package, including lots of elements beyond those contained in this particular proposed legislation, H.R. 9688, which deals largely with housing at this particular point.

The considerations for a housing review and a broader community development program might be similar. But when you finally begin to make the evaluation, whether on the local level or on the Federal level, you will find there are many more considerations in the community development area. I think that your bill is simpler in this regard than this particular proposal before the committee today, and I do feel that H.R. 8853 is the best direction to take at this point. That is all I can say on your particular measure as compared to this

one.

Mr. WIDNALL. Do I understand you correctly, you are saying that the proposed H.R. 9688 is a more simple proposal than H.R. 8853? Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could save some time now. I personnally feel that H.R. 8853 is a far more simple proposal than H.R. 968S. I would like to give you the opportunity to review it.

Mr. CHARKOUDIAN. Surely.

Mr. WIDNALL. In the proposed bill H.R. 9688 on page 33, section 604 under eligible community development programs, it says:

No grant may be made under this title unless the Secretary has determined that the applicant (1) has identified community needs and specified both short and long-term community development objectives which are consistent with comprehensive local and areawide development planning and,

and I emphasize:

national urban growth policies.

In your mind, what are the national urban growth policies referred to in that paragraph? I do not know of any.

Mr. CHARKOUDIAN. Mr. Chairman, I assume it would be the urban growth policies to be developed as the result of last year's legislation. Mr. ASHLEY. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. WIDNALL. I will yield.

Mr. ASHLEY. I do not know of anybody who was more constructive and helpful in seeing to it that title VII became law last year than Mr. Widnall and I would simply like to remind him that, at least preliminarily, there was a listing of several national urban growth objectives in that legislation.

Mr. WIDNALL. Well, the point I am trying to make is this. That I do not think that there are any specifically set out now and to make this a condition in connection with the application, it seems to me, you have got to have those defined better than they are right now in order to have that condition precedent. Would you not say so?

Mr. CHARKOUDIAN. The words "development" and "developing" are often used. I think we can say certainly that national urban growth policies are developing.

Mr. WIDNALL. They are in process of development, there is no question about that.

Mr. CHARKOUDIAN. Exactly in the process of development.

Mr. WIDNALL. Mr. Charkoudian, how would you foresee a Governor setting up the structure for a metropolitan housing agency so that a participating local jurisdiction would have some defense against its fellow local jurisdictions joining forces to overconcentrate subsidized housing in that community?

Mr. CHARKOUDIAN. I can use some specific examples, if I may, Mr. Chairman, on this matter. In Massachusetts, as with some neighboring States, almost all of the municipalities are already incorporated areas within regional planning entities. Every grouping in this situation does not meet the criteria proposed in this legislation including elected officials or their representatives in regional planning entities, but in most cases in Massachusetts as an example, we do. These agencies have a history of working out such programs similar to those being proposed today and with a little "retooling" will be ready to work with even more extensive programs in the future.

Mr. WIDNALL. How long has this been effective up in Massachusetts?

Mr. CHARKOUDIAN. Our regional planning efforts have been going on since the early sixties. We have, as I say, almost all of the municipalities incorporated into some regional planning entity; I can just think of a few that are not. These regional planning efforts have been funded both by the 701 program of the Federal Government and by the Massachusetts State Government with some additional raised locally. The regional planning agencies have conducted various regional reviews necessary for water and sewer grants as well as for statewide grants.

Mr. WIDNALL. Is there a review of the efforts that have been made. at what has been accomplished in Massachusetts in this particular area?

Mr. CHARKOUDIAN. Not a formal study, Congressman, but my department continues to make informal evaluations. We have an office of regional affairs to provide assistance to the regional entities, both the urbanized and rural ones.

While many of them have accomplished very little, others, such as the Metropolitan Area Planning Council around Boston, have a very impressive record in investigating such issues as housing needs. A number of studies have recently been completed in this area, and I think that the MAPC region would be nearly ready to undertake the kinds of efforts being proposed today.

Mr. WIDNALL. All right, thank you. That is all, thank you.

