the country that many other cities face the prospect of having to abandon or to defer indefinitely plans for highly important community programs. The failure of Congress to act on the urban renewal, slum clearance, and housing programs at this time would be very unfortunate in view of the fact that public understanding and acceptance of these programs has been built up over a period of years and any delay or substantial cutback in Federal support would be extremely detrimental. I agree 100 percent with the program of the U.S. Conference of Mayors calling for congressional action authorizing a level of Federal urban renewal grants to meet the activities planned by local communities on the current two-thirds Federal funds for one-third local funds basis. I also endorse the conference plan which recommends that Congress act to make available sufficient low-rent public housing units to meet local needs in relocating low income families displaced by governmental programs and activities. Sincerely, Mr. HARRY R. BETTERS, NEAL S. BLAISDELL, Mayor. CITY OF LAKELAND, FLA., May 2, 1960. Executive Director, U.S. Conference of Mayors, DEAR MR. BETTERS: In response to your letter of April 29, we welcome this opportunity to fully endorse the program as sponsored by the U.S. Conference of Mayors with regard to urban renewal, slum clearance, and housing. We in Lakeland are in full accord with the program sponsored by the Federal Government to provide funds and assistance to local communities for slum clearance and urban renewal. We recognize that the financial requirements of implementing slum clearance and urban renewal programs are beyond the ability of the local community, and that this is an area of assistance that may be provided by the Federal Government toward removing the cancerous and costly substandard housing areas from our midst. Even though we in Florida may not yet take advantage of the slum clearance grants because of a lack of State legislation, we are proceeding in the attempt to correct this shortage in order that we may qualify to enter into this Federal assistance program. Sincerely, Mr. HARRY R. BETTERS, WM. G. COOPER, Jr., Mayor. CITY OF LAS VEGAS, NEV., May 9, 1960. Executive Director, U.S. Conference of Mayors, DEAR MR. BETTERS: The Madison School urban renewal project is the first phase of a long-range program of using Federal assistance to eliminate substandard houses and provide good homes in Las Vegas. In accordance with our schedule for the Madison School project, we plan to sign a loan and grant contract with the Housing and Home Finance Agency sometime during August. We will need a loan of approximately $1 million and a Federal capital grant of $650,000 for the Madison School project. In addition, our long-range urban renewal program will require $10 million in loans, $2 million in Federal capital grants, and $19 million in Federal Housing Administration special insurance, within the next 5 years. We also expect to need approximately 300 additional units of Federal assisted public housing and 100 units of public housing for the aged. It is our feeling that functions of the Federal Government should be limited to those activities which the Federal Government is more capable of performing than local or State governments. Since urban renewal programs have not been successful in many instances without Federal participation, in our opinion it is an example of an activity coming within this scope. Accordingly. we are happy to have an opportunity to be recorded as strongly supporting the continuances of an expanded program of Federal participation in urban renewal. I should like to take this opportunity to discuss several facets of this program which I believe to be within the purview of consideration by the Senate and House committees. Although these points may be considered as a criticism of the program, it is my desire that they will be accepted in the constructive manner intended. 1. Tenure of the program.-If lasting benefits are to be achieved by American cities through urban renewal, we believe it is imperative that the local governments be given a greater assurance that the Federal Government will continue to participate in this program indefinitely, or at least for a reasonable period of years. In this way we feel that many cities, including Las Vegas, will be in a position to effectively program and schedule urban renewal activities over a period of years. For example, the proposed program in the city of Las Vegas is too extensive to be practical as a single project. Therefore, we must schedule it as a series of projects. However, in view of the present lack of assurance that Federal assistance will continue, we are faced with the problem of what will happen if we cannot redevelop the remainder of our blighted district. For this reason, our urban renewal staff is being forced to consider the possibility of redevelopment in each successive project so that as near as possible it will be selfsufficient within itself. As a consequence, it appears that our program will be less effective than would be the case if we were assured that we could plan each separate project as a unit within the whole area. 2. Improved administration.-In view of what appears to be a generally widespread desire among American cities for an expanded urban renewal program, it would seem that the Congress is justified in considering additional administrative staff for the Urban Reneval Administration. At the present time we seem to be constantly faced with the problem of having prepared an application for one or more projects, with the applications believed to be in order, only to find that there is lengthy delay in the processing of these applications. It would appear that one way in which more expeditious processing of applications by local public agencies could be achieved would be through the provision of funds to make available additional staff assistance to the Urban Renewal Administration. We feel, however, that this is only half of the problem. In order to achieve a more effective and expeditious administration it would also appear that responsible officials of both the Urban Renewal Administration and the Housing and Home Finance Agency should advance from the stage of merely talking about streamlining administrative procedure. They should actually adopt and implement policies which will