Mr. WIDNALL. There seems to be a considerable time lag between the commitment in the beginning of the programs and the consummation of the programs.

Mr. FAY. That is true.

Mr. WIDNALL. And somewhere along the line I think Congress ought to be able to do a better job in expediting and the fulfillment of the dreams that everybody has as far as urban renewal is concerned. Don't you find that the time lag in many instances is very helpful to the project?

Mr. FAY. There is no question about it, Mr. Congressman. Those of us who are attempting to carry out such programs have indeed found it to be that way.

I might say that a part of the problem has been uncertainty of cities to undertake even the most general kinds of preliminary planning until they were reasonably certain that funds would be available with which to undertake the program.

is

And then by its very nature, the urban redevelopment program a long, drawn out process, involving many approvals at many levels, and some of the most complicated and difficult types of problems that we encounter in our cities.

Mr. WIDNALL. Do you have figures on public housing? What I have in mind is this, whether or not you know the percent of turnover in the public housing program?

Mr. FAY. I would not know the general figures. We could get that for you and furnish it to you. In our situation in Richmond our turnover is about 20 percent.

(The information requested follows:)

TURNOVER, LENGTH OF STAY AND REASONS FOR MOVEOUT IN PUBLIC HOUSING

The latest available figures from the Public Housing Administration reports indicate that the annual average turnover for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1965, was 21 percent. Figures for recent fiscal years are: 1964, 21.4 percent; 1963, 21.8 percent; 1962, 22 percent; 1961, 22.7 percent.

Comparable figures in private real estate management are contained in the Apartment Experience Exchange of the Journal of Property Management. This is a publication of the Institute of Real Estate Management and covers information for over 40,000 private apartment units in all parts of the country. The rate of turnover for calendar year 1964 was: 18.3 percent for elevator apartments; 24.4 percent for walkup apartments of 12 to 24 units; 20.1 percent for walkup apartments of 25 or more units; and 40 percent for garden-type apartments.

The reasons for turnover and length of occupancy are varied, although there are obvious relationships with age of household and housing opportunities. Recent figures for families in public housing indicate that the average length of stay is about 5 years. The breakdown of length of stay for eligible tenants in occupancy in fiscal 1964 is:

Number of eligible families in public housing occupancy (460,960 families)

Year of admission:

1964

1963

1962.

1961.

1960.

1959_

1958.

1957

5

Tor

lag bet

e consum

k Com

fulfill Sconce

helpful an. T Dare de

ertaing

v plan ilable

While the Public Housing Administration does not report rates of turnover of length of stay by age or characteristics of household, it is the experienced opinion of many local housing administrators that the smallest turnover occurs among elderly households who are at the end of the family cycle and have no potential for increasing their incomes.

The reasons for moveout again are varied but strongly related to stage in the family cycle of the individual family, type of employment, and access to housing opportunities. In public housing, reasons for moveout are not only varied, but directly related to the particular purposes of the program, including the fact that families are low income. Thus, in addition to such factors as changes in family composition and circumstance, there are such contributing factors as evictions for overincome, and for nonpayment of rent as well as for a variety of economic and social motivations including the ebb and flow of employment and housing opportunities in the community.

On the average, some 10 to 20 percent of public housing families move every year to purchase their own homes; these are largely young families in the first stage of the family cycle whose income has risen while in public housing occupancy.

Mr. WIDNALL. What is the average length of stay of a tenant in public housing?

41⁄2

Mr. FAY. About 412 years. That again is our own experience. Mr. WIDNALL. Are the reasons for leaving basically a change in the income or other reasons?

Mr. FAY. There are many reasons. We have been attempting to follow the progress of public housing tenants from the standpoint of income and their own elevation in society. And we have been very pleased to notice over the past 20 years that bout 10 percent of the families that go through our public housing projects move out to buy homes of their own. To be sure, these homes are not fully paid for, but at least they have progressed from the point of requiring public assistance to get a roof over their heads to a point where they will be becoming in effect taxpaying citizens and responsible members of the community.

Mr. WIDNALL. Are those who are receiving public assistance the ones who normally stay in public housing the longest?

Mr. FAY. I think the ones who stay longest are the broken families, and the elderly woman whose husband perhaps has died and whose children have moved away, and who now has the illnesses of age, and on that account there is no prospect of her improving her situation. Mr. WIDNALL. Thank you for a constructive statement. Mr. BARRETT. Mrs. Sullivan?

Mrs. SULLIVAN. I have just one question I would like to ask Mr. Fay. It was suggested last week by one witness that there would be so many difficulties in selecting the demonstration cities that we should encourage all cities to make their plans and then put all the names of those offering fully qualified plans in a fish bowl and select the cities by chance. From your testimony you don't feel this is the way

to do it.

