most respectfully urge that your bill, H.R. 13065, and Congressman Patman's bill, H.R. 13064, be revised along the lines of Mr. Shishkin's testimony. While I convey support for these bills, I do so not only on my behalf but also for the 202,000 members affiliated with our international union. Thank you in advance for your kind consideration in these matters. Very truly yours, S. FRANK RAFTERY, STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE S. SMITH, M.D., MAYOR OF THE CITY OF EASTON, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is George S. Smith, mayor of the city of Easton, Pa., and I am appearing before you to request the passage of the Demonstration Cities Act. I would like to express in this testimony, the necessity for a more inclusive urban participation by the Federal Government in order to alleviate the problem of blight, decay, and human privation. I strongly advise the establishment of demonstration projects in blighted cities in order to prove that this action will have tremendous salutary effect on the future of American cities. For example, our city of Easton is a core city. It is the repository of the government buildings, the college, the churches, the library, social agencies, YMCA, YWCA, county jail, county courthouse, Federal post office, and social security buildings, State employment office, and visiting nurse and other social agencies. In fact, one-third of the city is occupied by tax-free properties, The city of Easton has been the haven for the less fortunate of the community, and we have gradually provided public housing for the low-income groups and the elderly. Shopping centers about us have cost us millions of dollars in loss of property evaluation in our downtown business area. To offset loss of revenue and to provide proper services, the city has been forced to adopt a high tax rate. The community about us use our sewage, our water, our streets, send their children to our college, use our post office, library; in fact, they have the advantage of all the city functions, but under the guise of "maintenance of local government" have refused to share the burden, and remain politically separate. The basic reason for this is that they can enjoy a low tax rate and an affluence that can be only shared if you move out of the city into the suburbs. Many of our citizens are doing this. The cities grow poorer and the suburbs richer. It is only through Federal assistance on an enlarged scale that the cities can fully rejuvenate themselves. Why do we do this? For the betterment of the poor, the needy, the unfortunates that have been accepted as the cities' burden. Please help us carry out this important task. I urge you to support the Demonstration Cities Act and help Americans who need your aid. CITY OF CHARLOTTE, N.C., Hon. WILLIAM A. BARRETT, Subcommittee on Housing of the Committee on Banking and Currency, DEAR CONGRESSMAN: I do appreciate your letter of March 2 in which you have suggested that I send a statement which you would include in the printed record after bringing it to the attention of the subcommittee members presently involved in current hearings on H.R. 12341. Thank you for this opportunity for submitting the attached statement. Sincerely, STANFORD R. BROOKSHIRE. STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEMONSTRATION CITY LEGISLATION American cities are in serious trouble. While the older sections of the in city suffer from physical decay, social unrest, and economic difficulties, subars sprawl over the countryside draining human and financial resources while it creasing demands for municipal services. The pattern of modern urban develop ment is like an expanding wheel, the hub of which needs repair. We are an urban civilization. Over three-quarters of all Americans live in urban centers. The future of these cities will determine the future of our Ne tion. All levels of Government must fully comprehend this and cooperate in finding solutions to the problems besetting the city. These problems are complex. With the exodus of business from the central city, blight and decay erode property values, disperse business and civic leadership, and rob the city of its vitality. The ugliness and absence of economic portunity which this exodus leaves behind alienates the indiivdual and op presses the human spirit. Halfhearted efforts and patchwork cannot solve these problems. But major surgery and comprehensive physical, economic, and social redevelopment will renew the city. The central city must be completely overhauled, slums eliminated, and human and physical blight arrested. Comprehensive future planning must be a part of this effort. Ease of access, human convenience, esthetic improvements, and expanded social, educational, and economic opportunity are some of the goals that must be achieved. This job cannot be done be local government alone. This job cannot be done by private enterprise alone. But cooperation among levels of government and private enterprise can get the job done. Intergovernmental cooperation in meeting the needs of urban society is nothing new. The concept of H.R. 12341 simply expands upon such cooperation to meet one of our most severe urban problems. The concept is sound and represents a challenge to the Nation to do those things