Page images
PDF
EPUB

clinic, it includes a gas station, which will be started next week, and we want to make it a wholly, self-contained village.

We also are building a motel, which will be started in 2 weeks, so that if the senior citizens or the tenants of the place feel inclined to have their children or grandchildren near them, they have a place to live there. The motel will be very reasonably priced. The stores will sell merchandise and we are going to see to it that they are selling it at a fair profit and not exorbitant profit so that these senior citizens can live decently, comfortably and have a few dollars left every month to go to the movies or have whatever they want to; don't you see?

Mr. TALLE. What is the nearest town?

Mr. STELLING. The nearest town is Riverview, four miles.
Mr. TALLE. How large is that town?

Mr. STELLING. That is a small town. The other town is Tampa, a big town, which is 12 miles, but we have buses already purchased which will bring all these people to Tampa, to the beaches, to the river, which is 2 miles away, for fishing, if they want to, and take them on excursions once in awhile and picnics once in awhile and keep them amused.

Mr. TALLE. Is your property in the storm and tornado area?

Mr. STELLING. No, sir. Anyhow, the houses are entirely built of cement and steel and there is very little chance of them-maybe a few tiles would blow off the roof, but that is about all. Tampa is on the west coast and has not the hurricane problem they have on the east coast. Of course, the houses are built hurricane proof. They can stand about 200 miles an hour wind.

Mr. TALLE. Thank you, Mr. Stelling. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BROWN. Mr. Stelling, we are glad to have your testimony. You may be excused now.

The next witness, Mr. Clerk?

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, the next witness is Mr. Robert D. Sipprell, National Association of Housing and Redevolopment Officials.

Mr. BROWN. Come around, Mr. Sipprell. You may proceed in your own way.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT D. SIPPRELL, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT OFFICIALS, CHICAGO, ILL.; ACCOMPANIED BY LAWRENCE M. COX, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING AUTHORITY, NORFOLK, VA.

Mr. SIPPRELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the House Committee on Banking and Currency.

I notice that the clock is running on, and with your permission, in presenting our oral testimony, I will perhaps summarize some provisions of it in the interest of your time and ours.

Mr. name is Robert D. Sipprell, and I am appearing as president of the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials. I am also the executive director of the Buffalo Municipal Housing Authority of Buffalo, N. Y.

I have also with me today Mr. Lawrence Cox, who is the executive director of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Norfolk, Va. He is with me in his capacity as a former president of our association and because he now directs a very active program of urban renewal and might be helpful in questions.

The National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials is a private, nonprofit professional association of citizens and local public officials interested in the improvement of public administrative practice in housing, redevelopment, and community renewal and in the achievement of a healthful living environment for every American family.

The members of our organization are, largely, those who are administering the public housing and urban renewal programs in cities throughout the United States. They are concerned with all the problems of planning, financing, building, managing, and regulating housing for low-income families and under the urban renewal programwith slum clearance, housing rehabilitation, neighborhood conservation and enforcement of housing standards laws.

This association and its membership has a very real interest in the several bills before this committee since they all include provisions which affect the manner in which we can carry out our local programs and fulfill the objectives of national housing policy set forth in the Housing Act of 1949. Our testimony is based on more than 20 years of housing experience in this field, on the part of local housing officials throughout the country.

Perhaps the most important single area of concern to us at this time is the matter of Federal-local relations in the housing field. We feel this subject should also be of grave concern to the Congress.

At the annual conference of the association held in Cleveland last October, our membership went on record through a formal resolution protesting "the accelerating trend toward Federal domination of local public housing and renewal programs." I am submitting the full text of this resolution as an appendix to this testimony.

It is notable that some of the Federal-local difficulties outlined in our NAHRO resolution were also revealed by the on-the-spot examinations of the subcommittee on housing of this committee during this past fall and winter. These observations stem largely from an examination of local urban renewal operations but, from our experience, have equal validity in the public housing field. The specific reference is found on pages 24-25 of Report No. 1 of the Subcommittee on Housing.

