Search (18 results)

Applied Filters (Reset)

  • Tags = Box 22 Folder 19

Filters

Result Types

Item Types

Tags

Featured

Box 22, Folder 19, Document 14

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_022_019_014.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 22, Folder 19, Document 14
  • Text: ©) FINANCING METHODS PUBLIC HOUSING ADMINISTRATION The 1965 Housing Act authorizes the Public Housing Authority to fund the purchase and rehabilitation of existing structures through local Housing Authorities. This program permits local Housing Authorities to contract a property pur- chase and rehabilitation with a builder. Upon project completion, the builder is reimbursed for total project costs (land acquisition-rehabilitation). The project title and management reverts to the local Housing Authority. FNMA financing is not included in this provision.: The Public Housing Authority makes the appraisal, reviews cost contracts and will accept a cost figure from a builder without competitive bids. Upon completion, the project is turned over (turnkey) to the local Housing Authority. The one requirement under this program stipulates that acquisition and rehabilitation costs do not exceed 90% new construction costs. FM7 5-11-66 x 1965 HOUSING ACT: Contains new legislation that provides a below market interest rate (3%) on rehabilitation financing for non-profit sponsors and limited profit corporations. 221(d)3: 1965 Housing Act provision that defines financial methods available to non-profit sponsors and limited profit corporations. The non-profit sponsor category has two provisions: 1) Non-profit sponsor who holds property title. Rehabilitaree and continues ownership. 2) Builder-Seller who purchases and rehabilitates the property under an agreement with a non-profit sponsor to purchase the property upon rehabilitation completion. 221(d)3 provides a 100% total mortgage (acquisition, reconstruction) at 3% for 40 years. 221(d)3 Limited Dividend Sponsor - Limited to 90% total mortgage at 3% for 40 years. Investment return on 10% equity is limited to 6%. 221(d)4 Conventional FHA Financing - Limits sponsors to 90% total mortgage at 54% for 40 years. FINANCING METHODS 1965 HOUSING ACT ‘Section 221 (D) (3) LIMITED DIVIDEND SPONSOR = Agrees to a 6% return on initial investment. Mortgage Terms - 90% total project cost (land acquisition-rehabilitation) at 3% for - 40 years.* ; A limited dividend sponsor must have 10% equity in the total project cost. . (Example) Building Purchase Price $ 30,000 Rehabilitation Costs 170,000 Total Project Costs $200, 000 Final FNMA mortgage at 90% project cost $180,000 10% investment (equity) $ 20,000 6% return on investment allowed under this provision $ 1,200 per year * 40 year maximum under law. Actual term determined by local FHA. FM3 5-11-66 C) aes ee 5. ——————— SS FINANCING METHODS 1965 HOUSING ACT Section 221 (D) (3) BUILDER-SELLER - Builder purchases property with agreement to sell property to a non-profit sponsor after property has been rehabilitated. Mortgage Terms — - 100% total project cost (land acquisition- rehabilitation) at 3% for 40 years. * Assigns 100% mortgage to non-profit sponsor upon job completion. Property. Title - Is transferred to non-profit sponsor after FHA final inspection upon job completion. Invested Monies - (Same as non-profit sponsor) . Mortgage Loan - 3% interest (below market rate) by FNMA after FHA insures loan after rehabilitation job completion. 100% mortgage is assigned non-profit sponsor. FNMA reimburses property purchase price. FNMA reimburses rehabilitation cost. FNMA reimburses incidental fees. Construction Loan - (Same as non-profit sponsor) Final Settlement - (Same as non-profit sponsor) Upon final mortgage settlement, property owner- ship and management is the responsibility of the non-profit sponsor. * 40 year maximum under law. Actual term determined by local FHA. FM2 5-11-66 O FINANCING METHOD$ 1965 HOUSING ACT Section 221 (D) (3) NON-PROFIT SPONSOR Mortgage Terms Property Title Invested Monies - Mortgage Loan Construction Loan Final Mortgage Settlement Foundation, church, university, etc., incor- porated as a non-profit organization. 100% total project cost (land acquisition- rehabilitation) at 3% for 40 years. * Must be held for mortgage term. Property purchase (FNMA) reimbursed after (FHA) final inspection upon project completion. 3% interest (below market rate) by FNMA after FHA insures loan. FNMA mortgage loan made after final FHA inspection upon job compl etion. For actual rehabilitation costs made by private lending institution to non-profit sponsor as a temporary loan until final FNMA mortgage loan is closed. The construction loan is made in timed stages as rehabilitation costs become due. Construction loan insured by FHA. Permanent FNMA mortgage finalized. Private lending institution repaid construction loan by FNMA. Final mortgage balance minus construction loan payment awarded to non-profit sponsor by FNMA. (This balance covers property purchase and other fees, e.g., architect, legal, etc.) Non-profit sponsor pays mortgage for term set in mortgage from property rentals. * 40 year maximum under law. Actual term determined by local FHA. FM) 5-11-66 ©) oe ee ee FINANCING METHODS 1965 HOUSING ACT Section 221 (D) (4) CONVENTIONAL FHA FINANCING = For individuals or groups who do _ not qualify under 221 (D) (3) provisions. Mortgage Terms - 90% total project cost (land acquisition-rehabilitation) at 54% for 40 years. * All other 221 (D) (3) financing provisions apply except private lending institutions lend the monies instead of FNMA. Under this provision, there is no limit on amount of return on initial investment, * 40 year maximum under law. Actual term determined by local FHA. FMS 5-11-66
  • Tags: Box 22, Box 22 Folder 19, Folder topic: Task Force on Cities | 1966
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 30, 2021

Box 22, Folder 19, Document 16

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_022_019_016.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 22, Folder 19, Document 16
  • Text: WITNESS LIST Subcommittee on Executive Reorganization of the Senate Committee on Government Operations Tuesday, Novenber 29 (9:30 a.m.) David Rockefeller, President, Chase Manhattan Bank Richard Scammon, Vice President, Governmental Affairs Institute Wednesday, November 30 Roy Wilkins, Executive Director, National Association for the Advancement ‘of Colored People Harry Golden, author and publisher, Carolina Israelite Honorable George Edwards, Judge, U. S. Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit Dr. Robert Coles, Research Psychiatrist, Harvard University Health Services Friday, December 2 Dr. James M. Hester, President, New York University Dr. George Sternlieb, Professor, Rutgers University Urban Studies Center Lee S. Sterling, Executive Director, American Property Rights Association, inc New York City a Monday, December’ 5 Constantinos Doxiadis, President, Doxiadis Associates, Inc. Walter Reuther, President, United Auto Workers, (accompanied by Jack Convey, Executive Director, Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO) Tuesday, December 6 A. Philip Randolph,: President, Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, (accon- panied by Bayard Rustin, Executive Director, A. Philip Randolph Institute) Lee Rainwater, Professor of. Sociology end Anthropology, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri Anthony Dechant, President, National Farmers Union Milton Kotler, Institute for Policy Studies Wednesday, December 7 Gerald L. Phillippe, Chairman of the Board, General Electric Company Dr. Philip B. Hallen, President, Maurice Falk Medical Fund, Pittsburgh, Pa. James W. Rouse, President, Community Research and Development, Inc. James H. Torrey, Senior Vice President, and Bruce P. Hayden, Vice Prosident, Connecticut General Life Insurance Company Dr. William Doebele, Graduate School of Design, Harvard University Thursday, December 8 Floyd McKissick, National Director, Congress of Racial Equality Herbert J. Gans, Senior Research Sociologist, Center for Urban Education Joseph Monserrat, National Director of the Migration Division, Department of Labor of Puerto Rico Dr. John Spiegel, Director, Center for the Study of Violence, Branddeis . University Friday, December 9 Budd Schulberg, author, (accompanied by Mr. Harry E. Dolan, Mr. Johnie Scotti, and Mr. Stan Sanders) Derek V. Roemer, Psychologist, National Institute of Mental Health Helen Peterson, Director of Community Relations, Denver, Colorado Monday, December 12 2 Reverend Leon H. Sullivan, Chairman, Board of Directors, Opportunities industrialization Center, Philadelphia, Pa. Mrs. Hortense Gabel, Former Administrator, City Rent and Rehabilitation Administration, New York City Tuesday, December 13 Daniel P. Moynihan, Director, Joint Center for Urban Studies, Harvard-MIT Herbert J. Sturz, Director, Vera Institute of Justice, New York City Dr. Kenneth B. Clark, Director, Social Dynamics Research Institute, City College of New York Edward J. Logue, Administrator, Boston Redevelopment Authority Wednesdey, December 14 McGeorge Bundy, President, Ford Foundation Whitney M. Young, Jr., Executive Director, National Urban League Howard R. Leary, Commissioner of Police, New York City Thursday, December 15 Dr. Martin Luther ing, President, Southern Christian Teadership Conference
  • Tags: Box 22, Box 22 Folder 19, Folder topic: Task Force on Cities | 1966
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 30, 2021

