Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

Senator MUSKIE. That position has not been expressed by any of the witnesses I have heard. But there is so much that I have not heard. There seems to be a very strong recognition-I do not know whether I should use a stronger word at the moment on the part of everyone that the work of the select subcommittee of the House, in its conclusions, goes to a point that ought to get serious consideration, so that there is the feeling that we can get results later.

I, personally, feel that we need to get some reform in those features covered by S. 1201. It is difficult to refuse the agencies a reasonable amount of time to enable them to do some solid work on this. If I thought that they were digging in their heels and resisting it, then I would be tempted to push them. This is not my final decision on this, but I was trying to explore this.

Thank you very much, Mr. Triggs. I think we have had some useful hearings. I hope they will result in mutual satisfaction. Mr. TRIGGS. Thank you.

Senator MUSKIE. The record will be kept open for 10 days.

The committee will stand adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned.)

(Subsequently, the following statements and letters were received for inclusion in the record:)

THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND DEVELOPMENT,
DIVISION OF URBAN PERSONNEL,

Boston, Mass., July 15, 1965.

Re S. 1201, S. 1681.

Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MUSKIE: Your honorable subcommittee has before it legislation which vitally affects the problems faced by businesses relocated, or soon to be relocated, or soon to be relocated by urban renewal projects in cities and towns in our Commonwealth of Massachusetts as in other States of the Union. The costs incurred or to be incurred by commercial and industrial firms can in many instances exceed the present administrative limit of $25,000 as set by the administrator.

We in the Department of Commerce and Development who are charged with the responsibility of approving urban renewal projects, some of which will require large relocation expenses to businesses over and above the present limit are vitally concerned with the problem.

This subject has immediate relevance to the NASA research center to be located in a proposed urban renewal project in the city of Cambridge.

We feel that the increase of the limitation set by the Administrator to a more realistic figure is essential to the success of urban renewal programs in this Commonwealth and in all States of the Union.

Very truly yours,

JULIAN D. STEELE, Deputy Commissioner.

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA,

July 12, 1965.

Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MUSKIE: I have done considerable analysis on the bill introduced by you in the Senate, the Uniform Relocation Act of 1965, S. 1681. I would like you and members of the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations to know that you have my complete support, and I am certain the support of Philadelphia's

congressional delegation and Senator Clark in regard to this very important matter.

As you know, Philadelphia has pioneered in the establishment of a centralized relocation bureau. Originally, the urban renewal agency worked with only title I cases. The bureau today is responsible for serving all families to be relocated, regardless of the displacing agency. The bureau maintains a contractual relationship to perform services for the general State authority, the Philadelphia school board, the housing authority and the city of Philadelphia for code enforcement and capital improvement project displacements. At the present time we are negotiating with the State highway department in order that it, too, will assume its financial responsibility in supplying services to families displaced by highway building activities. Heretofore, it has been necessary for the city to assume the cost in supplying these services.

Although we have had much success locally, much more needs to be done. For too long, Federal and federally aided programs have not only been inconsistent but inequitable. A joint survey by the U.S. conference of mayors, on whose executive board I serve, and the Advisory Committee on Intergovernmental Relations indicates that the Nation's 100 largest cities at least 63,000 families and 8,000 businesses will be displaced in the next 2 years, and all indications are that this will continue to grow as the Nation works to renew and rebuild for the latter half of the 20th century. In Philadelphia alone, almost 15,000 families will be displaced over the next 5 years as a result of public action. A great majority of these families are those that have the most difficulty in making satisfactory readjustments-Negroes, low-income families, the elderly, proprietors of small neighborhood stores. and others who are affected most by change.

S. 1681 is a fine piece of legislation which would establish a uniform Federal policy for the protection of all persons and businesses displaced by Federal and federally assisted programs. It will do so by covering the full costs of such displacements, by requiring provision of a local relocation program of advisory assistance and service such as we have developed in Philadelphia and by assuring the availability of adequate housing as a condition of Federal grants-in-aid on a basis comparable to that in the present Federal urban renewal program.

In regard to the latter, the rent supplement feature of S. 1681 is crucial. Further, I would suggest consideration by the committee of an additional recommendation made in the recent report of the Select Subcommittee on Real Property Acquisition of the Public Works Committee. Recommendation 19, of the subcommittee's report, requests that public housing subsidy, now authorized for low-income families or individuals displaced by urban renewal or public housing projects, be extended to low-income families or individuals displaced by any public program conducted by the Federal Government or with the assistance of Federal funds.

I believe that passage of S. 1681 will be of great benefit to our public improvement programs and to the maintenance of community support for necessary improvement projects. More importantly, S. 1681 will help us meet our great obligation to the many families who are asked to move from their homes for a public purpose. Unfortunately, I will not be able to testify at the hearings before your committee, but I would appreciate it very much if my comments on this matter could be considered by the members of the commmittee and be made a part of the testimony.

With all best wishes and kindest personal regards, I remain,
Sincerely yours,

JAMES H. J. TATE, Mayor.

