Reston, the developer there, had to bring in help and take a partner, or he might have been in trouble. Mr. REUSS. So what you are saying about Park Forest is that Federal assistance was used? Mr. KRAMER. Yes; it was a peculiar type at the time. Mr. REUSS. What you say about Reston and Columbia, it is the Connecticut General, is it? Mr. KRAMER. Gulf Oil on the other hand. Mr. REUSS. They are few and far between and they just are not helpful. Mr. KRAMER. That is correct. There just aren't any. Mr. REUSS. In speaking of the income distribution of the people at Prairie Shores, how much do the rentals and amenities in the apartments there vary? Mr. KRAMER. First of all, I would like to preface my remarks by saying that Prairie Shores was built for a dual purpose. One was to provide a decent atmosphere to the periphery of Michael Reese Hospital because this slum was choking it. The other was to provide housing for staff-married interns and residents as well as nurses and medical technicians. So our purpose right from the start had been to keep the rentals as low as possible. There was no 221 (d) (3) in those days. This was a section 220 project and our rentals could have been very much higher than they are. We started in at rentals of $32 per room per month at a time when there was nothing being built in Chicago in multistory buildings, certainly at less than $45 per room per month, so even today-and costs have gone up in operation since this was built, even today our rentals range from $35 to $38 per room per month. Mr. REUSS. By and large, the wealthy people with income over $10,000 a year live in the same apartments and pay the same rent as the people with incomes below $5,000 a year? Mr. KRAMER. That is correct. Actually, in our tenant selection policy, we purposely keep down the number of high income people, because that wasn't the reason it was built. On the other hand, we would like to have a diversity. Mr. REUSS. One more question. You do not mention Prairie Shores as evidence of the need for the new towns? Mr. KRAMER. No; not at all. Just evidence that economic-that diverse economic groups can live together. Mr. REUSS. As I think you pointed out, further Praire Shores projects, which I think are excellent, can be helped by 221(d) (3), the new town proposal is not addressed to this problem. Mr. KRAMER. Not at all, you are absolutely right. Mr. REUSS. Thank you. Mr. BARRETT. Thank you, Mr. Kramer, for a very excellent statement, and we are certainly glad to have you here this morning. I am sure Congress has learned much from the testimony. Mr. KRAMER. Thank you. Mr. BARRETT. At this point in the record I will ask unanimous consent to put in the record a number of statements sent to the subcommittee pertaining to the legislation before us. No. 1. Letters to Chairman Patman and me from Russell I. Thackpy, executive director of the National Association of State Universis and Land-Grant Colleges, and John F. Morse, director of the Com mission on Federal Relations, American Council on Education, expressing concern over the inadequacy of funds available for college housing loans and expressing an interest in testifying when the banking committee or the housing subcommittee considers legislation affecting the college housing loan program. No. 2. A letter from Robert G. Davidson, executive director of the metropolitan area planning council in Massachusetts in support of H.R. 12946. No. 3. A letter from Mr. Howard B. Noonan, chairman of the board of the Kissell Co. in Springfield, Ohio. Mr. Noonan supports the demonstration cities bill in his capacity as chairman of the Springfield Committee for Community Action Now. No. 4. A letter from Mr. S. Frank Raftery, general president of the Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators & Paperhangers of America, in support of H.R. 13064 and endorsing Boris Shishkin's testimony and recommendations in his statement to the committee for the AFL-CIO. No. 5. A statement in support of the Demonstration Cities Act by the Honorable George S. Smith, M.D., mayor of the city of Easton, Pa. The mayor makes a very fine statement in support of the bill. No. 6. An excellent statement in support of the Demonstration Cities Act by Hon. Stanford R. Brookshire, mayor of the city of Charlotte, N.C. We are most pleased to have the mayor's views and his expression of support. No. 7. A letter from the city clerk of the city of Scranton, Pa., expressing his full support and endorsement of the city council of Scranton for the demonstration cities bill and expressing the concurrence of the city council with the splendid statement and endorsement which the committee has already received from Hon. James J. Walsh, mayor of Scranton. No. 8. A telegram from Mr. William H. Ryan, president of the District 44, International Association of Machinists, Aerospace Workers urging the subcommittee to incorporate into this year's housing legislation provisions which will clarify the law to commit the Government to the orderly and expeditious acquisition of homes of such adversely affected employees as a cost element in the closing of such Federal installations. (The material referred to follows:) NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE UNIVERSITIES AND LAND-GRANT COLLEGES, Washington, D.C., March 21, 1966. Hon. WRIGHT PATMAN, Chairman, House Committee on Banking and Currency, Washington, D.C. Chairman, Subcommittee on Housing, House Banking and Currency Committee, DEAR FRIENDS: I am writing on behalf of the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges to call your