now that will shape the future of our cities. Hon. WILLIAM A. BARRETT, Chairman, Subcommittee on Housing, House Banking and Currency Committee, SCRANTON, PA., March 21, 1966. DEAR SIR: On Tuesday, March 15, 1966, Mayor James J. Walsh and a committee of local citizens appeared before the Subcommittee on Housing of the House Banking and Currency Committee and testified in support of early enactment of the demonstration cities program now under study in Congress and expressed desire that Scranton might be included in the program. At a meeting held on March 16, the city council of Scranton, Pa., concurred with the testimony of Mayor Walsh and his committee and gave full support and endorsement to the program. We sincerely hope that if and when the program is approved that the city of Scranton will be given serious consideration for inclusion in the demonstration cities program. Respectfully yours, FRANK DESARRO, City Clerk. [Telegram] WASHINGTON, D.C., March 21, 1966. . Hon. WILLIAM A. BARRETT, Chairman, Housing Subcommittee, Committee on Banking and Currency, This organization representing thousands of employees adversely affected by Department of Defense and other base closures respectfully urges your subcommittee to incorporate into H.R. 13064, 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. Mr. Boris Shishkin, secretary of the AFL-CIO Housing Committee urged such mendments when testifying before your committee on March 3, 1966. This orgaization wholeheartedly endorses Mr. Shishkin's testimony in this respect, and ve respectfully request the subcommittee to act favorably thereon. WILLIAM H. RYAN, President, District 44, International Association of Machinists/Aerospace Workers. Mr. BARRETT. Our next witness this morning will be the Honorable Thomas J. Whelan, mayor of Jersey City, N.J. Mr. Mayor, will you come forward, please? Mr. Mayor, we are certainly very much pleased to have you here this morning. We have had some of our great mayors from all parts of the country testifying on this bill. We are having you here this morning, and I am quite sure you join these great men. I would like to say at this point that my very good friend and able colleague, Congressman J. Minish from Newark, who is, I understand, a good friend of yours, wanted me to tell you that he regrets not being able to greet you here in person this morning because he has another meeting which he has to attend. I also want to express similar regrets for Mrs. Dwyer. She said, when this great mayor who comes from New Jersey, to say how she desired to welcome you here and extend the courtesy which is customary for this committee to extend to all of our witnesses. Congressman Dominick V. Daniels would have been here, too, but he also is tied up in meetings and cannot leave, and has asked his assistant, his confidential secretary, to come over and introduce you to this committee. STATEMENT OF GERARD F. DEVLIN, LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT TO HON. DOMINICK V. DANIELS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY Mr. DEVLIN. For the record, my name is Gerard F. Devlin. I am the legislative assistant to Congressman Dominick V. Daniels of the 14th Congressional District of the State of New Jersey. Congressman Daniels is meeting in an executive session of the House Subcommittee on Compensation and Retirement to consider a bill which vitally affects 2,700,000 Federal employees. For this reason, he is unable to be here today to introduce our distinguished guest. It is a great privilege to stand in this morning for Congressman Daniels in introducing the mayor of Jersey City to the members of this subcommittee. Three years ago it seemed that Jersey City was paralyzed. The city is, of course, an old one with many of the problems that one would expect after 300 years of existence. Much of the city's residential area is in a state of decline, but since he took office not quite 3 years ago, this downward spiral has been reversed and Jersey City is on the move again. Under the capable leadership of its new chief executive, Jersey City is on its way back. However, the financial situation in Jersey City is such that the massive program of redevelopment which is needed is beyond the city's financial grasp. It is for this reason that Congressman Daniels feels that Jersey City, with all its great poten tial-its railroads-its harbor facilities and its unexcelled geographic advantages should be considered as one of the 60 demonstration cities to be chosen when this legislation is enacted. Rather than intrude upon the time of our distinguished guest, I would like to present to you the very outstanding mayor of the city of Jersey City, a man who was described by the Wall Street Journal this week as the man who is revitalizing Jersey City. I present to you the mayor of Jersey City, the Honorable Thomas J. Whelan. Mr. BARRETT. That is quite a commendation and, certainly, I am sure you warrant it in every respect. If you desire to state your testimony in full, we will be glad to go along with you in that respect. STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS J. WHELAN, MAYOR OF JERSEY CITY, N.J.; ACCOMPANIED BY SIDNEY WILLIS, CITY PLANNER Mr. WHELAN. Thank you very much, Congressman Barrett. I am indeed grateful to you