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY PERRY E. WILLITS, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS

Pursuant to the request of the chairman, the National Association of Home Builders of the United States submits herewith, its views on bills S. 1201 and S. 1681, under consideration by the subcommittee.

S. 1201

In its four titles, this bill covers three distinct subjects

(1) Establishment of uniform policy on land acquisition practices and a uniform system of payments with respect to land acquired for direct Federal programs and for federally assisted programs,

(2) Provision of assistance for owners and employees of small business concerns displaced or injured by Federal or federally assisted programs, and (3) Amendments to section 221 of the National Housing Act to provide special assistance for rental and home acquisition and amendment to the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 to provide further subsidy for displacees.

As the subcommittee is aware, the National Association of Home Builders of the United States (NAHB) is the trade association of the American homebuilding industry. Our approximately 44,000 members build some 76 percent of the single new homes and 44 percent of apartments built annually in the United States. They are also vitally interested in urban renewal.

In this extensive activity, the industry and NAHB as its spokesman are substantially affected by Federal legislation which concerns the process of land acquisition for urban renewal or for homes and apartments to be built by private enterprise.

The first subject covered by the bill (S. 1201) relates to these areas of interest only with respect to urban renewal; section 115 (1) (E) (8) (at pp. 31 and 32) specifically excludes from the effect of this title any loan or contract of guarantee (i.e., FHA mortgage insurance). We endorse this specific exclusion since the land acquisition provisions of the bill are, by their nature, applicable only to governmental acquisition of land and not at all to private acquisition of land in the give-and-take of the private market.

With respect to the effect of this title on the urban renewal program, we are unable to express any official NAHB views. Policy, with respect to legislative subjects of this nature, is established for our association each year by its 537-man board of directors. This policy is determined at the board's annual meeting in December. It is reconsidered and supplemented at the spring board meeting in May. At the time of the December 1964 and the May 1965 meetings, legislation in prospect consisted predominantly of the subjects now incorporated into the pending housing bill (S. 1354, Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965). While the counterpart housing legislation in the House (H.R. 7984) included provisions having to do with land acquisition policy, these proposals were advanced subsequent to our May meeting. Therefore, these proposals come too late for consideration by our directors.

However, it may be informally stated that there appears to be no reason why NAHB should object to the proposed amendments to Federal land acquisition policies and procedures so long as they concern only governmental acquisition of land.

Similarly (and with the same reservation that the subject has not been formally considered by our policymaking body) we have no current objection to the provisions of the bill which would provide assistance for owners and employees of small business concerns displaced or injured by Federal or federally assisted programs. Here, too, the wording of the provision applies—as it should—only to programs assisted by Federal funds and not to private programs assisted by mortgage insurance.

Section 401 of the bill would provide rental assistance for displaced families. While NAHB has supported, in fact, suggested, the principle of rent supplements now contained in the pending housing legislation above referred to, it is respectfully submitted that this subject should be considered as a whole in connection with that legislation and not separately. Housing legislation already is complex and elaborate those groups, such as NAHB, which have responsibility for interpreting its provisions to their membership, experience increasing difficulty in arriving at sound judgments with respect to new legislation. We believe it a mistake to compound this difficulty by dispersing direct housing provisions among more than one bill.

Section 402 of the bill would make section 221 of the National Housing Act available for sales housing for displaced families and displaced elderly and handicapped individuals. NAHB has gone on record as approving this proposal, in general, but as part of housing legislation. We have suggested those persons eligible for rental units under section 221(d) (3) be eligible also for similarly assisted sales housing.

S. 1681

This bill would provide relocation payments and other assistance to persons displaced by the acquisition of land by any Federal agency for public use. It provides further that, as a condition of Federal assistance, that a State agency acquiring real property agree to make fair and reasonable relocation payments and provide relocation assistance including temporary relocation of displacees.

As above noted with respect to S. 1201, since these provisions by their nature apply to governmental acquisition of land, the interests of NAHB members are affected only in connection with the urban renewal program. In principle (and subject to the reservations above noted that NAHB's policymaking body has not acted thereon) we believe it only fair and reasonable that Federal and State agencies in acquiring land for public use, take practical steps to assist in the relocation of persons displaced thereby. The overwhelming majority of displacees are persons of low or modest income, the group which presents the most difficult problem in providing decent housing. Aside from basic human considerations, this would suggest that relocation assistance to persons displaced by governmental action is a proper cause of governmental concern.

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT OFFICIALS,
Washington, D.C., July 26, 1965.

Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations, Committee on Government Operations, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MUSKIE: We are pleased to submit this statement for the record of hearings on S. 1201 and S. 1681 in response to your invitation of June 11. These bills deal with matters that have long been of concern to this association: Equitable treatment of persons displaced by federally aided programs and fair compensation for properties taken. It is a matter of some pride to us that the renewal program has broken new ground in this area, with its requirement that there be made available to individuals and families displaced from urban renewal areas "decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings" within their financial means. Since 1949, when the first renewal law was passed, including this provision, techniques and aids for providing relocation assistance to families, individuals, and businesses displaced by urban renewal have steadily improved and have become recognized by thoughtful and informed analysis of relocation as the prototype for all public programs--at Federal, State, and local levelsthat cause family and business displacement. The reports of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations and of the Select Subcommittee on Real Property Acquisition of the House Committee on Public Works confirm that urban renewal has served as a model for the initiation of the provision of relocation assistance by other Government agencies.