Mr. FAY. I think it might be the quick and easy way to do it. But I am not sure that it would be the most satisfactory in the long run. Mrs. SULLIVAN. But you do feel-I think you mentioned in your testimony that you feel that 60 or 70 of these cities would be needed to participate in order to have a fair evaluation of whether the demonstration cities program is successful?

Mr. FAY. Yes, madam. In order to provide a complete cross section of the various local conditions in various population brackets that have been described by the Secretary. That does not give a very

60-878-66-pt. 1- -30

Mr. WIDNALL. There seems to be a considerable time lag between the commitment in the beginning of the programs and the consummation of the programs.

Mr. FAY. That is true.

Mr. WIDNALL. And somewhere along the line I think Congress ought to be able to do a better job in expediting and the fulfillment of the dreams that everybody has as far as urban renewal is concerned. Don't you find that the time lag in many instances is very helpful to the project?

Mr. FAY. There is no question about it, Mr. Congressman. Those of us who are attempting to carry out such programs have indeed found it to be that way.

I might say that a part of the problem has been uncertainty of cities to undertake even the most general kinds of preliminary planning until they were reasonably certain that funds would be available with which to undertake the program.

is

And then by its very nature, the urban redevelopment program a long, drawn out process, involving many approvals at many levels, and some of the most complicated and difficult types of problems that we encounter in our cities.

Mr. WIDNALL. Do you have figures on public housing? What I have in mind is this, whether or not you know the percent of turnover in the public housing program?

Mr. FAY. I would not know the general figures. We could get that for you and furnish it to you. In our situation in Richmond our turnover is about 20 percent.

(The information requested follows:)

TURNOVER, LENGTH OF STAY AND REASONS FOR MOVEOUT IN PUBLIC HOUSING

The latest available figures from the Public Housing Administration reports indicate that the annual average turnover for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1965, was 21 percent. Figures for recent fiscal years are: 1964, 21.4 percent; 1963, 21.8 percent; 1962, 22 percent; 1961, 22.7 percent.

Comparable figures in private real estate management are contained in the Apartment Experience Exchange of the Journal of Property Management. This is a publication of the Institute of Real Estate Management and covers information for over 40,000 private apartment units in all parts of the country. The rate of turnover for calendar year 1964 was: 18.3 percent for elevator apartments; 24.4 percent for walkup apartments of 12 to 24 units; 20.1 percent for walkup apartments of 25 or more units; and 40 percent for garden-type apartments.

The reasons for turnover and length of occupancy are varied, although there are obvious relationships with age of household and housing opportunities. Recent figures for families in public housing indicate that the average length of stay is about 5 years. The breakdown of length of stay for eligible tenants in occupancy in fiscal 1964 is:

Number of eligible families in public housing occupancy (460,960 families)

Year of admission:

1964.

5

ne lag ber

he consum

ink Cong he fulfill

is concen

ery helpf

man. I have ind

certain

While the Public Housing Administration does not report rates of turnover of length of stay by age or characteristics of household, it is the experienced opinion of many local housing administrators that the smallest turnover occurs among elderly households who are at the end of the family cycle and have no potential for increasing their incomes.

The reasons for moveout again are varied but strongly related to stage in the family cycle of the individual family, type of employment, and access to housing opportunities. In public housing, reasons for moveout are not only varied, but directly related to the particular purposes of the program, including the fact that families are low income. Thus, in addition to such factors as changes in family composition and circumstance, there are such contributing factors as evictions for overincome, and for nonpayment of rent as well as for a variety of economic and social motivations including the ebb and flow of employment and housing opportunities in the community.

On the average, some 10 to 20 percent of public housing families move every year to purchase their own homes; these are largely young families in the first

arr plan stage of the family cycle whose income has risen while in public housing

ailable

occupancy.

Mr. WIDNALL. What is the average length of stay of a tenant in progr public housing?

many leve oblemst

? What

of turmo

mond

Mr. FAY. About 42 years. That again is our own experience.
Mr. WIDNALL. Are the reasons for leaving basically a change in
the income or other reasons?

Mr. FAY. There are many reasons. We have been attempting to follow the progress of public housing tenants from the standpoint of income and their own elevation in society. And we have been very could pleased to notice over the past 20 years that about 10 percent of the families that go through our public housing projects move out to buy homes of their own. To be sure, these homes are not fully paid for, but at least they have progressed from the point of requiring public assistance to get a roof over their heads to a point where they will be becoming in effect taxpaying citizens and responsible members of the community.