I have quoted in my statement some sections from your report and with your permission, I will skip over that because I am sure it is familiar language to the members of this committee. There were a good many strong words, but we must say that we share with the subcommittee its strong feelings on this matter. While we recognize that any program of Federal assistance requires regulations, reports, and proper checks and audits, it is our sincere belief that Federal agencies have gone beyond these points. We particularly are discouraged by Federal insistence on detailed supervision of local programs, entangled procedures, and small regard for local initiative and enthusiasm. All of these matters taken together have placed a virtually impossible burden on local agencies trying to move forward on public

housing and urban renewal programs. With all of the difficult problems facing us we need now, more than ever, a sense of partnership between Federal and local agencies and a mutual eagerness to move projects along quickly and effectively. Putting it even more strongly, unless this roadblock is removed, it is doubtful if the very challenging and essential housing program enacted by the Congress can ever be achieved.

I would like to digress, with your permission, and state that the Federal-local relationship we are talking about is embodied in a contract identified as an annual contributions contract. In order for you to understand some of the concern we have in this contract relationship, I would like with your permission to submit for the record and for your information a contract document, and an analysis of the contract, as prepared by a contract committee of our association last July.

An examination of the declaration of national housing policy contained in the Housing Act of 1949 shows clearly that it was the intent of Congress that these programs be locally oriented. This is further borne out by the legislative testimony accompanying the adoption of the Housing Act of 1937 and 1949. The more recent statements by the Subcommittee on Housing lend further weight to this position."

We believe that the most effective way to bring about the "rigorous self-analysis" proposed for Federal agencies by the subcommittee is for such review and evaluation to be carried out under a definite policy laid down by the Congress for the guidance of administrative agencies. The Congress should make it unmistakably clear that it is its intent to recognize and support the American tradition of local autonomy, and that it believes in local initiative and responsibility, particularly, in matters which affect so closely local development and well-being as housing and urban renewal. It is our hope and request that Congress will restate its position by strengthening and rewording the declaration of national housing policy contained in the housing Act of 1949, in the direction of emphasizing local responsibility.

We hope that this committee will review carefully the resolution on Federal-local relations passed by our Association as well as the Subcommittee's report referred to above. Should this committee accept the need for re-affirming the position of local responsibility, our Association would be pleased to submit detailed suggestions, particularly on technical matters, in regard to revising the 1949 policy

statement.

We are very pleased to see the numerous provisions liberalizing the terms and conditions under the FHA insurance programs since many of them will have beneficial effect on the program of urban renewal. We are limiting our comments on the insurance programs to those that more directly affect the urban renewal areas.

We are confident that the provisions included in H. R. 10157 will materially assist property owners in renewal areas to obtain financing on terms and in amounts which are more realistic for the purpose of rehabilitating their properties in accordance with the renewal plan. We support the proposed revisions.

We support the provision permitting an allowance for builder's and sponsor's services, profit, and risk of 10 percent involving urban renewal projects under section 220 and giving the FHA Commissioner

authority to prescribe a lesser percentage if he certifies that a 10 percent allowance is unreasonable. It is felt that this would be ample inducement for builders to be attracted to this form of dwelling construction and improvement.

Adequate housing for relocation of families displaced by redevelopment and renewal is essential to the program's success. Recognition of this fact exists in the relocation provisions of both the Housing Acts of 1949 and 1954 and in such programs (existing or proposed) as public housing, housing for the elderly, FHA's section 221, the secondary market provisions of the Federal National Mortgage Association. We support the amendments to the section 221 program proposed in H. R. 10157 and we believe they will stimulate long needed interest and activity in this program. The increase of maximum permissible loan amounts to $8,600 and $9,600 in geographic high-cost areas should improve the possibility of interesting builders in this type of construction. However, there is some question as to whether even the proposed increased maximum amount is adequate to assure construction in some cities where costs are extremely high.

