDENT, AMER Mr. LOEKS. Thank you, Senator, for the very generous I will introduce my two associates. Mr. Robert L. Williams, who is the executive di American Institute of Planners. Mr. David K. Hartley on my left, who is the direct development. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee we do 1 testimony. I would like to proceed and stay rather cl script. I believe you have copies in front of you. Senator SPARKMAN. We have. Go right ahead. Mr. LOEKS. I will proceed. My thought is if you do wish to question me furthe through or during the testimony, I would be pleased As Senator Mondale mentioned, I am here representi can Institute of Planners. We have 4,300 members i planning staffs in local, State, and National Government firms which serve similar decisionmaking units. We ing and renewal agencies, State planning agencies, and of this kind. Thus, we do feel we are in a position to g |