« ÎnapoiContinuă »
you think the bill might be changed instead of making appropriate grants to the States, to include also cities or other units of government ?
Governor Brown. The city of New York seems to be a special problem, and I don't know how you would write legislation in that connection. New York, with a budget larger than almost any other State in the entire United States, is almost a separate problem, and I wouldn't want to if I were voting on a bill like this or drafting it, I certainly would want to take the city of New York into the scope of these plans, but for the time being, other than the city of New York, it seems to me that it should be done on a statewide basis.
So you are going to get into parochial problems. You are going to get into city problems, and really and truly, all of our work should be directed toward problems of waste disposal, air pollution, and things like that.
I think you are going to have to forget even State lines. I think these are national problems that observe no lines at all, and if you start getting into cities and you start getting into fighting over these awards, I am afraid we are going to lose the principal purpose of the Nelson bill.
Mr. MILLENSON. You are not suggesting we strike “* *** problems facing localities * * *" from the bill ?
Governor Brown. No; in the grants I would like to see it done on the larger political entity, the States, but the city of New York is something that—if I were drafting a bill—I would like to consider.
Mr. MILLENSON. You wouldn't include Chicago or Los Angeles ?
Governor BROWN. I really don't think that we should move into that field at the present time. Don't misunderstand me. Los Angeles has big problems and so has Chicago, but how you could ever write the bill that would limit it only to the city of New York is difficult for me to say, as I am talking with you today, but I just don't want to get into some of the problems we have in the poverty program in giving these things to cities, and that is without giving the State govornment some opportunity to look at this thing from a regional basis rather than a purely local basis.
On a statewide basis you can separate purely urban and purely rural needs. The problem of pollution may have its origin in rural sources and its impact may be in the urban locations.
Similarly, the recreation needs of Los Angeles and New York City would affect the rural recreation areas of northern California in our State. So we have to look at our problems on a statewide basis to get the best mix of needs as long as it is from the urban centers and the rural centers. Mr. MILLENSON. I refer you to section II of the bill, which says:
* The problems referred to in the preceding sentence include, but are not limited to, problems in the area of education, unemployment, welfare, crime, juvenile delinquency, air pollution, housing, transportation, and waste disposal.
Some of these are very much State problems and some appear to me to be city problems, too. Seventy percent of the people of the Nation live in the metropolitan areas.
Governor Brown. You take crime, for example. One of the problems in California we have is that probation is handled by the local area. We have the parole that is handled by the State area. We have the highway patrol. We have the department of justice, and then you have your local police forces.
I agree with you wholeheartedly the problem is in the city. This is where the human beings are; this is where the problems are, not in the political entity of the States. But on the other hand, the whole purpose of whether it is crime or transportation or waste disposal, it has to move beyond the local government if we are going to solve them.
In California we have some 375 cities. We have 76 cities in the County of Los Angeles alone. If you try to put it on a city basis, you are not going to solve these problems at all; whether it is crime, waste disposal, transportation, or anything else. It will eventually get down to them, but under the purpose of this bill, to do this research, it is going to have to be done on a national level, and I think through the State government.
Senator NELSON. I think Mr. Millenson has had some very good questions.
I am sure one of the purposes of the hearings here and the subsequent one in Washington will be to have a penetrating analysis and evaluation of the bill so that any change that ought to be made will be made in it.
It was my intention in drafting the bill that the problems tackled were problems that had a universality about them, and grants can be made under the bill to States or groups of States, but not for the sole purpose of solving that State or that group of States problems, but that the answer they come up with would be applicable to the solution of the similar problems in all of the rest of the States. And if a grant were made to private industry for some aspect of waste management, that the answer they came up with would be as applicable in New York City as it would in the Los Angeles area, or as it would in Seattle.
