Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

Answer. The following table summarizes urban renewal experience with business relocation payments during the 22-year period between June 30, 1962, and December 31, 1964:

[blocks in formation]

1 An administrative ceiling of $25,000 was imposed on business moving expenses which had not been in curred by Oct. 2, 1962. The payments at $25,000 probably represent claims which would have been higher but for the existence of the ceiling.

Question. Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts yesterday indicated in a statement before this committee that he understood the urban renewal limitation of $25,000 in reimbursement for business relocation expenses was being reconsidered. Is it likely that this figure will be raised in the near future for urban renewal? Is it likely that a higher figure will be eligible for full Federal reimbursement? Answer. As the Administrator indicated in his recent response to a letter from Senator Edward M. Kennedy on the subject:

"The overwhelming majority of claims for certified actual moving expenses can be reimbursed within the existing $25,000 limitation. Of course, as in the case of any meaningful dollar limitation, it has the effect of limiting the amount that might otherwise be paid in certain cases.

"We agree that this matter should be reviewed to assure the best balance between the possibility of hardship in individual cases and the need to prevent payments in excess of the amount intended by the Congress."

The Agency is currently in the process of restudying this administrative limit and hopes to reach a conclusion in the very near future.

Senator MUSKIE. Our next witness is Mr. Richard L. Steiner, director, Urban Renewal and Housing Agency of Baltimore, Md., who is appearing for himself and, also, on behalf of Mayor Theodore R. McKeldin.

Mr. STEINER. The mayor desired to be here today and regrets very much that he cannot be here. He had planned, if he were here, to present a statement and had asked me to follow him with a discussion of some of the technical details of the legislation I think perhaps it would be less confusing if I just read his statement and then my statement without making an attempt to transpose the references in the first person, in his statement.

If I may do that, sir

Senator MUSKIE. Yes, sir; you may do that.

STATEMENT OF HON. THEODORE R. McKELDIN, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF BALTIMORE, PRESENTED BY RICHARD L. STEINER, DIRECTOR, URBAN RENEWAL AND HOUSING AGENCY, BALTIMORE, MD.

Mr. STEINER (reading). "Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Theodore R. McKeldin. I am mayor of the city of Baltimore. I am representing the interests of my city and its people. We appreciate being invited to express our views on the legislation before you today.

"We wholeheartedly approve of the principle embodied in S. 1681, that persons and businesses forced to relocate as a result of governmental action be compensated and given assistance in a uniform manner regardless of which governmental unit may be involved.

"As you perhaps know, Baltimore is a very progressive city and we live in a time of urban ferment and change. As a consequence, we have in progress a great many programs-many of which are federally assisted that will keep Baltimore in the forefront among great American cities and make it more efficient and livable for those who live and do business there.

"As long ago as 1958, we recognized the inequities that Senator Edmund S. Muskie, chairman of this subcommittee, referred to in his opening statement at the hearings on this legislation when he remarked on June 30 that: 'It makes no sense that a person displaced by one type of Federal project may be eligible for relocation compensation and assistance, while some others may not.' A little later on, he said: "The inequities that result from these disparities among the programs should not be tolerated.'

"We agree. The city of Baltimore acknowledged a community responsibility to provide relocation services to families individual householders, and businesses about to be displaced as a result of governmental action, in which the municipality was involved, by adopting a policy in October 1958, to provide such services uniformly.

"It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to explain to people affected, the several uncoordinated sets of provisions maintained by the Federal Government for various programs. To these people, their difficulties have resulted from a single source-Government action-and the remedies available to them should be similar.

"A point that should not be overlooked by the subcommittee in its deliberations is that the distinctions that exist in various types of assistance to displaced persons are usually regarded by those affected as pure legalisms, with no relation to the cause and effect of the governmental action as it reaches into the individual family or business situation. Such misunderstandings and feelings of injustice could lead to resistance and noncooperation, and end in delays and hostility to the public improvement programs.

