Mr. DEPASCALE. I have a very brief statement I would like to read to the committee.

Mr. BARRETT. You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF HON. LOUIS DePASCALE, MAYOR OF HOBOKEN, N.J.; ACCOMPANIED BY RAYMOND G. CLYONS, COORDINATOR OF URBAN RENEWAL, DIRECTOR OF ANTIPOVERTY PROGRAM, AND DIRECTOR OF HOPES, INC.

Mr. DEPASCALE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear before you to speak on behalf of the Demonstration Cities Act of 1966. My name is Louis DePascale; I am the mayor of Hoboken, N.J., and I feel that in presenting our situation I represent not only our city but many of the small cities throughout the Nation. As you will see, we are a model of the current urban situation in this country.

H.R. 12341 is a particular satisfaction to me because it examplifies the responsiveness of Congress and the administration to one of our most difficult problems. Speaking at the Vice President's Conference of Mayors on August 11, 1965, I mentioned that not only were we a needy city but that the same factors that have contributed to our need have also severely limited our financial capacity. Under the circumstances, the full rewards of urban renewal and other federally aided programs always seem to dangle just beyond our reach. In common with many other communities of our size, we find the cost of the local share almost a luxury. Even with the most careful planning and coordinated mobilization of our resources, our fiscal capacity allow us to proceed so slowly that we can only make a small impact on our probTems. Certainly we cannot proceed rapidly enough to arrest in time the exodus of families and industries who have long been resident here.

Hoboken, as you doubtless know, is a self-contained square mile. We are separated from our neighbors to the north and south by railroad lines and enclosed on the east and west by the Hudson River and the Palisades, respectively. Within these sharply defined boundaries are all the components of the contemporary American urban scene. The city is, in fact, a model of all that is most hopeful and most troublesome in our country's older cities.

Located directly between the Holland and Lincoln Tunnels, we are only 10 minutes away from midtown or downtown Manhattan by bus, tube (PATH), ferry, or automobile. While not the major port that we were during World War I, when the city was the principal port of embarkation, we still have many active waterfront facilities-Bethlehem Steel Shipyards, Port of New York Authority piers, and a busy lighterage pier. We house the eastern terminal of the ErieLackawanna Railroad and are only minutes away from the region's major highways. One of the country's outstanding engineering schools, Stevens Institute, is located here. We still have diversified industries of national reputation-Keuffel & Essex, Standard Brands, General Foods and West Virginia Pulp & Paper, to name a few. We have a heterogeneous population which, we are told by prominent sociologists, shares a common sense of community. The city has a rich history with many "firsts" going back to the 17th century.

Visually, we are informed by the Regional Plan Association, that we are a "special place"-the only authentic river town on the lower Hudson.

Yet our problems match our assets and to date have sharply limited our ability to realize our potential. At present our population of approxiatmely 48,000 persons makes us the second most densely populated city in the United States. Between 1910, when the population was 70,000 and 1940 we ranked first in population density. The railroads, whose early development is largely due to Colonel Stevens' pioneering work in Hoboken, were responsible for our growth and still provide 10 percent of our annual income. Yet they have declined in importance as freight carriers and are in financial trouble. Not only does this threaten our tax base, but it has contributed to a sharp decline in industrial ratables and employment. Our water and sewer systems require an estimated $25 million worth of repairs, and an anticipated new State directive requiring additional sewage treatment will add another $5 million to our obligations. The percentage of our housing rated as sound, with all facilities, by the 1960 census is fourth lowest in the Nation for cities of 10,000 or over. The median income of Hoboken families is sixth lowest in the State, and our per capita expenditures for welfare are second highest. Against this, our effective tax rate is the highest in New Jersey.

My administration has accepted the fact that there is no choice but to make a major renewal effort. Over the past 15 years, the city has built approximately 1,000 units of low-income public housing and is proceeding with plans for 250 additional units of low-income housing for the aged. The total will approach 8 percent of our total housing supply. Construction is underway on our first urban renewal project which will supply 400 units of new moderate-income housing. A second urban renewal project, aimed at providing middle-income housing, is approaching the acquisition phase.