Therefore, we did provide in the bill that no States could receive in excess of 20 percent of the total amount of money allocated for this purpose. But it was my thought that there would be some States and some groups of States in various parts of the country that had the expertise in their universities and their State governments, in their industries, to do a cooperative effort that had applicability in all parts cf the country, but which could not be done by many, many other States, and that it would be a waste of money to apply some formula in which every State gets some money to do something with it, since the major portion of them wouldn't have expertise to do it, but they would benefit from the answers that were found, no matter who did the research, whether it be private industry, universities, or individual groups of States.
Many of these problems have direct applicability to cities, and the cities would benefit from the work that is done in that field. I thank you very much, Governor.
Governor Brown. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator NELSON. Our next witness would be State senator, Thomas M. Rees.
Senator Rees, before we proceed I see you have a prepared text here. You may read it or extemporize from it, whatever you wish. The whole text will be printed in the record.
STATEMENT OF STATE SENATOR THOMAS M. REES, 38TH DISTRICT,
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIF.
Senator Rees. Thank you, Senator Nelson. I very much appreciate your subcommittee coming to visit us in California. As you know, California has taken the leadership in trying to solve the vast, basic metropolitan problems.
I am the State senator from Los Angeles County representing its 6.7 million inhabitants, at least until our reapportionment bill is going to be law.
Senator NELSON. I might say your single district is bigger than mine.
Senator Rees. That is what I understand. I figure in the U.S. Senate, with apportionment by one man, one man vote, we would have three and a half U.S. Senators in our county.
I have specialized during most of my own legislative career in the area of metropolitan problems, and what I would like to point out is that metropolitan problems do not follow city and county lines. I think, though, we can develop some very lasting solutions toward metropolitan problems and at the same time preserve local initiative and the concept of home rule, which in California is very strong.
If the metropolitan areas of this country are to survive, we must tackle the grave problems being generated in these population centers on a functional, regional basis.
We will not win the uphill battle against urban degeneration unless we abandon strict reliance on existing local governmental jurisdictions to do the job.
I am not proposing that we abandon local government. Rather, I propose that we reorganize it so it can best cope with the crisis with which it is confronted.
Here in Metropolitan Los Angeles we can well see the difficulty in attempting to exercise any kind of control whatsoever of this fastgrowing metropolitan complex.
Los Angeles County alone consists of 76 different cities; the Los Angeles metropolitan area, which might be defined as the basin formed by surrounding mountains, includes 5 counties.
The result of the maze of local governmental jurisdictions, many designed long ago to meet needs of long ago, is a nightmare of overlapping problems and conflicting interests. We find that regional problems, which should be attacked with a comprehensive plan, are merely being nibbled at on the edges through piecemeal efforts. It is
my belief that we can attack regional problems with regional thinking and planning without subverting the concepts of home rule and local government, which I support strongly.
Take a look at some of our problems such as air pollution, water pollution, waste disposal, transportation, parks, recreation, and planning. Each of these functions must now bow to preconceived city and county lines, despite the fact that air pollution, for instance, exists in a basin and certainly does not halt because of the existence of a city or county boundary.
The lack of coordination, the lack of a total integrated concept in approaching these major problems, could well destroy the rationale behind the existence of our major metropolitan areas. Our society
could become so encumbered with small, conflicting jurisdictions, incapable of handling these problems, that it would be impossible to solve the problems.
There is one good example of regional planning and building in our metropolitan basin which should be mentioned because of its great success. We have a basinwide flood control district which has been jointly supported by the city, county, State, and Federal Governments. As a result of this functional, regional approach to a problem, major disastrous floods which used to plague southern California are now no more.
This flood control district is an excellent example of what can be done when we forget petty, local politics. And I think there is something to be learned here which might be applied to a grave new problem as represented by the recent Watts riots.
As a matter of fact, there seems to be some cooperation developing between all levels of government in the wake of the Watts riots. The petty politics must be swept aside if we are to solve the basic Watts problems of a Negro ghetto with lack of economic, educational, and family opportunity.