simplify and expedite the administrative procedures of the Agency. We feel that it is within the purview of the Congress to assist in achieving an improved administration by the provision of additional staff assistance and also by insisting on the early adoption of simplified urban renewal procedures. Once again I want to express my appreciation to you and to the U.S. Conference of Mayors for affording me an opportunity to present the thoughts of the city of Las Vegas relative to this program. I hope these comments will be of some assistance to you during the hearing conducted by the Senate and House committees. Very truly yours, ORAN K. GRAGSON, Mayor. HARRY R. BETTERS, Executive Director, U.S. Conference of Mayors, Washington, D.C.: The city of Little Rock is vitally interested in the urban renewal, slum clearance and housing bill that is now before Congress. In order to solve our slum problems it is necessary that the urban renewal program be increased from $300 million a year to at least $600 million per year. The city of Little Rock now has eight projects in various stages of execution and we must have an adequate urban renewal bill in order to solve our pressing slum clearance problems. WERNER C. KNOOP, Mayor, City of Little Rock. CITY OF LYNN, MASS., May 12, 1960. Mr. HARRY R. BETTERS, U.S. Conference of Mayors, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. BETTERS: The program of the U.S. Conference of Mayors for adequate legislation favoring urban renewal, slum clearance, and public housing is the only solution for the predicament of the industrial city of today. Slum clearance is a moral and safety issue in coping with juvenile delinquency and fire hazard. Urban renewal is the only feasible method of broadening the tax base and attracting new payrolls to our older industrial areas. Public housing must be provided to solve the problems of relocation that are created by urban renewal and slum clearance. I have dedicated my three terms as mayor to promoting these programs; 18,000 registered voters favored such a program by referenda in the 1959 municipal election in our city of Lynn. Please be assured of my support and encouragement in all efforts to urge the Congress of the United States to pass legislation favorable for urban renewal, slum clearance, and public housing. Very truly yours, THOMAS P. COSTIN, JR., Mayor. CITY OF MADISON, WIS., May 2, 1960. Mr. HARRY R. BETTERS, U.S. Conference of Mayors, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. BETTERS: In reply to your letter of April 29, 1960, I wish to indicate to your office that this office and the Madison Common Council have strongly supported urban renewal legislation and the appropriations to implement the provisions of the legislation. Our position has been supported, in turn, by the electors of Madison by authorizing general obligation bonds to finance the city's portion of the urban renewal program that is being carried on in Madison. This is a most worthwhile effort. Unless we rebuild rundown and deteriorated areas of the central sections of our cities, we will have considerably greater expense in the years ahead because of these blighted conditions, with considerably increased welfare and relief costs accompanying them. Federal Government must assist municipalities in carrying on urban renewal projects, since we cannot finance their tremendous costs with the limited financial resources within our political jurisdictions. By the same token, healthy and strong cities find a much better and a more stable economy for our Federal Government. I strongly urge our congressional representatives to support the position of the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the American Municipal Association in the matter of urban renewal, slum clearance, and housing legislation. If I can furnish specific information to you at any time with respect to this matter or other matters of municipal concern, I hope you will feel free to inquire. Sincerely yours, IVAN A. NESTINGEN, Mayor. MAYOR'S OFFICE, U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS, City of Malden, Mass., May 11, 1960. GENTLEMEN: The city of Malden is a city with a population of approximately 60,000 and is within the metropolitan area of Boston. It is presently undertaking a redevelopment program entitled the "Charles Street Urban Renewal Project" and a rehabilitation program entitled the "Suffolk-Faulkner Urban Renewal Project." Federal funds have already been earmarked for the former, but have not been earmarked for the latter. It appears definitely that within the next 4 or 5 years the city will have to undertake additional urban renewal. Unless Federal funds are made available for cities comparable to Malden I feel strongly that the national economy will suffer greatly. Aside from the social consequences of blight and decay, the loss in tax dollars and the disproportionate municipal cost resulting has a direct effect upon the economy of the Nation. The curtailment of Federal funds by Congress and the executive branch, in my opinion, would be extremely unwise and shortsighted. Please convey my views at the hearings. Thank you. Very truly yours, JOHN P. DONNELLY, Mayor. CITY OF MARION, OHIO, May 2, 1960. U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS, GENTLEMEN: This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of April 29, with reference to urban renewal, slum clearance, and housing. We wish to advise that we are in the process of appointing a regional planning commission, and same will be in existence within 2 weeks. We have in the north section of our city quite a few streets without water or drainage, and this is considered one of our slum areas, and in which we have in vision one of our future projects. We believe that it is quite evident with most cities of today, that they are suffering from a loss of tax revenue, and are in dire need of assistance. We are therefore very much interested in any congressional action toward the granting of help for local communities. Your efforts in our behalf will be greatly appreciated. KARL DUNE, Mayor. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, CITY OF MOBILE, May 2, 1960. Mr. HARRY BETTERS, U. S.Conferences of Mayors, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. BETTERS: We are most pleased that the U.S. conference of mayors will be given an opportunity to testify before the Senate and House 'committees with respect to needed legislation in the areas of urban renewal, slum clearance, and housing. Mobile is vitally interested in all of these areas, and we are most anxious to see the extension of the Federal programs. We in Mobile consider urban renewal, slum clearance, and housing as very vital to the future of our city, and we feel that a job begun and not finished will be only a partial answer to the problems which face us, along with hundreds of other American cities. Next year Mobile will observe the 250th anniversary of its location at its present site. A city of this age naturally recognizes the need for urban renewal and slum clearance to a greater degree, perhaps, than do our newer sister cities. We urge the delegation of the conference of mayors who will appear before the congressional committees to present as forcefully as possible to our legislators the urgent need for the continuance and expansion of the programs in the areas of urban renewal, slum clearance and housing. Sincerely, JOSEPH N. LANGAN, Mayor. NASHUA, N.H., May 2, 1960. Mr. HARRY BETTERS. Executive Director, Conference of Mayors, DEAR MR. BETTERS: Received your letter referring to urban renewal, slum clearance, and housing legislation before the Senate and House committees. May I express myself as to the importance of this program. Nashua is in the progress of completing arrangements for clearing a slum area. We certainly could not have undertaken this project without Federal assistance. We have several other districts that should be undertaken. I strongly urge passage of more assistance to communities throughout the Nation. Trusting the Senate will act favorably on this important program. Sincerely, MARIO J. VAGGE, Mayor. NEW YORK, N.Y. HARRY R. BETTERS, U.S. Conference of Mayors, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. BETTERS: On behalf of the city of New York and of the New York Metropolitan Regional Council I offer our strong support of the views of the U.S. Conference of Mayors on new housing and urban renewal legislation, and ask that the officials of the conference have this brief statement placed on the record when they testify before the Senate and House Subcommittees on Housing on May 17. New York City has taken major steps in this past year to expand, improve, and expedite its slum clearance, urban renewal, neighborhood conservation and rehabilitation, and relocation programs. At the same time. and for those very reasons, we must continue to look to the Federal Government for essential financial assistance. Since Mr. J. Clarence Davies, Jr., chairman of New York City's Northwest Housing and Redevelopment Board, will testify on behalf of the city later this week in greater detail, I will set forth here several of the major points which are of overriding concern to New York City. 1. Urban renewal grants in the amount of $600 million a year for the next several years are a minimum requirement for a program geared to the physical needs of the Nation's cities and to the need for continuity of long-range planning, programing and research. 2. The full $336 million annual contributions for public housing authorized in the 1949 act should be restored in order to give cities the amounts of public housing required to meet the needs of low-income families and permit flexibility in programing public housing activities in relation to other improvement programs. 3. More liberal relocation assistance for both residential and business tenants. which, at the discretion of the Administrator, can be modified to meet local requirements, practices, and policies, is of paramount importance to New York City. At the request of my administration, the New York State Legislature authorized, and the city has adopted, a "Tenants' bill of rights" which for the first time establishes uniform procedures and benefits for the tenants displaced from the sites of all public and publicly assisted improvements. A specific authorization, is needed to make such uniform practices and benefits fully applicaable to title I operation in New York City. 4. Additional Federal assistance, as proposed in S. 1342, introduced by Senators Javits and Clark, for middle- and lower middle-income housing. We in New York City and State have pioneered in programs to aid the construction of moderate rental, middle-income housing. Title I operations should be utilized to fill this need so vital to the continuing health of our cities; through the granting of long-term, low-interest loans, and tax abatement. Despite the fact that our limited profit housing programs both State and city, and redevelopment companies housing program are expanding, a great unfilled area of need still remains in the moderate rental range. Increasing costs of money, construction, and land require that all aids-long-term, low-interest mortgage financing, tax abatement, end writedown of the cost of site acquisition. The continued and expanding participation of the Federal Government in all aspects of the housing and renewal programs is heartily welcomed. ROBERT F. WAGNER, Mayor of the City of New York. STATEMENT OF MAYOR CLIFFORD E. RISHELL, OAKLAND, CALIF. In 1954, the Congress of the United States adopted legislation which enabled communities to develop a workable program for urban renewal. The intent of the legislation was to encourage the revitalization of our urban renewal centers through new programs, in addition to slum clearance. In 1956, the Congress of the United States, recognizing that larger areas of metropolitan centers needed to be planned for urban renewal, provided for general neighborhood renewal plans. The city of Oakland has pursued aggressively an urban renewal program fully consistent with the 1954-56 legislation. At a great expenditure of local funds and effort, we are proud of the status of our workable program and the fact that our community has pioneered with considerable success in the fields of conservation and rehabilitation. Nevertheless, it seems that the administrative policy and subsequent housing acts have not been wholly consistent with the intent of Congress. Despite the growing number of communities which are striving to halt blight and deterioration, with its attendant economic and social illness, assured adequate assistance to these programs has failed to materialize. |