Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

of the cost of urban-renewal projects whenever actual relocation expenses are less than that amount.

We would not object, however, to legislation that would permit higher relocation payments, where justified, in States that provide, through amendment to State law or constitution where necessary, for a normal local contribution to this type of project cost. If this is done, the Federal share of the entire pay

ment in each case would be two-thirds.

Such payments could be part of a consistent Federal approach to relocation payments in all federally assisted programs, in recognition of the fact that the problem is far wider than the urban-renewal program itself. This approach would be especially helpful to those large businesses which might have relocation costs in excess of the $5,000 limitation proposed in S. 3042.

We have been informed by the Bureau of the Budget that this report is without objection insofar as the Bureau is concerned.

Sincerely yours,

NORMAN P. MASON, Administrator.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT,

May 1, 1960.

Hon. A. WILLIS ROBERTSON,

Chairman, Committee on Banking and Currency,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your request for the views of this Department on S. 3042, to amend the laws relating to mortgage insurance, urban renewal authorization and relocation payments.

Section 1 of the bill would permit a reduction in the insurance premium to not less than one-fourth of 1 percent of the outstanding principal of housing mortgages insured under sections 207 (rental housing), 213 (cooperative housing), 220 (urban renewal housing), and 221 (relocation housing) of the National Housing Act. While the proposed reduction in insurance premiums would presumably be discretionary, the Department is of the opinion that insurance premiums should be maintained at a level sufficient to cover operating and administrative expenses and provide adequate reserves for the payment of insurance claims. Also, we would like to point out that the adoption of the proposal could bring about demands for similar premium reductions in other housing insurance programs.

Section 2 of the bill would increase from $100 million to $200 million the socalled extender fund under section 106 (e) of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended, which fund is available to States which have exhausted their share of existing urban renewal grant allocations. Since under present section 103 (a) of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended, an additional $300 million in capital grants will become automatically available on July 1, 1960, the proposed increase in the extender fund would not appear necessary.

Section 3 of the bill would increase urban renewal relocation payments from $200 to $500 for families and from $3,000 to $5,000 for business concerns. However, all of the first $200 and $3,000 of the increased amounts would continue to be paid through Federal grants. In that connection, the contribution of the Federal Government is limited in other respects to two-thirds of the net cost of urban-renewal projects and the President has in the past recommended that in accordance with the predominantly local benefits received, States and cities should be required to assume a gradually increasing share of the expense of buying and improving land and of other net project costs. Consequently, the Department is of the opinion that the Federal share of any relocation payments that are provided should be limited to two-thirds or less of the amount of the payments.

The Department has been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection to the submission of this report to your committee.

Very truly yours,

JULIAN B. BAIRD, Acting Secretary of the Treasury.

[S. 3148, 86th Cong., 2d sess.]

MR. KEFAUVER

A BILL To amend title I of the Housing Act of 1949 to provide for the disposition for historical site purposes of certain real property acquired in urban renewal areas

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That title I of the Housing Act of 1949 is amended by adding at the end thereof a new section as follows:

"HISTORICAL SITES

"SEC. 113. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, a project may include the donation to any public or private nonprofit organization of any real property, not exceeding one acre in size, acquired in an urban renewal area, if (1) the local governing body certifies, and the Administrator finds, that the property has historical significance of general interest, (2) such property is to be preserved, restored, or otherwise developed as a historical site or monument and is to be operated on a nonrofit basis, and (3) the use of such property as a historical site or monument is not inconsistent with the urban renewal plan for the project.

"(b) Any contract with a local public agency which was executed under this title before the effective date of this section may be amended to carry out the purposes of this section."

S. 3148

DIGEST OF BILL

Amends title I of the Housing Act of 1949 to permit the donation of not to exceed 1 acre of land in an urban renewal area to any public or private nonprofit organization if—

The local governing body certifies and the Administrator of the HHFA finds that such property has historical significance of general interest:

Such property is to be preserved, restored, or otherwise developed as historical site or monument and is to be operated on a nonprofit basis; and The use of the land as a historical site or monument is not inconsistent with the urban renewal plan.

Permits this new provision to be retroactive for any urban renewal project executed prior to enactment of the bill.

Re S. 3148, 86th Congress.

HOUSING AND HOME FINANCE AGENCY,
OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR,
Washington, D.C., May 6, 1960.

