Capital Grant Authorizations We support the increase by $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. Assistance to Major Disaster Areas We support the provisions extending urban renewal assistance to major disaster areas under certain conditions as incorporated in section 402 of H. R. 10157. Additional changes we would like to see incorporated into legislation are as follows: Planning advances 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 iniatiating 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. It should be possible, also, to plan large areas of at least neighborhood size, although the final projects may turn out to be much smaller. Flexibility is needed, so that a local public agency can plan a large area and carry out that plan in stages. Under this procedure, many present preliminary planning requirements could be eliminated and sounder renewal planning could be done. The point to be made is that the purpose of the planning advance is to permit detailed planning; presently too much of this detailed planning must be done before it is possible to qualify for an advance planning loan. Localities also greatly need to achieve continuity in urban renewal planning. Staffs and programs must be kept operating as long as slums exist. Many projects planned today will take 4 or more years to achieve. Planning advances are now geared to (thus limited by) the capital grant funds available on a State and National basis. Yet capital grants are not necessarily spent on the same ratio, since in certain instances programs may not find their way to consummation. Hence, operating under the restriction of the capital grant prevents a community from planning ahead, even though it may be prepared to do so on a long-range basis. We, therefore, recommend that planning advances be permitted for projects in excess of capital grant authorizations by some reasonable percentage. Local financial participation The financing of the one-third local share of redevelopment and renewal projects is becoming an increasing problem in some communities, many of which are turning to supporting public facilities and using them as the local contribution. This pattern is developing most markedly as local workable programs stimulate greater use of public works programing. However, local circumstances frequently require that a specific public improvement-an ele mentary school, for example-be constructed in a slum area prior to that area's being designated and planned as an urban renewal project. We recommend that such improvements be eligible as local grants-in-aid if the area in which the improvements are made is designated an urban renewal project within a 5-year period after completion of the improvement. Such a provision would not only assist localities in financing urban renewal but would also encourage sound public works planning. Urban planning authorization We support the proposed increase in the urban planning grant authorization as incorporated in section 404 of H. R. 10157. PUBLIC HOUSING There are several points with reference to the public housing program, covered in proposed legislation, on which we would like to present our views. Number of units At the annual conference of our association in October 1955 the membership approved a resolution recommending that the public housing program be set on an annual level of 10 percent of total national housing production. While we consider this percentage essential under current conditions, it is also our recommendation that the President be authorized to change this percentage in the event of any marked shift in the national economic picture. This recommendation is not an arbitrary one. It recognizes the extent of the need for public housing and places proper emphasis on making the program a continuing stable function, instead of a hand-to-mouth operation. Since 1950 local housing authorities and the Public Housing Administration have operated on authorizations for a single year's program ranging from a high of 50,000 units in 1951 to a low of 20,000 units in 1953. We do not believe we need to tell this committee the difficulty involved in operating a program where the future is unknown and uncertain. A local housing authority needs from 2 to 3 years to carry a public housing project from planning and site selection, to construction and operation. With public housing units allotted by the Congress on a yearto-year basis it is practically impossible for an authority to make commitments for a local housing project and be assured that this work will not be in vain. Again, it is difficult to properly establish a plan to meet local needs, without some evidence of a continuing program on the Federal level. We strongly urge the adoption of the 10 percent formula based on total housing production on a continuing basis, subject to the President's discretion in case of a shift in the Nation's economy. Special provisions for the elderly The provisions contained in section 502 of H. R. 10157 regarding public housing for the elderly contain features that we support. Our recommendations are (a) That the definition of "family" be enlarged to include single persons 60 or more years of age rather than the minimum of 65 or more years of age; (b) that first occupancy priority be given to the elderly in all new units constructed specifically for the elderly under the proposed provisions and up to 10 percent of vacancies in existing units; (c) that the per room construction cost limit for the elderly be raised to $2,250; (d) that there be waived for the elderly families the requirement that such families must have come from substandard housing in order to be eligible for public housing; and (e) that recognition be given to providing for those housing authorities operating housing for the elderly additional management costs that such program incurs. Minimum standards We should like to state our support for an added provision which would give to local public agencies the maximum amount of discretion with respect to the size of any housing project, the type of dwellings, and project densities and design. Strict Federal control and regulation on which we commented earlier in this