Our early experience with renewal and various other federally aided programs convinced me that our limited resources could be effective only if all public actions were carefully coordinated and programed on a communitywide basis. As a result, I was responsible for initiating a community renewal program and served as its unpaid director during the 2 years prior to my election as mayor. One of the advantages of being a smaller city is that it is possible to consider the entire city in such a study. Since my election, I have created the post of coordinator in my office. As a result the code enforcement program, public works planning, urban beautification plans and the renewal projects designated by our CRP are being scheduled to reinforce each other rather than to dissipate our capacity in random fashion.

In undertaking our antipoverty program, we again chose to enter through a program development phase. As a result, a community action programs are being designed to mesh with both our renewal and education programs. We hope to use OEO funds not only to combat poverty, but to strengthen our social resources by creating new leadership at the grassroots level.

Nor have we overlooked the private sector. It was our advisory council, composed of a broad cross section of our community, that

enthusiastically endorsed the idea of the demonstration cities program. There has been strong cooperation between my administration and many of the private groups which have sponsored unassisted improvement programs. Among these groups who have demonstrated their willingness to join in the fight for a better city are the Hoboken Chamber of Commerce, the Council of Churches, Stevens Institute, and the Port of New York Authority.

This brings me to commenting on the provisions of the proposed Demonstration Cities Act.

I would like to join with those who would avoid a national competition that would raise hopes falsely and thereby increase the bitterness of disappointment. In supporting the allocation of grants on a first-come, first-served basis, knowing the urgent need for a comprehensive program of this type among many other cities of our size, I would hope that the successful demonstration made by the original cities chosen would lead to the continuation of techniques which cut the heart of the matter.

An important corollary to this approach is that funds should not be directed from other programs to pay for the demonstration cities program. The need for renewing our cities is so pressing that nothing should be done to slow down the momentum which cities have achieved even under the present aids. By the same token, the $2.9 billion title I funds authorized by Congress for urban renewal should be released immediately, rather than spread out over the next 4 years. The fact that there are now funds for rebuilding public utilities in the Housing Act of 1965 merely adds to the necessity for this.

With regard to planning funds, we feel that planning is less of a problem in smaller cities than in larger ones. We have been able to afford the money needed for planning our projects. Raising funds needed for implementation remains our most pressing problem. It is also a problem in smaller communities, where all governmental activities make news, to avoid overplanning and underimplementing. The public tends to become discouraged by this.

Nevertheless, I believe that all cities should be encouraged to participate in the planning phase of the program. Those who are ready sooner will be able to proceed with implementation sooner. Meanwhile, this effort should release many new and important ideas.

In administering the program, we feel that other small cities will join us in welcoming the provision of a Federal coordinator. We have received valuable technical assistance from HHFA in the past, and anticipate the continuation of cordial relations with the Department of Housing and Urban Development in the future. Provision of a Federal coordinator would furnish an additional valuable resource in coordinating information and procedures outside our boundaries.

The Demonstration Cities Act, Mr. Chairman, seems to have been framed with our situation specifically in mind. Yet, because we recognize our own problems in so many other cities, we know that it answers long-felt needs in many places. We would like to state our conviction that smaller cities, as well as larger ones, must be included as demonstration cities. As manageable models, they can show greater results with smaller infusions of assistance. The solutions are a matter of scale. Like other controlled experimental situations, the results

can be converted into larger scale answers through use of the proper factors.

We heartily commend the vision shown in the Demonstration Cities Act and urge your support for it.

Thank you.

Mr. BARRETT. Thank you, Mayor DePascale. I am now certainly convinced that the comments they make about you as being a great mayor are absolutely true. I have no questions. But I do wish to thank you for your very fine and instructive statement.

Mr. DEPASCALE. Thank you very much.

Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Widnall?

Mr. WIDNALL. Mr. Mayor, I would like to commend you for your statement, also.

