"Whereas approximately 34,000 persons were displaced from the area and only 1 luxury apartment of 400 units and approximately 1,000 units of low-cost housing have been erected under controlling laws and the policies and procedures of the responsible agencies, and "Whereas the Housing and Home Finance Agency, Urban Renewal Administration, Federal Housing Administration, National Capital Planning Commission, District of Columbia Board of Commissioners, National Capital Housing Authority, and Redevelopment Land Agency as coordinating agencies all share the responsibility for this project, and "Whereas the despite conflicting reports as to adequacy of the rehousing of displaced persons, we cannot but be aware of the increase in persons per dwelling unit and tenement house conditions which are evident in northwest, northeast and southeast since demolition of dwellings in the southwest, and "Whereas consultants Rouse & Keith, approximately 5 years ago, made some 21 recommendations to implement redevelopment which they realized was only practical if real leadership was exercised by the District of Columbia Commissioners with almost utopian cooperation of all agencies concerned, and "Whereas, the millennium has not occurred and the present situation impels the conclusion that redevelopment under the controlling laws and regulations as presently administered by the responsible agencies is woefully inadequate, and "Whereas H.R. 8697 provides for the elimination of the National Capital Planning Commission from participation in redevelopment despite the large Federal interest in this city, and "Whereas the increased burden of public works, urban redevelopment and renewal is an almost impossible burden and the Board of Commissioners has indicated that it does not desire the authority provided in H.R. 8697, and "Whereas the Federation of Citizens Associations of the District of Columbia believes that the success of our urban renewal program depends upon a thorough overhaul of existing administrative machinery so as to centralize authority for the planning, direction and implementation of this program: Now be it "Resolved, That the District of Columbia Federation of Citizens Associations in regular meeting assembled this 12th day of May 1960, support H.R. 8697 in principle, and respectfully request that the following proposed amendments be given consideration; "1. That the National Capital Planning Commission exercise its advisory function in renewal planning to protect the Federal character of this city. "2. That the House and Senate District Affairs Committees and the Commissioners of the District of Columbia initiate a study and legislation to reorganize the District of Columbia urban renewal machinery. It is suggested that the Redevelopment Land Agency and the National Capital Housing Authority be placed under direct control of the District of Columbia Commissioners. "3. That no development plan for a project area should be adopted until the responsible agencies can offer a concrete plan to provide adequate housing for persons displaced in the southwest project and in all areas proposed for future projects. "and be it further "Resolved, That copies of this resolution be sent to: "1. Senate and House Committees on District of Columbia Affairs. "4. Chairman, Redevelopment Land Agency. "5. Chairman, National Capital Housing Authority. I move the adoption of the foregoing resolution. HOMER J. SMITH, Chairman, City Planning Commission. RESOLUTION OF FORT SUMNER ROTARY CLUB, FORT SUMNER, N. MEX. RESOLUTION Whereas the Fort Sumner Rotary Club has learned that President Eisenhower has recommended to Congress that authority given to the Veterans' Administration to make direct loans to veterans for home construction be allowed to expire on June 30, 1960; and Whereas there has been in Fort Sumner no other regular source of loans for home construction other than direct loans from the Veterans' Administration, the town being too small for the securing of such loans from banks and insurance companies; and Whereas in the State of New Mexico there are many other small communities facing the same problems as Fort Sumner with regard to financing home construetion, which other communities would, with Fort Sumner, be adversely affected by the discontinuance of the direct loan program of the Veterans' Administration: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Fort Sumner Rotary Club by resolution goes on record as favoring the continuance of the direct loan program of the Veterans' Administration for the purchase and construction of homes for veterans; be it further Resolved, That a copy of the resolution, be sent to each of the Representatives and Senators in the U.S. Congress representing the State of New Mexico. V. J. ROGERS, President. B. C. WITHERS, Secretary. I, B. C. Withers, secretary of the Fort Sumner Rotary Club, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution which was proposed. seconded and passed by the Fort Sumner Rotary Club at a regular meeting held in Fort Sumner on the 27th day of April 1960. B. C. WITHERS, (The following was subsequently received for the record:) Hon. A. WILLIS ROBERTSON, Secretary. THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, Chairman, Committee on Banking and Currency, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your letter of March 30, 1960, requesting the views of this Department on S. 3278, a bill to amend section 701 of the Housing Act of 1954 (relating to urban planning grants), and title II of the Housing Amendments of 1955 (relating to public facility loans), to assist State and local governments and their public instrumentalities in improving mass transportation services in metropolitan areas. The congressional policy in the subject bill recognizes a responsibility in the Federal Government to assist States and political subdivisions in planning and establishing mass transport in connection with other land uses. Section 2 authorizes assistance in solving planning problems, facilities comprehensive planning ona continuing basis, and encourage establishment of planning staffs. It also authorizes the Administrator of the Housing and Home Finance Agency to encourage (a) planning to determine mass transport needs; (b) coordination of planning activities of agencies regulating or providing mass transport; and (c) studies concerning the interrelationship between transport and other land uses. Section 3 authorizes grants to finance public projects, also facilities and equipment for mass transport with a limitation of $100 million. It stipulates that interest on such grants shall be determined by the Administrator limited to an amount not to exceed one-quarter of 1 percent per annum added to the rate of interst paid by the Administrator on funds obtained from the Secretary of the Treasury. A priority for approving plans based on their workability and pressing need is established. Issuance of notes and other obligations to the Secretary of Treasury in an amount not to exceed $100 million is authorized. Interest rates on notes at the average annual rates on all interest-bearing obligations to be determined by the Secretary of the Treasury. This Department would not favor the enactment of S. 3278. In the field of planning the subject bill attempts to cover a field already provided with more extensive financial resources than any provided in the Housing and Home Finance Agency. The bill at the same time would encourage concentration of that Agency in transportation planning to the possible neglect of more pressing planning needs for which it is responsible. The purpose of section 701 was to provide incentives for general land use and other general community plans. It would seem more appropriate for the section 701 grants to be adminis tered in such a way as to concentrate on the more general aspects of planning such as land use. Transportation planning is now conducted under the planning grants to States in accordance with present Federal-aid highway legislation. Up to 1% percent of highway apportionments to each State may be used for planning and this has provided considerable funds for many outstanding transportation plans in metropolitan areas. This Department would favor improved coordination with HHFA planning. The "Federal Transportation Policy and Program" issued in March by this Department in enunciating the Federal role stated that "The Government should encourage local authorities to do more long-range land-use planning, in which transportation has a critical part." The Federal role is supported by the following recommendations: "49. Encourage urban long-range community planning including total transportation planning to make full use of highway, transit, rail commutation, and all other capacity to minimize total transportation cost and congestion, in full coordination with activities under the Housing Act of 1949 as amended. *** "50. With local communities and the same coordination, investigate basic approaches to such plans and their financing. Methods might include amendment of existing highway legislation to allow charges on city highway gateways to help divert auto commuter travel to mass transport means, higher community parking fees to help similarly, diversion of such funds to pay for other transport facilities, etc. **** The portions of the bill dealing with direct loans at subsidy rates of interest do not deal in any precise way with the specific rapid transit problems in the several major metropolitan areas where rapid transit is a relevant means of transportation. For example, the commuter losses of the railroads and their desire to discontinue such service is a basic cause of difficulty in several communities, particularly in New York and northern New Jersey, as well as Philadelphia. These communities have been engaged in a search for means of aiding their commuter railroads meet operating deficits. In some of the publicly owned transit systems, operating deficits also pose as much a problem as the need for capital. This Department takes the position that the mass transit problem is basically one for cooperation between the communities involved and the carriers, whether publicly or privately owned. The entire spectrum of costs, both capital and operating, is relevant, and the situations may vary significantly from area to area. Encouraging gains have been made in the processes of community carrier cooperation but no set pattern has evolved. The bill would make more difficult the coordination of transportation planning. In any provisions for transportation planning, the integral connection between planning for mass transit and highways should be preserved. Under the highway planning grants there are successful examples of such coordinated plans, and the principle could be further extended. Furthermore, the bill would place a large transport loan function in an agency outside the transport complex of the executive branch without the means of coordination with the mass transportation potential of the railroad industry. The Bureau of the Budget advises that it would not object to the submittal of this report to your committee. However, the Bureau suggests that the enclosed letter from the Bureau of the Budget to the Secretary of Commerce accompany this report. Sincerely yours, PHILIP A. RAY, Under Secretary of Commerce. EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, BUREAU OF THE BUDGET, Washington, D.C., May 27, 1960. The Honorable the SECRETARY OF COMMERCE (Attention of F. Bourne Upham, III). MY DEAR MR. SECRETARY: This will acknowledge Under Secretary Ray's letter of May 20, 1960, transmitting copies of a proposed report to the Senate committee on Banking and Currency on S. 3278, a bill to amend section 701 of the Housing Act of 1954 (relating to urban planning grants), and title II of the Housing Amendment of 1955 (relating to