While on the subject of relocation, we should like to comment briefly on remarks included in the subcommittee's report No. 1 which stated:

The subcommittee urges that the Federal authorities charged with overseeing relocation responsibilities exercise increased vigilance to make sure that municipalities are in fact doing an effective and humane job in this area.

We are concerned about the implications of this statement. Relocation is a local problem in its truest sense, the procedure for which must be so flexible that it can be adapted easily to a wide variety of local conditions. It seems to us that a statement of principles, accepted and adhered to within the framework of existing legislative requirements, would assure a successful relocation program. Such a statement of principles was last year developed and adopted by this association and distributed widely throughout the country among public officials and agencies having relocation responsibilities. A copy of the policy statement is an appendix of this testimony.

The proposed legislation would amend the cost certification requirement by making such certifications incontestable after the FHA Commissioner's approval of the certification, barring fraud or material misrepresentation and also permits the allocation of general overhead costs acceptable to the Commissioner to be included in the total certified cost.

We are in full accord with these proposed changes as additional realistic approaches to encouraging private capital investment and activity in rental housing.

We are very much impressed with the provisions of H. R. 10157 which would establish a new loan program for housing for the elderly patterned after the college housing loan program. The loans would be available only when private capital is not otherwise available for this purpose. We are convinced that this is a large step in the right direction toward meeting the problem of housing of the elderly.

We have not noted in any of the bills introduced over the period of the last 2 years, however, recognition of the fact that sponsors of such housing will inevitably find themselves immersed in a special set of social problems. It is doubtful that many private individual

!

or organizational developers will want to assume responsibility for meeting these problems and that, hence, their planning must be done in concert with local social-welfare agencies who will agree to coordinate their work with that of the developer. In our 1955 testimony we indicated that the entire range of the special problems of the aging is so wide and the nature of these problems is still so imperfectly understood that we advocated the appointment of a general study commission on the aging, which commission would give special and intensive consideration as to how to develop a program of privately financed housing for the elderly. We should like again to urge this procedure.

Urban-redevelopment and urban-renewal programs have advanced since 1949 to a point where we can visualize that the benefits to our cities will be even greater than we had thought possible. But the rate of progress on actual redevelopment projects has been disproportionately slow in relation to the need for, and the promise of, the program. To some extent this pace is due to the mass of paperwork and the high number of administrative hurdles that are placed in the path of local governmental agencies in the renewal field. We have already discussed our association's great concern with reference to Federal encroachment on local initiative and local responsibility. That also applies to the public-housing program and I think your subcommittee has made a number of findings in that direction.

With respect to specific provisions under the capital-grant authorizations, we support the increase of $1 billion in funds to be made available for slum clearance and urban-renewal projects to be made in 2 equal increments on July 1, 1956, and July 1, 1957.

We support the provisions extending urban-renewal assistance to major disaster areas under certain conditions as incorporated in section 402 of H. R. 10157. We also support some of the urban renew al provisions contained in Mr. Widnall's bill.

Mr. RAINS. I don't think there is any need to go over that because I made a statement the other day that there were certain technical matters in Mr. Widnall's bill that the subcommittee had no objection to, so I don't see any need in him reading that, Mr. Chairman, unless there is some specific reason.

Mr. SIPPRELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WIDNALL. Will that part of the statement be incorporated in

the record?

Mr. BROWN. The full statement will be incorporated in the record. Mr. SIPPRELL. They are important technical points. I think they are familiar to you.

Additional changes we would like to see incorporated into legislation are as follows:

It is now a requirement of the Urban Renewal Administration that a community cannot qualify for a planning advance unless a specific urban renewal area has been designated, with determinations made as to what portions of the area are to be cleared and what portions are to be rehabilitated. This requirement has deterred-and certainly delayed-many communities from initiating urban renewal projects. Such detailed determinations should be part of the planning process for which the advance of funds should be made, as is done in the public housing program.

« PreviousContinue »