"Let me cite for you, briefly, the dimensions of the relocation problem for my own city to illustrate the magnitude of the potential inequities that exist. For the past several years we, in Baltimore, have been relocating approximately 1,000 families a year. This has been necessitated primarily-but not exclusively by one of the most effective and far-reaching urban renewal and housing programs in the country.

"Today, however, we are on the threshold of constructing those portions of the Federal Interstate Highway System that will pass through our city. What this means in terms of relocation of families and businesses to be displaced is additional thousands of families a year over the next several years. In other words, the combination of the highway and urban renewal programs in Baltimore will cause the displacement of more than 2,000 households a year between now and 1972.

"Members of the subcommittee, from a purely municipal administrative viewpoint, not to mention the moral one, it is imperative that all of those people be treated equally and uniformly.

"Baltimore is not an atypical city. Nearly every large city today has gone beyond the point where it is dealing only with an occasional street widening or relatively small site clearance for a school or some similar program where the movement of families displaced has relatively minor impact on the total community. Activities contemplated by the forward-looking cities of today will cause such a mass movement of families that, if this movement be unplanned and the families unassisted, the further spread of blight is predictable and almost inevitable. Such a result would nullify the ambitious plans for the renewal of our urban areas, and would prevent the more constructive use of the large financial investment underway in such cities.

"I have not commented upon specific provisions of S. 1681, but would be most appreciative if the subcommittee would extend that courtesy to the director of the Baltimore Urban Renewal and Housing Agency, Mr. Richard L. Steiner, who is present and prepared to do so.

"I am thoroughly convinced that the cities of this Nation need and will profit from the legislation before you. I urge that it be given every consideration and, with whatever modifications are deemed advisable, receive a favorable report from this subcommittee.

"On behalf of the citizens of Baltimore, I thank you for the opportunity you have afforded me to comment on this significant and progressive piece of legislation. I commend Senator Muskie for introducing it, and am pleased to support it enthusiastically."

That is the end of the mayor's prepared statement.

And, if you wish, I can proceed with my own statement on the more technical details of the legislation.

Senator MUSKIE. Yes; by all means.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD L. STEINER, DIRECTOR, BALTIMORE URBAN RENEWAL AND HOUSING AGENCY, BALTIMORE, MD.

Mr. STEINER. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Richard L. Steiner. I am director of the Baltimore Urban Renewal and Housing Agency.

I am most appreciative of the subcommittee's courtesy and the opportunity presented to extend briefly the observations of the mayor of Baltimore, the Honorable Theodore R. McKeldin, with respect to S. 1681.

Perhaps the most significant feature of the extensive displacement of families that Mayor McKeldin testified is underway in Baltimore, is that for the families-it is involuntary. Families are being forced to move from their residences, uproot themselves from established neighborhood and cultural associations, and relocate in other accommodations at a time and under circumstances not of their choice. This they are required to do to further the common good. It is inevitable in most cases that some degree of hardship is involved. This is true even though the ultimate solution of an individual family problem may mean more satisfactory living conditions for the family than it

had experienced prior to the move. The same is true for displaced small businesses.

It is only reasonable and just that these displaced persons receive consistency and equity in treatment by Federal and federally aided public improvement programs. Relocation is a serious and growing problem in Baltimore, as it is in the rest of the United States. Therefore, we believe that S. 1681 is timely and much needed.

Now, I would like to direct your attention, briefly, to a few sections of S. 1681 for specific comment.

First of all, as I am sure you are aware, the system of ground rents that we have in Baltimore is fairly unique in the country. We would appreciate some recognition of this in section 3 (c) (3) on lines 1, 2, and 3 on page 4 that provides an additional payment of $300 if the displaced person owned the fee title or a life estate in the real property occupied. While most Baltimoreans own their own homes, not very many have them in fee simple because they do not own the ground. This is the proper and colloquial way of referring to it. Lawyers refer to it as the ownership of the leasehold subject to a reversionary interest.

