at L ASSOC ATIONAL CLALS he esem edevelop Andl ent and n Lare late th am Sm difri at hare ement We particularly commend the demonstration cities concept for its recognition of the need for comprehensive community programing and the need for coordination of Federal assistance programs at the local level. We also particularly endorse the approach of incentives to achieve metropolitan area planning and coordination, as it is contained in the proposed Urban Development Act. As we give our support to the new demonstration programs, we express a firm belief that the existing programs of housing and urban development are the solid base on which the demonstration programs must be built. The prospects for these existing programs should be as exciting and promising as the prospects for the demonstration cities program. We should have assurance that they will be strengthened where necessary by amendments and funded at a level where they can fulfill their highest potentials, both as part of and independently of the demonstration efforts. It would be ironic and tragic if, in emphasizing what cities can do under the demonstration cities program, we overlooked what is being accomplished even with limited funds under the existing urban renewal and housing programs. I will have some specific recommendations to make in this regard a little later in this testimony. Mr. Chairman, there are three aspects of the Demonstration Cities Act on which we wish to comment: (1) how the selection process will be handled; (2) the number of cities that can realistically expect to participate in the program; and (3) the area, or areas, that a city can include in its demonstration project. On the first point, it is our understanding that these demonstrations are meant to provide evidence that "massive" improvements in urban life on a fast time schedule can flow from the use of certain techniques of coordinated planning, concentrated action, and pooled financing among many Federal, State, and local agencies. This is a dramatic concept. If we can move into realizing it with the least possible delay, we feel sure there will be widespread national acceptance of an accelerated and expanded community development program that will, at long last, begin to make the kind of impact on urban slums and blight that the mayors who have testified here as well as our members have been trying to achieve with limited resources under the existing programs. To move with dispatch, we think the Secretary of the Department of Further, these demonstrations should take place in cities of varying size, of varying age, of varying geographic location, confronted with varying social and economic problems. In this way lessons would be available to cities of all sizes and conditions. There might well be a demonstration in a city that has, up to now, made no moves toward urban renewal or community development. Thus, we feel that the demonstration aspect should be an important consideration in the selection of cities. 60-878-66-pt. 1-28 This leads naturally into our second comment: Whether it is realistic to think that there can be 60 or 70 high-quality demonstration programs funded out of the $2.3 billion figure that has been set as the price tag for this program. It is our view that no less than the suggested 60 or 70 demonstrations can provide useful experiences in dealing with the wide variety of situations outlined above. Therefore, NÄHRO feels that, if this program is to accomplish its stated purpose― to demonstrate what a number of cities can do given the necessary resources-we must be prepared to commit a great deal more than $2.3 billion even to begin the job. As to area, or areas to be included in the demonstration, NAHRO feels that noncontiguous areas should be eligible for consideration as part of a city's demonstration program. The President spoke of providing flexibility so that cities can determine the nature and extent of their demonstrations. Large cities might well want to attack only one section, or neighborhood, but medium and small cities should have the opportunity to present truly citywide proposals to treat all their blighted areas if they so desire. Mr. Chairman, we have commented on three specific aspects of the demonstration cities program. We should now like to revert to our earlier point: our concern that existing Federal assistance programsespecially the new programs enacted in 1965-may not be funded adequately to realize their highest potentials. The most critical need for funding as we see it is for the urban renewal program. When NAHRO testified before this subcommittee in 1965, we stated that the administration's request for $2.9 billion in capital grant authorization for urban renewal projects fell considerably below the demonstrated need for funds. We stated at that time: The sad fact is that, in the past, the Urban Renewal Administration has run out of capital grant funds and has been unable to keep up with local programs, thus creating serious problems for the cities. Start-and-stop programs mean that local staffs cannot be kept intact, that project boundaries have to be cut back, and that long-range planning and programing must be undertaken without assurance that funds will be available to carry out projects. We concluded: In view of the fact that applications to the Urban Renewal Administration have twice exceeded $1 billion a year, when sufficient grant funds were authorized, and that since then the number of participating cities has increased, we recom mend that the Congress authorize a total of $6 billion to be committed for capital grants over a period of 4 years, but without limitation in any one year. We regret to inform you that we underestimated the seriousness of the shortage. We have since followed the monthly figures on supply and demand for urban renewal funds. Urban Renewal Commissioner Slayton provided the subcommittee with a glimpse of those figures on the first day of the hearings, when he predicted almost $1 billion in urban renewal backlog by the end of this fiscal year. Additional demands on the same total renewal authorization will come from cities embarking upon concentrated housing code enforcement programs, demolition programs, and rehabilitation grant programs-all authorized as grant-in-aid programs by the Congress last year. Thus we are faced with the most serious gap in the history of this program between the cities' needs and the Federal Government's supply of urban funds. We face that gap at a time when this bold demonstra re than AHRO tion as of pro of the tion cities program would create an immediate and substantial new Mr. Chairman, this immediate need can be met out of the $2.9 billion One additional word about this $2.9 billion. The commitment of this money is needed in the form of reservations to enable cities to start planning their projects. Actual disbursements come later. This is advance funding, and it is vital for housing and urban development programs. Cities are reluctant to begin planning a project if they do not have assurances that funds will be available to carry it out. Until 1965 urban renewal was conducted through advance funding-defined as contract authority. We urge the Congress to restore contract authority to the urban renewal program, and to extend it as well, to the demonstration cities program. Mr. Chairman, now I would like to say a few words about current demand in the low-rent housing program. Commissioner McGuire said last Monday, the backlog of public housing applicants on the waiting list is estimated at 500,000. Demand for public housing in this fiscal year will probably be the largest in any year since the passage of the Housing Act of 1949. The number of reservations issued in the first 8 months of the fiscal year which began last July total almost 45,000 units in 273 communities. This 8-month figure is larger than for any full fiscal year since 1950when World War II housing backlog and passage of the Housing Act of 1949 were stimulating factors. The number of applications received in this first 8 months-over 84,000 units is similarly the largest in 15 years. Even though the current pace of applications and reservations does not yet reflect the new proposals authorized in the 1965 Housing and Urban Development Act, the prospect is that the number of localities with reservations will be the second largest in public housing history. I cite these figures to point out that this program is on the move; that the current annual projection of 60,000 units a year anticipated in the 1965 act may already be outdated; and the prospect is that the total authorization of 240,000 units for 4 years will undoubtedly be inadequate to meet the demand. Needless to say, current projections do not reflect the demands to be made on public housing under the demonstration cities program. As in the case of urban renewal allocations, we recommend that the total authorization of units be made available for commitment immediately as the need indicates so that communities may proceed in a Sound manner. Mr. Chairman, I should like at this point to turn to H.R. 12946, the Urban Development Act. NAHRO fully supports the President in his desire to provide a more realistic approach to problems that have, for some time now, defied solution within the limitation of traditional political jurisdictions. I should like to quote from our 1965 to 1967 policy resolution, adopted at our 30th national conference held in Philadelphia in Octoer of 1965. We stated that NAHRO is aware that "*** emerging concern with the problems of urbanization that overlap the bounds of various political jurisdictions has created a new functional unit-the urbanized region-which in many cases crosses State boundaries and encroaches on the existing framework of local government units." Mr. Chairman, may I request permission to place the entire text of this policy resolution in the record at the end of my testimony? Mr. BARRETT. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. FAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Title I of H.R. 12946 seems to be appropriate for beginning the process of integrating the developmental activities of the various political jurisdictions into a comprehensive and effective regional plan for growth and development. By providing financial incentives, this bill will not only encourage the creation of metropolitan planning bodies, but will also provide State governments an increasing role in local and regional efforts through the provision of proper mechanisms for the planning and development of metropolitan areas. Title II of H.R. 12946 expands and improves the new communities provisions of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965 by increasing from $10 to $25 million the amount of a mortgage that the Federal Housing Administration can insure with a private developer for the assembly and improvement of a new community site and by authorizing the Department of Housing and Urban Development to make loans to public land development agencies for the assembly of new community sites, for later sale to private developers. NAHRO supports both of these forms of Federal aid for new communities. But, consistent with our 1965 testimony, we still feel the lack of a comprehensive national policy and philosophy with respect to new town development. The two land assembly programs carried in this bill put special emphasis on economy in the assembly of land and on controls with respect to the social and economic balance of new communities. It is NAHRO's view that these considerations do not get at the full scope of what a new communities program can mean to orderly urban growth and to improved living conditions on a national basis. The association still believes, as it stated in testimony last year, that there is an urgent necessity to undertake a concerted study aimed at establishing a comprehensive concept and policy, including an evaluation of such key issues as those raised at the new communities session of NAHRO's biennial conference last October-(a) form of local government, (b) land-use controls, and (c) relationship to central cities. However, in view of the critical need to undertake some action to direct unplanned growth, we endorse the two proposals contained in the 1966 Urban Development Act-with the prospect of review and adjustment at a later date, when they can be considered as part of a total program and policy. Pending the formulation of such a comprehensive policy, we wish to recommend a safeguard. That the Secretary make a finding that the proposed new community is consistent with the planning being done in the metropolitan area, and will not have an adverse effect on the central city. As a point of information, Mr. Chairman, NAHRO has taken very seriously its obligation to participate in the effort to develop such a comprehensive policy. In addition to the session at our biennial con also unds of it-the ies and S." text of ng the arious al plan ourage rorile elfors nd de at the elope ent ference a report of which I would like to file for the record-we have presently three other studies in prospect: a review of the American experience with the three greenbelt towns built in the 1930's, an analysis of British experience with land-development policy and limitation of city growth, and a review of the Israeli land-use control system. We should like to recommend that the new Department initiate a research and development program in this area, a matter it is particularly qualified to undertake. I will not dwell on title III of H.R. 12946, Mr. Chairman, except to say that local operating officials strongly support the development of adequate mass transportation systems and give approval to the increase in authorization and extension of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 as requested in this title. As to title IV-grants for urban information centers-we are enthusiastic about the potential of such centers. Our members are continually hampered by a lack of adequate material and the diffuseness and uncoordinated status of facts on our urban "condition." As we read the legislation, it should not only be possible to assemble data on the basic characteristics, sources of assistance, and problem trends with respect to particular metropolitan or State areas-but to stimulate the orderly collection by other agencies of additional needed facts, for dissemination through the centers. Most individual cities have not yet managed to set up such centers of local information-but a beginning, on the State and metropolitan level, as envisaged in the bill, should have a stimulating effect on the whole field of urban data collection. This could be particularly the case if such centers were related to college and university programs. Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to devote the balance of my testimony to H.R. 13065 and offer some suggestions for improving our existing programs, which after all, must bear the burden of urban development progress in the vast majority of communities not participating in any of the above demonstration programs. Mr. Chairman, there are a number of amendments in H.R. 13065 that NAHRO feels are particularly important. While endorsing the entire bill, we would like to comment briefly on sections 104, 105, 106, and 107. Section 104. Low-rent housing for displaced families-Term of lease.-This amendment would provide for greater flexibility under the promising new program of private leasing by making it possible to lengthen the limit on the term of lease (3 years) in the case of displaced families. This should make the new private leasing program even more effective as a relocation assistance tool. Section 105. Low-rent housing-Use of newly constructed private housing. This amendment would make it possible to achieve broader use of private housing resources in a local community for low-income families, including new as well as existing private housing and would encourage joint ventures between local housing authorities and private owners in low- and middle-income housing. Section 106. Applying advances in technology to housing and urban development. One of the important guidelines (No. 7) in the President's 1966 message on urban development is "to take advantage of modern cost-cutting technology without reducing the quality of work." If this guideline is to have a realistic application, an intensive effort |