Hors

I

Mr. WIDNALL. Are those who are receiving public assistance the ones who normally stay in public housing the longest?

Mr. FAY. I think the ones who stay longest are the broken families, and the elderly woman whose husband perhaps has died and whose children have moved away, and who now has the illnesses of age, and on that account there is no prospect of her improving her situation. Mr. WIDNALL. Thank you for a constructive statement.

Mr. BARRETT. Mrs. Sullivan?

It was

Mrs. SULLIVAN. I have just one question I would like to ask Mr. Fay. suggested last week by one witness that there would be so many difficulties in selecting the demonstration cities that we should encourage all cities to make their plans and then put all the names of those offering fully qualified plans in a fish bowl and select the cities by chance. From your testimony you don't feel this is the way

to do it.

Mr. FAY. I think it might be the quick and easy way to do it. But am not sure that it would be the most satisfactory in the long run. Mrs. SULLIVAN. But you do feel-I think you mentioned in your testimony that you feel that 60 or 70 of these cities would be needed to participate in order to have a fair evaluation of whether the demonstration cities program is successful?

Mr. FAY. Yes, madam. In order to provide a complete cross section of the various local conditions in various population brackets that have been described by the Secretary. That does not give a very

60-878-66-pt. 1- -30

སྙན་རྒྱུ

where appropriate; (b) for exploring the need for statewide minimum housing standards, with concomitant authority to insure their enforcement: (c) for exploring other areas of need for statewide standards; (d) for undertaking, where feasible, direct financial aid to localities as supplements to Federal housing and urban development programs; (e) for encouraging State educational institutions to become aggressive partners in urban development through teaching, research, and leadership.

Local structure.-Local governmental agencies: It is the NAHRO view that there has never been a time of greater opportunity-or greater need-for pulling together the related interests of local agencies that work on various aspects of urban development. The technique, however, is still to be found. It will be NAHRO's objective in the coming biennium to follow all of the patterns being used, in the expectation that a recommended structure will emerge. Devices currently in use involve both the coordination of several functions and various types of areawide groupings of single functions, both of which will be put under study by the association.

Public-private agencies: In the area of restructuring of public-private relationships, the association notes that the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965 opened up many new opportunities for public-private operation and expanded existing opportunities.

In the field of housing, there are new opportunities for the participation of real estate, building, and financing interests-directly, as housing sponsors and management agents and, indirectly, through cooperative efforts with local housing authorities in leasing, development, and rehabilitation programs. The nonprofit housing sponsor has an expanded role and responsibility, both independently and in coordination with the local housing authority. NAHRO urges local housing authorities to take the initiative in developing programs with builders, realtors, financing institutions, nonprofit housing sponsors.

In urban renewal, the private developer has already taken an important role in the planning and land disposition phases of operation. The real estate broker also has played a specialized role in the selling of urban renewal land. In central business district redevelopment and in areas renewed as industrial parks, chambers of commerce, businessmen's committees, and private development groups have been effective partners of local public agencies. These same relationships should be applied just as extensively in neighborhood conservation and rehabilitation areas.

In the area of rehabilitation, applying both to urban renewal and codes enforcement activity, NAHRO emphasizes the need for close public and private cooperation to refine the reshabilitation process, to devise a "package" approach that will bring economies of scale to the rehabilitation effort, and to move toward the establishment of a private rehabilitation industry.

Citizen organization structure.-NAHRO anticipates that, in the coming 2 years, public programs directed toward the alleviation of such social problems as poverty, unemployment, racial segregation, substandard housing, will increasingly reflect planning and policy decisions reached by the people to whom the programs are directed. Already there are organizational structures of various kinds through which citizens are channeling their ideas on the public issues that these programs involve. Some of these structures have been framed to encourage aggressive, even militant, expression; others are directed toward the process of education and discussion; others, toward direct self-help action. NAHRO recognizes that planning with, rather than planning for local citizens must become the guiding principle of community action programs on the local level and NAHRO sees as an important task of the biennium ahead an evaluation of these varied methods of bringing the citizen into active participation in the urban development process. What should be sought is a method that will respect the factual and technical recommendations of the operating official, while, at the same time, accommodating the aspirations and special needs of the affected citizen. If we succeed in finding a technique that actually brings these citizens into the policymaking process, without precipitating clashes and power struggles, the United States will have again demonstrated the strength of its democratic institutions.

Action area C

We must reshape the specific programs with which NAHRO members are concerned (housing, renewal, and codes administration) to fit both the purposes and the structures that come out of action areas A and B.