[Telegram] DENVER, COLO., March 15, 1966. Representative WILLIAM A. BARRETT, We eight members of the nine-man Denver Board of Councilmen strongly endorse the skyline urban renewal project planned for Denver and support emphatically the position of Mayor Thomas Currigan on this matter. We, therefore, urge your committee to consider favorably the financing of this project. In supporting this project we reject and repudiate the tactics and statements of Denver Councilman Houston Gibson to which you were subjected yesterday, March 14. It is our conviction that the people of Denver welcome this great step forward in the development of blight-ridden areas of downtown Denver. Elvin Caldwell, council president; Councilman Carl DeTemple; Coun- Mr. BARRETT. Mayor Bachrach, we are certainly pleased to have you, from the great State of Ohio, representing Cincinnati. We want you to feel at home here this morning. I observe that you have an associate with you. If you would be kind enough to introduce him for the record in case one of the members may ask him a question. STATEMENT OF HON. WALTON BACHRACH, MAYOR OF CINCINNATI, OHIO; ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIS P. GRADISON, JR., COUNCILMAN, CHAIRMAN OF THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE OF CITY COUNCIL; JOHN U. ALLEN, DIRECTOR OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT; AND RICHARD G. COLEMAN, DIRECTOR OF THE BETTER HOUSING LEAGUE Mr. BACHRACH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am happy to be here and appreciate the opportunity to bring my Cincinnatians with me. I don't know what your procedure is, but Mr. Gilligan was going to present our delegation. Mr. BARRETT. I was coming to that. Mr. BACHRACH. All right, sir, fine. I would like at this time to present to you, Mr. Chairman, and your committee, the chairman of our urban renewal committee of our city council-our city council made up of nine members. We have each one of us the chairmanship of a particular committee. The gentleman that I have with me here is Mr. Willis P. Gradison, Jr., who has been in the council a number of years, has been chairman of our urban renewal committee, has worked weeks, days, nights, months, and years on this particular problem. And I believe that he is very able to present Cincinnati's case here this morning, sir. This is Mr. Gradison on my left, sir. Mr. BARRETT. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I am going now to ask the gentleman from Ohio, our very esteemed and greatly admired friend, Congressman Gilligan. He has proved I am quite sure, to be one of the most able first-term Members that we have had in this Congress--and I have been in it for a few years. He has proved himself very capable. And I am quite sure he would like the opportunity of presenting you two gentlemen to this committee this morning. Mr. BACHRACH. Thank you, sir. STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN J. GILLIGAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO Mr. GILLIGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Distinguished members of the subcommittee, we have, Mr. Chairman, the mayor of Cincinnati, the Honorable Walter Bachrach, and Mr. Gradison, whom he has introduced. And in the supporting cast who will not make a formal statement, but will be available for questions if needed, the Honorable Theodore Berry, who is Assistant Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity, and Director of the Community Action Program under title II of that act who is the former vice mayor of the city of Cincinnati, and a former chairman of the housing and urban development committee of the council; Col. Jack Allen, the urban development director of the city of Cincinnati; and Mr. Richard Coleman, who is director of the Better Housing League of the City of Cincinnati. As it happens, I served 11 years on the city council, and served on the urban development committee; so we have, in the presence of Mr. Berry, who is of course now a very distinguished officer in Federal service, myself, the mayor, and Mr. Gradison, four members of the city council of Cincinnati who have served in prior years on the urban development committee and are acquainted with the program in Cincinnati in cooperation with the Federal Government to build and rebuild a city which is now 177 years old. I have no further statement to make, Mr. Chairman, other than to say that I have introduced identical legislation to H.R. 12341, H.R. 12763, which I would hope would constitute my endorsement of the concept before the committee today. I would further say that Mr. Berry-because of his interest in community action, as well as in the urban development program in Cincinnati-has said that he would like to submit a written statement which I would present to the committee for your consideration at some later time. Mr. BARRETT. That may be submitted for the record. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT FROM THE CINCINNATI AREA UPON THE PROPOSED DEMONSTRATION CITIES ACT AND THE NEED FOR FLEXIBILITY IN DIRECT FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO A LARGE METROPOLITAN AREA AS PROPOSED BY THE BETTER HOUSING LEAGUE OF GREATER CINCINNATI, INC.; THE CITIZENS'ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR URBAN RENEWAL. AFFILIATE OF URBAN AMERICA, INC.; IN COOPERATION WITH THE CINCINNATI CITY COUNCIL, HAMILTON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, CINCINNATI BOARD OF EDUCATION, HEALTH AND WELFARE COUNCIL OF THE CINCINNATI COMMU NITY CHEST, AND OTHER MUNICIPALITIES AND NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS We have used what you have offered Completed are 6,999 units of public housing. Since 1950, 26,615 substandard housing units have been eliminated in the area through urban renewal at a total cost of $142,500,000 of which local governments contributed $40,800,000 mainly in street, sewer, and other project area improvements. In one of the largest rehabilitation projects in the country involving 2,698 structures, 832 structures have been rehabilitated. Thirty housing inspectors have been working for 10 years to enforce a housing code and seven more are planned in three concentrated code enforcement areas. In the last 3 years 1,016 units of 221(d)3 housing are occupied and over 26,000 single family units have been insured by FHA. National Elementary and Secondary Education Act money of $3,312,916 has been allocated for use by the board of education for supplemental programs in 22 schools. In a section 107 program, $117,986 has been used to demonstrate a new code enforcement concept. In 1965, $5,119,712 was used in 34 area antipoverty programs. and have taxed ourselves to the limit Over $93 million was paid in Hamilton County property tax in 1965 compared to $27 million in 1950. Over $17.2 million was paid in a 12-year-old local 1 percent income tax in 1965 to the city of Cincinnati which has a bonded debt of over $238 million. Over $7.9 million was collected by united appeal in 1965 for 127 agencies compared to $2.6 million for 87 agencies in 1950. Over $65 million has been spent on new public school construction in Cincinnati alone since 1950. Over $20 million was charged users of public utilities and facilities in 1965. Over $10 million has been spent by area industries in the last 3 years to prevent air pollution. Over $57 million has been spent on area hospital improvements since 1950 including a $17.2 million voter approved bond issue for Cincinnati General Hospital and a $19.8 million voter approved bond issue for other hospitals. Taxpayers support the second largest municipal university in the country as well as an excellent art museum, symphony, natural history museum, and other cultural activities. In a typically rural Ohio county property taxes support all local public services. in well-planned, coordinated and cooperative programs The 1925 Cincinnati area master plan is regarded as not only one of the earliest area plans but one of the best. The 1948 Metropolitan Cincinnati master plan has been carefully followed and used as a development guide. The 3 State Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana transportation study has been approved by 9 counties and a total of 120 municipalities. Over 130 active neighborhood organizations regularly review public needs and programs. The community chest and united appeal is organized on a five county-two State basis. Both Ohio and Kentucky parts of the Cincinnati area have active, well staffed regional planning commissions. Comprehensive mental health plans are nearing completion for four counties in southwestern Ohio and seven counties in northern Kentucky. One hospital council plans medical facilities for the five county area. One community action commission plans Economic Opportunity Act programs for the five county area. One water system serves 900,000 people and one sewer system serves 27 municipalities. One publicly supported human relations commission has for over 22 years worked to improve minority group status in the entire community. but we have many programs waiting for funds Of 36 urban renewal projects programed, only 12 have been started. A general plan has been developed for a large West End area and others can quickly be completed when funds are in view. Over 22 new school building replacements and additions are planned and needed in the Cincinnati system alone. A data bank program has been developed and awaits funds. A plan for neighborhood health clinics awaits funds and a plan for neighborhood centers is being developed. A unified personnel training program for the 41 agencies involved has been developed. A massive sewer extension plan has been developed. A major thoroughfare and expressway plan is ready for funds and is being built at far to slow a pace. Of $1,521,000 additional appropriations requested by Cincinnati city de partment heads in 1965, only $251,000 was available. There are still some 41,000 dwelling units (11.2 percent) which are dilapidated or lack plumbing facilities in the metropolitan area of the 51,359 (15 percent) reported in the 1960 census or the 30 percent reported in 1950. And we need a more flexible program of direct assistance We are served by two DHUD regions, one centered in Chicago and one in Atlanta. We have five separate urban renewal programs as required. We have three separate public housing authorities. FHA applications are filed here for Dayton, but in Louisville for the Kentucky portion of the urban area. VA applications must be sent to either Cleveland or Louisville. Section 701 planning funds come through the State for some area municipalities but from DHUD in Chicago or Atlanta for others. The metropolitan area is served from two Office of Economic Opportunity regional offices. Separate agencies and organizations have been established to be eligible for some types of Federal funds, others must come through the State, County, or individual municipalities. As proposed in the Demonstration City Act. Yes, we have used what you have offered and have taxed ourselves to the limit in well planned, coordinated and cooperative programs, but we have many programs waiting for funds and need a more flexible program of direct assistance as proposed in the Demonstration City Act. The many and varying Federal aid and grant programs in operation in the Cincinnati metropolitan area are confusing even to the experienced civic leaders, while the average citizen is confused by the many things that can or cannot be done and the timelag involved in getting the most needed programs started. Complex urban problems facing cities willing to help themselves as demonstated can only be resolved through massive financial assistance. We need financial assistance on a direct basis without unnecessarily involved restrictions, procedures and time delays and on a local priority basis. We have enough personnel now experienced in these programs to greatly expand them. If the Demonstration City Act passes as presented, you will hear from Cincinnati in regard to expansion of areawide planning programs and funding many projects in our basin area. Mr. GILLIGAN. Mr. Chairman, if it please the committee, Mr. Gradison, as chairman of the urban development committee of the council, will present the statement on behalf of the city. Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Gradison, we will certainly be glad to have you submit the statement. If you desire to complete the statement, and then we should like to ask you some questions or if you choose to proceed any other way, you may do so, and we will be glad to go along with you. Mr. GRADISON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appear before you this morning representing the city of Cincinnati with respect to the proposed Demonstration Cities Act of 1966. As chairman of the urban development committee of our city council, I am the elected official charged by the council with the principal responsibility for leadership in urban development in its broadest sense, including housing and urban renewal. Before turning to the specific legislation before the committee it may be appropriate to note that for 5 years I served at the policy level in the Treasury, and Health, Education and Welfare Departments, and therefore have had an opportunity to ob serve the development and administration of Federal grant programs from the point of view of both levels of Government. The demonstration cities bill would meet a need which we have become very much aware of in recent months, especially as we have considered ways and means to complete the renewal of our city's west end, a large area of mixed residential and industrial uses, with a high incidence of poverty and substandard housing. Working in cooperation with an articulate and effective neighborhood council we have undertaken the search for a coordinated means of bringing to bear the tools of rehabilitation, clearance, highway beautification, public housing, code enforcement, education, community action, and other public and private programs. This is exceedingly hard-almost impossible, in fact-to accomplish under present Federal legislation. For example, availability of urban renewal assistance in an area gives no assurance whatever of help or cooperation from FHA or Public Housing, or Community Facilities, and so on. Unfortunately, in the past, piecemeal attack has yielded piecemeal results. We are here to support the principles of this legislation because it recognizes that new approaches are needed and that these require a degree of program coordination at the Federal and local levels not attained to date. Nonetheless, there are basic problems with the legislation as presently drafted which suggest that it may need modification if it is to accomplish its intended purposes. First, I would raise the basic policy issue whether the proposed demonstrations are needed to validate the coordinated and massive approach recommended in the bill. Our experience in Cincinnati-a city which has been very aggressive in using the tools made available under present legislation-suggests that we already know what is needed, and can move promptly with Federal assistance to put this knowledge and experience to work. This would be impossible under the proposed bill, which is limited to a small number of cities. In my judgment, there are many more cities which meet the tests for qualification than can possibly be funded as the legislation is now drafted. For this reason the legislation is inherently discriminatory, since it would provide funding for some qualified cities, and not for others. So far as I know this is the first piece of basic legislation of such magnitude in the housing field which would limit the number of qualified cities which can participate. This is a dangerous precedent which deserves careful study. It seems clear that those cities which are chosen as demonstration cities would necessarily draw capital grant funds away from those not chosen. This seems inevitable in light of the large backlog of grant applications and the limited funds available, not only for urban renewal, but also for public housing and many other associated projects. If the demonstration cities had to wait their turn for funding under all of the programs involved, it would be impossible to dovetail the many actions needed to make the demonstrations a success. Therefore, the demonstration cities would have to have high priority in order to accomplish the demonstration cities program, and all other cities would suffer in the process. Along the same lines it seems contradictory to choose the demonstration cities and then fund their planning activities with respect to the |