the other, it is because there is not a joint demand-in the case cited, some other form of transportation takes the pace of the auto. This fear has been expressed by Mr. Merritt A. Neale when he suggests, "an unbalanced supply and demand ration," and by Mr. Charles S. Bresler. I believe it well to discuss Mr. Bresler's testimony as he cites examples. Here is the testimony of Mr. Bresler on a particular example: 13th and H Streets, NW., insurance company building sold at $55 per square foot. ***Building demolished, used as parking lot currently. Offered today at $77 per square foot for the construction of an office building. I might remark that this is a C-4 zone and if a building is constructed there, there are no parking requirements to go into the building. We have here an expression that because land will cost $77 per square foot that no parking will be supplied. Naturally, I do not know whether parking will or will not be supplied in whatever building will be built on the site in question. I can say that the facts presented do not call for the conclusion. In most cases of the new office buildings in the downtown area in the C-4 zone, parking has been supplied in the buildings. As just one example, I take the case of the new building going up at the southeast corner of Connecticut Avenue and L Street, NW. The zoning is the same C-4 which does not require parking, and the developers paid $150 per square foot for the ground, or about double the $77 per square foot cited by Mr. Bresler in his example. Yet, the developers will build spaces for between 400 and 500 cars. Another example of this fear of inadequate parking is in the testimony of January 6, when Mr. Neale stated: *** the now famous downtown renaissance in Pittsburgh, represented by numerous new office buildings and other important structures, could not have been accomplished without a bold and imaginative public parking program. And he further suggested that Washington is behind the times by 15 years. Yet, let us look at what has happened to Washington without a parking authority. According to a report by the Research Department of the Washington Board of Realtors, during the 5-year period 1960-64, a total of 5,228,941 net square feet of privately owned office space was constructed and readied for occupancy in Washington, D.C. This amounted to a 37-percent addition to the estimated total stock of 14 million square feet of private office space in existence at the beginning of the period. I believe that this testimony shows that private enterprise can and is doing the job of providing parking. Supplying parking spaces should remain the job of private enterprise, as is the job of supplying office space. S. 2769 should, therefore, be defeated. Senator TYDINGS. Let me see if I get the thrust of your testimony, Mr. Herbst. I gather that the thrust of your testimony is that you don't need public parking, because, by the very nature of the economics of the central business district and the economics of building an office building, when office buildings or an area needs land to park, it would not be economical to build an office building unless you had parking. Therefore, you will get sufficient parking through private enterprise. Is that about it? Mr. HERBST. That is right. Senator TYDINGS. That theory takes into consideration the parking need of office construction? Mr. HERBST. Yes. Senator TYDINGS. Now, would you say that there is a need for parking to take care of shoppers? Mr. HERBST. No, I do not, and, as a matter of fact, I would like to refer you to the testimony of Mr. Levi before Subcommittee No. 4 of the House District Committee. I have forgotten the date, but it was, I believe, either 1963 or 1964. I can get the direct testimony, and Mr. Levi states, and I can almost remember the exact quotes: We do not need parking. We have too much parking. Senator TYDINGS. Now you know that Mr. Levi testified that we needed parking, and he testified in favor of this bill. Mr HERBST. May I say this? I will supply for the record the exact quotation of Mr. Levi so you can judge as to which statement you want to take from him. (Information is as follows:) COMMITTEE FOR THE RIGHTS OF THE WASHINGTON, D.C., Senator JOSEPH TYDINGS, January 25, 1966. Subcommittee on Business and Commerce, Senate District of Columbia Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR TYDINGS: In my testimony of this morning, I referred to a remark by Mr. Robert Levi, and said that I would give you the exact wording of the remark for the record. The exact wording is, "*** We do not want the parking. We have ample parking. We have ample provision to provide more parking. ***" The remark can be found on page 1410 of the "Hearings on Urban Renewal in the District of Columbia," part 3, August 23 and September 13, 1963. The hearings were before Subcommittee No. 4 of the District of Columbia Committee of the House of Representatives. (See attached.) And the Mr. DOWDY. You have a parking place across the