Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

on the part of those facing the need to move indicated, as we stated in testimony to the House Banking Subcommittee, the presence of a great deal of uncertainty in the latter category which may have been because informational services in connection with the construction projects were not as effective as they should have been.

In any case, to the extent they would provide "fair and reasonable" uniformity in compensation for moving expenses, both bills would be a great step in the right direction. In providing compensation for buildings, structures, and improvements that cannot be moved and for the loss in value of those which are movable, and in increasing to $5,000 the maximum alternative relocation payment, both bills are again steps in the right direction.

The regulations proposed in S. 1201 as to uniform policy on land acquisitions seem very hopeful. We are impressed with the definition of "fair value," and that provision is made to cover contingencies in which acquisition of parts of properties leave the remainder valueless. This last point immediately brings to mind the report of one of the respondents to our special, factfinding survey:

Have supermarket store with limited parking area. Ratio of parking to store area now at minimum. Widening of arterial by city with partial Government money assistance will take enough from parking to reduce by one-half number of car parks. Probably will be forced to drop from supermarket to superette.

We are sure that your committee will find of great assistance in connection with the foregoing and other points in the bills in question, the study made for the select subcommittee and our statement thereon to the House Banking Subcommittee.

Senator MUSKIE. You have indicated no preference as between the two bills on the subjects which they both cover. Do you have any preference?

Mr. BULLEN. No preference at all, Mr. Chairman.

We would like the provisions of all of them-anything that will help the small independent businessman we favor.

Senator MUSKIE. Certainly. It has been suggested that many businesses close rather than relocate their business, and that many elderly owners retire instead of reestablishing their concerns. Can you suggest guidelines for a social security type of compensation that could be used in these situations?

Mr. BULLEN. Mr. Chairman, ordinarily I am not supposed to voice my own opinions but represent those of the federation, and we have taken no position on this by vote, so I cannot really say how the members feel on this. We have about 200,000 members.

Senator MUSKIE. So your testimony is limited to the mandates which you have received?

Mr. BULLEN. Yes, sir. In this particular case we did not vote on these bills but on bills so similar that we thought that we could support these.

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you very much, Mr. Bullen.

If there is anything further that you would like to submit for the record we will be glad to have it.

Mr. BULLEN. Thank you.

Senator MUSKIE. That concludes the hearings this morning.
We will resume tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock.

(Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m. the hearing adjourned to reconvene at

10 a.m., Thursday, July 1, 1965.)

UNIFORM COMPENSATION FOR RELOCATION

THURSDAY, JULY 1, 1965

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS,
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS,

Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a.m., in room 3302,
New Senate Office Building, Senator Lee Metcalf presiding.
Present: Senator Metcalf.

Staff members present: David B. Walker, staff director; Robert E. Berry, minority counsel; A. H. Raphaelson and Mark H. Freeman, professional staff members; and Dee Craven, assistant chief clerk. Senator METCALF. The committee will be in order.

The first witness this morning on the continuation of the hearings on S. 1201 and S. 1681 will be the Honorable Chuck F. Hall, mayor of Dade County, Fla., who will speak for the National Association of Counties.

Mayor Hall, we are pleased and honored to have you with us this morning. You may go right ahead in your own way.

STATEMENT OF CHUCK HALL, MAYOR, DADE COUNTY, FLA., REPRESENTING THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES; ACCOMPANIED BY C. D. WARD, GENERAL COUNSEL

Mr. HALL. Good morning, Mr. Senator.

Senator Metcalf, gentlemen, permit me to read to you, if I may, a statement which I will deliver in behalf of the NACO organization, which is the National Association of Counties.

Senator METCALF. Mayor Hall, would you identify your companion? Mr. HALL. Yes; I will be very happy to introduce the general counsel, Mr. C. D. Ward, of the National Association of Counties.

Senator METCALF. Mr. Ward, we are glad to have you with us. Mr. WARD. Thank you, Senator.