There will be more Watts riots in our great urban centers because we have already moved too slow, too timidly. But we can prevent major conflagrations if we move now to develop strong Federal programs, better coordination between all levels of government and, most of all, a rejuvenated local commitment to solving these problems on a coordinated, regional basis.
I would like to specifically encourage your careful attention to the legislation you are studying, authored by Senator Gaylord Nelson, which calls for Federal funds to develop studies on major metropolitan problems. I believe this money would go to defense contractors along the lines developed here in California by our own great Gov. Edmund G. Brown.
We are now digesting four major studies developed by California defense contractors, financed by the State of California. I can tell you gentlemen that the men who have pioneered in space can apply their
analytical talents to some of our major problems here on earth, in our cities, and come up with valuable insights.
We need this new thinking and we need to have modern technology applied to our great urban problems. We need the men who dream tomorrow's scientific advances to dream up new solutions to our mounting urban problems. And we need the resources of the Federal Government, and the perspective of the Federal approach, behind the study of these problems which cross even State lines.
This is no time for politics as usual or government as usual. We must develop bold new concepts to meet the mounting crisis in our urban centers.
I am not saying we should abandon local government, but I think we can develop new concepts by which local government can work together in terms of achieving one result.
Here in this 1 metropolitan area, which is defined by the basin, our famous smog basin, in which we have hills and mountains surrounding all of this county and about 4 or 5 other counties, in this 1 city or in this 1 county we have 76 separate cities. We have well over 100 school districts, 1,000 special districts. One of the special districts, of course, is this district here, the metropolitan water district. We find in the metropolitan area, the basin, we have five different counties.
I would say that the total population of the basin, taking in the 5 counties, would be something like 10 million people. And this is an area which, as you well know, is growing at the rate of not hundreds of thousands, but of millions.
I can remember when I was a youngster—and I am not that old—I used to take the opportunity to go to the San Fernando Valley. In fact a good part of my single district is now definitely built
and we are finding more and more congestion in this basin, and are finding that really we have a nightmare of conflicting jurisdictions.
I think we have to start looking for more in terms of regional government; that is a concept of government that follows the function in terms of the problems that exist in metropolitan areas.
Now in the East, for example, we have congestion. If you look at the New York metropolitan area, you are not just talking about sev. eral cities. You are talking about quite a few States, and each and every State is going its own way, and as a result a policy is needed to solve the grinding problems of concentration in the metropolitan areas, and it is just not there.
And so I am very much interested in the work being done by your subcommittee. Now you are well aware of the studies that have developed through the leadership of Governor Brown in the aerospace industry on waste disposal, crime, and so forth.
I think you are showing leadership, and I think the type of leadership that you are trying to develop at a Federal level where we don't just talk about a State or a group of States, or like problems, must be found in the metropolitan complexes throughout the United States.
We find this, for example, in air pollution. We have a more bifurcated concept for air pollution. All permanent sources of steamplants, factories, refineries, whatever it might be, all of these are under the jurisdiction of the local air pollution district and the motor trucks and other vehicles are under the State jurisdiction of California, be cause they go from county to county. Los Angeles County has taken the burden in the field of air pollution.
I can remember when I was back in Washington in 1958 attending the National Air Pollution Conference under the Surgeon General's auspices, and they used to laugh at us in California, especially Los Angeles County, calling it a smog belt.
The people from Detroit were there, the public relations men especially, saying the motor vehicle didn't cause air pollution, and it wasn't a problem, and the people from California were kind of "way out.'
Now I read in the papers that smog attacks in metropolitan areas are becoming more and more severe, and air pollution has become a difficult problem, in the New York area, for example.
In California, while we have spent most of the money which has developed the basic research and the basic concept toward attacking air pollution, we find we can't solve the local problem without some type of Federal cooperation.
Let me give you one example. As I say, we have five counties in this basin. Just because there is a county line, that doesn't mean the air pollution stops at the county line and doesn't flow over. It certainly does flow over, and we have found that the very intensive