lent case, as does Representative Sweeney. Some of the things they can do and are doing to maximize what can be done with the community development housing bill-but what do you do with the late starters? It seems to me that one thing for consideration must be some established criteria of performance and role responsibility that States should assume and be willing to assume and be geared up to assume, and not simply become, as I think Mr. Blanchard mentioned, another layer or another crust of bureaucracy, but in fact a participant that makes a contribution. And I think you have combined experience of members of this subcommittee and very competent staff, I think, to develop such kinds of criteria that would bring into this partnership a real contribution.

While I am on that subject, Mr. Chairman-and this is a little out of order of the sequence of my prepared testimony-the importance of bringing together the total range of resources, not only of the various Federal agencies, but State pass-through and State-initiated resources and from the private sector, much of which is touched upon by Secretary Harris' testimony, and we applaud it.

We recognize that that has to start right here at home. And section 114 of the existing act which permits consultation by the Secretary of HUD with other relevant agencies and departments in carrying out the purposes of the act has really not been implemented. And we would urge strongly, and we do in our resolution, that that objective be strengthened by appropriate language of this subcommittee to see to it that that kind of interagency discussion and dialog and cooperation take place so that in fact resources can be delivered in some kind of a coordinated fashion; that Federal policies can become somewhat consistent among and between agencies as, we all know, at the State and local level is not too often the case.

So we urge you to take a good look at that consultation provision. It is tough to have equals deal with equals, and somebody has to be more equal than somebody else, I suppose, somewhere along the line. But that dilemma has to be resolved, we believe.

We feel, very much as Representative Sweeny has indicated, that the beginnings that Congressman Brown mentioned in linking housing and community development are certainly worthy of commendation, but also worthy of some closer attention.

Our experience has been, out in the field working with a variety of cities, that the actual delivery of housing resources and response to the housing assistance plan and the community development block grant program has not yet been very responsive. Now, that could be start-up time, it could be old traditions. There could be a lot of reasons. But I think this subcommittee has to make it clear that what you originally intended, you really meant; and that these pieces have to come together in the redraft or the modification and renewal of this legislation.

In that same connection-I suppose this is a matter of purely administrative note, but the subcommittee should be aware of it, I think, if they are not. I noted with some interest that Secretary Harris expressed pleasure at the number of urban renewal closeouts that occurred, and I think there is some commendation owed the Department for that. However, there also is an extreme danger in moving too

rapidly in the closing out of the existing old urban renewal projects. Our best estimates indicate, Mr. Chairman, that there are now vacant and cleared, or cleared and vacant, as a result of the old urban renewal project in our cities around the country, somewhere between 25,000 to 50,000 acres of land.

Now, simply closing those out, from a financial standpoint-that is, balancing the books and shutting down the projects can thwart the very intent of the project in the first place if attention is not given in that closing of that project to what I would prefer to call the "completion" of the project, to carry out the original intent of the Congress, and the provision of low- and moderate-income housing and the balanced kind of communities, whatever the plan as HUD approved it called for.

So I urge the subcommittee-certainly in its report I would hope they would make note of that to the new Secretary, that closing out and completing to carry out the objectives of the Congress may not be the same thing. And we urge your consideration of that request.

As things are now occurring in many cities, renewal projects are closed out. The vacant land is left there. And there is no commitment on the part of HUD to carry through with any housing assistance that was provided in the original plan. And we think that is a very serious problem.

We endorse, also, the emphasis placed on neighborhood revitalization. That is one of the key policy positions of the National Urban Coalition.

However, again, we urge that efforts in this regard not lose sight of the fact that no neighborhood, no matter how well revitalized, is going to survive in a dying city, and I am quite concerned, Mr. Chairman, as I see the 12 or 14 years that I have been in this urban malaise how we get to fads, and I just want to make sure that, to whatever degree we can raise the issue, that we don't get carried away by a fad that just cleaning up and revitalizing neighborhoods is going to restore the health and vitality of our cities. We have to keep those things in perspective. It is a place to begin. It is a place to focus and concentrate. But the total strength and vitality of that city is absolutely essential if the neighborhood is going to survive.

We are concerned, finally-and I will try to bring my remarks to a close, Mr. Chairman-you have all been very patient. We are concerned with the basic intent of the act and whether that is being met. I know you have had some testimony previously from Mr. Bach and others who have done studies where there is serious question. And I think the illustration that Representative Sweeney gave of Cincinnati, dividing the pie 33 ways-or I think it was 33-certainly is not meeting the intent of concentrating or maximizing the benefit of this program for low- and moderate-income families.

So attention to that serious discrepancy, we think, is necessary.

And finally, we urge that the question of citizen participation, which is always a tough one, be addressed a little more forthrightly, in such a way that the language of the new legislation is clear that the citizens most affected by these activities have indeed a more effective voice in the carrying out and implementation of the program. We think the former point I made of how the funds are disbursed in so many

86-085 77 pt. 25

instances and this point have an interrelationship. And I think, to deal with one you must deal with both. We feel there are ways to do that, and ways to do that with a balance that does not take away the final authority and decisionmaking of the local elected officials. We recognize the need for that. We equally urge the Congress to make it clear that an effective and meaningful role for the citizens involved and to be benefited by this program be real and not illusory.

That concludes my remarks, Mr. Chairman.

I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you may have. [The prepared statement of Mr. Hyde, on behalf of the National Urban Coalition, together with a proposed resolution of the coalition at their executive committee meeting, February 23, 1977, regarding the community development block grant program, follows:]

TESTIMONY

BY

***FLOYD H. HYDE***

ON BEHALF OF

THE NATIONAL URBAN COALITION

ON

***COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT LEGISLATION RE-AUTHORIZATION✶✶✶

BEFORE THE HOUSE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

MARCH 2, 1977

Mr. Chairman, members of the Sub-Committee, I wish to thank you for this opportunity to appear before you. I am Floyd Hyde, private citizen, and a member of the Steering Committee of the National Urban Coalition, a bi-partisan' organization of business, labor, minority and local government representatives concerned with improving the quality of life in our urban areas. The Coalition has local affiliates in over thirty cities across the country. Together, we seek to call attention

to, and try to find solutions for the more pressing social, economic and fiscal problems of all cities, and to help ease the racial tensions and ethnic concerns in our urban areas. To this end, our national Executive Committee unanimously adopted a resolution urging the reenactment of the Community Development Block Grant Legislation. My purpose here today is to present the highlights and major suggestions contained in the resolution. The resolution, in entirety, is attatched

to my written remarks. I urge consideration by this Sub-Committee

of all the points raised therein; as we believe the recommended changes are essential if the future success of the program is to be assured. Unfortunately, as you have been considering re-enactment of the

Community Development Bill which is so vital to our cities, the Nation's attention is again diverted to a crisis of another kind--the most severe winter in decades in the Northeast, and a serious drought in the West

and Mid-west.

As critical as these problems are, there is a more acute danger to the national weal in our refusal to come to grips with other problems--the