I know, if we are going to pass the demonstrations cities program and cover medium-sized cities, that we tend to think of New York, Boston, and places like that. But I know yours would be a typical one where something effective might be done.

Do you have any estimate of what you think you would require in Hoboken to do this job?

Mr. DEPASCALE. We would need a minimum of $50 million for appropriate renewal program. We already have the communities renewal program that we have been working on for a couple of years Our budget is $50 million.

Mr. WIDNALL. Thank you very much.

Mr. BARRETT. Mrs. Sullivan?

Mrs. SULLIVAN. No questions, thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Mr. BARRETT. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. All time has expired and we certainly are grateful for your comments.

Our next witness this morning is Mr. Robert L. Windham, of Robert Windham & Associates, Dallas, Tex.

We are grateful for you coming here this morning and as you no doubt heard me express here on other occasions we are just hopeful we can make you feel comfortable, completely relaxed and I am quite sure we will be the beneficiaries of your very fine testimony. If you desire to read your testimony without being interrupted, you may do so. We will go along with you. You may start.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT L. WINDHAM, ROBERT WINDHAM & ASSOCIATES, DALLAS, TEX.

Mr. WINDHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is going to be a little difficult to follow Mr. Rouse. He well corered the integral parts of our operations. We, too, are participants who are engaged in similar projects.

I might just touch on one of them, which is practically of the same nature as his, except in a different area of the country. While Mr. Rouse is involved in some 15,000 acres in a mass populated area, ours involves 16,500 fee acres and 2,000 governmental leased acres on the shores of Lake Havasu in the lower Colorado River area which is the border between Arizona and California.

This program is different, perhaps in one aspect, that being that the development is primarily a large land development with a great

planning program. It was master planned by whom we consider the experts in the field.

The program is one which is in an area that is isolated from all great populated areas, the closest being Phoenix to the east which is approximately 150 air miles. It is below Las Vegas, about 125 miles and it is about 300 miles east of the southern California populated area. It is completely surrounded by Indians, Indian reservations. There is no industry. The only industry they have is a very, very small agricultural area.

The development has taken on the building of a new city. The program has progressed very well as a land development program and a land sales program. We have run into the normal problems in an area of this kind due to its location. We have gone into a great merchandising program which has brought primarily some 6,000 purchasers of land for future building of homes, retirement and movement to this new area of the West and the large majority of the sales are coming from the Midwest, from the northern areas-the cold country, so to speak.

Mrs. Sullivan, we have gotten quite a few customers from St. Louispeople who have gone out for health purposes and reasons of this

sort.

The development is one which in time will represent a city of perhaps 30,000 to 50,000 people in population.

The testimony that I have submitted is one that I have put in the form of an article and I call it "An Eye Toward Tomorrow." I won't read it. It spells out a few factors involved in large land development programs which offer opportunities to builders that are now provided by FHA under different programs and different acts of the FHA. Our program offers all types of construction for residential-different kinds. I will say that with programs under the new legislation as being offered under the urban development, title II, the communities new cities, the new community program, ours is one development that could be classed as a prototype.

This city is being built under what I believe this legislation would be for, or include.

Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Windham, I wonder if I may interpose here. You, like Mr. Rouse, are quite knowledgeable in this field. I wonder if it would be agreeable to you if you would submit your statement in full in the record. This may be done without objection and so ordered. (The statement referred to follows:)

AN EYE TOWARD TOMORROW

SPECIFIC MARKET APPLICATION

The homebuilding industry may produce 1,500,000 or 1,600,000 dwelling units this year, and these units will be sold or rented one at a time, to specific customers with specific likes and dislikes, and with specific needs.

The secret, of course, is to "know the market" where you plan to do business; know its characteristics, know its needs, and to understand it in depth.

Of course, we see business opportunities from a different viewpoint than that of others in this business-which is as it should be.

A minister walked by two bricklayers at work and stopped to ask each what he was making. The first replied, "a lousy $150 a week"; the second said, "I'm building a cathedral that will rise to the heavens." The second reply more than