ARLINGTON COUNTY PROPOSED ACTIVITY #8 Home Repair Program in Nauck/Green Valley Background The Nauck/Green Valley Communities, both of which were early participants in the County's Neighborhood Conservation Program, feel that neighborhood youths should have the opportunity to participate in fixing up deteriorating and dilapidated housing in their neighborhood. This proposed activity would be undertaken in the summer of 1978 in conjunction with the County funded Summer Program for Youth (SPY). Discription and Objectives of Proposed CD Activity This activity has two primary objectives: the stabilization and preservation of low income housing in census tracts 29 and 31 and the summer employment of low income youth in their own neighborhood. The activity is proposed to work in the following fashion. The Committee for Arlington Repair and Revitalization by its Youth (CARRY) will hire a local high school shop teacher to administer the twelve week program. Approximately 25 youths, age 12 through 17, will be hired from census tracts 29 and 31 by the CARRY Committee. Working with their neighbors, the teams of youths will identify homes which are in need of "fixing up" which will include painting, cleaning up the yards and other maintenance. Having this work done will serve to enhance and to stabilize the neighborhood and will supplement the Arlington Housing Corporation's Home Improvement Program, which has been active in the area, but due to its limited fund has not been able to undertake any of the much needed "cosmetic" improvements. The primary benefit of this activity would be the preservation and maintinance of the housing in two low income neighborhoods. Additional benefits include gainful summer employment for neighborhood youth, the visual enhancement of two neighborhoods, the development of useful skills and a heightened sense of neighborhood pride by both the youths and by the persons whose homes are enhanced. Relation to Selection Criteria These two neighborhoods are among Arlington's primary target areas. Most of the residents are low income and many of them live in deteriorated housing. This activity is anticipated to both stabilize and to preserve these neighborhoods by enhancing housing opportunities for low income residents. The support given to CARRY by the neighborhood, which is indicative of its desirability and utility as a CD activity, also portends its success in realizing its objectives. ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA, OFFICE OF THE COUNTY BOARD, Hon. WILLIAM S. MOORHEAD, Rayburn Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. MOORHEAD: Thank you very much for your interested response to the testimony I presented before the Housing Subcommittee on Friday, March 4, 1977: Enclosed for your review is a copy of a letter received by Congressman Fisher from the Census Bureau. You will note that Arlington and Henrico Counties, both of which are in Virginia, were the only jurisdictions in the United States identified as having municipality like powers while being called counties. The National Association of Counties has also been researching the density issue for us. They have been unable to locate any other county in the country with fewer than 200,000 residents, a density in excess of 5,000 persons per square mile, and the necessary powers to be an Entitlement jurisdiction under the Housing Community Development Act of 1974. Therefore, as I said before the Subcommittee, Arlington's situation is unique. In addition, we believe that making the slight modification proposed by Congressman Fisher's bill will not have any effect on any other jurisdiction, but it will eliminate what, is to us, a gross inequity. Again, thank you for your attention to this matter. If you or the Subcommittee staff have any questions, please feel free to contact Betsy Nachbaur, Arlington's CD Coordinator, at 558-2291. DEAR MR. FISHER: This is in further response to your letter of June 7 requesting a list of counties which meet certain specified criteria. A review was made of all counties and county equivalents in the United States and municipios in Puerto Rico using the following criteria: 1. Total 1970 census population of less than 200,000. 2. Performs functions comparable to those associated with municipalities— specifically, provision of fire and police protection, and water and sewer service. 3. Is closely settled-specifically, two-thirds or more of the population is included in an urbanized area as defined by the Bureau of the Census. (This is the operational definition used by the Department of Housing and Urban Development under the provisions of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. Title I, Section 102. (a) (5) (ii)). 