Mr. BARRETT. Thank you, Mr. Charkoudian; you are a very fine witness and we are probably going to call on you at a later date to get some more specifics.

Mr. CHARKOUDIAN. Certainly, and I will extend to you what you have asked for.

Mr. BARRETT. Thanks very much for being with us.

Where is Paul Danahy, chairman of the Committee on Community Affairs, Florida House of Representatives.

We also have you as a panel, we want to bring up here also State Senator Thomas Laverne, chairman of the New York Joint Legislative Committee on Metropolitan and Regional Areas Study. Senator Laverne we are glad to have you. Also Peter Wilson, California State Legislature.

We are certainly glad to have you gentlemen here this morning, and we want you to feel at home.

Mr. Danahy, if you desire to be the leadoff man, we will gladly hear your testimony. Do you want to proceed?

Senator LAVERNE. Since my statement is more general, they suggested that I be the leadoff and then be followed by Mr. Wilson and then Mr. Danahy. You, Mr. Danahy, are going to be the anchorman. So, with the permission of the chairman, I would like to follow that procedure. I think it will be a little more helpful for the committee to follow.

Mr. BARRETT. You may do So, and if you desire to give your complete statement, and Mr. Ashley just pointed out our time is running

SO

Senator LAVERNE. We will move right along.

Mr. BARRETT. If you desire to give it all you have 10 minutes in which to do it; and if you want to give it to us extemporaneously, it will shorten the time and get into questions that will be beneficial.

Mr. ASHLEY. I hope the senator will read his statement. I note that he is chairman and has been chairman of the New York Metropolitan and Regional Areas Study Committee and I would personally be grateful if I had the benefit of his entire statement.

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS LAVERNE, NEW YORK STATE SENATOR, AND CHAIRMAN OF THE NEW YORK JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON METROPOLITAN AND REGIONAL AREAS STUDY Senator LAVERNE. I intend to speak informally and follow my formal presentation, which is prepared, but to try to move along so we can get to the heart of the matters.

My interest in this field is long standing not only with the Council of State Governments and its Intergovernmental Relations Committee but in my legislature in the State of New York where this area has been one of my prime concerns.

Since congratulations are always a good way to start with most committees, I can say that this committee has been very, very important to our work, particularly in the requirements of comprehensive plans, 701 planning, and so forth, all of which has been the forerunner of a regional planning system and of statewide planning concerns that would never have taken place but for the leadership of the Congress and your subcommittee in preparing similar legislation. I see here a step in the same direction.

In this bill you are saying "we have got a lot of housing concernslet's get them together and make a comprehensive approach, so that we don't come to Washington and find ourselves in the wrong office." In terms of how we are thinking about this you are saying, "Let's think about it as a whole.”

So the comprehensive plan concept is one that I think is a great, great contribution that is going to be made here, as it has been made by Congress in other fields.

In my experience I have had the problem of dealing with local problems between city and suburbs and the uptight situations that you get there, particularly with the movement of people of low incomes into the suburban areas. We have been preaching the need, as Congressman Ashley said, of bringing people and jobs together because it solves a lot of other social problems; and this is one of the goals, to solve problems of transportation by having housing properly

located. I think that this is one of the great achievements that is possible by these two bills that I am going to concern myself with.

But I would like to point out that I am a little concerned with the fact that I don't think the goals of the legislation, and the criteria by which the money is meted out, are consistent. I am going to address myself to this point and I think it should be made clearer if the Congress intends that it be consistent.

Your goals are to bring jobs and people together, and the fact of the matter is that jobs are moving outside the center cities. Jobs are moving out of the areas of the three criteria that you establish-of overcrowding, poverty, and dilapidated housing. They are moving into open spaces and these are the areas, it seems to me, that should be taken into consideration as much as the inner cities and the real ghetto problems, which you can deal with quite comfortably here. You are not achieving, I think, one of your main goals which is to bring people and jobs together because, whether we like it or not, we have got to live with the way people think and work. This approach has been one of the most effective ways I have found to deal with problems.

