Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

writedown of slum clearance costs as other proposed new uses under an urban renewal plan; that every effort should be made to retire housing authority bonds as soon as possible, and that relocation payments should be made a part of the public housing program on the same basis as they are made for clearance activities under the urban renewal program.

We also think that public housing agencies should be made eligible to sponsor housing projects such as those provided under the direct loan program for senior citizens, and the FHA below-market interest rate program for moderate-income families. While we think Congress should maintain the existing statutory provisions prohibiting the use of costly or extravagant materials, we think the cost limitation per room should be eliminated.

In measuring unit cost or project cost, there should be no limit on the cost of land, providing it meets proper appraisals. Land acquisition should be separated from the project cost itself.

An even greater handicap upon our public housing program in Philadelphia, and in many other communities, I am sure, as well, is the administrative limit placed on the total development cost on a per unit basis. This means that regardless of the size of the unit constructed, development cost limit is the same. The result is that the most needed units, those for large families, and there is a trend. toward large families today, cannot be built, while the limit on oneroom units for the elderly is needlessly high.

We believe the administration's proposal to permit local housing authorities to make greater use of existing housing through leasepurchase and rehabilitation of private units to be an important innovation in the public housing program.

Philadelphia is proud to be one of the first communities in the country to demonstrate the utility of this approach. Despite legal obstacles which delayed the program in the area in which it was first applied, the Philadelphia Housing Authority has acquired as of this date more than 100 units of rehabilitated housing of 200 authorized in that area, and is planning to develop as many as 500 more in another. The first study of the program in action by our housing authority has been more than gratifying. Not only have we been able to supply larger units to needy families, but we have found that the additional maintenance responsibilities given the tenants of these units have encouraged the growth of the kind of pride and interest in their homes so necessary to taking up the full responsibility of living in private housing in the future.

This is an experiment which has paid off in one of the dividends by helping the general welfare of the community and at the same time preventing further blight.

Surveys conducted among private residents living near the existing housing units show almost complete acceptance of their public housing neighbors, and many residents have stated that the rehabilitation of houses by the authority has definitely improved their neighborhood.

It is our hope in Philadelphia that this program for the use of existing dwellings will become a major part of a more flexible public housing program, utilizing every means available to serve those the private market cannot reach at all.

This year more than a million acres of the American landscape will be converted to subdivisions, shopping centers, highways, indus

trial plants, and other needs of an increasingly urbanized and industrialized nation. Our reservation of open space, immediately accessible to urban areas, is simply not keeping pace with our tremendous urban growth.

The Administration proposes to authorize appropriations without dollar limit for additional grants for the urban open space program. We strongly favor this provision but would call upon the Congress to increase the grant ratio substantially over 20 percent, in the case of purely local-type programs; and more than 30 percent, in the case of metropolitan or regional programs. We know, out of hard experience, that increasing the ratios in this manner would provide considerably more incentive to the local governments to acquire needed open space land in amounts commensurate with the obvious needs.

We would further like to suggest that, in order to stimulate the development of badly needed parks, playgrounds, and open space in the older neighborhoods in our central cities, the urban renewal law be amended so that the full cost of acquiring, clearing, and preparing improved land for recreational use would be considered as a part of the gross project cost regardless of the extent to which they serve a particular urban renewal project.

This would, in effect, mean that all lands acquired for recreational purposes in an urban renewal area would be donated to the community.

There has been much talk about new communities. Included as a part of title II of the Administration's Housing and Community Development Act of 1964 are some new approaches to the very difficult problem of trying to assure the orderly growth of our exploding metropolitan areas.

The rapidly rising population confronting built-up cities and towns requires us to take measures to provide for needed housing and public facilities without the wasteful sprawl and disorganization which has characterized much recent suburban development.

Indeed, we mayors have supported and continue to support areawide urban planning and open space programs which will help in directing orderly urban progress. In Philadelphia, we have actively sought and obtained the cooperation of neighboring jurisdictions, through well-planned organizations and other groups that are interested in regional planning and in anticipating future problems resulting from metropolitan growth.

I am certain the members of this committee appreciate, however, that a "new towns" concept may have far-reaching implications with regard to the future of our older cities and towns. As mayor of one such big city in America I would like to be sure that any proposal furthering such a concept would not undermine the economic or social well-being of the existing central city. I would also want to be certain that the new communities would provide for all economic levels and social groups so as to assure that they would provide a free and democratic environment.

The conference of mayors believes that local government officials need more time to examine this proposal in detail. We are studying it now and hope to give it full discussion within our meetings in the immediate future.

We do not want undue delay in considering this program for we know that new towns are now being planned. We hope, therefore, to have positive, well-developed recommendations on this subject shortly, which we can submit for the consideration of the committee.

We have some reference to the Federal-State training program and, of course, this is under special consideration by the committee and we do endorse it.

There is no question but that a great need exists for the special training of individuals working in such areas of local concern as community development, planning, housing, public works, housing and building code enforcement, urban transportation and the like. Almost every city in the Nation is experiencing personnel shortages in those fields.

We therefore welcome the Administration's proposals to initiate this Federal-State training program in these important urban fields. We believe that, once underway, this program can make an important contribution to the more effective and harmonious operation of State and local governments.

In conclusion, I should again like to congratulate the Administration on the very detailed and comprehensive piece of legislation it has prepared for the consideration of this committee and the Congress. Together with its bill establishing a Department of Housing and Community Development, and the urban mass transportation bill, already approved by this committee, we have a good prescription for many of the developmental ailments today hampering our urban communities. On behalf of both the conference of mayors and the people of Philadelphia, I thank you, gentlemen, for your attention.

If you do have any questions I will be very glad to answer them. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I am going to summarize my statement, and request that the full version also be included in the hearing record.