statement are tending to regiment local initiative, design, and development of public housing to the detriment of the program. Restrictive amendments We support the striking of all restrictive amendments that have been added by way of appropriation acts during the past several years. Farm labor camps We support section 503 which provides that title to farm labor camps be conveyed to local housing authorities that certify to the need for such camps for housing families and single persons of low income. We supported this proposal last year and are most hopeful that the Congress will include this provision in its 1956 action. FARM HOUSING We again support, as we did in 1955, the reactivation of the title V farm housing program of the Housing Act of 1949. APPENDIX A FEDERAL-LOCAL RELATIONSHIP Resolution adopted at 22d annual meeting of NAHRO, October 1955 As an association consisting largely of the agencies and individuals charged with carrying out local public housing, and urban renewal programs, we are 77603-56-22 most gravely concerned by the accelerating trend toward Federal domination of local public housing and renewal programs. We noted this trend last year when we called for an improvement in Federal-local relationships based on the return to the local communities of the prime responsibility for the determination and administration of local programs. As a specific example of the growing Federal encroachment on local authority, we point to the Public Housing Administration's new annual contributions contract, which has hardened and codified an attitude and approach that we had hoped was susceptible to modification and change. The cumulative and net effect of the many changes, both major and minor, made in the form of contract, has been in one direction only-to weaken and reduce local control of local programs in favor of increasing PHA domination and control. This, we believe, is in direct contravention of the letter and spirit of the public-housing law, and of the intent of Congress in enacting it. We believe, too, that in the administration of the urban renewal program, the establishment of field offices has not resulted in a decentralization of authority to the field and a greater recognition of local authority and responsibility. Either because of administrative policy or interpretation of legislation, many elements of urban renewal projects are sent to Washington for review with consequent delay and red tape. True decentralization is a means of controlling Federal encroachment but it has not been given a chance in the urban renewal program. We believe that the Federal agency is utilizing loan and grant, annual contributions, and other financial contracts with local public agencies as a means of extending Federal control of local programs. These contracts contain broad, general conditions that are binding local agencies to regulations and administrative decisions that are contained in procedural and operating manuals. By this means, controls are imposed upon local programs that go far beyond any conditions provided in the basic congressional legislation. We believe that this situation can only be corrected by clearly limiting in the contract document the conditions for financial assistance imposed by HHFA and its constituent agencies. We believe that the differences of viewpoint, approach, and interpretation that we have unsuccessfully attempted to negotiate with PHA and URA have gone far beyond the normal differences to be expected in any program jointly administered by a centralized Federal agency and a large number of separate local agencies. They are so fundamental, and so rooted in the honest convictions of the parties involved, that there is continuing difficulty in adjudication by these parties. Because of our belief that the intent of Congress has been departed from, and that it should once again be reflected in policies of PHA, URA, and HHFA, we therefore direct that the officers of NAHRO utilize every source available to them, including further consultations with the representatives of the Federal agencies, in order to bring about a restatement and clarification of the proper division of Federal and local responsibility. APPENDIX B NAHRO RECOMMENDATIONS ON RELOCATION POLICY Development by NAHRO's Relocation Committee, Approved by Board of Governors, July 1955 A sound relocation program is an essential element in any locality-wide program to create and to protect community values. It should serve the human needs of families displaced by community improvement programs. The potential danger to the community of displaced families intenstifying existing slum conditions or creating new slums must be recognized as a problem to be solved by a long-range community program. Such a program to be effective must include relocation service to the displaced families. It is dependent upon the development and maintenance of sound neigh borhoods and provision of an adequate supply of proper dwellings at various rent or price levels as required to meet the needs of all residents of the community. The shape, character, and form of local relocation programs must vary widely in accordance with local organizational structure, administrative procedures, and ways of conducting local public business. No set pattern of handling reloca tion can be made a requirement of financial assistance in any Federal grant-in-aid program. Therefore, recognizing that extensive public improvement programs, including public housing, urban redevelopment, highway construction, and urban renewal generally are displacing people in increasing numbers and causing population shifts affecting entire cities, NAHRO affirms its belief that relocation must be an integral part of all such programs and makes the following recommendations: 1. That the Federal Government and local public agencies take cognizance of the relocation problem whenever it may occur in any program of public land acquisition and that the Federal and local governments recognize relocation as a definite element of cost in acquiring sites for any public purposes.. 