and the other distinguished members of this committee who granted me the time to come here to present our views. and I am extremely grateful to my good friend, Congressman Minish. and Congressman Dwyer, for his and her comments and, of course, we are extremely grateful also to our very warm and personal friend and great Congressman, Dominick Daniels, for his kind remarks. Gentlemen, my name is Thomas J. Whelan, and I am the mayor of Jersey City, N.J., a community of 276,000 citizens located upon upper New York Harbor in the heart of the New York metropolitan region. Jersey City is the second largest municipality in the State of New Jersey. More important, perhaps, is that our densely populated community is more than 300 years old. We have more than our share of the problems which result from 300 years of unplanned growth and uncoordinated industrial and residential development. It is only natural, therefore, that I join with the mayors of our Nation's older cities in urging your approval of the Demonstration Cities Act of 1966. But I would like to take a few minutes of your time to offer several brief suggestions concerning the program you are now considering. First, we of Jersey City support the concept of limiting the number of cities to be selected under this program. I hope, of course, that Jersey City is among the 60 cities selected, but in any case we see the wisdom in limiting this program to a relatively small number of municipalities. But we feel that some strictly objective criteria should be applied to determining which cities are selected. This important program with all its far-reaching potential, should not evolve into some kind of Federal lottery with 60 lucky cities holding the winning tickets. Among these determining criteria, we feel, should be the size of a city and its role within its metropolitan area, the extent of its economic and social deterioration, its present and future economic potential, the character of its population in terms of race, age, and economic status, the extent of hard-core poverty within the city, and many other factors. And possibly the most important of these criteria, we suggest. should be a hard-headed appraisal of the ability of each city to actually carry out its renewal program and put to effective and lasting use the taxpayers' funds invested in this program. There is no sense in selecting as a demonstration city a community which hasn't yet tried to help itself and do what it can about its problems. Such a city would not possess the skills, the trained personnel and the know-how to make a success of its assigned role as a demonstration city. Frankly, we of Jersey City feel that such criteria will work toward our own benefit, for we have an outstanding planning and redevelopment staff which has initiated a bold and comprehensive community development program which has earned the approval and praise of Federal authorities. Selection as a demonstration city would be of tremendous importance to Jersey City, of course, for it would permit us to accomplish in just a few years the kind of programs which our present municipal financial limitations have forced us to schedule in terms of decades or more. In the past 3 years, we have cut the Jersey City payroll from 5,200 employees to approximately 3,800 in order to be able to maintain tax stability-while simultaneously expanding our community renewal program and increasing the salaries of many city workers to reasonable levels. Our latest step has been the creation of a new division to carry out a sweeping housing code enforcement program. We know what must be done in Jersey City. We know generally how to do it. But we haven't the money or the trained manpower to carry out our program as quickly as the increasing urgency of our problems demand. And we are increasingly afraid that by the time we have brought one set of problems under control, still worse problems will have arisen. By the time one residential section is brought up to code standards, two or three more may have slipped to far toward being slums. Time is our enemy, as it is the enemy of all old cities. The second comment we offer regarding the demonstration cities. proposal is in support of having a Federal coordinator in each city to oversee the Federal program there. We are strongly in favor of effective coordination of all the Federal programs that will be involved in a project of this magnitude. We clearly see the need for a Federal coordinator with appropriate authority reporting directly to the regional administrator of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. We don't fear a Federal "czar." But we also urge that this Federal coordinator should be on tap, not just on top. His function should be examined closely, for it would be a tragedy if the demonstration cities program were to become bogged down in administrative paper shuffling and bureaucratic buckpassing. The counterpart to the Federal coordinator would be the city's local coordinator, reporting directly to the mayor and the governing body. Just as the Federal coordinator would help to mobilize all the existing Federal programs and agencies available, so would the local coordinator mobilize all the municipal and community resources on hand in the fight to renew the community. |