4. Contains within its boundaries no incorporated places as defined by the Bureau of the Census-specifically, political units incorporated as cities, boroughs (except in Alaska), towns (except in the New England States, New York, and Wisconsin), and villages. The review indicated that only two counties met all of the above qualifications, Arlington and Henrico Counties, Virginia. If I can be of further assistance, please let me know. ROBERT L. HAGAN, (For the Director, Vincent P. Barabba). Mr. MOORHEAD. Mrs. Bozman, have you received any funds under what we call the discretionary fund under the 1974 act? Mrs. BOZMAN. Yes. The discretionary money we have received-the only money we have received has been from the discretionary balance. The first year we received approximately $143,000, when our neighboring Alexandria was receiving $1,400,000. And the second year again we received approximately $144,000, bringing us to the total of $287,000 for the 2 years. Mr. MOORHEAD. The conditions in Alexandria are similar to those in Arlington County, except actually Alexandria has a lower population; is that correct? Mrs. BOZMAN. Yes. There are nuances. Alexandria has a lower population, about 110,000 to our 150,000. Alexandria has a slightly higher concentration of substandard housing, so that as you would work the formula out-I don't know the exact number-our larger population and their smaller-I think the two would come out about the same if we were both entitlement jurisdictions, reasonably close. Mr. MOORHEAD. How about population density? Mrs. BOZMAN. Their population density approximates Arlington's. It would not be significantly higher. Alexandria, of course, is a city, and since it is 110,000, and being over 50,000, it gets its entitlement funds by its city status. Mr. MOORHEAD. Well, I think Congressman Fisher would understand that. Whenever we draw an arbitrary line like 200,000 there are obviously going to be people that fall above and are unfairly treated and maybe treated when they shouldn't be, and some below. And it is extremely difficult. My own reaction is that merely to say 5,000 population density, no matter how small the unit is, might end us up with HUD dealing with many, many more communities, nad maybe we should maintain some population figure. Let us just suppose, to take care of your county, we dropped the 200,000 to 150,000 but added in the 5,000 population density. How would you react to that, Mr. Fisher. Mr. FISHER. My understanding is, from our investigation, that Arlington would be the only county that would have the excess of 5,000 per square mile density with less than 200,000 population. If I could just add this. It is apparent to me that Arlington is ruled out because it happens not to be a city, although it looks like a city and it functions like a city within this metropolitan region, and now finds itself penalized in an important program because it has chosen to eliminate a whole layer of government. There is the State, and then Arlington, which is really a city-county, and this makes a lot of sense, but it is not typical. It is just very rarely found. It is the only one of its kind in Virginia. And it finds itself penalized for having elected this form of government which adds to its effectiveness by eliminating a whole layer of bureaucracy. And so we were searching for some way that would recognize the reality and we hit upon this formula, less than 200,000 but a density of more than 5,000, and we believe that Arlington would be the only county in the country in this situation. Mrs. BOZMAN. If I might add to that. We got this information from the Census Bureau. We inquired of them last year on different questions, and their answer was that we were the only county in this category. We did bring a large map with all the urban counties who are entitlement jurisdictions marked in red. And hat you find from this map is that they are either out somewhere or, when you find them clustered around a major city, you find a total ring of them. Unfortunately, Arlington is so petite that you have to get this close to the map to discover that there is still this white area of Arlington in the nonentitlement category. Mr. MOORHEAD. It occurs to me, first, you know, we did not intend to single out and discriminate against Arlington County. Actually we originally thought there would only be, I think, somewhere around 10 to 15 urban counties, and there turned out to be 70-some counties that qualified. And I think we should look at it. And, just off the top of my head, we should not completely eliminate the population figure, because then another group that calls itself a city that is below 50,000 would not qualify, but a county might. Mrs. BOZMAN. Yes, sir. I think Mr. Fisher's bill proposes this as an either/or. It would leave in it the definition of county, which has a combined population of 200,000 or more, and add an "or" clause— "or has a population density of 5,000 or more individuals per square mile" so that it would not affect anyone who is currently receiving funds as an entitlement jurisdiction. Mr. MOORHEAD. Well, speaking as one member and as only chairman pro tem, I would like the staff to look into it and see if we did take care of the