I don't deal with problems in terms of race mix or anything of that sort. I say just bring people to jobs and everything else takes its normal course. One of the great problems in the State of New York, and this legislation should be keyed to try to solve it, is to try to encourage mandate if you could-that, if an industry is going to move into an area they have to concern themselves with housing to service that industry. We have too many instances where housing does not follow industry or does not even follow business. The result is that people from the city of New York have to commute miles up into Rockland County or out into Nassau and Suffolk because they have the factories out there and don't have the places to live. I would like to see your criteria for issuing the money, which is limited as compared to your broad goals, be a little more consistent. I would add some kind of criteria that would meet this moving target. You are targeting people and people move and we have to follow them around. One of the ways to do it is, in this comprehensive planning, to be cognizant of where industry is moving to and the very serious concern of a suburban area, that wants industry because of their tax base, that they take into consideration the housing that goes with it. What is the greatest impediment? I am not going to give you the full impact of this because my colleague, Mr. Wilson is going to talk about the real estate tax which, I am sure, you have heard a great deal about; but I think the most legitimate argument that suburbia has is the effect on the school tax and I think this is a legitimate argument. In my own community the school tax has gone out of sight and certainly, we should institute a different tax, but until that times comes we should be, must be, cognizant of the fact that housing brings kids and kids create a terrible imbalance. While you have this legislation, $3,000 per unit, that might be adaptable to this you have that same money keyed with the same criteria so the result is that, if you come out to suburbia and build housing, you have no opportunity for any kind of aid, like impact aid, that we have in civil defense establishment developments.

I think if the legislation, besides its comprehensive approach, deals with the problem of giving equal opportunities for suburbia to qualify for these funds, especially in the area of improvements, and for other reasons-I am not saying at the expense of the inner cities, the inner city has got to be taken care of-we will recognize that what we are doing with this bill is leaving the people in the inner city and the jobs they have got to commute to in the suburbs, which I don't think is a national goal we should encourage.

I would very quickly move on now to discuss, as a national goal, a new concept. You know we talk about recycling all kinds of goods for ecological purposes-I think we should talk about the problem of recycling people.

There are certain stages in life which people like the city, and certain stages where people like suburbia. The young people, the single people, the newly married, want to be near their jobs in the city because many of them are clerical people and housing should be in the inner city for them. On the other hand suburbia should have an adequate supply of housing for people who move out there for jobs. and also for people who want to raise families in suburbia. Then later in life they would be able to come closer to where the services are in great abundance. This recycling of people should be one of the national goals we should encourage and be very cognizant of.

But without some distinct recognition of suburbia in the criteria, you are not going to get the money out there to permit this kind of recycling and housing, so that this metropolitan incentive fund of $3,000, up to $3,000 per unit, can be used to meet the impact of some of these great expenses that keep housing out of suburbia. But I think we should not use criteria which could prevent the money from coming out there.

So I am very much in favor of both bills with some coordination between goals and implementation; and I think we should do this with a recognition that people have prejudices and attitudes. We shouldn't address ourselves to them; we should address ourselves to the economics and the social goals of getting people and jobs together to make sure that we follow people not only from the city to suburbia but then from suburbia back.

The only quarrel I have with H.R. 8853 is that it is keyed to the standard metropolitan districts, and I think that in our State, particularly, standard metropolitan statistical areas tend to overlook some very large counties that are outside of these districts. I would suggest as an alternative that you look at an urban county and use another criterion besides being in these districts-say, any county having a population of 200,000 or more or 200 people per square mile, to make sure that there are some areas that are outside these SMSA's that could be serviced by these funds. I say this because I don't think you intend to limit them to just metropolitan areas.

I can think of three counties just outside of the New York City statistical area that are in more trouble than New York City in some ways.

Mr. ASHLEY. But they are not in this SMSA?

Senator LAVERNE. They are not in it at all. Therefore, I say rather than ask you to redefine SMSA, I would ask you to include also those