Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

ENT

od is selecte

ibutions o

edown unk were acquire

ing unit est nit. Ther

rmula est

nd moder

of onesh

e. Th

be availab

ment w

the a

ritedom

come up with an overall solution to the overall and total problem exist-
ing within large communities, or in the case of some smaller com-
munities, in the entire community, the problem being one of not only
physical improvement, but sociological and economic improvement.
But if we want to really solve this, and come up with demonstration
cities or models as to how it can best be done. It seems to me that we
should take the best talent we have available and make sure that the
moneys we are going to spend on these demonstration cities are well
spent, instead of haphazardly hoping that from city X, Y, or Z we are
going to come up not ultimate with a good plan, but rather take those
planners that the Secretary knows from experience are well qualified
and have them direct the broad concept that is going to be utilized
within these cities of varying sizes. I am wondering if you feel that
perhaps this might not be a better method than that method whereby
the cities are picked and then they are given a grant for the period
of a year to prepare those plans, and then subsequently they put these
plans into effect, if they are separable. Once again, the Secretary
stated, incidentally, when he appeared before us on Monday of last
week that certain cities would be given planning funds, and it was
logical to assume that the cities that would be given the planning
funds and which would report back within a year would be those cities
accepted because of the fact that they had been spending funds and
a year's time to come up with these plans. Therefore, we have a situa-
tion where it is not a question as to which cities have come up with an
expert plan, but it is going to be judged or turn on the point of which
cities have an acceptable plan.

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

Now, I wonder if you could give us a comment on these two varying
positions, Mr. Fay?

Mr. FAY. Perhaps it might be well in order to establish a common
basis for our discussion for me to point out how I understand the se-
lection process generally would work, and then I will respond to your
questions.

It is my understanding that any city which wishes to do so would submit a proposal which would not be a detailed expensive planning concept but would only be a statement of the goals it would expect to accomplish in the demonstration if it were selected as one.

Mr. ST GERMAIN. And I believe, Mr. Fay, that this would also include an outline of the needs of that particular city.

Mr. FAY. Of course; very much so.

And then the selection, as I understand it, would be made by whatever kind of group, probably by a blue ribbon jury, which might well include some of the outstanding planners of the country, which of those basic proposals should be accepted. And then the 90-percent planning funds would be directed to that group. And within a year they would come back in their detailed plans for the demonstration. I would hope that we would not lose sight of the need for experimentation and demonstration, and that the matter of need, which I know to be of the very greatest importance, might not sway our judg ment as simply being a means of utilizing these demonstration city funds to take care of an extremely complicated and difficult problem. we did that, we might end up by taking over half a dozen major problems around the country, but we might not have any demonstration or experimental results when we finished with a program.

If

[ocr errors]

So that I would still hope that the demonstration aspect would be one of the principal criteria against which these proposals would be evaluated.

Mr. MOORHEAD. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. ST GERMAIN. Yes.

Mr. MOORHEAD. I would like to ask, what about a city that has al ready done its planning? Would you say that it would be proper for it to submit a detailed plan and request a grant for an action demonstration, not necessarily to go through this planning request stage? Or is that not your understanding?

Mr. FAY. It is my understanding that the basic proposals would be reviewed first to make sure that everybody was considered on a fairly equal basis, and that when the groups were selected from those submitting basic proposals, then the city which has its homework done could come in very much more quickly. And it is our feeling that perhaps they might within a few weeks or not more than a very few months be ready to go.

But I would not think that it would be desirable at this beginning stage for a city to come in with its preparation in great depth unless they have it all ready, because even if you have a good staff and a lot of data it still would cost money to prepare such a proposal.

Mr. ST GERMAIN. Mr. Fay, the Secretary testified to this procedure, that they would pick out the 60 or 70 cities, and then after planning funds were available it would probably be a year before they came in with detailed plans. Once again I repeat, it is almost a foregone conclusion that these cities, once initially chosen, once they complete their plans, and these plans are implemented-I say to you, do you feel that this method is a method that is going to best achieve the result of the demonstration cities where we have no assurance that a great many of these smaller cities will be chosen?