Hon. A. WILLIS ROBERTSON,

Chairman, Committee on Banking and Currency,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in further reply to your letter of March 10 requesting the views of this Agency on S. 3148, a bill to amend title I of the Housing Act of 1949 to provide for the disposition for historical site purposes of certain real property acquired in urban renewal areas.

This bill would allow a local public agency undertaking an urban renewal project to donate to any public or private nonprofit organization up to 1 acre of land acquired in the project area. The local governing body would have to certify, and the Administrator find, that (1) the property has historical significance of general interest; (2) it is to be preserved, restored, or otherwise de veloped as an historical site or monument and is to be operated on a nonprofit basis; and (3) such use of the property is not inconsistent with the urban renewal plan for the project.

The preservation of outstanding historical sites is, of course, a very worthwhile objective, and one which is assisted by present urban renewal legislation and regulations. At the present time a locality may designate and sell project land to a public or private agency for historic redevelopment and preservation in the same way that it designates and sells project land for any other public or

quasi-public purposes, including schools and parks. The Federal subsidy is two-thirds of the net project cost, which is the gross project cost (acquisition cost plus cost of clearance and improvements), less the proceeds from the resale of the land at its fair value.

Under S. 3148, the Federal subsidy for land to be used for historical sites would be two-thirds of the gross project cost, since there would not be any resale of the property. The Federal subsidy would therefore be increased by two-thirds of the fair value of the historical site.

It does not appear that there is any valid reason for the Federal Government to subsidize, out of urban renewal funds, land used for historical sites to a greater extent than it subsidizes land used for other public or quasi-public purposes. If an exception is made for this particular type of public reuse, the way would be paved for making many additional exceptions. Any added Federal subsidy of historical sites should be considered on its own merits, rather than by distorting the urban renewal program for this purpose. Similarly, a program of Federal subsidy for historical sites should not be distorted by the accident of whether or not the site happens to fall within an urban renewal area. In addition to these basic objections to the bill, there are several other deficiencies. Because the bill would create an exception to the rule stated in section 110 (c) (4) of the Housing Act of 1949, it would seem that it should be related to that section. Also, the very general requirement that the property have "historical significance of general interest" would be particularly difficult to administer, and the limitation to properties not exceeding 1 acre in size would be difficult to defend. These additional deficiencies arise largely from the more basic difficulty that Federal grants to preserve historical sites ought not to be provided for as an incidental part of urban renewal legislation. We have been informed by the Bureau of the Budget that this report is without objection insofar as the Bureau is concerned.

Sincerely yours,

NORMAN P. MASON, Administrator.

[S. 3226, 86th Cong., 2d sess.]

MR. SPARKMAN

A BILL To amend section 809 of the National Housing Act

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 809 of the National Housing Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection: "(g) A mortgage secured by property which is intended to provide housing for a person employed or assigned to duty at a research or development installation of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and which is located at or near such installation, where such installation was a research or development installation of one of the military departments of the United States (on or after June 13, 1956) before its transfer to the jurisdiction of such Administration, may (if the mortgage otherwise meets the requirements of this section) be insured by the Commissioner under the provisions of this section. For purposes of this subsection, (1) the terms 'Armed Forces', 'one of the military departments of the United States', 'military department', 'Secretary or his designee', and 'Secretary' when used in subsections (a) and (b) of this section, and the term 'Secretary of the Army, Navy, or Air Force' when used in section 805, shall be deemed to refer to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration or the Administrator thereof, as may be appropriate, (2) the terms 'civilian employee', 'civilians', and 'civilian personnel' as used in this section shall be deemed to refer to employees of such Administration or a contractor thereof or to military personnel assigned to duty at an installation of such Administration, and (3) the term 'military installation' when used in section 805 shall be deemed to refer to an installation of such Administration."

S. 3226

DIGEST OF BILL

Amends section 809 of the National Housing Act (special program for research and development installations) to permit essential civilian employees of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and contractors thereof, to be eligible for insured loans under that section. Also permits the Administrator of NASA to guarantee the FHA against loss on mortgages entered into by NASA employees.

HOUSING AND HOME FINANCE AGENCY,
OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR,
Washington, D.C., May 6, 1960.

Re S. 3226, 86th Congress.

Hon. A. WILLIS ROBERTSON,

Chairman, Committee on Banking and Currency,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. CHAIRMAN: This is in further reply to your March 25 request for the views of this Agency on S. 3226, a bill to amend section 809 of the National Housing Act.