Box 22, Folder 19, Document 3

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_022_019_003.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 22, Folder 19, Document 3
  • Text: PR iF : Ty > tone ry tae ee te + saan aiareiniad - ’ ANE es On EASCULIVS ae ay Lad ee Wome a Yovembar j0, 1566 {noratag nator Abranag Ribleoff, Chairana of the Gubcomnitéce && the start of today*s hearing Henator Ribteoff acknowledised the * a £ = f- % am my oat a - 7 4 ~ receist of @ report propered at the request ef the Subcommittes by = i ‘Me. Hilbert Peffermon on behak? cf the Department. Senator RLbicof? described Mr. Feffernnn as “a noted acess on urban affairs” and Getliered that the report aade en important contribution to the under= stending of urben prooleds. ROY WILKINS, Zuccutive Director, National Associaticn for Advancement ey Colored Psonie. Mr. Wilkins dlscuséed the reasons ant progrets aimed at helping the Negro kad not ¢ Rceerea ead ble plight. He criticized the viewpoint that the exto £ aespair end wLotrust i Hegroees jastifys % sleckening of governmental efforts. The spansion of federal programs in housing, ecucasson, employment, sad eivia rights was urgead. The following specific points wore mate during his testimony; “he Ineressed Fyoonditures for tow Incevws Movsing —- Mr. Wilkins advocated en imnediate end largescale expansion of ; Govarnnen expenditures which cove Rous. ra for low. iacoms faullies. Ee suggested ~ the $50 blliion figure mentic med in racent diccussions of urbon ehabilitation weds was & reolistic eztlamte of the anount necessary ts achicve @ substantial iupact on the probleu of substandard houslag,. The enactment of eoueine 3 leglelation Guring the Ojth Congress xepresented merely a first step. 2. Tho Penoratration Cities Progress i, Wilking declared that the Denonstration Cities Progrea must not soliton @ glorified form of urban rencwal. He expressed coafidence that Seeretary Weaver would —_e the progres so thet ite objectives would te realised H/GRY GOLDEN, Publisher, Carolina Israslite Me. Colden maintained thet the Fodereal geverament was the only institution which could direct the attack upen urban problems. He stresaed thas relience upon the private sector should not dead to a weakening of the Feceral govermuient's leadership role.
  • Tags: Box 22, Box 22 Folder 19, Folder topic: Task Force on Cities | 1966
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 30, 2021

Box 22, Folder 19, Document 1

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_022_019_001.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 22, Folder 19, Document 1
  • Text: STANDARD FORM NO. 1012a 7 GAO $300 1012-206 DEPARTMENT, BUREAU. OR ESTABLISHMENT Housing and Urben Development Cc r for May ALL TRAVEL VOUCHER ——~S MEMORANDUM PAYEE’ S NAME Ivan Allen, Jr. MAILING ADDRESS City Hell Atlenta, Georgia 30303 OFFICIAL DUTY STATION eis Cc. [RESIDENCE Atlenta, Georgia FOR TRAVEL AND OTHER EXPENSES FROM (DATE) TO (DATE) 27 ovember 28,1 APPLICABLE TRAVEL AUTHORIZATION (S) TRAVEL ADVANCE s NONE Outstanding Amount to be applied NO. DATE 12-10-66 — Balance to remain outstanding TRANSPORTATION REQUESTS ISSUED __ a: POINTS OF TRAVEL ENT INITIALS OF | MODE, CLASS | VALUE CARRIER OF SERVICE, | DATE wea oa OFTICKET | ISSUING | AND ACCOM. | ISSUED TICKET | MODATIONS * | TRANSPORTATION REQUEST NUMBER FROM— | Dollars 116 AMOUNT CLAIMED APPROVED (Supervisory and other approvals when required ) DIFFERENCES: NEXT PREVIOUS VOUCHER PAID UNDER SAME TRAVEL AUTHORITY VOUCHER NO. D.O, SYMBOL DATE (MONTH-YEAR) Total verified correct for charge to appropriation(s) Applied to travel advance (appropriation symbol ) NET TO ~ TRAVELER ACCOUNTING CLASSIFICATION ( Appropriation symbol must be shown; other classification optional ) = een for Pullman accommodations: MR, master room; DR, drawing room; CP, compartment; Be Redioom; DSR, duplex single room; RM, roomette; DRM, duplex roomette; SOS, single occupancy section; LB, lower berth; UB, upper berth; LB~UB, lower and upper be seat. SCHEDULE OF EXPENSES AND AMOUNTS CLAIMED PREVIOUS TEMPORARY DUTY ( Complete these blocks only if in aa Status immediately prior to pertod covered by this voucher and if admin- istratively required ) ARTURE ST RARY DUTY STATION LAST DAY OF PRECEDING VOUCHER PERIOD (DATE) (HOUR) (LOCATION) (DATE OF ARRIVAL) AUTHORIZED MILEAGE AMOUNT CLAIMED NATURE OF EXPENSE RATE ¢ SPEEDOMETER | No. OF READINGS Mice MILEAGE SUBSISTENCE OTHER Grand total to face of voucher (Subtotals, to be carried forward if necessary) > U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTINGMBrige\Yos2 0
  • Tags: Box 22, Box 22 Folder 19, Folder topic: Task Force on Cities | 1966
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 30, 2021

Box 22, Folder 19, Document 11

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_022_019_011.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 22, Folder 19, Document 11
  • Text: i a ll ee gate at ater fi SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP Homeownership : - Anthony Downs, Chairman Julian Levi Edwin C. Berry Landlord-tenant Julian Levi, Chairman Stuart Chapin “Urban Development Corp. Ben Alexander, Chairman Paul Ylvisaker John Dunlop Ezra Ehrenkrantz Neighborhood information center Theodore Sizer, Chairman Paul Ylvisaker Ivan Allen Ralph Helstein
  • Tags: Box 22, Box 22 Folder 19, Folder topic: Task Force on Cities | 1966
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 30, 2021