2. That as a part of the "workable program" for the prevention and elimination of slums and blight, which is a prerequisite for eligibility for Federal funds for urban renewal and for mortgage insurance from the Federal Housing Administration under sections 220 and 221, a general description of the community's plan for relocation be included. 3. That all public agencies within a locality administering programs resulting in the displacement of people be urged to assume their share of financial responsibility for relocating displaced families. 4. That steps be taken to insure that relocation activities of the various local agencies are coordinated as far as possible. 5. That localities be urged to plan for relocation of families to be displaced during the initial steps in the development of public improvement programs, so that such programs will not be temporarily or permanently delayed because of inability to relocate persons from public improvement sites. 6. That citizen understanding and support be sought for relocation programs during the initial planning stages of public improvement programs that displace residents. 7. That in the administration of relocation programs, the locality be urged to give consideration to all displacement by Government action regardless of family status. Mr. BROWN. You may proceed, Mr. Cox. I think Mr. Rains has: a question. Mr. RAINS. Larry Cox is a long-time friend of mine. He is a very capable man on this subject of relocation of families displaced by urban renewal, and while he has a brief statement to make, because of time, Mr. Chairman, I would like him to have the opportunity to extend his remarks in the record and to furnish any additional data in support of it. He can talk about a very vital problem of relocating these people who have been displaced by urban renewal. Mr. BROWN. That may be done. All right, Mr. Cox. Mr. Cox. I will take but very little time and there is very little to be added to Mr. Sipprell's remarks. I think it might be well to point out to the committee that aside from the four or five hundred local housing agencies that our association represents, we also represent the agencies in the vast majority of the 200-and-odd cities that either have underway or are attempting to get underway urban development or urban renewal programs, and it is that combined experience and combined interest that we are here to represent today. Certainly the urban redevelopment or urban renewal program is probably the greatest single hope that the average American city has for coming out of its doldrums and reviving its central areas. Certainly this is true for the small- and moderate-sized city in particular. The financing difficulties, as you all know, that face these communities are such that they cannot, without this kind of assistance, hope to get very far in meeting the large problem that faces most of them. These communities are grateful for the financial assistance that the Federal Government is making available through this urban renewal program. Actually many of us are beginning to find it extremely difficult to even meet the one-third responsibility which is now charged to us, and not because we feel that it is inappropriate. The difficulty stems simply from the many financial problems that face the average community today. This is a complex program. The little experience we have had with it thus far proves it. As Mr. Sipprell pointed out, in order to insure its success we must have the maximum elasticity in the communities in which to take advantage of local knowledge and local intelligence and local integrity. These factors will have to be given a great deal of recognition in the formulation of policies and procedures. There isn't anything in Washington that will substitute for local knowledge and local judgment and local intelligence in these matters. We do have in Mr. Follin, who is the Commissioner of the Urban Renewal Administration, someone who is sympathetic and understanding of that point of view and not in himself arbitrary toward our interests. However, we see some danger signals coming up, and we are concerned, of course, for the mechanics and the piling on of procedures which add, as Mr. Sipprell said, to the length of time that it takes to undertake one of these projects. That adds to the cost, adds to the difficulties of maintaining good morale in the community and the support for the programs. We are concerned with the direction in which the Federal agency is headed on competitive bidding for land to be disposed of in these areas for private development. The competitive-bidding principle is a sound and a good one, but the complexities of getting underway a sound, good, and helpful development sometimes makes the competitive bidding formula one not necessarily in the public's interest. I am not going to take any more of your time with any further statement. I would be glad to attempt to add anything to any questions of Mr. Sipprell that may be asked. Mr. BROWN. You may make any further statement you desire to make and may file it for the record, without objection. (The information follows:) Hon. BRENT SPENCE, NORFOLK REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING AUTHORITY, Chairman, Banking and Currency Committee, Norfolk Va., May 29, 1956. DEAR SIR: In behalf of the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials, Mr. Robert D. Sipprell and I wish to express appreciation to you and your committee for the opportunity afforded us on May 14 to present opinions and recommendations concerning H. R. 10157. Especially am I grateful for the permission granted me at that time to extend my remarks, and I would like to make the following additional comments: Relocation of site occupants The provisions of the Federal law dealing with relocation of site occupants are entirely appropriate; however, a fair and equitable plan for relocation is not a matter of Federal rules, regulations, and control. In fact, it is my opinion that if the law were completely silent and the Federal agency totally disinterested, responsible relocation would be carried out, except in rare instances. There is adequate provision in every State law to assure proper treatment of displaced families. In addition, practical, political, and moral aspects of the |