You talk about an across-the-board situation in your testimony on page 4. We feel that cities of various sizes with different type problems and different locations should be the cities chosen as demonstration cities, so that having a class or category subsequently we will have an example to look at? It seems to me as though we don't have much assurance of the fact that we are going to get good demonstration city plans from a lot of these cities, under this particular procedure. Mr. FAY. Here again, Mr. Congressman, the original selection would be based on the

Mr. ST GERMAIN. The seven or eight guidelines?

Mr. FAY. Yes, the very general kind of proposal.

And then when the Secretary considered and evaluated the demonstration capabilities of the entire group, at that point he would authorize the execution of a contract for the planning grant that would permit them to develop the kind of carefully worked out and detailed programs that would provide the guide for the conduct of the demonstra tion.

Mr. ST GERMAIN. I guess I will have to let that one go.

You state that you feel that once again 60 or 70 cities should be concluded, and further down you break down the $2.3 billion. If you are going to have expert planning for those 60 or 70 cities, and you are going to have a variety of sizes and types of cities, I think you also agree that the funds are not very realistic at the $2.3 billion authoriza tion, even if it were completely appropriated it would be doubtlessly

[ocr errors]

low, if we wanted to accomplish what we should accomplish in these cities, without asking you what the specific amounts would be. And from your testimony I gather that you and your organization are also concerned that this particular act not drain from the present urban renewal programs, or from your present housing programs. You cited the testimony of Mrs. McGuire and Mr. Slayton on Monday last, where I actually was proposing these questions to them. Do you have any suggestions as to how we, in the Congress here, can insure the fact that this Demonstration Cities Act will not drain from our present urban renewal act, let us say?

Mr. FAY. Yes. We suggested, Mr. Congressman, that the entire amount of $2.3 billion be made available at once without respect to the annual limitations by way of contract authority, and then that would give us an opportunity to come another year to see where we stood with respect to the total amount.

Mr. ST GERMAIN. Do you feel that in these areas we have now arrived at the point where we are doing a great deal of planning with no reassurance of the fact that there will be funds available to execute or put into being these plans that are being submitted?

Mr. FAY. I am not familiar in detail with the situation in every city. But I know that in many cities around the country basically planning of a general nature has been done. But it is difficult to retain staffs and to maintain momentum in such programs when there is no assurance that applications can be handled quickly or that the funds will even be available. The situation of communities now submitting proposals for new projects is a very dim one, under the limitations of the act as it now stands. But if we were to make the entire contract authority available without respect or without regard to the annual limitations, I think this problem would be removed.

Mr. BARRETT. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr. Gonzalez?

Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman for the excellent analysis he has made; the analysis is the best we have had, section by section, so far.

But I am particularly pleased by the emphasis on your public housing statements, both as to the need to revise and modify some of the existing law as well as the new proposals, and particularly, your remarks on page 3 with respect to specific amendments which will permit the modernization and the updating of the older public housing.

I have been very much concerned with the testimony we have heard so far. And yet even with Secretary Weaver's testimony in which it seems to me I could be wrong, of course, but it seems to me that public housing was either being completely overlooked, or deemphasized, whereas from the practical standpoint in my own district I have become convinced that public housing is an integral valuable portion of a program which seeks to upgrade living conditions among those who really need the help the most. I know that there are many things that we can all point to, by way of suggestions, in improving public housing from the design standpoint of the experiences that we have had in San Antonio. But at the same time, even with all the shortcomings, I have personally been aware of so much good that has come of this program that I have been frankly very much worried. I noticed in the scheme or the outline of organization of the Department as presented by the Secretary, and I guess adopted, that public

housing does not seem to loom large in the conceptual thinking of those who are forming this broad new Department.

So I compliment you on recognizing that this is important. I realize that the organization is primarily faced with many problems. But nevertheless I hope that you will maintain an unremitting effort through your organization and your membership to alert the citizens of the danger that threatens the public housing in our country.

I do not agree with so many of the critics and enemies of public housing-of course, public housing has already been fought, and it seems to me that now we have reached a point where the enemy has gained a considerable victory. And yet the people this movement helps and has helped are generally the people who do not have an articulate voice. This is where I think we can better justify our election to these positions of ostensible representation.

So I end up where I started by complimenting you on your interest and your awareness of our need.

And Mr. Chairman, I yield back whatever time I may have remaining to my colleague, Mr. St Germain.

Mr. BARRETT. He has 22 minutes, Mr. St Germain.

Mr. ST GERMAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Fay, I would like to agree with you on a few of your proposed amendments. On page 13 as to modernization and updating of older low-rent housing developments, certainly we are all aware of the fact that a great many of these are in dire need of modernization and updating.

And No. 3 in your suggestions, "To encourage good as well as economical design," here again we have seen examples of some pretty horrible design. It seems as though there has been a trend thereI feel that this applies also to housing for the elderly. There seems to be a trend in economics, and one concept where they come up with a particular design, and it is acceptable, and it is found to be economical enough, and everywhere you go you see that same housing project or that same housing for the elderly project with maybe a few little minor variations, but in essence no real inspiration, no thought, no attempt at picking a site, for instance, that when developed would have natural beauty tied in with the design, and no attempt at having the design tied into the geographical location and the natural beauty that might be available.

And so I say to you, I commend you on bringing up this point, because I think it is terribly important. I think it is encumbent upon us to spend a little more time looking at many of these, and encourag ing better design and more efficient and effective design, and yet more beautiful design. Because these particular projects can lend to the beauty of the community if well executed.

Mr. FAY. Mr. Chairman, might I just respond to the Congressman. We have been very mindful of the problem in this direction. 1 might say that it is a very challenging matter, as you can readily understand, to take limitations of most sites that are available to us in our cities these days, and economically within the criteria still come up with something that is attractive. But NAHRO last year sponsored with the American Institute of Architects and the Public Housing Administration a series of design seminars, some 8 or 10 of them around the country, as I recall. This was carried out in part with a grant from the Ford Foundation, and was at least in part responsible

[ocr errors]

of

zof those

I realize

ms. But ag effor * citizers

[ocr errors]

of publi t. and t emr has ent help

1 artion

ection to

interes

лате те

the fo

and c

for some of the thinking that went into the design award program
of the Housing and Home Financing Agency in which the recommen-
dations covered public housing developments.

I think this has been quite a stimulating things. And of course,
it does not end here. It is a matter, as you have indicated, as to
which we need constantly to be alert.

Mr. ST GERMAIN. And lastly, Mr. Chairman, No. 5, you suggest "Authorization for overincome tenants to remain in occupancy and pay economic rents." I do not know if you want to answer this for the record now. If you want to submit an answer later, it will be all right with me.

My question there is, what is your reasoning behind it as to why? Mr. FAY. We have, of course, Mr. Congressman, covered this in greater detail than the supplement that is attached to the testimony. The reasoning generally is that it is a very disruptive process. The individual gets up to the point where he is no longer eligible for the public housing development. He has to move out. But there is no place for him to go except back into a deteriorating neighborhood. It is the question of the gap, the no man's land that exists between the top limits in public housing and the lowest rent in private enterprise.

Mr. ST GERMAIN. So that amendment of this type would include guidelines? In other words, if the family cannot go into housing other than substandard

Mr. FAY. That is right.

Mr. ST GERMAIN. If he cannot go into housing that is equal or better than what he is in?

Mr. FAY. That is right.

Mr. BARRETT. The time of the gentleman has expired.

All time has expired.

Mr. Fay, I certainly want to thank you for your fine testimony this morning. We have been glad to have you.

Mr. FAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BARRETT. The next witness will be Paul Davidoff, chairman of the Department of City Planning, Hunter College, New York, representing the Americans for Democratic Action, accompanied by David Cohen.

Mr. Davidoff, we are glad to have you here this morning, and your
companion. You are well known to us in the great City of Brotherly
Love, Philadelphia. And we certainly want you to feel at home here
this morning. If you desire, Mr. Davidoff to make your statement.
in full, and then have us ask some questions after you complete your
statement, you may do so.

STATEMENT OF PAUL DAVIDOFF, CHAIRMAN, DEPARTMENT OF
CITY PLANNING. HUNTER COLLEGE, NEW YORK; ACCOMPANIED
BY DAVID COHEN, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, AMERICANS
FOR DEMOCRATIC ACTION

Mr. DAVIDOFF. Thank you Mr. Chairman. It is a great privilege for me to appear here before your committee. I am a former resident your city, having just left there. I am now director of the Urban Research Center and professor of urban planning, and chairman of a

[ocr errors]
« iepriekšējāTurpināt »