Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, Arkansas, Chairman

HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington
SAM J. ERVIN, JR., North Carolina
ERNEST GRUENING, Alaska
EDMUND S. MUSKIE, Maine
ABRAHAM RIBICOFF, Connecticut
FRED R. HARRIS, Oklahoma
ROBERT F. KENNEDY, New York
LEE METCALF, Montana
JOSEPH M. MONTOYA, New Mexico

KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota
CARL T. CURTIS, Nebraska
JACOB K. JAVITS, New York
MILWARD L. SIMPSON, Wyoming

WALTER L. REYNOLDS, Chief Clerk and Staff Director
ARTHUR A. SHARP, Staff Editor

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS
EDMUND S. MUSKIE, Maine, Chairman

SAM J. ERVIN, JR., North Carolina
ABRAHAM RIBICOFF, Connecticut
ROBERT F. KENNEDY, New York
LEE METCALF, Montana

JOSEPH M. MONTOYA, New Mexico

KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota
MILWARD L. SIMPSON, Wyoming
JACOB K. JAVITS, New York

DAVID B. WALKER, Staff Director
ROBERT E. BERRY, Minority Counsel

ARNOLD H. RAPHAELSON, Professional Staff Member
MARK H. FREEMAN, Professional Staff Member
LURLENE P. WILBERT, Chief Clerk

DEE CRAVEN, Assistant Chief Clerk

CONTENTS

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

Hon. Chuck Hall, mayor, Dade County, Fla., representing the National
Association of Counties; accompanied by C. D. Ward, general counsel__
Henry H. Krevor, formerly Counsel for the House Select Subcommittee on
Real Property Acqusition.--

Ross D. Davis, Executive Administrator, Small Business Administration;
accompanied by Logan Hendricks, Deputy Administrator for Financial
Assistance; Thomas Francis, Director, Local Development Companies;
and John Kivlan, Assistant Counsel for Legislation.

Report of the General Services Administration on S. 1201_

Report of the General Services Administration on S. 1681.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[blocks in formation]

COMMUNICATIONS AND STATEMENTS

UNIFORM COMPENSATION FOR RELOCATION

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 30, 1965

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS,
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 3302, New Senate Office Building, Senator Edmund S. Muskie (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senator Muskie.

Staff members present: David B. Walker, staff director; Robert E. Berry, minority counsel; Arnold H. Raphaelson and Mark H. Freeman, professional staff members; and Dee Craven, assistant chief clerk.

OPENING STATEMENT OF THE CHAIRMAN

Senator MUSKIE. The hearing will be in order. I have an opening

statement.

Every year, the United States buys land or assists State and local governments in buying property for Federal projects or for use in grant-in-aid programs. Every year over the next several years, about 110,000 families and individuals, 18,000 businesses and nonprofit organizations, and 4,000 farm operators will have to move to make way for urban renewal, public housing, public roads, defense, NASA, Post Office, and other projects. The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, on which I serve as a member, expressed concern recently in a report which stated that these displaced persons and businesses may be bearing a "disproportionate share of the cost of the benefit created by the public works program necessitating their move." President Johnson, in his 1964 housing message to the Congress, declared that:

The vast majority of those displaced by urban renewal and public housing have relocated in better and standard housing, but some have not ***. For some, the inconvenience of displacement has meant only another similar dwelling and likelihood of repeating this experience * * * *. Similarly, small businessmen-especially those in leased premises-often incur economic loss and hardship as a result of displacement by urban renewal or public housing which is not offset by current compensation practices and moving expense reimbursements.

Compensation for these people forced to move by Federal projects and under federally aided programs is at present the subject of several uncoordinated sets of provisions. None of these with the possible exception of those for urban renewal and public housing-adequately recognizes the real impact of dislocation. 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. It

1

makes no sense that a person in one State may be compensated for a move because his State has authorized payment, while in a neighboring State a person may be forced to move under the same Federal grant program, without compensation.

The inequities that result from these disparities among the programs should not be tolerated. The Federal Government should not, by the diversity of its programs, be the source of these inequities. Instead, we should have a uniform set of provisions to help families and individuals, businesses and organizations, and farmers avoid the human and economic disasters that can be created by forced relocation. The displaced should be fairly and equally treated. They should be assured of equal or better housing. And the lives of small businesses should be sustained. The burdens of relocation should not sound the death knell of small businesses or create unnecessary misery for displaced families.

Extensive study, in hearings by the House Select Subcommittee on Real Property Acquisition, resulted in a thorough report on compensation and assistance for persons affected by real property acquisition in Federal and federally assisted programs. Further study by the Advisory Commission has resulted in a Commission report on the unequal treatment of people and businesses displaced by Government. The recommendations of these studies are implemented by the two bills we are considering in these hearings.

S. 1681, which I introduced on April 1, would establish uniformity of relocation payments and advisory assistance programs for those displaced by Federal projects or under Federal grants. Compliance with these relocation requirements would be a condition of Federal grants to State and local governments.

The bill would extend to all Federal grant programs the present urban renewal provision that no property acquisition project may proceed without available standard housing for all those displaced. Further, for federally aided programs, the bill would provide for relocation payments up to a maximum of $25,000 each, with full Federal reimbursement of this amount. This would permit payments up to $25,000 rather than the lower maximum amounts provided in the highway program, and would assure that relocation payments will be made in the 28 States where highway displacees are not now entitled to receive such payments.

This bill is consistent in most respects with the goals of sections 107 through 118 and title IV of S. 1201, a bill introduced by Senator Sparkman on February 18. Senator Sparkman's bill, however, goes beyond the establishment of a uniform relocation policy. It is also concerned with: (1) uniform procedures in the appraisal and compensation for property taken for Federal programs; (2) the problems of taxation of gains which result from these forced sales of property; and (3) additional assistance under the Manpower Development and Training Act and under the Social Security Act provisions for unemployment compensation. Senator Sparkman's bill, then, is broader in its scope than S. 1681.

The problems faced by those displaced by direct and indirect Federal action are substantial, and they are growing. Viable solutions to these problems should be important parts of the same programs which require that people and businesses move. There is a Federal obligation to treat these people and businesses uniformly.

« ÎnapoiContinuă »