Against this background of longtime concern with the issues involved in relocation and compensation, we regret that we cannot submit detailed testimony on the specific provisions of these two bills. The association's position on legislative matters stems from policy resolutions adopted by our members at our biennial national conferences. The last such conference was in 1963 and our 1965 meeting is not scheduled until late October. We shall most certainly be considering relocation issues when we meet this year but, pending membership action, we are not in a position to take a "pro" or "con" stand on such provisions of S. 1681 as the sharing of business relocation payments on a Federal-State basis. Should action on S. 1681 and S. 1201 not be taken by the Congress until late in the year, it is quite possible that we can file our program resolution with your subcommittee in early November.

Meanwhile, we can pass along to you some comments on the bills submitted by some of our members, individually, for whatever help they may be to the subcommittee. They are as follows:

Fair Compensation Act of 1965, S. 1201

Section 112 (c)3: "It has generally been the practice, on the west coast, to establish the value of the total real property and whatever rights a tenant may have are established between the owners and the tenants and generally subject to the terms of his lease. We do not feel that it is appropriate for a public agency to make direct compensation to the tenants as outlined in section 112(c)3. Such action may well induce continued and additional litigation. Moreover, it is seldom true that an appraiser or the public agency by whom he is employed is in full possession of all the pertinent facts which would lead to an equitable distribution of the value among the various 'owners'."

Again, under section 112: "We believe that subsection (d) should include provisions for all programs of Federal financial assistance to State agencies, including such programs as open space and community facilities. Further, in section 112 (c) 2, clarification should be made of the term 'the likelihood that the property

would be acquired for the proposed public improvement.' The clarification should take the form of either a legislative or administrative determination of a reasonable date in advance of the proposed public improvements. The language as now written can create a substantial area of disagreement between a property owner and the public agency.

"We have frequently found in the carrying out of an urban renewal project that the agency has acquired a property the owner of which has other properties in the same project area. In accordance with the urban renewal plan, it is required that these other properties be rehabilitated to the plan standards; however, the Internal Revenue Service has determined that the funds received from the owner for the property acquired by the public agency cannot be used for the rehabilitation of these other properties and still come within the interpretation of the investment of funds received by involuntary conversion. As noted, we believe that this section should either be clarified or revised to permit this type of investment under involuntary conversion."

Uniform Relocation Act of 1965, S. 1681

"Under section 3(b) the clarification of 'business' as 'not part of a commercial enterprise having at least one other establishment. not being acquired by the United States, which is engaged in the same or similar business,' our experience under the Housing Act of 1964 has identified several problems arising from the structure of business enterprises. In these cases, a business may be separately organized but clearly related by ownership or stockholdings to other businesses. Yet, within the definitions of the 1964 act, as to net profit upon which disruption payments are made, this business is entitled to that disruption payment. We believe it was not the intention of Congress to make disruption payments to these types of businesses, yet the language of the law provides, in our opinion, that no other course can be taken. We would hope that the Congress would either itself clarify the matter or provide that administrative regulations clearly indicate the intention to provide these payments to 'small businesses' of the same order provided in this bill.”

One further comment. In view of the fact that use of the power of eminent domain is controlled by State law and in view of the complexity of drawing up equitable relocation policies, we are concerned that many of the detailed amendments and technical provisions of S. 1201 and S. 1681 may prove difficult, if not impossible, to implement. We concur in the recommendation of the Commissioner of the Urban Renewal Administration that these detailed proposals be subjected to very careful analysis of the Federal, State, and local agencies involved in the taking of properties and in both compensating for their acquisition and assisting the displaced families, individuals, or businesses. It would be our hope that we might be asked to participate in this careful review of these technical amendments. We appreciate having had the opportunity to review and comment, even though quite generally, on these important bills. Sincerely,

JOHN D. LANGE, Executive Director.

Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE,

NATIONAL FOREST PRODUCTS ASSOCIATION,
Washington, D.C., July 13, 1965.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations, Senate Committee on Government Operations, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The forest products industry in recent years has been subjected to substantial loss of its raw material base, timberlands, to Federal acquisition. As Federal dam construction, recreational development, and other public works increases, the availability of private commercial saw timber is reduced. While the difficulty of replacing raw material sources is of paramount concern, the impact of commercial timberland deprivation is heightened by the fact that compensation by the Federal Government for such taking is, more often than not, wholly inadequate. This discrepancy between value and compensation usually results from the compensation limits imposed upon Federal agencies by existing rules, regulations, and statutes.

If the forest products industry is to be made substantially whole in such cases, as implied by the Constitution and the body of law developed in interpreting it. the industry which by and large are small timberland owners, must receive adequate compensation. This can most equitably be accomplished by allowing dam

« ÎnapoiContinuă »