Senator METCALF. Thank you very much.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Ward is one of the reasons that NACO is prospering as much as it is today. Let me say first of all that I am the metropolitan mayor of Greater Miami, which is Dade County. When you say Dade County usually you do not know where that is. Dade County is one of the finer places in the world, being in a State which is almost equal to yours, sir, Florida.

Senator METCALF. We will take judicial notice of the plug, and the committee is in accord.

99

Mr. HALL. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Chairman, our association, which is NACO, has yet to take formal action on the proposal being considered today. Consequently, we are limiting our remarks to S. 1681, which deals exclusively with the relocation problem.

County government representation on the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations unanimously endorsed the concepts embodied in S. 1681. We have three members, as you know, on the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. Additionally, as a result of a brief survey, we have received similar support of this measure from our officers and committee members. We therefore feel justified in tentatively endorsing S. 1681.

Ten days from today the following amendment to the American county platform, our official policy statement, will be laid before our annual conference, and we have every reason to expect its enactment. The amendment reads as follows:

Government relocation policy. Relocation is a serious and growing problem in the United States. Thousands of people and businesses are forced to move because of government projects, and all indications are that this pace of displacement will accelerate. It has been estimated that from 1964 to 1972 the federally aided urban renewal and highway programs alone will dislocate 825,000 families and individuals and 136,000 businesses. Yet in the face of this large and expanding impact of displacement by government, Federal, State, and local relocation policies are inconsistent and inequitable. Neighbors displaced by different programs of even the same government are treated unequally. Moreover, those having the most difficulty in adjusting satisfactorily to a forced move are often displaced-low income families, the elderly, minority groups, and owners and operators of small neighborhood stores.

The National Association of Counties supports enactment of legislation which would establish a uniform and consistent Federal policy for protection of all persons and businesses displaced by direct Federal and federally assisted programs: (a) by compensating for the full costs of such displacements; (b) by requiring provision of a program of advisory assistance and service; and (c) by assuring availability of adequate housing as a condition of Federal grants-in-aid, similar to the requirement in the Federal urban renewal program.

The National Association of Counties urges each State to enact comparable legislation providing a uniform relocation policy for protection of all persons and businesses displaced by State and local programs. Such uniform State policy should also provide for State sharing in local governments' costs of relocation payments in all State-aided projects.

In the interest of economy and the convenience of those displaced, the National Association of Counties further urges Federal, State, and local governments to cooperate in centralizing responsibilities for relocation, housing, administering payments and counseling services, to the extent practicable, in a single agency in each major urban jurisdiction.

That is the end of the amendment.

(Subsequently, the following letter was received indicating the action taken by the American county platform with respect to NACO's proposed amendment :)

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES,
Washington, D.C., August 4, 1965.

Senator EDMUND MUSKIE,

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

DEAR SENATOR MUSKIE: As indicated in our testimony on S. 1681, it was anticipated that the following amendment to the American county platform was to be considered at the annual conference of the National Association of Counties.

"Government relocation policy.-Relocation is a serious and growing problem in the United States. Thousands of people and businesses are forced to move because of Government projects, and all indications are that this pace of displacement will accelerate. It has been estimated that from 1964 to 1972 the federally aided urban renewal and highway programs alone will dislocate 825,000 families and individuals and 136,000 businesses. Yet in the face of this large and expanding impact of displacement by government. Federal, State, and local relocation policies are inconsistent and inequitable. Neighbors displaced by different programs of even the same government are treated equally. Moreover, those having the most difficulty in adjusting satisfactorily to a forced move are most often displaced low-income families, the elderly, minority groups, and owners and operators of small neighborhood stores.

"The National Association of Counties supports enactment of the proposed legislation which would establish a uniform and consistent Federal policy for protection of all persons and businesses displaced by direct Federal and federally assisted programs: (a) by compensating for the full costs of such displacement; (b) by requiring provision of a program of advisory assistance and service; and (c) by assuring availability of adequate housing as a condition of Federal grants-in-aid, similar to the requirement in the Federal urban renewal program; and (d) that the Federal Government advance 100 percent of funds for the prompt acquisition of highway rights-of-way for Federal-aid highways and the Federal Government authorize the States to reimburse their State share over the period of the actual construction schedule.

"The National Association of Counties urges each State to enact comparable legislation providing a uniform relocation policy for protection of all persons and businesses displaced by State and local programs. Such uniform State policy should also provide for State sharing in local governments' costs of relocation payments in all State aided projects.

"In the interest of economy and the convenience of those displaced, the National Association of Counties further urges Federal, State, and local governments to cooperate in centralizing responsibilities for relocation, housing, administering payments and counseling services, to the extent practicable, in a single agency in each major urban jurisdiction."

I am pleased to state that on July 14, the National Association of Counties formally made the above-mentioned amendment to part of our official policy. Consequently it firmly places us on record in support of S. 1681, a bill to provide for uniform, fair, and equitable treatment of persons, businesses, and firms displaced by Federal or federally assisted programs.

Very truly yours,

C. D. WARD, General Counsel.

Mr. HALL. Because local governments are the most easily accessible to displaced persons and businesses, it is to be expected that they bear the brunt of complaints for dislocation problems regardless of which level of government has been the cause. Additionally, inasmuch as county government is responsible for 2.5 million of our Nation's 3.5 million miles of road, you can appreciate county government's sensitivity to the problem you are considering today.

It is repeatedly stated that the worst problem in relocating people is finding adequate housing for low-income groups. County governments are at a decided disadvantage in that only 16 States have enabled counties to undertake the urban renewal program, and it is our information that comparable situations exist with respect to public housing. In cooperation with the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, we have requested the Housing and Home Finance Agency to develop model State enabling legislation to allow counties to undertake projects in both these areas, thereby increasing our interest in relocation and, hopefully, our ability to assure needed housing.

When the Federal-Aid Highway Act was amended to allow relocation payments, we suggested that the Bureau of Public Roads be allowed to contract with the Housing and Home Finance Agency or the local housing agency in order to allow those groups to handle all relocation payments in the area. This was not only to take advantage of HHFA experience, but also to assure equitable and coordinated payments. As indicated by our proposed amendment, we still support that concept.

We shall communicate our association's action on this matter on July 14, 1 day after your final hearing, thereby allowing our recommendations to be included in the committee's report. I have appreciated the opportunity of appearing here today, and I will be pleased to try to answer any questions you may have.

Mr. Senator, I have also, sir, a prepared statement of a local condition in Dade County, Fla., which is Greater Miami, which I thought might be of interest to you and your committee and, if I may be permitted, I will give it to you.

Senator METCALF. Please go ahead.

Mr. HALL. Thank you, sir. You have before you, do you not, the statement? I would like to call to your attention the map which is attached as an exhibit to this document. This map delimits the first urban renewal project in the city of Miami, which is one of the 27 cities that I represent. It also indicates by appropriate shading a portion of Interstate 95, which is within the urban renewal project area. I think you can see that mark very clearly by black lines. (Map in subcommittee files.)

This is a perfect example of a problem that exists. On the one hand, our Urban Renewal Agency is able to make relocation payments to families to be displaced by its acquisition program and, on the other hand, several hundreds of families have been displaced by State road department activities within the urban renewal area before a loan and grant contract has been executed. Until we enter into a loan and grant agreement with the Housing and Home Finance Agency for urban renewal in this area, it will be impossible to make financial disbursements available to the families who have been displaced by the Interstate right-of-way acquisition.

Now, gentlemen, this is hard to explain to our constituents. On the one hand, we have a federally assisted road program, displacing families, and these families are given no financial assistance. On the other hand, immediately across the street, or even more pertinent, just next door, families will be displaced by urban renewal, another federally assisted program, and these families are eligible for financial assistance.

I am sure this is not a problem peculiar to Dade County. Therefore, I have made this trip to be with you today, to urge you to adopt appropriate legislation that will help overcome these inequities noticed at the Federal level, but magnified and deeply felt in our localities. (The attachment referred to follows:)

« ÎnapoiContinuă »