We find many things in the proposed National Housing Act to be greatly to our benefit. We also see, however, room for expansion of a number of the provisions made in the bill. We wholeheartedly approve sections 201, 212, 312, and 602-604, which set up the machinery needed to produce entire new self-sustained communities and to provide advance planning and land acquisition funds for future public facilities. The District of Columbia Federation of Citizens Associations has endorsed the year 2000 plan for the National Capital area insofar as it proposes the creation of new communities and has approved the rail and sewer corridor plan. Implementation of the year 2000 plan can mean for the District of Columbia the preservation of open spaces near the District for our enjoyment, rather than being given over to suburban sprawl and the corridor plan promises some easement of the District's transportation problems. The enumerated sections can be a great help in carrying out these proposals and we urge their passage into law. Our greatest interest in this bill is in its provisions regarding urban renewal. We believe this program, across the Nation, is at a crossroads, and that current urban renewal practices, if not improved, could lead to the complete death of this program. Let us quote from a book review appearing on pages 132 and 137 of Architectural Forum for January 1964: (The (The author) documents what everybody has known, and talked about, but seldom put into print: i.e., that urban renewal has been, in most cases, little more than a series of ad hoc actions designed to clear some land and get something (anything) built without regard to any overall community objectives. Success has been measured in terms of how much land is cleared. author) cites Cincinnati, New York, Philadelphia, and Chicago as "notable examples" of renewal (but) they are not fully "successful" *** Chicago's program has come to a near halt, much of its cleared land still unsold, and Cincinnati is in the same fix. *** Philadelphia has turned away from massive clearance *** And in New York, the biggest clearance program of all ended in a scandal. * (The book) exposes the shabby thinking that has made many urban renewal programs so inadequate to the communities' needs. To be sure, it is difficult to achieve a consensus of those needs, * * but that doesn't mean that urban renewal should never be anything more than real estate speculation-which is what it has largely been in Newark and elsewhere. *** Title I's own internal contradictions (clear slums and then try to get private builders to erect middle income housing) constitute a major difficulty. Our chief concerns in urban renewal are with encouraging rehabilitation rather than demolition, assuring adequate relocation services for businessmen and assuring adequate payments to displacees. We approve section 205, making it easier to get home improvement loans, and we, likewise, approve section 804 and that part of section 101 which recognize voluntary rehabilitation as part of urban renewal and provide greater financing for rehabilitation in urban renewal areas. However, we urge the inclusion in H.R. 9751 and S. 2468 of the provisions of section 301 and 303 of H.R. 9771. Section 301 provides that demolition projects can only proceed when rehabilitation cannot achieve the purposes of the project and provides improved financing for rehabilitation loans. Section 303 provides for a study to see whether real estate taxation policies may be used for incentives to property improvement. We note that the Housing Act does not concern itself with the shortage of trained construction workers needed for home improvement. This shortage is acute in some areas and offers a severe deter rent to property improvement. We believe that Congress ought to consider broadening sections 701 to 705, which provide matching Federal grants for training technical and professional people who will carry out Federal housing programs. This training program broadened to include construction workers themselves, will not only further the aims of Federal housing legislation but also serve in the general upgrading of skills necessary adequately to fight poverty. We approve sections 101, 305, and 406, but believe they should be considerably broadened. These sections provide relocation for individuals as well as families displaced from an urban renewal area and at least recognize the obligation owed to displaced businessmen by making an additional payment if a business is not reestablished within 1 year. However, these sections do not require that a suitable site for relocating the business be assured before the renewal project is undertaken. At least as far as retail businesses are concerned, the provisions of sections 302, 203, and 207 of H.R. 9771 ought to be adopted; these sections provide for relocation of businesses as well as residents, and for reduced rents for business displacees where necessary for continued operation, and provide for payments to businessmen of profits lost during interruption of business. We believe that the enactment of such restrictions will result, not in an expenditure of more money, but rather in the exercise of more care in displacement by local redevelopment agencies. Our aim in seeking more adequate relocation services is prompted not only by a desire for justice to be given to displaced businessmen, but also by a desire, as consumers, to continue being offered the variety of goods and services which only a healthy supply of small, independent, competing businessmen can give. We also urge inclusion in this bill of sections 201, 202, 204, 206, 208, and 209 of H.R. 9771. These sections provide more adequate compensation for property or interests in property taken or damaged in urban renewal, especially section 203 which provides for enforceability of rights to relocation and money payments. We disapprove section 307, allowing 35 percent (rather than the present 30 percent) of urban renewal activities to take place in nonresidential areas. The "creeping commercialism" of the urban renewal law is unjustified; when 70 percent of the urban residential blight in the United States has been corrected, only then will it be proper to continue this shift in emphasis. We are especially opposed to this continued change in emphasis while section 101 continues to refuse payments for business goodwill. We urge, rather, the adoption of the provison of H.R. 1598 which would specifically remove the ban on reimbursement for business goodwill. We also protest those portions of section 101 which give no payment for an interruption of business of less than 1 year, and no extra help for a business earning more than $10,000 per year displaced from an urban renewal area. As the above-quoted statement shows, many gaps and inconsistencies appear in our urban renewal law. We ask for an intensive and unbiased scrutiny to identify these gaps and recommend corrective measures. In particular, we ask for provisions in this law which would decrease the timelag between initiation of an urban renewal project and its completion, especially the lag between demolition and reconstruction. Another gap in H.R. 9751 and S. 2468 is the lack of authori zation for a publicly owned housing unit to be sold to its tenant when his income improves. Such sales can be fairly readily accomplished by the use of condominium, and we approve section 808 which would provide mortgage insurance for this and other condominium purchases. HOUSING AND HOME FINANCE AGENCY, Hon. DEL CLAWSON, House of Representatives, Dear Mr. ClaWSON: I am pleased to provide you with a listing of the local housing authorities participating in the low-rent housing program of the Public Housing Administration in California as requested in your letter of February 24. I have had a listing reproduced, which provides the number of housing units by housing authority and by community with attached explanatory notes. If I can be of any further assistance, please call upon me. Sincerely yours, ROBERT C. WEAVER, Administrator. |