Mr. RAINS. Your statement may be included in the record. (The statement referred to may be found on p. 537.)

Hon. ALBERT RAINS,

UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF MAYORS,

Washington, D.C., March 13, 1964.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Housing,
House Committee on Banking and Currency,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In compliance with your request for further information with respect to the interest of local communities in the urban renewal program, we are pleased to forward such material herewith.

For inclusion in the record of the subcommittee's hearings on housing and urban renewal legislation, the United States Conference of Mayors submits herewith a copy of a report, "Urban Renewal and the Local Business Community," on a mail poll of mayors of cities with populations of 30,000 and over.

The report, which records responses to a conference questionnaire about attitude of local chambers of commerce to application of the Federal urban renewal program in their communities, is intended to supplement testimony before your subcommittee February 26 by Mayor James H. J. Tate, of Philadelphia, a member of the conference's advisory board.

As is indicated on the first page of the report, this information was requested from the mayors just 3 weeks ago today and therefore many responses have not yet reached this office. It is our intention to issue a report covering all responses received after the inquiry has been out for 4 or 5 weeks. We will be pleased to forward to you and the members of your subcommittee a copy of this final report, but we did want to get the report attached to you for inclusion in the printed hearings.

During the course of Mayor Tate's appearance before your subcommittee the question was raised as to the size of cities represented in the United States Conference of Mayors. Conference membership is limited to cities of 30,000 population and over. There are 585 such cities; 130 of these have populations of over 100,000; 180 have populations of 50,000 to 100,000; and 275 have populations of 30,000 to 50,000. We also thought you might be interested in knowing that in arranging our business program for the 1964 annual conference of mayors, which will convene in New York City in late May, we queried all eligible cities as to the matters they wanted on the agenda. The three items which received the highest response indicated that the mayors were primarily concerned with planning and execution of projects for the renewal of downtown areas, the role of the city administration in industrial development, and general urban renewal.

Sincerely,

JOHN J. GUNTHER, Executive Director.

STATEMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF MAYORS,
WASHINGTON, D.C.

URBAN RENEWAL AND THE LOCAL BUSINESS COMMUNITY

(A report on a mail poll of mayors of the 585 cities with populations of 30,000 population and over by the United States Conference of Mayors on attitudes of local chambers of commerce toward the Federal urban renewal program.)

The questionnaire

On February 21, 1964, mayors of the 585 cities with populations of 30,000 and over were asked to report on the extent of local "business support and involvement in the urban renewal program" in their communities. The poll was undertaken by the Conference of Mayors in all cities eligible for membership in the conference.

Noting "a vigorous campaign undertaken by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce against urban renewal," the questionnaire letters asked whether local chambers of commerce had taken official positions on urban renewal issues and if so, how their support or opposition had been expressed.

Responses

As of March 25, 1964, replies to the questionnaires had been received at conference headquarters from 220 cities-big and small. The list of those responding runs across the population range:

One hundred and forty-seven have populations between 30,000 and 100,000.

Fifty have populations between 100,000 and 300,000.

Nineteen have populations between 300,000 and 2 million.
Four have populations of more than 2 million.

The returns in the poll showed that

In 156 of the 220 cities, local chambers of commerce endorsed and actively supported urban renewal programs.

In 5 of the 220 cities, local chambers of commerce were on record in opposition to urban renewal.

In 59 of the 220 cities, local chambers of commerce had taken no positions on urban renewal.

Many of the mayors who reported uncommitted attitudes by local chambers also noted repeated instances in which other industry organizations and local business leaders, closely allied with their chambers, had actively participated in community committees supporting renewal projects.

In support

Reports from the cities on local chamber support of urban renewal were accompanied by signed statements and other documentary evidence of that support. This is a sampling from the responses:

Cleveland (Curtis Lee Smith, president, Cleveland Chamber of Commerce): "As an officer of the Cleveland Development Foundation since its formation in 1954, we have encouraged the development of Cleveland's urban renewal program."

Nashville and Davidson County (Mayor Beverly Briley): The local chamber has "supported urban renewal in every facet.'

Pasadena, Calif. (John E. McCarthy, manager, Pasadena Chamber of Commerce): "This chamber strongly supports the local redevelopment project and was instrumental in having the local agency established."

Waterbury, Conn. (Mayor Joseph F. McNellis): "The Greater Waterbury Chamber of Commerce has been and continues to be an ardently strong supporter of urban renewal."

Modesto, Calif. (Cleveland Stockton, president, Greater Modesto Chamber of Commerce): "The Greater Modesto Chamber of Commerce endorses the action of the city council in establishing a redevelopment agency. The need for urban renewal is not concentrated in any single section, and the problem affects every citizen of the city." Vallejo, Calif. (Mayor Florence E. Douglas): "Our urban renewal program has had the complete support of our chamber of commerce." Salem, Oreg. (chamber policy resolution): "The Salem Area Chamber of Commerce supports the concept of urban renewal." Alexandria, Va. (City Manager Albert M. Hair, Jr.): “The local chamber has "gone on record in support of the renewal program." Minneapolis (Mayor Arthur Naftalin): "Our chamber of commerce is enthusiastically in support of our program of urban redevelopment, including urban renewal and public housing."

Lynn, Mass. (Mayor M. Henry Wall): "We have had the backing of the chamber of commerce and other local business in planning our urban renewal program."

Long Beach, Calif. (chamber policy resolution): "The board of directors of the Long Beach Chamber of Commerce has voted unanimously to endorse the creation of an urban redevelopment agency in the city of Long Beach.”

Watertown, N.Y. (Manager Ronald G. Forbes): "The local chamber actively support the program with an urban renewal committee."

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »