T period th Tears unde local actio m must be vide a base similar to facilitar ial testirs te plante! tive mi ly to fall on to the programs ated de istrativc plan an n 117& rants fr obligati an ez verti all le families only, as one strong tool to meet housing needs, there will be increasing emphasis on ways to provide diversified housing, involving more than the low-income group. Providing incentives for low-income families to move toward eventual independence is recognized as essential in all assistance efforts. Providing opportunities for low-income families to participate in decisionmaking affecting their own welfare is now recognized as a realistic goal. Coordination of all types of low-income assistance in a comprehensive attack on the total cycle of deprivation is viewed as the only possibility for long-term success in lifting a family from deep poverty. All housing programs must frankly acknowledge the current gaps in coverage in reaching low-income families. Two of the most evident gaps are in meeting the housing needs of the large family and the very low income family. More aggressive solutions should be sought to reach these two groups in particular. As the public housing program becomes a part of the new Department, it bring a long, tested experience in housing construction and management. New forms of assistance authorized in recent housing legislation-such as the "flexible financial formula" and the leasing of private housing-will make it increasingly possible for public housing to move beyond a project concept and become an effective partner in neighborhood and total community planning. Recent progress in seeking to achieve (a) excellence in housing design, (b) increased access to social services, and (c) a resurgence of tenant organizations, is promising. However, to press forward with these gains requires either reemphasis or implementation with respect to Development costs: Achieving imaginative, yet economical architecture in low-income housing requires the full availability of the development cost ceilings authorized by the Congress in the 1965 act. No arbitrary administrative ceilings should be substituted for those set in the Housing Act. Modernization funding: Providing an adequate financing mechanism for modernization of older housing developments, particularly those 20 years of age or more, is an urgent necessity. Land write-down: Access to a write-down of land for public housing development outside urban renewal areas can greatly accelerate site availability. The below-market interest rate programs and the rent supplement program must respond sensitively to the needs of the 1960's. This means a firm commitment to serve families most in need of housing and to recognize their special needs, particularly in the area of social services. The importance of good housing design at a reasonable density should be a prime area for concern. These programs place great emphasis on the capacity of nonprofit groups as housing sponsors. NAHRO strongly supports this increased role and pledges its resources to assist nonprofit sponsors in achieving skills in development and management of housing, particularly through its training institutes and seminars. NAHRO also pledges its help in developing strong relationships between the nonprofit housing sponsor and local housing, renewal and codes agencies, so that they can pursue mutual interests in assisting low- and moderate-income families. NAHRO sees the next 2 years as strategic in the exploration and testing of new ideas in housing assistance and ways for public and private agencies to work together. Action area D We must take the initiative for an immediate, large-scale training and manpower development program for the urban development professions, encouraging teaching institutions at all levels to educate young people in the philosophy and the technique of urban development and then recruiting them as workers in the field. Despite increasing professionalism in the housing. renewal, and codes enforcement fields, little has been done to create solid educational support for these emerging professions. If urban progress is to continue, the training resources of every public and private body interested in manpower development for the urban professions must be mobilized to provide a broad range of educational programs, especially in-service training. NAHRO sees the following action goals for the next 2 years: 60-878-66-pt. 1-29 1. Immediate creation of the Institute of Utha Development called for by the President in his "Message on the Cities” giring special priority for the training of local officials. 2. Immediate attention to providing shortwave trining for code enforcement officials to assist them in initiating the endes assistance provisions recently made available in national housing eristation. 3. Examination and adjustment of personnel pelities and recruitment pracrices for housing and urban deveinpment agencies-Federal, State, and localto assure that they are conducive to attracting and keeping the best new talent available, ineinding: Extension of the local public agency training of vet supported by the Urban Renewal Administration to all local agencies operating programs under the new Department of Housing and Urban Development: Acceleration of the Housing and Home Finance Agency's intern program under the new Department: Increase in the summer and part-time job and internship opportunities for students in agencies at all levels: Improvement in opportunities for professional advancement, accelerated training and meaningful salary and benefit increments for midcareer agency personnel. 4. Acceleration of present in-service training activities by all sponsors and expansion of specialized programs into new areas, incinding: Review of the mechanism for implementing title VIII of the 1964 Housing Act in an effort to facilitate State-local coordination of in-service training for future use in this and other Federal legislation: Increased use of all presently available Federal in-service training assistance programs in such areas as aging, poverty, and public welfare: Initiation of the new opportunities for local agency-university partnerships under the Higher Education Act of 1965: Expansion of NAHRO's program of short-term, in-service training through sponsorship of training institutes, publications, and program development. In addition to capitalizing upon its present resources. NAHRO should seek foundation support for establishing, as a continuing, independent section of the association. a national in-service training center for administrators and specialists in the housing and urban development professions. [From the Journal of Housing, No. 1, 1966] "NEW TOWNS" ROLE IN URBAN GROWTH EXPLORED. PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES EXAMINED (1) FORM OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT, (2) LAND USE CONTROLs, (3) RELATIONSHIP TO CENTRAL CITIES (By Robert Gladstone, of Robert Gladstone & Associates, economic consultants, Washington, D.C. The following statement was presented to a general session of NAHRO's National Conference on Oct. 26, 1965. Mr. Gladstone's firm is responsible for a long list of economic studies for downtown, residential, commercial, and industrial development projects) New communities program proposals have been controversial for a number of years, failing twice to gain congressional acceptance, although changed in substance and even in name-from "new towns" initially to "extensive development" in the 1965 attempt. Evaluation of new communities as a policy of urban development-apart for the moment from specific program proposals can clarify the debate on program. Accordingly, it is our task here to identify and analyze major public policy issues in the light of national and local trends and interests-especially the interests represented in NAHRO's membership. Four major items are of particular interest to us. In summary, these are: 1. Center city redevelopment and new community development-are these conflicting objectives? 2. New communities, metropolitan development policies, and the role of Fed eral Government. 3. Social patterns and segregation--the contrast between new communities and suburban development. 4. Local government issues and new community development-problems of urban services, self-determination, and fiscal factors. CENTRAL CITY, NEW COMMUNITIES Perhaps the single most critical issue is the relationship between central city development and redevelopment and the creation of new communities in the metropolitan orbit. Key questions are: Do new communities compete with central cities for development, sapping the vitality of the central city? Is suburban "sprawl" actually an advantage to central cities? Would new communities compete for Federal urban development funds, drawing them away from central cities? Fundamental to resolution of these questions are the trends, scale, and location of urban gains in U.S. metropolitan areas. Analysis of these trends and patterns to be discussed in further detail below-points up a number of important factors that would hold whether or not a new communities policy were to operate for the Nation. These factors include the following: The fact of urban growth is not arguable in terms of the past record, as well as the indicated future pattern. The location of new growth within metropolitan areas has been and must continue to be dominantly peripheral, even though redevelopment and intensification in central city locations may occur. We are familiar with the pace of urbanization dramatically expressed by the reminder that 1 million acres of new land moves into urban development each year. And indeed, the function of the metropolitan periphery-where open land is available—is to absorb much of the new growth occurring in urban locations. The largest share of urban gains is focused to a remarkably high degree on a selected group of U.S. metropolitan areas. These limited, maximum impact areas are the most seriously affected by growth and extension problems and, of course, would potentially be the most directly affected by new communities policies. I would estimate that only one-third of our 200-plus metropolitan areas would be substantially affected, based on present pace and scale factors in the marketplace. Given the pattern of continuing, substantial, fast-paced urban gains, the key issues as they relate to city development patterns then become: First, not whether metropolitan growth and extension will occur, but, rather, how, where, and when it will occur; and Second, whether suburban development patterns typical of postwar United States are to continue-and make no mistake here, because the outlook is for a continuation into the future--or whether improved patterns based on specific program and policy intervention can be introduced to better this pattern. In this context, the role of the central city would remain strong, although dynamically changing. The task of central city development is to identify existing as well as new strengths and support them fully and creatively by appropriate action. Rather than competing with central cities, in a rational distribution of the region's activities, new communities would complement them. NEW COMMUNITY CONCEPTS A new communities policy and effective programs for their development are potential basic ingredients in a new pattern of urban growth for the Nation. The prime objective in a new communities program would be to accommodate the Nation's urban gains on an improved basis. Critical to this concept would be a full response in the new communities to urban growth needs. To do this, they would need to be an integral part of the metropolitan regional system, directly relating to the metropolitan social and cultural structure: its economy, its transportation system, its open space and land development patterns, and the full range of its market systems. Although some relatively isolated, semiautonomous, or economically specialized new communities might continue to be built, as in the past, the overwhelming orientation of new communities would be toward metropolitan locations, where the major population gains of the Nation and its primary economic growth are taking place. Los Alamos, Kitamat, and other "Shangri-La" communities are not relevant to the mainstream issues of urban and metropolitan problems in the Nation today. No hard-and-fast definition of new towns is applicable to all situations in various parts of the country. This is especially true at the present time, even though a more sophisticated definition might evolve with further new community building in the years ahead. However, criteria relating both to scale and fea 4. Write-down of land for public housing outside urban renewal areas.-Slum clearance has been an integral part of the public housing program since its inception in 1937. With the passage of the Housing Act of 1949, Congress accepted the principle that slum clearance is a one-time operation. However, this principle has never been applied to the public housing program, except in cases where a public housing site is part of an official urban renewal area. Thus, total slum clearance costs are still made a part of the total development cost and amortized over a 40-year period. This not only distorts public housing costs, but does not provide incentive for local housing authorities to acquire slum sites, with the attendant costs of relocation and demolition. With the many opportunities for a local housing authority to contribute to the clearance of poor housing, every step should be taken to encourage and move forward such action, without waiting for the designation of such housing as part of an official urban renewal area. It is recommended that the same procedure be authorized for public housing sites outside urban renewal areas as for inside such areas. This would provide that a determination be made of the equivalent price for which such site would be made available if it were part of an urban renewal area, under the formula established under section 107(b) of the Housing Act. Under this procedure, the Public Housing Administration would remit to the local housing authority at the time of permanent financing, an amount chargeable to the annual contributions contract, or a direct grant, equal to the net difference between total costs of site preparation and price which has been determined as the amount to be included in the total development cost for permanent financing. This would be a clearance cost, as distinct from construction and development. 5. Tenants to remain in public housing occupancy and pay economic rents.— The Housing Act of 1961 included a provision whereby under "special circumstances" a tenant family in public housing, with income in excess of the maximum income limits could remain in occupancy, provided it is demonstrated that private housing is not available in the community at a rent it can afford to pay. Such a family, thus certified, can remain in occupancy for the "duration of such situation." This provision is helpful as a temporary measure in response to the hardship situation of an individual family. However, it does not affect a basic policy of public housing where a family whose income is rising is under constant pressure of possible eviction. Nor does such a procedure lend itself to a positive program aimed at promoting residential stability and personal neighbor relationships. NAHRO proposes that a public housing family reaching the point of the income limit maximum be allowed to remain in occupancy and pay economic rent, thus contributing to family and neighborhood stability. At the same time, we recommend that the local housing authority be required to substitute an additional housing unit within its total program, for occupancy by a family within the income limit eligibility, for every unit occupied by a family paying economic rent. 6. Sale of portions of public housing developments to nonprofit housing sponsors. In order to encourage a wide diversification of low and moderate income groups and household types in public housing, NAHRO proposes an amendment which would make it possible, where feasible, for local housing authorities to sell a portion of a public housing development to a nonprofit housing sponsor. In the event such a sponsor is serving families with incomes higher than those eligible for public housing, the local housing authority would be required to provide additional, substitute low-income housing units as part of its total program. Other recommendations.-Listed below are additional recommendations taken from the "NAHRO program for low income housing" presented to the Congress in 1964 and 1965. We believe that they are still needed and are ready to discuss the details of these recommendations at any time. 1. Assistance in the development of commercial facilities in relation to public housing. 2. Establishment of eligibility of local housing authorities as sponsors of FHA 221 (d) (3) and CFA 202 programs. 3. Elimination of the 20-percent gap requirement. 4. Change in name of low-rent public housing assistance to more accurately reflect its current functions and program. 5. Study of the public housing mutual-help program now used on Indian reservations to determine its application in an urban setting. reas.-S m since 9, COLE Howeve 1, except rea. This nt cost a g costs. slum sites bute to the and mor housing ic bors Id pro site wa e for procedure auther COLTTI otal es Moderate income and elderly housing The nonprofit housing sponsor is increasingly recognized as an important means of attaining a more adequate supply of housing for low- and moderateincome families. The chief sources of Federal assistance for these groups are: Section 221 (d) (3) (moderate income housing); section 202 (direct loan program for the elderly); rent supplements in connection with the foregoing programs; and assistance under moderate-income housing programs used in combination with the public housing program. Nonprofit groups associated with NAHRO have indicated that there are a number of things which would be desirable in assisting nonprofit groups to assume their new responsibilities. Some of the recommendations require changes in the law, while others are matters of administration. They include in general, needs for more uniformity between the requirements and provisions of section 221(d)(3) and section 202 and more technical assistance geared to the needs of the nonprofit sponsor to enable him to qualify for assistance and carry through with long-term management responsibilities. We would like to cite the following: (1) Organizational and planning fee: Section 221 (d) (3) provides for such a fee while section 202 does not. On the other hand, section 202 will authorize a loan consultant fee but will not permit such fee to be given to the staff of the nonprofit agency performing such work. (2) Payment for equipment: Offices and community space: Section 221 (d) (3) permits such equipment to be included as cost items under the mortgage; under section 202, the nonprofit sponsor must purchase such equipment. (3) Working capital: Under section 202, a nonprofit sponsor must put in escrow one-quarter of the first year's operating costs, unless he can show 75 percent occupancy at project opening. Under section 221(d) (3) such working capital can be a mortgage item. (4) Adaptability to elderly occupancy: Under section 202, requirements permit Occupancy of an efficiency unit by two persons. Under section 221(d) (3) no more than 10 percent of all units can be efficiency, thus making it less useful as housing for elderly. This last requirement makes rehabilitation difficult in many instances since many structures available for rehabilitation contain small units. (5) Section 221 (d) (3) requires certification of the city's workable program; section 202 does not. (6) It is not clear whether costs for training management employees is an eligible cost under either or both programs. In general, NAHRO would recommend that administrators of the agencies of the Department of HUD responsible for the administration of section 202 and 221 (d) (3) be encouraged by the Congress to work together and with nonprofit sponsors to make sponsor requirements as uniform as possible, as well as provide additional technical assistance to enable nonprofit groups more effectively to meet their responsibilities. After careful examination by these groups, we sug gest that a listing of any technical amendments necessary be submitted for the consideration of the Congress. 1965-67 POLICY RESOLUTION OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOUSING AND (Adopted at 30th National Conference, Sheraton Hotel, Philadelphia, Pa., October PREAMBLE The United States is staggering under the burdens of the urban age. An immense job lies ahead in adjusting institutions, attitudes, and living patterns to a new, overwhelming, rapidly changing America. Nowhere is the magnitude of the job more evident than in the field of housing and urban development. NAHRO believes it is fortunate that, at this critical juncture in the evolution of urbanism in the United States, a Cabinet-rank Department of Housing and Urban Development is now a reality. This Department can provide the framework and focus to bring together all the diverse, complex facets of urban life in a meaningful alliance. It is fortunate, also, that many of the basic legislative authorizations necessary to move housing and urban development programs more effectively are now part of national law: the Housing Act of 1964 and the Housing and Community Development Act of 1965 reflect a broadened vision of urban development and give new life to many older programs. |