get into control of neighborhoods by establishing project boundaries, organizing citizens, setting standards, providing architectural assistance, and using occupancy permits. Our programs reflect the belief that "shotgun" rehabilitation will not be as effective as a concentration of effort with definite goals and within definite boundaries. It takes a blend of tools and programs to turn around or to stabilize neighborhoods. To say that the CDBG in and of itself can be the vehicle for doing this is unrealistic. It will take a more direct approach which can apply loan and capital improvement treatments on a long term basis, utilizing new and innovative machinery which can employ tax incentives; existing SBA programs such as the 502 programs; federal guarantees; and active residential and commercial 312 concepts all meshed with the CDBG. - Mr. PATTERSON. And now we will hear from Mr. Apperson. STATEMENT OF CECIL APPERSON, REHABILITATION SUPERVISOR, BOISE CITY BUILDING DEPARTMENT Mr. APPERSON. My name is Cecil Apperson. I'm with the building department of Boise, and because of the fact I'm a last-minute substitute for Mr. Hogland-he will submit a written report-and I will make a very few brief observations that will be contained in that report. And like my predecessor, I don't have any magic formulas. We have enormous problems and very few solutions. The city of Boise has been in the rehabilitation business for about 5 years, beginning with Model Cities and a very small demonstration situation. Since the advent of the block grant concept, the city has designated $1.5 million directly out of the CDBG funds to be loaned directly to homeowners for rehabilitation. We are halfway into the second year, and we are right on schedule And we directly made loans to over 300 residents for improvement. Our program consists primarily of two things: The direct loan providing the funds for the rehabilitation, and the technical assistance where we send people into these homes and offer direct technical assistance in terms of advising them what their homes need. Alongside our block grant program, we also have a section 312 program, which we only recently were funded with. It is our intention to couple section 312 with section 8 in an effort to expand our senior citizen, particularly multiple-family units, senior citizen and also to guarantee that the section 312 money goes ultimately to the consumers that are within the scope of the program. Our largest single problem has been in the local ability to define the problems. Boise is an unusual city in terms of its housing. It has 37,000 residences, and more than 50 percent of them were built prior to 1940. Our problems are scattered in the city, as opposed to being concentrated in one area. This is something of a departure from what you normally find in cities, and it is difficult to convince other people that that is the way the problems are. Our senior citizen population, who are large participants in our program, are also dispersed in a like manner. We have done some leveraging with our program in terms of acquisition. Our banks have been very cooperative in making ordinary loans for acquisition within the areas that we work in with the agreement from us that we will make a rehabilitation loan. Their goal-that provides them with a method for upgrading the property to meet their standards for normal lending procedures. We have one area that is a success story. I said we don't have many, but I do have one, and some of the side effects are interesting. One of the enormous benefits of concentrating in one area is the fact that we have estimated that for each home that we make a loan to upgrade, that four or five of the neighbors have upgraded their homes voluntarily as a consequence. And because of this we have had an overall enormous upgrading of one neighborhood. We have changed the whole character of the neighborhood, and we have also changed some of the attitudes of the neighborhood. It is organized-in fact its organization has become a problem to the city it is so well-organized. I don't have an enormous number of recommendations. We, too, as everybody else is, are very inexperienced in this business and we have a lot to learn. We would recommend very strongly that the 312 program be continued. It has the potential for enormous long-term benefits. And in a Like manner the block grant, at least the concept. We endorse the longterm concept of a block grant program. We would also strongly encourage the direction of regulations toward local control. We feel very much that if we describe our problems and if we offer constructive solutions within the limits of what is allowable in the programs that we are much more successful. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak. Mr. PATTERSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Apperson, particularly for your pinch-hitting for Mr. Hogland on rather short notice. We will insert in the record his statement when we receive it. Without objection, so ordered. [At the time the hearing went to press, no statement had been received.] Mr. PATTERSON. Proceeding right along to our next panelist, Sol Levin. STATEMENT OF SOL LEVIN, DIRECTOR, MADISON (WIS.) HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES, AND DIRECTOR, MADISON DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Mr. LEVIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My name is Sol Levin. I am executive director of the housing and redevelopment authorities of the city of Madison, Wisc., and also director of the city's department of housing and community develop ment. We, too, have recognized the need for a continuing effort to preserve and upgrade our older housing areas, of which we have a goodly number in Madison. We have also recognized that programs aimed at conserving and upgrading our existing housing stock can be meaningful only if the financial and technical assistance of which Mr. Shiver spoke are made available to those who are otherwise unable to obtain such help. Another basic point is that we have also recognized that, given the diversity of the population in Madison, effective neighborhood preservation program must be responsive to the needs of different segments of that population, including owner-occupants of single-family homes; investor-owners; members of housing cooperatives, of which we have a large number in the areas where student housing is concentrated; young families that seek to become homeowners; tenants who cannot afford the rental increases that typically accompany extensive rehabilitation of older apartment buildings; and so forth. Out of this recognition we have developed, and are now actually. using several different kinds of rehabilitation assistance programs, including the section 312 program. I, too, could report a number of success stories, as well as some failures. But what I would like to focus on are the different kinds of initiatives we have taken, and then talk about some of the things |