Senator MUSKIE. You called it ground rent?

Mr. STEINER. Yes, sir.

Second, while we recognize that the provision for rent adjustment payments in section 3 (e) on page 4 reflects current Federal law and regulations, our agency does not believe that rent adjustment payments as currently authorized constitute a fundamental solution to the financial problems of displaced families. We think the problem should be met fundamentally through programs to provide decent housing for all income levels. It would be preferable if rent adjustment payments could be an outright grant of 2 months' rent in the new quarters of displaced families to provide funds for required deposits, rather than $1,000 over 2 years as called for in this legislation. The latter provision simply entices families into quarters they cannot really afford, and drops them flat when the time period for adjustment payments ends.

Third, it is uncertain whether section 4 applies to federally assisted programs or simply direct Federal programs. If the former is the case, we would respectfully suggest that the provision in lines 20 through 25 on page 5 be eliminated. To offer relocation assistance to persons occupying property adjacent to the real property being acquired would, to our way of thinking, open a Pandora's box that could have serious and deleterious consequences. For example, owners of rented or leased properties would have valid grounds for voicing bitter complaints.

Fourth, we would like the subcommittee to consider amending section 6(a) to give the President the advice of the HHFA Administrator with respect to the promulgation of regulations with respect to this bill. It seems to us that it would be eminently desirable to utilize the available skills and extensive experience of the HHFA in handling relocation. When we adopted a uniform municipal relocation policy in Baltimore, we vested the responsibility for it in the Baltimore Urban Renewal and Housing Agency which had been performing this function since clearance began for the first public housing site in Baltimore under the Housing Act of 1937.

Fifth, we would caution the subcommittee against using the phrase "or imminence of acquisition" in section 12 (2) on pages 14 and 15. It is our considered judgment, based on many years of experience, that it would be grossly unjust to property owners and landlords to encourage people to flee from properties before they are acquired. It would likewise seriously and unnecessarily complicate the administration of a relocation program. The main point, however, is that it would impose financial hardships and loss of income on private property owners. The eligibility of a displaced person for relocation payments should commence from the date of acquisition of the property in question.

Sixth, and finally, it is unclear to us whether nonprofit corporations are included in any of the definitions in section 12. If they are not included, certainly such institutions as churches, hospitals, and so forth, should be made eligible for relocation payments and assistance. In conclusion, I would like to make one more general observation of a practical nature. In the execution stages of public improvement programs-notably urban renewal and highways-deadlines for accomplishment are established, commitments are made and contracts signed requiring site clearances or building vacancies at the end of fixed periods of time. It is extremely difficult, and sometimes impossible, for such schedules to be met without a uniform relocation program that is acceptable to the displaced persons involved.

The refusal or the inability of families and businesses to move within reasonable timespans can cause delays that disrupt schedules and increase the financial cost of the public improvements. Such refusal and inability can-and in many places today does result from the confusion and patent injustice caused by inconsistencies in relocation policies and procedures, and the complete lack of policies and procedures in many situations.

We, in Baltimore, hope and trust that the ultimate passage of S. 1681 will bring about a more fair and equitable approach to what is, at best, one of the most difficult urban problems with which we must cope to achieve the desired goals of a modern, efficient, and livable city. Thank you.

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you very much, Mr. Steiner, for your very helpful suggestions. We will take them under consideration. Mr. STEINER. Very well.

Senator MUSKIE. Our next witness is Mr. Robert L. Free, president, American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, on behalf of the National Association of Real Estate Boards.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT L. FREE, CLEVELAND, OHIO, PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REAL ESTATE BOARDS; ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN C. WILLIAMSON, DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REAL ESTATE BOARDS

Mr. FREE. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Robert L. Free. With me at the table is Mr. John C. Williamson, secretary-counsel of the Realtors' Washington Committee

« ÎnapoiContinuă »