The bill would add a subsection to section 809 of the National Housing Act, which at present authorizes a mortgage to be insured by the Federal Housing Administration if it is secured by property intended to provide housing for a civilian employee of a research or development installation of one of the military departments.

The new subsection would authorize mortgage insurance for property intended to provide housing for a person at a research or development installation of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, if the installation belonged to one of the military departments on or after June 13, 1956, and was later transferred to the Administration. The persons eligible for the housing would include civilian employees of the Administration or of a contractor of the Administration, and military personnel assigned to duty at the installation. The housing would be required to be located at or near the installation.

This Agency is in agreement with the purposes of the bill. The bill is deficient, however, in that it does not clearly authorize the NASA Administrator to guarantee and indemnify the FHA armed services housing mortgage insurance fund against loss on the insured mortgages. Under the provisions of section 809 it may be necessary for the FHA to require such a guarantee. Such authority on the part of NASA would seem to be implied by the bill in that it would, by reference to a provision in section 809, authorize the Federal Housing Commissioner to require the guarantee if the Commissioner determines that insurance of mortgages on the housing bill does not be reference or specific provision give the NASA Administrator the accompanying authority to make the guarantee and to indemnify the fund against loss. Similar authority was specifically given to the Secretary of Defense by section 403 (c) of the Housing Amendments of 1955, in connection with insured mortgages at military installations.

In order to remove any possible question on this authority, the bill should be clarified by adding the following sentence at the end of the proposed subsection (g): "For purposes of this subsection, the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration or his designee is authorized to guarantee and indemnify the Armed Services Housing Mortgage Insurance Fund against loss in cases where so required."

We have been informed by the Bureau of the Budget that this report is without objection insofar as the Bureau is concerned.

Sincerely yours,

NORMAN P. MASON, Administrator.

Washington, D.C.

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION,

Hon. A. WILLIS ROBERTSON,
U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR ROBERTSON: I refer to your letter dated March 21, 1960, in which you request a report from this Administration on S. 3226, a bill to amend section 809 of the National Housing Act.

The proposed amendment would serve a specialized purpose. Its objective is to make available to personnel of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration located at the George C. Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala., the same privileges that are available, generally, under section 809 of the National Housing Act, to employees of a military department located at a military research and development installation. It would also give to the Administrator of NASA certain powers necessary to effectuate the stated objective of the bill. NASA has carefully reviewed the proposed legislation. Inasmuch as it would grant certain employees at the George C. Marshall Space Flight Center the same privileges they would have enjoyed had they not been transferred from the Department of the Army. this Administration is in favor of the enactment of S. 3226. However, it should be pointed out that section 809 as amended by S. 3226 would allow the Commissioner of Housing to require a guarantee from the Administrator of NASA which the Administrator is not expressly empowered to give. The Secretary of Defense or his designee is specifically authorized to give such a guarantee in section 403 (c) of the Housing Amendments of 1955 (42 U.S.C. 1594 (c)). It is felt that the same authority should be given to the Administrator of NASA. It is suggested that this authority be made available by adding at the end of S. 3226 the following: "(4) the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration is authorized to guarantee and indemnify the Armed Services Housing Mortgage Insurance Fund in cases where so required."

The Bureau of the Budget advises that it has no objections to the submission of this report.

Sincerely yours,

JAMES P. GLEASON, Assistant Administrator for Congressional Relations.

[S. 3276, 86th Cong., 2d sess.]

MR. SPARKMAN AND OTHERS

A BILL To amend and extend the veterans' direct home loan program

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Represenatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 1811 (h) of title 38, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

"(h) Notwithstanding any limitation under section 1803 (a) of this title with respect to the eligibility of veterans of World War II for guaranteed loans after July 25, 1960, loans may be made under this section to any eligible veteran of World War II or the Korean conflict if such loan is made, or a commitment to make such loan is issued by the Administrator, prior to February 1, 1965.”

SEC. 2. (a) Section 1823 (a) of title 38, United States Code, is amended

(1) by striking out “until June 30, 1960" and inserting in lieu thereof "prior to February 1, 1965"; and

(2) by striking out "July 25, 1960" and inserting in lieu thereof "January 31, 1965".

(b) Section 1823 (c) of such title is amended by striking out "June 30, 1961" and inserting in lieu thereof "January 31, 1965".

S. 3276

DIGEST OF BILL

Extends the VA direct home loan program to February 1, 1965; and continues existing provision of law which increases loan authorization by $150 million annually.

55869-60- -5

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »