ENT OF FREDERIC A. FAY, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCI- AY. The man accompanying me is Mr. John Lange, the execu ave identified me as the president of the association. And I cutive director of the Richmond, Va., Redevelopment and Authority. ARRETT. Of course, we are well acquainted with John Lange Te particularly commend th ction of the need for co e need for coordination We also particular ere metropolitan area pl the proposed Urban D Te give our support to t firm belief that the exi ent are the solid base o ; very fine statements of your organization. And I am sure e built. The prospects fo g and promising as the We should have assu their highest potentials, b tness before our committee, and we greatly appreciate the ssary by amendments ement that you will give us this morning will be edifying.stration efforts. It wo lesire to complete your statement you may do so, and we willed what is being accomp glad to have you and we certainly want you to feel at home. That cities can do under t some questions afterward. AY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. stimony consists of a prepared statement and a supplemental it that we should like to furnish for the printed record. And sing urban renewal and h recommendations to mak Chairman, there are three course, I will be pleased to answer any questions that may thich we wish to comment om the committee. with considerable pride, that I appear before you this mornor 33 years, our association, which, in the interest of brevity, ed; (2) the number of c pate in the program; and ( its demonstration proje a fast time schedule-can -fer to as NAHRO, has represented the views of the operating first point, it is our unde who have the responsibility of making both existing and new to provide evidence tha O-day basis. This is a great responsibility, for, as you well coordinated planning, , redevelopment, and code enforcement programs effective on he success of any program lies in its execution. membership consists of Federal, State, and local public offi in all types of federally aided housing, code enforcement, among many Federal, are concept. If we can m accelerated and expanded presenting every section of the Nation. They are actively lay, we feel sure there w Dan renewal operations in over 2000 localities across the at long last, begin to m fore, Mr. Chairman, we come before the committee to present nt of view of the individuals who must translate Federal ed blight that the mayors hers have been trying t existing programs. ce programs into action. Our problem is getting the job with dispatch, we think t nt Johnson and introduced by the chairman of this sub-ating various community ce the legislation has been approved. , we are here to give our support to three bills proposed by would certainly not requ a demonstration city: outlining the dimension age of the act. ee, Mr. Barrett, the Demonstration Cities Act of 1966, the d demonstration acts. these demonstrations sh f varying age, of varying ing social and economic available to cities of all si demonstration in a city th ban renewal or commun demonstration aspect shoul letion of cities. 4-pt.1-28 ASSOCI ACCOM TIONAL HALS пе ехест develop And I ent and Large Tate the Im sure lifring t home we m ment 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 mean that you have to have a housing authority in every county and every city. We do have some other new tools. In doing this job for Metropolitan Washington, I talked to county supervisors and said, "We have to provide housing, we are going to use 221(d) (3) out here, we have to have a common housing policy between the District of Columbia and some of the surrounding areas. It is not going to happen over night. But it is going to happen, I think, as people realize that the metropolitan area has to solve all of its problems, including the very tough problems of housing. Mr. HARVEY. I just have one other question-not a question, but an observation. I gather from the first page of your statement that you felt that these bills H.R. 12341, and H.R. 12946, are very definitely not in harmony. And I wonder if you would care to elaborate in that regard. Mr. WISE. I think that they could be in greater harmony if they were included in a single bill, in which we would then be able to relate one part to another. For example, in the Demonstration Cities Act, as I have said it in the testimony, it seems to me that this has to be looked at again as a part of a metropolitan phenomenon and not just a part of one neighborhood versus another neighborhood, and that we have got to look at the coordinator as a part of the demonstration center idea. If they were in one bill, I think we would begin to look at it more as an approach to the urban metropolitan phenomena in the country instead of parts of it. Mr. HARVEY. Thank you very much. I have no further questions. Mr. BARRETT. Thank you, sir. Mrs. Sullivan? Mrs. SULLIVAN. As a comment, sir, I thoroughly agree with Mr. Wise when he says that the program must be developed as a part of the comprehensive planning process for an entire metropolitan area. But I think there are going to be problems. And while I don't think that the problems could not be overcome, I believe they would be difficult. For instance, my own city of St. Louis, which is an independent city with a mayor and board of aldermen, while St. Louis County surrounding St. Louis has a country supervisor and a council. The city is not part of the county. One is Democratic and one is Republícan. Mr. WISE. I am very aware of that. Mrs. SULLIVAN. As I said, I think it would be worked out, but it would be difficult to get a comprehensive plan combining both areas. But we would be very foolish if we did not try. Mr. WISE. I have had, Mrs. Sullivan, some discussions with Supervisor Roos and some others in St. Louis about getting started a metropolitan council of government as a beginning for the exchange of common information. And some of these steps have already been taken. Mrs. SULLIVAN. I think it is the only way it can be done. Because we are seeing the movement of people into the county and suburbs and out of the city, to the detriment of the city, and when the central city goes down, the people in the suburbs feel it too, eventually. It is not to the benefit of either city or suburb for this to happen. COURT ing to policy treas pen, I Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Moorhead? Mr. MOORHEAD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Wise, if we do keep the bills separate, I wonder if you would comment on the proposal that the one bill which is now cited as the Urban Development Act should not properly be changed to be called the Metropolitan Development Act. Mr. WISE. I would certainly concur in that approach, Mr. Moorallhead, definitely. that of I Mr. MOORHEAD. With respect to this Federal coordinator, whatever title we finally come up with, am I correct that it is your testimony that there should be a coordinator for every metropolitan area, and we would not need a special coordinator for a demonstration city; we would have this one Federal coordinator whether this was a demonstration city or not; is that not correct? Mr. WISE. That is exactly my thinking. I think whether or not he is called a coordinator or a central source of information, whether he is out of the Bureau of the Budget or HUD, there is a great need for this in the localities. Mr. MOORHEAD. I had not thought of that possibility, that he would be out of the Bureau of the Budget. Mr. WISE. You might think about it. Mr. MOORHEAD. I do not know whether we have the jurisdiction to do that. Mr. WISE. If I may extend that thought for just a moment, Mr. Moorhead. I think the Bureau of the Budget has done a rather outstanding job of coordinating the efforts between various departments that have a parallel kind of a mission. The Executive order that came out, I think, last August or September related the planning requirements for the Open Space Act administered by HUD and the Land and Water Conservation Act administered by the Department of the Interior. These planning requirements are not in conflict, they are consistent. And this is one of the big jobs that the Bureau of the Budget has done. Mr. MOORHEAD. If they can do the job here in Washington-and You are suggesting that we have a fieldman to do that for metropolitan areas-I think the committee should consider that. Mr. Wise, you also testified about the job of relocation being metropolitanwide, and gave us an example in east Oakland of the possibility that the cities could use this new communities provision for establishing for helping to solve their relocation. Is this outside of the city limits; is that what you are proposing? Mr. WISE. The Oakland East development is somewhat similar to the Wisconsin situation I was speaking of. It would use a military facility of large acreage and would be some 12 miles outside the existing limits of the city of Oakland. But it would have the same city council, and the police department, and the same tax base, because it would be part of the same city. Mr. MOORHEAD. And the city of Oakland would expand by the purchase route, and the people who live in this new community would be considered citizens of Oakland and vote? Mr. WISE. Yes, indeed. Mr. MOORHEAD. I wonder if that could be done legally in other States, or is it a particular provision? Mr. WISE. It would require a fairly simple amendment, as a matter of fact, to the basic legislation in California to remove the requirement of continuity. But the idea is big enough and exciting enough, and addresses itself to many different problems. Although it has not been formally proposed to the legislature, the discussions I have had out there indicate that it would be pretty favorably received if the city wanted to do it. Mr. MOORHEAD. Yes; I know. In some cities, and I include my city of Pittsburgh, we have the problem, if we have tried to clear out slums we have no open land on which relocate people. Mr. WISE. Within the city. Mr. MOORHEAD. All we have is a greater density in another part of the city. Mr. WISE. This would be a part of the comprehensive metropolitan development plan, the new city of Oakland East, as they propose to call it, would be part of a planned growth development for that entire section of the east Pacific of the San Francisco Bay area. Mr. MOORHEAD. Thank you very much, Mr. Wise. I find your testimony extremely interesting and stimulating. Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Reuss? Mr. REUSS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Wise, I share your zeal to provide a climate in which metropolitan planning can thrive. I have certain difficulties with the proposition you advanced that the demonstration cities program should have as an essential criterion that the program not only be consistent with comprehensive metropolitan planning, which is what the present bill provides, but that it be developed as part of a comprehensive metropolitan plan. I would certainly hope that it would be. But what about a city which wants to have a demonstration cities grant program but finds itself surrounded by dog-in-the-manger suburbs which for all the reasons that you are familiar with, don't want to have metropolitan planning? I would hate to deprive such a city of the demonstration cities program when through no fault of its own it is not able to plan on a metropolitan basis. Mr. WISE. Mr. Reuss, I am certainly sympathetic and understand your position. I think, however, that I can observe that within, let's say, the next 5 years at the outset that it is quite likely that we are going to have effective metropolitan planning in every metropolitan area in the United States. Now, the Highway Act of 1962 required that there be a comprehensive transportation planning process in place and going by July 30, 1965, in every metropolitan area. I think almost all if not all of the metropolitan areas in the United States have achieved that, or have met that requirement. Mr. REUSS. There was, of course, an important stick being held over the backs of these communities, because if they did not participate in such combined metropolitan transport planning, the highway would not go through their borders, and that would be the end of them. But what about a selfish suburban community which could not care less about the explosive Wattses in the central city? We have them. And how are they going to be impelled to participate in broad-scale metropolitan planning just to help the central city get its grant to clear its Watts area? up P |