street from you. little fellows who were in business there you had to put out of business to make your parking place. Mr. LEVI. Can I tell you what happened right across the street on E Street, because I think it would be interesting. There were 18 buildings on E Street between Seventh and Sixth Streets directly facing our store. They were put out of business and the buildings were torn down. And this city today collects taxes on a flat piece of ground with no improvement, because it is used for parking. Eleven of the eighteen are in that condition. Seven of them still stand. We do not want the parking. We have ample parking. We have ample provision to provide more parking. But this did not happen through urban renewal. These people did not have anything to say about it. This was the economics of the area. All I am pointing out is that these economics are rampant and they will continue in the area and there will be more vacant land and less taxes for the District of Columbia. Senator TYDINGS. All right. Now you feel that you don't need parking for shoppers? Mr. HERBST. That is right. We need parking, but I maintain that there is a relationship that is being supplied by the private enterprise system. Senator Tydings. What about the tourists who come to the Capital? Do you think they deserve parking? Mr. HERBST. Now the tourists, yes, we agree that there is the problem of tourists, and may I say this? As far as the tourist is concerned, I believe it would be sensible to have something in the Mall, say, for them, but the points upon this is that it would not require the creation of a body politic to take care of that particular provision. Senator TYDINGS. How are you going to do it? Mr. HERBST. This is what I would suggest. I would suggest that anything taking care of the tourist would come directly under the Department of the Interior, and that they would have a garage, I say, just for tourists, and that parking stamps, let us say, if you are trying to make this a national monument, and just take care of this particular segment. Senator TYDINGS. In other words, you think the Department of the Interior ought to get into the parking business? Mr. HERBST. No, I do not. Just for the tourists, if your question is just for the tourists, and where you do not want to have the tourists parking right in the middle of your central business district, I say that you have a very excellent possibility. I mean, that is just one situation. I would have to actually make a study. Senator TYDINGS. Where would you permit the Department of the Interior to build public parking facilities for tourists? Mr. HERBST. I would say the Mall-in the center strip of the Mall. Senator TYDINGS. Would you permit any facility in and around Capitol Hill? Where did you park today? Mr. HERBST. Well, there is luckily, I know at 9:30, I can park down here one block down. Senator TYDINGS. You got a space along the curb? Mr. HERBST. Oh, yes, all right, without any wait at all. Senator TYDINGS. You think you would get a space there now? Mr. HERBST. I would not get a space there now. Senator TYDINGS. Do you think the tourists deserve a parking facility in the area of Capitol Hill? Mr. HERBST. When you say do they deserve it, I have not seen anyone yet not being able to get here one way or the other. It may be Senator TYDINGS. Now you indicated that you were in favor of the Department of the Interior establishing a public parking facility under the Mall, Mr. HERBST. Just for tourists. Senator TYDINGS. I asked you, do you think that they should establish one? Mr. HERBST. No. Senator TYDINGS. You don't think so? Mr. HERBST. No, I tell you I believe the answer here is that I believe you should be able to allow parking spaces in a residential area with-let's put it this way: I believe that you ought to take the three-block quadrant around your Capitol Hill, and as you know, a lot of that is in a residential area. What I would do is to make a separate zoning, which would permit the property owners to put in parking facilities there. And as you know now, that you can't, I mean, in order to get any private parking lot, you have to go through the Board of Zoning Adjustment, or otherwise, get a change in zoning itself, from the Zoning Commission, so I would like to see that particular problem handled through the proper authorities of the District of Columbia. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Herbst. We appreciate your testimony. I would like to call Mr. Dillar Lasseter, legislative counsel of the Organization of Professional Employees, Department of Agriculture. STATEMENT OF DILLAR LASSETER, LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, ORGANIZATION OF PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Mr. LASSETER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Dillar Lasseter and I represent the legislative counsel of the Organization of Professional Employees of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. I will present very briefly the position of my organization with respect to parking, Mr. Chairman. I might say in the beginning that our problem, of course, is an all-day situation. It does not concern shopping or temporary space. The Department of Agriculture building is located in the Southwest area of the city and has always been at a disadvantage in public transportation except from Virginia and 14th Street buslines. Senator TYDINGS. How many employees are we talking about? Mr. LASSETER. Oh, all together, I think there are nearly 30,000 here in this area, Mr. Chairman. The group that I represent has about, I imagine, between 2,000 and 3,000 in this area. Those are the professional employees, which, of course, do not represent all of the professional employees. Senator TYDINGS. Do any of the other departments have organizations like yours which are looking for space to park? Mr. LASSETER. Of course, I could not answer that officially, Mr. Chairman, but I am sure that they all have the same problem in that area. Another problem there is that, you say, the Mall has been devoted almost exclusively to tourists, and I think it should be, and as I have said here, the construction of these new buildings along Independence Avenue has just gradually squeezed the parking areas into less space. This has caused a large proportion of the Department employees to use car pools. Some of the official parking has been recently lost because of the use of the parking-lot space for other purposes. The construction of at least two additional Government office buildings in this area will add to the congestion and parking problems. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Welfare and Recreation Association has been able to partially alleviate the problem by temporarily leasing a plot of land suitable for accommodating 700 cars in the Southwest area. It is vital that we protect the interests of the Department of Agriculture's employees whose car pools have been utilizing space in the undeveloped part of the Southwest area. Most of the people utilizing this temporary space represent car pools from areas in which public transportation is not sufficiently developed to meet the needs of departmental employees. In view of the inadequacy of public transportation we believe it impossible for the Department's employees to get necessary transportation other than through the use of car pools. We urge that steps be taken at the earliest possible date to provide public parking for the thousands of employees who now occupy Government buildings in the Southwest areas in the vicinity of the Department of Agriculture buildings. Thank you. Senator TYDINGS. We appreciate your testimony, Mr. Lasseter. Mr. LASSETER. Thank you very much. Senator TYDINGS. It is most helpful. Mr. William G. Barr, executive vice president, National Parking Association. Mr. Barr, we welcome you to our committee. We are delighted to have your testimony this morning. Mr. BARR. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is William G. Barr. I am executive vice president of the National Parking Association. Senator TYDINGS. Proceed with your statement, Mr. Barr. STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIAM G. BARR, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL PARKING ASSOCIATION Mr. BARR. On behalf of the association I wish to express my thanks for the opportunity to appear here today, and I hope I may contribute to clarifying a situation that has been the subject of much misunderstanding. I refer to the subject of free enterprise offstreet parking as opposed to parking provided by public parking agencies. In the 9 years that I have represented the National Parking Association, first as executive director and since May of 1965 as executive vice president, I have visited between 400 and 500 cities throughout the United States, ranging in size from 25,000 to several million. In each of the communities I studied the local parking situation, and it is from this broad background of expert knowledge that I speak to you. Senator TYDINGS. I wonder if we could take a 5-minute recess? Excuse me, Mr. Barr. Mr. BARR. Certainly, sir. Senator TYDINGS. We will take a 5-minute break. (Whereupon, at 10:25 a.m., a short recess was taken.) You may take up where you were, or start at the beginning, as you like. Mr. BARR. Thank you, Senator. I don't think it is necessary to repeat myself. It was spent more or less in qualifying myself in talking on the subject. Municipal parking programs have the following primary fallacies, all of them unavoidable because they are implicit in the nature of the undertaking: 1. Municipal parking "dress up" the money market. Major lending institutions, such as the Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, have publicly stated that they have millions of dollars invested in downtown American cities and are willing to invest millions more for offstreet parking to protect that investment; however, they cannot lend money for this purpose where there exists the |