unique situation of Arlington, how much effect it would have on the rest of the country before we made a firm commitment. But I do understand your problem. If we did not see the signs, we did not know when we were moving out of Washington, D.C., into Arlington, or Arlington to Alexandria, because of the urban nature. It crosses arbitrary boundary lines. Believe me, your position and that of Congressman Fisher's will be sympathetically heard by the subcommittee. Mr. Grassley? Mr. GRASSLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What jurisdictions does Arlington County compete against for dis cretionary funds in the SMSA that you talked about? Mrs. BOZMAN. Yes. We compete against Prince William County, Loudoun County, the towns of Fairfax City, Manassas, Manassas Park, and Purcellville. There are two large counties which are further out of the metropolitan area-Prince William County and Loudoun County, and within each of them there are a number of small towns which have populations of under 25,000. Mr. GRASSLEY. Thank you for your answer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. MOORHEAD. Thank you very much, Mrs. Bozman and Mr. Fisher. It has been a pleasure to have you with us, and we appreciate your statement and assure you it will be sympathetically reviewed. But you understand our problem. The subcommittee would now like to hear from the All-Indian Pueblo Council: Mr. Wendell Chino, president of the National Tribal Chairman Association; Mr. Peter Masten, chairman of Hoopa Valley Business Council; and Mr. Cecil Williams, chairman of Papago Tribe. I think we should probably start with Mr. Chino. I think you are considered by many to be the elder statesman of Indians in this country, which makes you more of an elder ancestry than any of the members of this subcommittee, sir. And we welcome you and recognize your past achievements as president of the Mescalero Apache Tribe for 16 years and 20 years overall past president of National Conference of American Indians, and currently president of the National Tribal Chairmen's Association, and your second term in that post. So, Mr. Chino, we would hear from you first, and then from your associates. STATEMENT OF WENDELL CHINO, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL TRIBAL CHAIRMEN'S ASSOCIATION Mr. CHINO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for affording me the opportunity of speaking to you concerning the great and urgent needs of this country's Indian tribes in the area of housing and community development. We are here to present proposals for certain amendments to the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, which we believe our unique situation requires. I am Wendell Chino, president of the National Tribal Chairmen's Association, and president of the Mescalero Apache Tribe of New Mexico. I am here today on behalf of the National Tribal Chairmen's Association, and at the special request of several tribes and intertribal organizations in the Southwest. With me today are Cecil Williams, chairman of the Papago Tribe of Arizona, and Peter Masten, chairman of the Hoopa Valley Tribe of California. NTCA is an association of the elected or appointed chairmen, presidents, governors, or chiefs of the federally recognized Indian tribes of the United States and the Alaskan native regional corporations. Our membership includes the leaders of approximately 190 tribes from all regions of the country and most of the major reservations and represents approximately 90 percent of the estimated 800,000 American Indians and Alaskan natives. NTCA was formed in 1971 to represent the federally recognized tribes at the national level in working to secure the rights of Indian tribes and people. Our association and the many individual tribes represented at recent meetings in Phoenix and Albuquerque are united in our desire for a resolution of the pressing problem of on-reservation community development. The needs of Indian people, especially of reservation people, for improved housing and community facilities are a matter of great concern to me personally because they are so genuinely basic to the issues of individual human dignity and tribal viability. Look for a moment at some of the traditional indicators of economic condition. Indians fare poorly, usually situated on or near the lowest rung of the ladder. According to the 1970 Census reports, the medianfamily income for reservation Indians was only $4,230 or 44 percent of the U.S. average for all families. Over 53 percent of reservation Indians lived on incomes below the Federal poverty level. By each of these measures Indians fell well behind the averages reported for blacks, whites, and persons of Hispanic origin. The problem of Indian poverty is a product of many factors but among the most important are chronic high levels of reservation unemployment and a population that is growing at one of the highest rates of any segment of the American people. 86-085 77 pt. 2 53 |