attention to a most serious situation with respect to the college housing loan program, and to request permission for the association to present testimony at an appropriate time. As of January 31 of this year the then Community Facilities Administration, which administers the college housing program, announced that it would receive no new applications for college housing loans. For applications already on file a rationing system was instituted, limiting loans to any one campus to $4 million, with not more than one-fourth of this for related service facilities. As of the cutoff date approximately $800 million in loan applications were on hand. Had receipt of applications continued through the current fiscal year it is estimated that the total would be approximately $1.1 billion, of which $192 million represented a carryover from fiscal 1965 of applications which could not be funded that year. It thus seems clear that even with all applications shut off as of January 31 of this year, the program will go into fiscal 1967 with an unmet backlog of applica tions on hand of perhaps $500 million and an additional $300 million which might have come in had applications not been cut off. Allowing for some "fallout” due to private sales, changes in plans, etc., it is conservative to say that the program will enter the new fiscal year with a backlog on hand of at least $400 million. The 1967 fiscal year budget recommends limiting the program for that year to $300 million. Thus it would appear that the agency will not be in position to accept any new applications until, at the earliest, late in the 1967 fiscal year, or more than a year from now. The budget message proposes: (1) That the new borrowing authority now fixed in law as of the next 3 fiscal years, at $300 million a year, be eliminated. (2) That the program be limited to $300 million in the coming fiscal year. (3) That $800 million in existing obligations held by the Treasury be sold through a "Fannie May pool" operation with, I assume, $300 million of this made available for new loans for fiscal 1967. For the current fiscal year, new borrowing authority is fixed at $300 million. and the program is being held to this amount, although there is in the Treasury in excess of $200 million in previous loan repayments, which were intended to constitute a revolving fund from which additional loans could be made. Use of this fund would permit a $500 million rather than a $300 million program for the current year, and permit that many more badly needed student housing spaces to be provided at least a year earlier than they will otherwise be provided, if they are provided. For the 1967 fiscal year, the proposal to eliminate new borrowing authority, not use the revolving fund of more than $200 million, and sell $800 million in existing obligations but use only $300 million for new loans, would in effect close down the program as far as approval of new applications are concerned until some time after July 1, 1968. Meanwhile college enrollments are at an all-time high, larger high school classes are graduating each year, the cold war GI bill will swell enrollments of returning servicemen-provided they can get in. Our association is sensitive to and sympathetic with the budgetary problems related to Vietnam, the pressures of inflation, etc. We feel that the method of financing the program is a matter for decision by the executive and legislative branches. We are greatly concerned, however, that a reasonably adequate program be provided. According to the best information we can get, the reduction in the interest rate for the college housing loan program made by the Congress last year has not been a major factor in the excess of application demand over the $300 million to which the program is now limited. In this connection we note that $192 million in applications was carried over from fiscal 1965 to fiscal 1966, indicating that-without the 3-percent feature-demand was already substantially in excess of the $300 million level. We trust that the Congress, in passing on the proposed changes in law, will also wish to assure itself that a reasonably adequate and continuing program is provided for, and wish to offer testimony at the appropriate time. Sincerely, RUSSELL I. THACKREY, AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION, Hon. WRIGHT PATMAN, Chairman, Committee on Banking and Currency, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Hon. WILLIAM A. BARRETT, Chairman, Subcommittee on Housing, Committee on Banking and Currency. U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR : Yesterday Mr. Russell Thackrey, executive director of the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, wrote to you and Mr. Barrett the concern of that association with the situation which now prevails in college housing. May I say that the American Council on Education, which numbers among its membership 1,194 colleges and universities and 231 education organizations, has the same concerns and for precisely the same reasons as were expressed to you by Mr. Thackrey. At a meeting of our Commission on Federal Relations February 28 this whole problem was discussed in detail. It was the view of the commission that the ability of colleges and universities to absorb the greatly increased numbers of students who will be seeking admission is already severely crippled by a shortage in college housing and that unless some solution is found the situation will soon be of crisis proportions. I have discussed with Mr. Thackrey his request that the national association be permitted to present testimony at an appropriate time. Since both the association and the council are faced with the same inexorable facts, there would seem little point in our presenting separate testimony. I have suggested to him, therefore, that the council join with the association in presenting joint testimony. I hope that this approach will be satisfactory to you. Sincerely yours, JOHN F. MORSE, Director of the Commission. Hon. WILLIAM A. BARRETT, THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, DEAR CONGRESSMAN BARRETT: I am sending along a resolution which was recently adopted by the membership of the Metropolitan Area Planning Council. You will see that it relates to H.R. 12946, the urban development bill which is currently before your subcommittee. As you may know, the Metropolitan Area Planning Council was established by the Massachusetts Legislature in 1963 to represent the 79 cities and towns in the Boston standard metropolitan statistical area. This area has a population of over 21⁄2 million. Obviously, this area and these communities have a vital stake in responsible planning efforts. The incentives that H.R. 12946 holds out for this kind of activity, makes it a worthy and desirable piece of legislation. I hope your committee will take favorable action on this vital measure. Respectfully yours, ROBERT G. DAVIDSON, Executive Director. RESOLUTION Whereas the Metropolitan Area Planning Council has since its inception been working toward a comprehensive development plan for its district, and has acted to coordinate the efforts of the individual cities and towns within that district; and Whereas President Lyndon B. Johnson said in his recent state of the Union message: "The powerful forces of urban growth threaten to overwhelm efforts to achieve orderly development. A metropolitan plan should be an instrument for shaping sound urban growth-not a neglected document"; and Whereas H.R. 12946, known as the urban development bill and currently before the Congressional Committee on Banking and Currency, provides much needed incentives for effectuating plans by means of offering supplementary grants of 20 percent in addition to other Federal assistance for projects in metropolitan areas which have established areawide, comprehensive planning programs: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council, That the council endorses and urges appropriate financing to fulfill the objectives of H.R. 12946, and favorable action on this measure because of its crucial importance to this area and because it generally encourages responsible planning efforts. 60-878-66-pt. 2—28 Hon. WILLIAM A. BARRETT, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing, THE KISSELL CO., Springfield, Ohio, March 14, 1966. House of Representatives Office Building, Washington, D.C. MY DEAR MR. BARRETT: I am writing to thank you, both in my capacity as chairman of the Springfield Committee for Community Action Now, as well as personally, for having extended to the representatives from our city the oppor tunity to appear before your committee last week to testify as to how desirable we feel that the proposed demonstration cities bill is. As chairman of this citizens' committee, I hope that we speak on behalf of the entire population of Spirngfield, representing all interests-business, labor, and many civil groups. We feel there is tremendous merit in the proposed bill, and speaking for Springfield, I can assure you of our wholehearted backing and enthusiastic support. We are doing everything we can to demonstrate our needs, and to come up with the broad planning which we feel is necessary to permit us to be considered. Once again, please let me thank you for your courtesy and consideration in permitting our city officials to testify. Very truly yours, HOWARD B. NOONAN, COMMITTEE FOR COMMUNITY ACTION Now MEMBERSHIP LIST Howard B. Noonan, commitee chairman, chairman of the board of directors, the Kissell Co. Robert C. Acton, attorney, Acton, Dunn & Ronemus. Edward Coleman, president, Olan Mills, Inc. Bitner Browne, attorney, Martin, Browne, Hull & Harper. Robert S. Hamilton, executive vice president and general manager, Springfield Newspapers, Inc. Loren G. Schultz, managing editor, Springfield News & Sun. Alvin McGregor, president, Robbins & Meyers. Rev. Kay M. Glaesner, pastor, St. John's Lutheran Church. Dr. John N. Stauffer, president, Wittenberg University. Joseph Shouvlin, president, Bauer Bros. Co. Reed Robertson, president, Robertson Sign Co. Robert Yontz, master of ceremonies, radio station WBLY. H. D. Crabtree, president, Springfield Labor Council. PROPOSED STATEMENT OF PURPOSES 1. To engage public concern in finding and achieving solutions to the urgent problems of our urban community. 2. To stimulate action by appropriate agencies, both public and private, in planning and executing needed projects. 3. To use all possible resources, both private and public, to accomplish this objective. 4. To seek immediately a creative and courageous program to rebuild the core area of Springfield, as a first step in dynamic urban improvement. BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS, DECORATORS, AND Hon. WILLIAM A. BARRETT, Chairman, Housing Subcommittee, House Committee on Banking and Currency, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN BARRETT: This letter is in support of the urban develop ment amendments as introduced by you under H.R. 13065. I have read with keen interest the testimony of Mr. Boris Shishkin, at which time he testified before the committee on behalf of the AFL-CIO and I herewith |