public facility loans), to assist State and local governments and their public instrumentalities in improving mass transportation services in metropolitan areas. In its proposed report, the Department objects to section 2 of S. 3278 primarily on the ground that it would remove mass transit planning from its integral connection with highway planning by authorizing the use of urban planning grants by the Housing and Home Finance Agency for this purpose. The Department contends that these needs are already amply financed from planning grants to States under present Federal-aid highway legislation and, therefore, recommends that the more limited resources available to the Housing and Home Finance Agency be concentrated on preparation of basic land-use plans. The Bureau of the Budget concurs with the view expressed to the committee by the Housing and Home Finance Agency and the National Capital Planning Commission that general transportation planning by local communities is a logical and essential part of comprehensive community planning. The responsibility for Federal assistance for such comprehensive community planning was vested in the Housing and Home Finance Agency in 1954 legislation and this role was strengthened by 1959 amendments supported by the administration. Preparation of urban arterial highway plans, which carry out features of the general transportation plan, however, can properly be assisted by funds available under the Federal-aid highway program. The very limited use thus far of such funds to help finance mass transit planning can perhaps be expanded. While there is no objection to the submission to the committee of such report as you may deem appropriate, you may wish to reconsider the contents in the light of the foregoing considerations. In the circumstance, and particularly in view of the limited time available for further consideration, we would appreciate your transmitting a copy of this letter to the committee with your report. Sincerely yours, PHILLIP S. HUGHES, Assistant Director for Legislative Reference. (The following was subsequently received for the record:) PUBLIC HOUSING ADMINISTRATION, Mr. JAMES B. CASH, Jr., Staff Director, Subcommittee on Housing, DEAR MR. CASH: This is responsive to Mr. Carl Coan's telephone request that we furnish the committee with a statement of the agency's current policy regarding construction cost and the use of slum sites for low-rent housing. Mr. Coan made particular reference to an administrative ceiling of $17,000 per unit for total development cost. There is no ceiling for development cost in the low-rent program. The act, as you know, in section 15(5) provides for certain room cost limitations, which are exclusive of the cost of land, demolition, and nondwelling facilities. The act also in section 15 (5) prohibits elaborate design and material for lowrent housing projects and requires that economy be promoted in their construction and, in section 10(b), requires that annual contributions be strictly limited. To give effect to these laws, the agency's current policy is that the design and material used for low-rent projects conform with what is being done by private builders in the locality for middle income housing, taking into consideration the economic use of the site. We believe that if this policy is complied with construction costs will never reach $17,000 per unit for any project. Recent bidding in various localities. including Chicago, where the policy has been complied with, confirms this belief. We also find strong support for our opinion in plans initiated at Philadelphia in recent years. Under one of these plans the local authority undertook to provide low-rent housing through the acquisition and rehabilitation of individual row houses. Total cost per unit under this plan would be approximately $10,000. In another plan the local authority made arrangements to purchase new row housing from a local homebuilder at a cost of approximately $12.000 per unit. Unfortunately, both of these plans have been temporarily stopped by litigation. The agency also has no regulation against the use of slum sites for low-rent housing. The general policy of conforming with local practices with respect to middle income housing would preclude the use of slum sites for row housing or other low-rise type of construction where the cost of the site was prohibitive. The answer to the problem of using expensive slum sites for low-rise construction in the low-rent program appears to be the utilization of urban renewal project land. The Housing Act of 1959, as you know, provides in section 411 that urban renewal land be made available for low-rent housing at a price equal to the fair value of land to a private redeveloper who wants to buy a site in the community for private rental housing with characteristics similar to those of lowrent projects. While this law, by its language, is applicable only to land acquired subsequent to the date of its enactment, Commissioner Walker of the Urban Renewal Administration agrees that the pricing of urban renewal land for low-rent housing should be equitable, whether it be acquired before or after the enactment of the Housing Act of 1959. However, neither the Urban Renewal Administration nor this agency may force a locality to utilize urban renewal land for low-rent housing purposes. To date there have been few cases where localities have been willing to locate low-rent housing projects on urban renewal project sites. Please inform us if you require further information. We suggest that a copy of this letter be placed in the record of the hearings. Sincerely yours, (See p. 399 for reference.) LAWRENCE DAVERN, General Counsel. Senator CLARK. If there are no further witnesses to be heard, the hearings will be closed. The record will remain open until noon on May 28, 1960. Mr. ARRINGTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, subject to the call of the chairman.) |