Box 22, Folder 19, Complete Folder

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_022_019.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 22, Folder 19, Complete Folder
  • Text: Copy f or Mayor Allen STANDARD FORM NO. 1012a 7 G AO 5300 10 12-206 VOUCHER PA YEE"S NAME ,...,...,..,..,..,•., 0. PAID BY Ivan Allen Jr . MAILING ADDRESS RESIDENCE O FFICIAL DUTY STATION w Atl.anta,. Georgi a on . D. C. TRAVEL ADVANCE FOR TRAVEL AND OTHER EXPENSES TO (DA"rE ) er 2 ovember 28 1 APPLICABLE TRAVEL AUTHORIZATION(S ) NO. s NONE O utstanding Amount co be applied DATE 11..10..66 Balance to remain S outstanding TRANSPORTATION REQUESTS ISSUED TRANSPORTATION REQUEST NUMBER AGENrs VALUATION OF TICKET INIT IA LS O F CARRI ER ISSUING TICKET MO D E. CLASS O F SERVICE. ANO ACCOMMODATIONS ' POINTS OF T RAVEL DATE ISSUED FROM- TO - AMOUNT CLAIMED ~ APPROVED ( Supervisory an_d other approvals when required) Dollars C ts 116 00 DIFFERENCES: ---- ------------------- -- ---------- --------+-------+------------ ------ ----- -- --- ---- ------------- ------ -+-------+-NEXT PREVIO US VO UCHER PAID UNDER SAME TRAVEL AUTHORITY VOUCHER NO. D .O. SYM BOL DATE (MONTH - YEAR) Total verified correct for charge co appropriacion (s) Applied to trave l advance (appropriation symbol ) N ETTO TRAVELER ACCOUNTING CLASSIFICATION ( Appropriation symbol must be shown; other classification optional) • Abbreviations for Pullman accom modations: MR, master room; D R, drawinl( room ; CP, compartment; BR, bedroom ; DSR, duplex single room ; RM, roomette; ORM, duplex roomette ; SOS, sing le occupancy section ; LB, lower berth; UB, upper berrh ; LB-UB, lower and upper berth ; S1 seat. �SCHEDULE OF EXPENSES AND AMOUNTS CLAIMED PREVIOUS TEMPORAR¥ DUTY (Comp lete these blocks only if in tra vel status immediately prior to period co vered by this voucher and if administratively required ) DEPARTURE FROM OFFICIAL STATION TEMPORARY DUTY STATION LAST DAY OF PRECEDING VOUCHER PERIOD (DATE) ( LOCATION ) ! (HOUR ) - - -- DATE ~, -- • i.-~u..i.ut:nce 'tO uepan,ea ' .... o - ,M ~ -- ... .,. h . - - - -- - . ., ...,.r _ _.._,_ - c. ·, :.~v lJ .. ~~ 1 -- - - ..__ . pm -- i 3 5 t) .,,_ "-14....... • . 4 0 1> . - - - u. W • - . . J • JJ J:!"" •. . · · ..:.-::_ --v - - a ~il:1~ - . I \ per a1.em1 it> UJ w.1:.~.u 1,0 1 caan - rece1: 11, ~--~r1, ... :.:; _on,, JlJ . c;. ..... 80 ~ 143.215.248.55 ·~}J - 4 5 ., ~~: - VJ.a. uc..Lvo .... ,, ua. • . ,_ C:\,LU·.u, .'.,_ - .L -- . - ~ ..v . pi.u~ -...... .,.,.,i;::~ei cu, .. - 3 ::>'IJ J;' ....... " ••---~v-...~ QJ.,L .l'~ - 4 5D ~ . - . . ..,. -----gJ.a ,ax-.., .........- .nv.._,._.,, { 1,:)V :1110 . OTHER n •- • . . - -- - SUBSISTENCE - au-port a.u--pon to noi:.eJ. uiem i:-~ MILEAGE ueorgi.a. b :·uu pm Via Delta A't..l.an'ta; w.,_, ~ n.:.,_r.on. ,v.·.1: ;r.v,i:;:u IL':SXl. No. OF MILES AMOUNT CLAIMED Eastern Standard Time ~ IJ.;t:t.T..L - AUTHORIZED MILEAGE RATE _ _ q SPEEDOMETER READI NGS - ember - ,. NATIJRE OF EXPENSE 19- u - ( DATE OF ARRJVAL) o~ ,{J'n,,'~ .. - ~ -~~ffla 4~lV;~f ........... .,; . _ .. u [), Grand total to face of voucher (Subtota ls , to be carried forward if necessary) 11 .. JnAnn U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTIN 2(t: 1c()Q.96l 0-,61 C �toe ..~;; ~.:t~; b.:.c:r--1-i;143.215.248.55 C!-:S ·tt.:J :'rcJ~~ t!i:~ ct,·143.215.248.55 16:58, 29 December 2017 (EST):. en url,1n J/:....,fC:lc~~:; r?~~l""t~ ,........ ,.--: · ·--o'f::t.,. -r-.,~1 ,j.·.> ~n:."'I'",.--; ,. l'f.r-<· &.'·, . ·.: ...l . -t..: ·--:-"t '"~·\... ,;, - ·, ;·1""'....,. ",-:\U' .r-,- - ....,.,.."' \I -v+ ., "--' ..... _,.,..,. ..... \,:,,"""•' ~-" '--· ..:·..:,,• ...,,~ b~:'or~ -1-- ...1-e [\~b~\J~ i tc-s e_.,~ -~1.::~ tt:.o 1~ ...~1.. .,!_\ !iY\-r,,.143.215.248.55 16:58, 29 December 2017 (EST)r 29..~~c::.;:"~..;... j. A copy of t " . li t ieJ -~~t.~~ ~ '1 .,.p ....... ...,,, _ .,. ........... - - - -- - - ~ - - - ""' ... _ ..... ·n:.vid t~oc!wfelle ... , t\~vai'1.~:::.t of ·t.~~ Cl:::::::; I.~~:·.li:::·.:·te:n E-:t~si ..,!.::.3 the cole v.'i ti:.cso !tt l:dt] te·a ..·, · . .i.; 'c ~.::~j ~-:.LJn. ~;;.... l !,.:'1.!::;::. el.lc~ ~c:::r.Z.l ~d ~ov~:t·al cf Qort~ rlvctc 17.:Z:lnt">L:.::a in h~ .fi~l J or ~..~r;;-.i r ;:::::.:.::il ..... t,ion ~llich L--:.d.1cnt; :: t?'C.t. tho -""4-r !.v~to ~~c·tc!.~ ~"':...~ .c!. . -: c c~,cci :l :to:.. in cl·o[J.$,.._d p~J·1ci:-~·:.~lon in tl1e zol.t~t; ".t;.... oi.. t:.l'~,=.,-~ ~. :r,:/t;" cr:o . f",:.! ult:16:58, 29 December 2017 (EST) tb~ i'~ctol'$ in!'lu.enc...:"'!t,; th ... c;~~u..-:t c::.· b\U:ir.c:!:3 i n.volve::;..~').~~ n. t,l!~ affa!i.~G of th-, c. t y.. ':!.~,.:; m::io ;,:ow. td rc> 1 !".i ~d ln hit3 teo:t.ir..-t0ny Q: ...:, ·w:-1ug t ho ~u06iti,,;u, tr~ _ er· ad "'•;.;::::."e ~:..c- :bllo·,::r~: 1 1. ~ . f?..::>c!:efcll:cr ntrco.ocd t: .. ~!.cc::, u.rac:A :-.:· :'::,vc,lq,-~~nt. "'l!·.;),:cc".;~ in th- ce_,~t.r!tl cit i e;:s £~;11,~:....n.t.~ ~'1.:tst;'.!':..t i,:: t:,.:: -:,.c·,,~criu.~r.; th~y i.1ill !lo.·~ a b.o.m.f i ..J~t. o~ t.t."" ;:".i1:.~Ci 'U ~10~-~t:i.1...0. vf t.l~-r: cH.y en a >ll~-~l.e a 2.- Ya- . Boekcfcllel" d~l.nn:id t...zt ttr ··,ln ;rr.:J.::~;;.;i J o c_ p;:---Ly,~tt, cnterj:,)r.tu;::: ., 'ti-:.~~ rr~~1.:~ fer Oc·,c?.";c'.""·'mt. r:.:•).'~·.c.:,--r~~r,-~. '" :1 ~ ,rt in U.r·L·'""~-~ r:~v1~1cr·~r-~·.:.-;J°t _.............,._.,., . olooll ... .... ..- - ~ ....... ~~ lll!11. , ~~:~1~;.n~:'~;, .. anww...-...-- I·t ' \-t,.~t;~ (~?v·.,:,~_~ ;:1i:t r,.:;::cc.u:---c~r.:...::~~- op. bun1c.cs::, ..r-.xti~i;r,c;::.ic.u in t~: ·;on a...:·11'<;}.,;··;J::c.;.t .ii.; nJc-c ;;~crJ.. Zh ,10.Ucd for t.c;.t ir.ccn.t.ivcs to C'llccu.....c:z,~ in··r~: t:~~-:.:.::t, L 1 u::-'!:.:::;.l :.~i:.i;~:lti..\.it:~tlc:1 ~ 'ts'i3ll es clot.er l i ~ n b.::zt·~,:?~ c:. -,:~rr;;:.::it v~1it.o c..'ld tl1.o t)··.Lv.::.~ ?~. '· Ro~JfsLl..:s--r 1?'.9.intt?ln;:!d ceetor. Ts: ~ ·tt~t"J~1-l ~- '--~.,..-:~y,t. o ·. t!. £ 1;'1 t ~- -.._ti, f;~,,,1 .,,~·'°' ~v r!~,...,-~t.·t~i-~-~~I!!:....._~ ~. .a t.h·1 ..............-.......,._,~n--... - .,._ ._""'"",.1 ~,.,__"',.,_.,.1,;..,. ..._.,........vv..-.._.._.~,..~ •._...,.,,.. ,;;...-~ ~ -~ k - f t . . ~ , . , ~!!C.t'~t a:e··.r o .f f:: J·"'··ii J "\ ~ ('l.~ ~ t ···~).· ,;(. 1,....... "'•::,~ . . . """'~-- Kr. Rocke:follo1: -urced that c-or.jlC.~r:::.t.tc::1 b;; t:iv,;:::i ~I) t.·~tt.in;; .,W ~ grou.9 fro:n tile b~i.n,~tt~ ei."!d fir:,2~~! 0-l c .... ::-;-:.::'iit.y v:~ich \K,u. h'i C";-:.:vl o'3 the seci--.::.tcry o:t U:m.oin:; a i Ur~cn l 1z:.·: cl o;?I,;~·~··. };, :~o..:..::d t-!::::.i;. u ~vioory ~u ,._ !:.~icr~o the Sa-erota;.r-,1 uf t li~ 'l'l'\,,c..m.u··s on If.t:;;;:r,4.~ti.cn:'ll. M..i~;c.cy ArTSOZc. ;:,t,. �2 5. The .M visibilit;'[_of Establis ing a "Comsat". TYP,e CoI7?orat.ion for Urban Rchab:!.l it,ation . r Senator Jav1ts expreGSed t;he hOl e that, the adoinistra.tion .C>inelly ~ had realized the vsJ.ue of Jchc "Comsat II approach to housinG problems . Mr . Rocltefell er co!i'.U:lented t hat t c success of t· .e or i 3inol " Comsc.t 11 undertaking is no guarantee t hat a nimilar cpproo.ch uould nee sGa.rily succeed in t he housing field . .i:!.e streosed 'chat participation by p1·iva.te business in urban rchebili·Gati on 'ff..i.11 'be as~m-ed only if a prof it can be realized . 6. The Action of FlJ.:,~A. in .faking A.reilable $250 l{i.llion in Specit£_ Assi s t ance FQnds . Senator Ribicoff SU§~ested t ~at in view of the tightness of t he money market the total umount of special assistance :funds authorized by Congress should have been rel eas d . Mr. Rockefeller stated that the administration policy on special assistance funds was reasonable. 1;, �. ·"" .., ,~ • • ' .--.... ' .. ,• . -. _1 - .' • • • ,!.-• ... "' I A .. . .:.;,...,t..,'.,;,._ ..... _, ....... •.J.,J , -----·.., .... - "'__, • .' :.':;~ ·: .J (:. J· . "".:·.~ t .. ··~:·, 3 '~-----\.·l"~~l"I--,..-) ...--..,,, ~:::~. ~\:::·':.:\:~l'"'~;==--L,~ ~:::; t:~ ~-·::~;~,:~:·143.215.248.55;...c_::~ clr... :· 1 ~t J~cl:..,1~~'; t-t.~ z::-~::ro t:c.:l n,:,·~ ~: ··-"") l·. . -~Jl:," J..~ ~.,-1c·::.~:-(i '-~~-'; .!.--,1 ...;·-..--:., . n,._ CriJ.::!cl:!·::,.l tt.,~ vl:~·,.r.,;o.!.-·~ t:~c ... t:_,. c·: . . i :.. (..... :.t.··. . c,i· ;;_;__;!_·;r-.... c.r~.,1 t.:: .....~·or-i,,,:;~ . . .. ~ ~~. .~·~; i:...•::;!;1~--,.a ~, :itif;;~ !1 ~~-=.::::~:. :t. :; c .' ~:;·~t :.:~.~,_~~T· t~~l c;?ic;-r.c. u . c .. ·:.~"t..-\..;i·:;:.l e~ :re ~.:..:ral. ~)l~~r'"t :-::..i .t .. ~ c:.~r~.:..4;~..,, c . ~. . . : ..: ..:.!v.::1..., '-'~.,110~.--e:.:1 .. ,.J, a.1L c1·..r_1 :-lc. :.t~ 143.215.248.55 't.,..·,.:c~. ut~..~ :....~ ;cii'ic ,~;..:.."t~ "~·::.:::.: __,__ euri~z 1z t~~ti~0~J: 04 1 • re~ r"'~~{'l'!':'7-'\~, · ,.-'"'"1.l1 -~,t:\·1:.-'"i~:: !r:"' '.1 J> ... •., • ~-<'I'!.., t r143.215.248.55.,_....,.__ ~,1,.; • tf~ ,. ·'lilli:.:.s L~..v·e,c=. ·::.,:...c:=. c~:. i~:::::.. ...... .:.:t~ e~~... :.rrditU.?\:~ cljiC~ ;-•c·,1iC::.! '}~-~~ t.L::-... t.::.::! ~.;o ?;;illic. - ....... ,...._ .. .qr.,... ........ ..... _'lull t,y- CC!l.2.r:r.;c· C t.~-:--ct.,...~\tiel. lt ._-;-:.:,~~ (.; ..i ~'!..~-) 'Zui ,e . -:~~t-.. ..:-..t cf ::....;u.~ln~ 1~ '--'lc.-.-- -: ,_~..:.c-r! {~: r.:.:rol:; o i'ir:;t, etc. .,>• 4 2. 'J:~·, ..., r--·.,"-.-:--~-.;\t..---~ ';)!! Cit> ......._ _ _ . . . _ . . . _ ~ ~ ~ - ..lecn ~°'!:ltit-.:_:t~~C.. t ..1::' tll·~ •--t~~:_:r.'\.l. t.O...t~:r.~--:::.t L,.,.1~ h~c~ c~cle dll"~':!t t,~~ ctt:::r.:':: r-143.215.248.55Jt :.,.,. t:. . _ ~ •.. ,....... ""·'"' ' ~;ti. v.6. - ·;:, .-.t?.i; o:-: tte �Knowledgable Persons in Neighborhood Centers Field Dr. Fred Duhl (Dro Duhl 1 s brother) Mass. General Hospital Boston, Mass. V Marvin Labes Mayor's Committee for Total Action Against Poverty Detroit, Michigan / Sanford K~rvitz ' Brand'?is University V Mr o - - - - - = c , . - - - ~ Lall Director, Poverty Program New Orleans, I,ao J Richard Strickhartz Detroit, Michigan David Hunter Stern Family Fund Robert Choate Public Affairs Foundation Washington, D. Co Henrik Blum 1~·1 , 0 · I Contra~Costa County Health Depto Martinez, California Mel Roman Albert Einstein College Bronxj New York Dinii t ri Ia trides f.G'i'!~ffik ~_; Hyland Lewis Howard Univers ity Howard .Nemorovski l IL,..., San Francisco, California • r , Boston College (Avail able in Uanuary) '}'..A., \ -v V\-, J ·.- ( ··.. . . -1.. 1._ .; . Antonia Chayes ABCD Boston 1 Masso ~[,0 , Mortimer Brown Chicago, Illinois Norman Lourie Pao Depto of Public Welfare Richard Poston N. C. Dept. of Welfare Lee Rainwat er Was hi ngton Uni versit y Sto Louis; Missouri ?~orth Carolina Fund Her rw.n Gallegos (Mex ic an ) National Commi t tee on Civil Rights Francis McKinl ey (I ndi an) Ari zona State Unive rsity Dr. Geor ge Es se r, Director ,.\ .• 1 Barney 0_ Cayote ( V'-v Rev. Arthur Braz i er (Negro ) Pres . Woodlawn Org z. Chicagoi Illinois U.S. Dept o of Interior Salt Lake City.., Ut ah Preston Wi l cox (Ne gro ) Columbi a Uni vo School of Soci al Work -.'f.-·-r.lt.u A · .in construction, technology and project management. It has been suggested that the reason the Proposal selected rehabilitation rather than a mixed rehabilitation/new housing objective for the UDC was the concern that labor in particular (and perhaps the construction and materials industries as well) would strongly oppose the UDC unless it clearly restricted its activities to rehabilitation. is a matter of judgment and could very well be correct. This It must be noted , howev er, that acceptance of UDC might be forthcoming if these groups realize that new construction based on improved and economizing technology is inevitable and UDC can provide a sympathetic client with which they could cooperate to gradually modernize traditional practices. This is a subject that future staff work might illumine. d. Effect on Equity Holders If the costs of rehabilitation remain high , the federal govern- ment , UDC and the cities involved will be p~edisposed to use all means a t t hei r dis posa l to dr i v e down t he costs fo r acquir i ng t he propertie s f o r rehabi lit at i on. majo r to o l f o r th is . Ri gid c ode enfo r cement has been suggested as t he I t i s no t clear that a self - avowed polic y of l i qui dating the equity ho lde r s by code e nfo r cement won't deve l op a fa tal backla s h . Int e rim Report : Study of the Fea s ibility of an Ur ban Development Corporation �11 10. e. Relationships The proposed relationships of UDC with the local government, various national groups, and the neighborhood (including the question of continuing responsibility for maintenance and upkeep of the rehabilitated buildings) are largely undefined. 6. Conclusions a. While very many details of UDC remain to be worked out, it appears highly likely that the major objectives will be met if a strong Presidential commitment is given. b. This is the only practical mechanism that has been found for visibly improving the quality of slum housing within the next few years. c. The minimum effective scale of the UDC is one which can stimulate a new industry in the U.S.--the rehabilitation industry . this industry will probably not develop. Without the UDC The proposed level of UDC effort appears to be the minimum needed if it is t o b e successful. d. The costs--in terms of below market interest rate mortgage credit and rent supplements amount to a subsidy of a substantial fraction of the total rent. The rent supplements involve a firm long term commitment, which is uncertain. �I' .,·,i , t; ·" j ' . '.;;,';.; i --~ CONFIDENTIAL Memorandum To: From: , ··1 November 2, 1966 Paul Ylvisaker Stuart Chapin I I '• ·, ·j ·, I This is to set down a few ideas for the TF agenda. Some of them spell out further the ideas I listed at the end of our meeting in Washington on October 28. The first proposal could be considered in the short-range category, whereas the other two fall mainly in the longer range category. They are in rough form and need "debugging," and I leave it to you to judge whether any of them have utility for the December 1 assignment. 1. A Program for Easing the Situation of Trapped Minority Groups. Let me first state what is quite obvious to most members of the TF, simply to underscore the urgency of finding solutions. Two statistics about Washington, D. C., dramatize the gravity of the situation and provide clear testimony of the necessity of action -- (1) the fact that approximately 65 percent of the population of the District are nonwhite, and (2) the fact that approximately 95 percent of the school children are nonwhite. Only Federal employment opportunities and constant work by concerned community service groups appear to be keeping this tinderbox from bursting into flame. Though the figures for other central cities have probably not yet reached these dramatic proportions, the indications are that similar buildups are in process in most large central cities. Reports from studies of these areas are clear enough that those trapped see no relief in sight and that problems involving education, employment, housing, health and opportunities for upward mobility have reached a critical mass. As brought out in our session on October 28, a total program is urgently needed to bring this segment of the population into the Great Society. Asstnning that very strong recommendations in this respect are presented to the President and become operative, I would urge inclusion in the total Administration package a new HUD program -- call it a "Program for Humanizing Metropolitan Areas'r or a "Program for Urban Development, 11 or some other positivesounding substitute title for "urban renewal. 11 Two features would distinguish it from earlier emphases: first, it would set up renewal and housing programs on a metropolitan-wide basis as the new Tttle II type of emphasis in the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act has achieved for other federal grant and loan programs, and second, it .would expand on the workable program" concept to require certain steps for humanizing metropolitan areas as a basis for qualifying for loan and grant assistance. More particularly, under such a program current statutory provisions for the array of different grants - in-aid, loan, and rent supplement authorizations would be amended so that the eligible LPA 1 s would be new-type Metropolitan �- --- ·- . ·r-...,..___._., _...._ ... ·,------ l -2- ! ~ 1 ·1 . Area Development Commissions .ll In addition tD the jurisdictional change, the key feature of these new Commissions would be an entire new philosophy in the execution of the traditional renewal, public housing, rehabilita tion housing, cooperative housing and middle income housing programs, and the new rent supple ment program. While the Demonstration Citie s Program woul d · become the rr.ajor central city program, it would be required to meet the / workable-program-type criteria develop.ed by the Metropolita n Area ,Develop- · .ment Connnission. · - ' - · _; - Under the new philosophy an empha sis on ttcommunity enclavestt would. he · featured in contrast to .the old massive .area-wide clearance and r e development or rehabilitation emphasis. The esse ntial objective of thi s- new appr oa ch · would be dual -- (1) it would seek to humanize thei city environment by an across-the-boards effort for the impr ovement of facilities and services i n ihese enclaves,l/ each sensitively attuned to the mosaic of living patte r ns in its environs , and (2) it.would deve lop and utilize workable progr ams tha t would progress i ve ly put into effe ct voluntary open hous i ng gua r ant ee s a nd intr oduce va rious services a nd improvemen ts in all e nclaves . Enclave s wou l d be sma l l in sc'a l e , some times one block in extent, s ome t imes two or three, and pe rhaps affecting no more than a dozen structures in a four or five block a rea. They would be identified on the basis of a wide range of criteria , including struc t ura l conditions in the a r ea, hous ing vacancie s, vacant land; t y pe of exis ting l a nd use , t he propos e d t rans por t a t i on and l a nd use s i n city pla ns, the pattern of communit y organiza t ions i n the a rea , s ocia l inte r action characterist'i cs i n the area , a nd a t tit ude s of re s i de n ts aixl u t the i r ne i ghbor hood. The proposa l f or human iz i ng an e nc l ave woul d :yary lvith the cha r a c ter .-- is tics , oppo.rtuni tie s, and needs of eachu Progr am empha se s would proba bly diffe r i~ close -in a reas from t hos e -i n suburban a r ea s . Experiment a tion i n ways of secur ing community par ticipation in e ncla ve are as wo uld be a n i mpor tant pa r t of a ttaining respons ible invo l vement of r es i den t s i n suc h art e ffo rt . The hous ing aspe ct of the program might i nvolve publ i c l a nd a cquisition of sca tte red propert ie s a few a t a t i me and the r e placement of outworn struc t ure s wi t h new one s ; s ome might i nvolve r e habilita tion by priva t e groups . I 1/ The t itle Me tropolita n Area Deve l opme n t Conm1i s s i on" is intended t o convey emphasis on bui l ding and deve lopment function s , a nd might be cons olidate d wit h the me tropol i t a n planning and pr ogramming functions t ha t are empha size d under T"itle II of the 1966 Act. Whethe r it is po litica lly £eas i ble to phase out the pr esent - day mun icipal programs in re newa l and public housing, I would de f e r to othe rs on the TF on t his ques tion, but under any cir cums t a nces, the new metr opoli tan empha sis, afte r allowi ng for a trans i tion per i od, should rece i ve the lion 's sha re of loa n a nd gran t author i za tion . I I This would mean i n troducing some of the same coordinat ive me chanisms provided for under t he Demons tra tion Citie s Program i n to t h i s Program. ·;"··· ·~, ~! �~:.~·;.~·f.. -=-~.,.;~~ ~ I I . _', - .,...~·-:~™--16:58, 29 December 2017 (EST) r"= ' ~J143.215.248.55-~;~~l:~==--- -r_.1__ >·· ' I . . . _\ .. __; ~ - ' ~: '\1 r_;.i_;;~,,..- -~._::;~~..;:::::~~- ... ~'Ui.P:·: --- ------ ---+- - - ~ ___._. , .. -------- - - - -----·-=- - - - - - - -7 ,· ' I ! I ' -3- or cooperatives and be planre d variably, some with and some without rent . supplements. The key concept in the development of plans for these enclaves would be voluntary open housing guarantees.JI Enclaves in outlying suburban arec!,s would be encouraged to receive small numbers of deprived families .f rom the central city, and those in central areas would be designed t~ receiv~Jamilies of varying socio-economic circumstances seeking close-in locations; For success of such a _Program a great deal depends on develop~ng responsible participation by re.sidents of enclave connnunities and in keeping the scale of adjustment at low key. I I! I I a To -achieve the full leverage ;iJa program of this kind, special related efforts ··in local services, educatlon, employment, health, social work, and recreation would be developed, especially in the central city areas. · By and large schools would be found in interstitial areas bebveen enclaves and depended upon to help supply a cementing force to the efforts in surrounding enclaves. In short' the Program f .o r HumaniZ>ing Met'ropolitan Areas is based on a philosophy of responsible involvement of small groups in making their . block or locale a 11 foster home 11 . for . a few new families. A backup effort in s pecial education, employment and other services would be an essential feature of the Program. In effect, in the large me tropolitan a r eas this Program in a _m etropolitan-wide framework would become a complement to the Demonstration Cities Program which centers on the .c entral city problem. 2. A St epped-Up Effort in Re search on Inter-Group Re lations and Liva bility in the City. The severa l rece nt crise s in ce ntral cities of large me tropolitan areas and the groping a ction efforts to alleviate t he se situa tions cle arly indicate a failure in ba ckup r esearch. In ·some r espe cts more serious, there is a lack of an evaluation effort on action taken which would enable conclusions to be drawn on t he relative effectiveness of measures used. In any effort to institute a ction programs in are as· as sensitive as tho se of trappe d popula tions, and ce rtainly in a ny program to e liminate ca u ses of t he se conditi ons , a major r esearch thrust is r e quired, one on · t he order of that which this country has mounted in space research or in medica l research in recent years. _....,, , Ce rtainly the s ocial problems of today s hould- be hi gh in priority of attent ion . But .in be late dly re searching t he s e pr oblems , t he big prob l ems of tomorr ow should not be over looke d . One pr oblem r apidly desce nding on ~itie s is that of a dj ustments to changed ]Etterns of liv ing which wi ll come fr om shorter work week. Ther e is a great deal of s~ecula tion on the boredom J / Obvious l y vigor ous Admini stration l eadersh i p i n amending the Demonstr ation Cities and Metropol itan Development Act of 1966 to e l iminate Sec . 205(f ) would be esse ntial . I ! i· --~---.- -~- I �of urbanites and their social psycho l og ical prob l ems of adjustment; the re is speculation abo~t two-house livi ng arrangements becoming much more widespread wit h attendant changes in re c rea tion empha ses and traffic patterns; and there are all sorts of unknowns i nvolve d i n new transportation and communications technologies. With ;1 11 this i n t e rest and speculation, t here is little systerna tic research going on that would en able cities to take account of these changes in the pub l i c work s a nd service programs of a catching-up and remedial sort be i ng l a unche d today, much less ena ble them to embark on programs of a more pos i tive kind de signed for the Great Society. A thir d research emphasis clea ly needed is one which frontally e xamines the new kind of urban envi r onment res presented in the belts of urba n deve l opme nt extending over seve r a l sta t es . These appear to be superce d ing the metropolitan area as a n ur ban environment (just at the time whe n me t ro pol itan-wide approaches are rece iving a t t ention in Federal legisla tion fo r the :first time to a significan t extent)G The qualitative aspects of liv ing conditions in such regions of the k i nd noted above is one facet of th i s envir onment, but also involve d is the whole area of governmental mechanisms for dealing with needs a nd prob lems in these belts. Sec. 1011 on the Urba n Environmen t a l Stud i es of the Demonstration Cities and Me tro politan Development Act of 1966 needs t o be grea tly broa dened in conce pt to recognize these three area s of neede d research. 3. The Wheaton Proposal for Me tropolitan Ar ea Fi s ca l Res pons ib ility and Actio~ . Although W. L. C. Whea ton 2 s pr oposa l is already i n t he pub lic domain, i t has not been widely cir c ulated as-ye t . I n any cas e, the r e a re f ea tures o f his conce pt of 11 Me tr opoli t an Target Pl a nn i ng 11 which ma y ha ve me rit fo r consideration by the TF i n t he s e cond stage of our work. Ve ry br ie f ly he _ proposes using Federal gr a nt progr ams t o ac h ieve a more equitable d is tribu t i on of fiscal r e sponsibil i ty among t he municipalities of a me tropolitan area, particularly in the a rea s of educa tion and housing . I attach a c opy of his pape r. �Tb foll 1) f lnt . t~ Al t 0 Ut f • Z) .3 ) . ill T tlv h ) co fte• c:tt y 5) to the x cutlv OfU . ,1 - con: . ct �SUBCCMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP Homeownership Anthony Downs·, Chairman Julian Levi Edwin C. Berry Landlord-tenant Julian Levi, Chairman Stuart Chapin · Urban Development Corp. Ben Alexander, Chairman Paul Ylvisaker John Dunlop Ezra Ehrenkrantz Neighborhood information center Theodore Sizer, Chairman Paul Ylvisaker Ivan Allen Ralph Helstein I fGl- ~-- - ~.,,....,.--- ...-------,-.-c,'r,-; n~ '( 1- ~- -~--------r (~ l ,. ,·, ~ -- ~ - -~ :.. ,-,+ -----~--.r=·~ -..../ \ ,. ' ICOPY �r - I MEETING OF TASK FORCE ON CITIES Washington, October 28, 1966 Rough Notes taken by Paul Ilvisaker Distri but i on : - Dr . Julian Levi Honorable Ivan Allen Mr . Ben Alexander Mr . Edwin C. Berry Mr . stuart Chapin Mr . Anthony Downs Professor John Dunlop Mr. Ezra Ehrenkrant z Mr. Ralph Helstein Dr. Theodore Sizer Mr. Ar Dee Ames I �Notes taken at meeting with Joe Califano, White House, Saturday, October 22, 1966 Mr. Califano The Task Force is to have a short and long-range agenda with respective deadlines being December 1 and June 1. For the short-range the questions:- (1) (2) (3) (4) ( 5) Should we encourage home-ownership in the slums and if so by what methods? Does the idea of an urban development corporation for rehabilitation make sense? How can we honor the Presidential pledge to prov ide legal services for tenants in the ghetto? How can we honor the Presidential pledge for neighborhood service centers? What about the proposed metropolitan expediter? Task Force should proceed without constraints of costs and politics. We should keep in mind several other task forces operating in areas close to ours. For example, the "In-House" task force under Shriver to develop more permanent answers to the hot summer problem. Another headed by Bill Carmichael on personnel for the Great Society . The subject of transportation is currently being thoroughly examined with a view towards setting up a new Department of Transportationj to that extent it's not a subject on our task force's agenda. Two Congressional committees having the same personnel will be holding hearings during our tenure. One chaired by Senator Muskie, exploring the proposal for a domestic security council. The second chaired by Senator Ribicoff which will resume in December will not call government witnesses for a while. It will con centrate first on non-governmental experts, beginning with the problems of data and areal power arrangements. Meeting with Secretary Weaver Concerned with:(1) (2) ( 3) the development of national urban policy respecting migration and location of the national populationj encouraging a more positive role by the states in urban policy developmentj metropolitan organization. Robert C. Wood Under Secretary Department of Housing and Urban Developmen~ HUD is now concerned with several major pr ob~ems:- �-2- (1) (2) (3) (4) working at s cale: fo r example, they now have $2 billion of urban renewal appli cations with only $200 million available; building up the staff ing c apabilitie s of the Department; general r eorgani zation; de-centralization of HUD operations -- bett er informat i on systems are needed if de- centralization is to b e carried out. The new programs occupying HUD' s attention of late: "model" cities; new connnunities; expediter; metr opolitan desks; metropolitan planning. HUD has been pr oceeding on the strategy of open opti ons; the expansion of free choice for the individual; model for neighborhood facilities; home ownership & jobs in the ghetto; provide count erparts f or the public s ector. Wood's adv i ce t o the Task Force:(1) Address ourselves to thoughts about cities; not only response t o them and t he ir needs. (2) Concent r at e on t he infra-struct ure in research & training . has been manpower . Real constraint M. Cart er McFarland Assistant Commissioner f or Progr ams FHA Has been working c l os el y with Henry Schecht er c~ec k out t he i dea of indi genous ownership of wi th as s ympatheti c an out l ook a s possi ble. vi nced ther e i s no s ingl e panacea; I det ected he t ried to allow i n hi s di sc uss i ons. sinc e they were assi gned t o s l um pr operty . They have begun At t he v ery l ea st t hey are conmor e of a grain of cyni c ism than They start from a few b a s i c statistics : 9 milli on sub -st andar d dwelling units nat i onwi de; of which 48% are owner -oc c upi ed and 52% re nted. However , a gre at v ari ance between centra l c i ty and s uburb. - -r n the s l ums : 21% owner- occupi ed and 79% rented -- in the suburbs : 52% owner- occupi ed and 48% rented. It is thei r impression that absent ee owners are le s s r espons ive to mai ntenanc e eff orts than owners who occupy. Al s o that absent ee ownershi p i s incr eas i ng and getting "less desi rab l e . " They fee l that ownership ha sn't been str es s ed as part of urba n re newal and 0E0 operations. Some proposal s: (1 ) (2 ) (3) tie in any program wi th the mode l cit i es program which offers supporting services; use the urba n devel opment corporat i on if l egislated; allow for several forms of ownership ranging from individual ownership to cooperat i ve. �-3Task Force questions included:- . (1) Are there other and more effective techniques for getting the desired results other than encouraging ownership? (2) Can you use old and new techniques for driving down the costs of property in the slum areas? These costs are now being sustained by present governmental programs. (3) Wha~ can we say about the possibility of "steady state" maintenance? (4) Aren't we trying to eliminate slums and how does slum ownership fit into that objective? William D. Carey Assistant Director Bureau of the Budget So far no comprehensive strategy has been arrived at in the federal government replying to varying proposals for the neighborhood information service centers. During the summer several agencies produced "talking documents" for the Cabinet Cormnitt ee. Then the President's Syracuse speech "overtook" the Task Force with a . "get cracking" order. . There emerged a servic e group for the facilities approach of HUD, the latter focusing on recreation, etc. They were then talking about $50 million drawn from "pooled" program monies. Presently they are thinking of experiments in 14 cities of 3 classes -- the sponsor. ing coalition would be OEO , HUD, Labor and HEW. The purpose would be to provide one-stop soc ial services to use 3 different models. Physical facilities would not be the primary emphasis. The key would be to br ing toget her all serv i ces and clients and evaluate the experiments. Ralph Tayl or As si stant Secretar y for Demon st rat ions and Int er governmental Relations HUD If model cities program is to succeed, need a rehabilitation industry of a scale that hasn't yet emerged. Industry, large contractors and labor ar e s~itti sh. The proposed UDC approach using low interest rates and much volume as l evers, hopefully might break through. The question remains whether the UDC would have its own H&D or let industry do this according to performance standar d s that UDC would set. Major questions have to do with the market . Another question has to do with local mechanisms. Indi genous c9operatives might be one answer. ' As for the proposed expediter -- it ' s now be ing c alled a representative. It should not be confused with the idea of the metropolitan coordinator which is dead. The representative is to be the federal "pr esence " -- housed in HUD but �-4available to all agencies. It would be a source of information on federal · programs; clearing house; .liaison; feedback; facilitator. HUD is ready to go in six experimental cities not necessarily the model c ities and concentrating on state capitals . . Martin Richman Off ice of Legal Couns el Department of Justic e The Attorney General ' s work with landlord-tenant relations has taken its marching orders from the Syr acuse speech . It will Qe cal ling a conference in early December . They will be apparently concerned with tax incentives, though they are not deali ng directly wi th the que st i on of r educi ng local property taxation . . Comments from Task Force Mayor Allen Nat urally and necessaril y i s conc erned with i mmediate probl ems especi ally the need for publi c hous ing and the problems of race and minoritie s. Mr. Helstein Agr ees that t he most pr essing prob lem is t hat of the ghetto. Mr. Downs ·Disagr ees wit h Secr et ary Wirtz i f i t means forgetting the immediate probl ems of the ghetto and r a ce. Dr . Chapin Especially c oncerned with three sub j ects : (1) Impact on l ivi ng patt ern s of t he short er work week . (2 ) · Emerging urban form; concentrating on the inner - cit y a nd regi onal arrangement s necessary to get linear development . (3) The dynamite of the central city -- wondering if there isn ' t a General Gavin idea of enclaves of development. Mr . Ehrenkrant z Two matters on his mind: (1 ) (2 ) urban development corporation developing the data systems and inventory we need on an accumulat ing basis. Mr. Alexander Impressed with the fundamental outline of the urban problem. We have neither a theory on which to operate nor criteria by whi ch to measure purp0se. �·,_. ,, 10/24/ 66 NEW PROGRfMS of- the DEPARTMENT OF HOUSIHG AND UTIB:'\N" DEVELOIMENT Initiated {or to be I nitiatea)under Legisl ation · Enacted from J une 30, 1; 61 t o Date l ·. MAJOR NEW PROGRAMS OF SPECIAL SOCIAL OR ECONO.\fJ:C JMPORTANCE Bel ow- market interest rate FHA rental housing f or l ow- and moderateincome families . Urban mass transportation mat chin{J grants . 1965 · Rent supplements for special categories of low-income families occupying ne r l ow- cost FHA housing . ?48.tching grants f or basic ,rater and sewer facilities . Matching grants for nei ghborhood facili ties . Demonstration cities pro~. Supplemental incentive grants for pl.e.nned metropolitan developi!lent , Mortgage insurance progrm for "new coomunities" . FNMA "pa.rtic1pa.tion sales " program for obligations of Department and other Government agencies. 2~ OTHER SUBSTANTIAL NEW PROGRAMS Matching grants for open space land acquisition. Grants tor demonstrat ions of new or improved means of providing housing for low-income famil i es . .. - �. ,· 2 Mortgage i ninu"ance 'Utidi.;;r new 1ong;-term l ow- downpa.y.m.ent sal ®t~ b.oudng pro~n~ Loans i'ol" mass t rans"" r t.at ion fa.cilities!I ill. d gl~a..11.ts :tor mss trans- p.ortation deaonstr~ t.icnu ~ Direct l oa.n.s a t 3 per·~ent 'for rehabilit-a.tion of hou::;ing or business prop..-:;rties i n urban r tm.,,,.-:al {'~a.;; . Mt.1.tchin;g' g;ranta to St;; t e s Clea:r-inghouse s -e r1ice and technical. a::rni:,;-ta.nce f"or S-w.tes al".d localities on COJmlIU.nity and metropolits-...n ;,, evclopm.ont. pro'olems . teasing of private 00 sing fo~ lo'W'--incm· e f&iilies und "'X' public housine, 1 progr~ of Departm nt. �------ -. ,· ,;,. ·..... ·.. . . 3 -1966 .Vatchi:ng grants tor u1;ban iu.fo:l'."n!a . io:a .cen.t--~r~ and 'technical as$btance tor sn-!!Ul c:ities. l':11\ mrlgag~ insurru1.ce pl'O~ :for b~ low-m.M"ket. i11.teNst rate sales housing for low... incomc .f'-.J:..ailies ~ (rehabilitation by nonprofit coi-porations ) Va.riety of financial a..sd:;t~c-:... t :, th"' : res~tion c.nd :it~tort;i;'i;ion of bisto:rie structures il-nd arear. o Research progr~ on co,trt r~du.ctio:-1 ~ect:niquc;j :for lwusing construction and :rerabilltation a nd urb3.n devol.op~nt . ienea.reb p:r..og.ram on tictiotl~ to imp.rove undc:tstll.nd.:ing ~nd impl--ove.~ent or urban envil"oninont. �FINANCING METHODS PUBLIC HOUSING ADMINISTRATION The 1965 Housing Act authorizes the Public Housing Authority to fund the purchase and rehabilitation of existing structures through local Housing Authorities. 0 This program permits local Housing Authorities to contract a property purchase and rehabilitation with a builder. Upon project completion, the builder is reimbursed for total project costs (land acquisition-rehabilitati~n). The project title and management reverts to the local Housing Authority. FNMA financing is not included in this provision. · The Public Housing Authority makes theappraisal, reviews cost contracts and will accept a cost figure from a bui Ider without competitive bids. Upon completion, the project is turned over (turnkey) to the local Housing Authority . The one requirement under this program stipulates that acquisition and rehabilitation costs do not exceed 90%. new construction costs. FM7 5-11-66 �r------- I 1965 HOUSING ACT: Contains new legislation that provides a below market interest rate (3%) on rehabilitation financing for non-profit sponsors and Iimi ted profit corporations. 221 (d)3: 1965 Housing Act provision that defines financial methods available to non-profit sponsors and limited profit corporations. · The non-profit sponsor category has two provisions: I) Non-£rofit sponsor who holds property title . Reha ilitates and continues ownership. · 2) Builder-Seller who purchases and rehabilitates the property under an agreement with a non-profit sponsor to purchase the property upon rehabilitation completion. 221 (d)3 provides a 100% total mortgage (acquisition , reconstruction) at 3% for 40 years. 221 (d)3 Limited Dividend Sponsor· - Limited to 90% total mortgage at 3% for 40 years. Investment return on 10% equity is limited to 6%. 221 (d)4 Conventional FHA Financing - Limits sponsors to 90% total mortgage at 5¼% for 40 years. . ·, -- �; id 9 Ef_,.14 =::± FINANCING METHODS ., 1965 HOUSING ACT ·Section 221 (D) (3) LIMITED DIVIDEND SPONSOR - Agrees to a 6% return on initial investment. Mortgage Terms - 90% total project cost {land acquisition-rehabilitation) at 3% for 40 years . * A limited dividend sponsor must have 10% equity in the total project cost . . (Example) ·O Building Purchase Price Rehabi Ii tat ion Costs $30,000 170,000 Total Project Costs $200,000 Final FNMA mortgage at 90% projec~ cost $180, 000 10% investme nt (equity) $ 20 , 000 6% re turn on investment a ll owed under this provision $ I ~ 200 per year · 40 year maximum under law . Actual term d~termined by local FHA. C -FM3 5-11 -66 �FINANCING METHODS 1965 HOUSING ACT Section 221 (D) (3) BUILDER-SELLER - Bui Ider purchases property with agreement to sel I property to a non-profit sponsor ofter property has been rehobi Iitoted. Mortgage Terms - 100% total project cost (land ocquisitionrehobil itotion) at 3% for 40 years. * Assigns 100% mortgage to non-profit sponsor upon job completion. C Property. Title - Is transferred to non-profit sponsor ofter FHA final inspection upon job completion . Invested Monies - (Some as non-profit sponsor) . Mortgage Loon - 3% interest (below market rote) by FNMA after FHA insures loon ofter rehobi Ii tot ion job completion . 100% mortgage is assigned non-profit sponsor. FNMA reimburses property purchase price. FNMA reimburses rehabilitation cost. FNMA reimburses incidental fees . Construction loon - (Some a s no n-profit sponsor) Fi no l Settl ement - (Sa me as no n-profit sponsor) Upo n fi nol rnortgage sett Iement, property ownership and management is the responsibility of the non-profit sponsor. 40 year mox.imum under low . Ac tual term determi ned by local FHA . FM2 5 - 11-66 �= FINANCING METHODS 1965 HOUSING ACT Section 221 (D) (3) NON-PROFIT SPONSOR 0 Foundation, church, university, etc., incorporated as a non-profit organization. Mortgage Terms - 100% total project cost (lal"!d acquisition rehabil itation) at 3% for 40 years. * · Property Title - Must be held for mortgage term . Invested Monies - Property purchase (FNMA) reimbursed after (FHA) final inspection upon project completion. Mortgage Loan - · .3% interest (below market rate) by FNMA after FHA insures loan. FNMA mortgage loan made after final FHA inspection upon job completion. Construction Loan - For actual rehabilitation costs made by private lending institution to non-profit sponsor as a temporary loan until final FNMA mortgage loan · is closed. The construction loan is made in timed stages as rehab iii tat ion costs become due . Construction loan insured by FHA. Final Mortgage Settlement - · Permanent FNMA mortgage finalized . Pri vate I ending inst itut ion repaid construction loan by FNMA. Final mortgage balance minus constructi o n loan payment awa rded to non - profit sponsor by FNMA . (Thi s ba l once covers property purc hase and o ther fees, e.g~, archite c t , legal ' ·, etc.) Non-profit sponsor pays mortgage for term set in mortgage from property rentals. C 40 year maximum under low . Actual term determined by local FHA. FMl 5-11-66 �=----= = -· C FINANCING METHODS 1965 HOUSING ACT Section 221 (D) (4) I I f C .CONVENTIONAL FHA FINANCING - Mortgage Terms - For individuals 9r groues who do not qualify under 221 (D) (3) provision!;. 90 % total project cost (land acquisition-rehabilitation) at . 5¼% for 40 years.* Al I other 221. (D) (3) financing provisions apply except private lending institutions lend the monies instead of FNMA. Under this provision, there is no I imit on amount of return on initial investment. 40 year maximum under law. Actual term determined by local FHA. c_ FM5 5-11-66 I �December 12, 1966 MEMORANDUM TO Ivan FROM Ann RE Special Task Force meeting in Washington I talked with Ardee Ames and the meeting is set for Thursday, December 15th at 10 :00 a. m. I explained to him you inability to get there before noon, and he said that it usually took them an hour or so to warm up. At the luncheon, Mr. Chester Rapkin, who was Chairman of the study group last year, will talk about how they went about what they did. The meeting will be in room 444, Executive Office Building, and the luncheon will be in the ca£ eteria in the same building. You should go to room 444, and if they have left, check by room 2 3 7 (A r d ee Ames office) for instructions wher e to me e t for lunch. You a re confirme d as follows : EASTERN flig h t 130 , l eave Atlant a 10 :3 5 A rr i ve Washin g t on Nation a l 12 :0 0 /IJ1IH E ASTERN flig h t 137, L e a ve Wa s h ington National 5 :4 0 p . m. Non - sto p t o Atlanta 7 :1 2 (dinner served) Also at this meeting, plans will be made as how to continue in January, with interviews, etc. It s ounds like a rather important meeting . �1 . I .. ·-::' .·... ... .. . ... WITNESS LIST Subcotnmitte~ on Executive Reotgtlftization of the Senate Committee on Government Operations Tuesday, November 29 ,. . . ' (9:30 a.m.) David Rockefeller, President, Chase Manhattan Bank Richard Scammon, Vice President, Governmental Affairs Institute ,! , Wed~esday, November 30 Roy Wilk.ins, Executive Director, National Association for the Advancement ' of Colored People Harry Golden, author and publisher, Carolina Israelite Honorable George Edwards, Judge, u. s. Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit Dr. Robert Coles, Research Psychiatrist, Harvard University Health Services Friday, December 2 Dr. James M. Hester, President, New York University Dr. George Sternlieb, Professor, Rutgers University Urban Studies Center Lees. Sterling, Executive Director, American Property Rights Association, Inc New York City 1 Monday, December · 5 Constantinos Doxiadis, President, Doxiadis Associates, Inc. Walter Reuther, President, United Auto Workers, (a ccompanied by Jack Conway, Executive Director, Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO) . Tuesday, December 6 A. Philip Randolph,· President, Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, (acconpanied by Bayard Rustin, Executi ve Director, A. Phili~ Randolph Institute ) Lee Rainwater, Professor of. Sociology and Anthropology, Washington University, St. Louis, .Missouri Anthony Dechant, President, National Farmers Union Milton Kotl er, Institute for Policy Studies Wednesday, December 7 Gerald L. Philliwe, Chairrea.n of the Board, General Electric Company Dr. Philip B. Hallen, President, Y.aurice Falk Medical Fund, Pittsburgh, Pa. James W. Rouse, President, Community Research and Development, Inc . Jam~s H. Torrey, Senior Vice President,. a.11d Bruce P. Hayden, Vi~e ri·osi c'lent, Connecticut General Life Insurance Company Dr. Willia.rn. Doebele, Graduate Scho'Jl of Design, Harvard Un.-1.versity ..I • . �i , Thursday, December 8 Floyd McKissicl<:, National Director, Congress of Racial Equality Herbert J. Gans, Senior Research Sociologist, Center for Urban Education Joseph .Monserrat, National Director of the 11'.tigration Division, Department of Labor of Puerto Rico Dr. John Spiegel, Director, Center for the Study of Violence, Branddeis University F~iday, Dece~ber 9 Budd Schulberg, author, (accompanied by Yir. Harry E. Dolan, Vil'. Johnie Sc?tt, and Yir . Stan Sanders) ....... Derek V. Roemer, Psychologist, National Institute of Mental Health Helen Peterson, Director of Community Relations, Denver, Colorado Monday, December 12 Reverend Leon H. Sullivan, Chairman, Board of Directors, Opportunities Industrialization Center, Philadelphia, Pa. ~Irs. Hortense Gabel, Former Administrator, City Rent and Rehabilitation Administration, New Yorl( City ' Tuesday,· December 1~ Daniel P. Moynihan, Director, Joint Center for Urban Studies, Harvard-MIT Herbert J. Sturz, Director, Vera Institute of Justice, New York City Dr. Kenneth B. Clark, Director, Social Dynamics Research Institute, City College of New York Edward J. Logue, Administrator, Boston Redevelopment Authority Wednesday, December 14 McGeoree Bundy, President, Ford Foundation vfnitney M. Young, Jr., Executive Director, National Urban Lea,eue Howard R. Leary, Commissioner of Poli ce, New York City Thursday, December 15 Dr . Martin Luther King, rr~sj_(lfmt , Sonthern Chrlst:l.an T.e:=i.dP.:1.·sb :tr Con:feJ:.--n~e �L1 u n (' v t. u:. Low Re n t Pu b lic Housing P r or::rn.m : Nat lre a nd P~ r pose : Th i s p r og r am provid es loa n s or guarant e es of loans to loca l h ou sing a uth or i t ies to a ssis t t h em i n the dev e l oo~e~t of s afe , decent and s ani ta r y lo w- rent h ou s ing p r o jec ~s · f or low- i n c ome fami lies a nd others wh o c a nnot affo r d s tandard private h ous i ng . Th is p rog r am a lso provi des annua l cont ribu tion s to l ocal hous i ng authoritie s to a s s i st t hem i n ac h i evi ng and ~aint a ini ng t he low- rent chara c ter of th e projec t s. Thi s p rogram provides dire ct benefits f or pov e rty- s triken p eop le . Th is p rog ram als o provides f i nanc ial assis tance t o loc a l h ousing a ut hori t i e s t o ass i st them i n meeting t h e s pecia l housing nee ds of th e l ow- inc ome el de r ly . When p roviding a cc ommodati ons des i gn ed s pe c ific a lly for the eld e rly, higher t han normal;.~Low- Rent Public Hous i ng Pr ogram~ per r oom c os t ~ l i mitat ions a r e permitted . An ad di t iona l contributi on t o th e loc al h ousing a u thor i t y ( up to $120 pe r dwelling u nit p er yea r ) may be a uthorize d . ~Ii -s i ' rtl b ~ i C 6 w3. -S p C Ci a ~ - r a-m.--G-:f-a'S-S"'.i:."Si;a- n ~-t-h it... H-ott-64-rtg-P-_e-o-g,~-i--]:¥~ ~ 'u~W - n'"eT:'c - i ~* 1 - f ~s.e . ~ ~s-.? Eligib i lity : ~h e a pp licant a ge ncy mus t b e a l ocal housing a u tho rity estab li sh e d by th e loc a l government , u nde r s tate ena bling legi slation, to be eligible . The f o rmal a pp lic a tion m~s t b e a pp roved by the local g ove rning body . The Atlanta Hous i ng Authority op era tes the prog r am f or th e Cit y . Although t he prog r am is gene r a l l y l i mi ted to low- i n c ome fami l ie s, s i ngle pe rsons a re eli gi b l e f or a dmi ss i on i n ~he case of the e l de rly, ha ndic apped , a n d th ose dis p laced by u rba n renewal or other gove r mnent a l a c ti on. ~here a r e on ly f i ve r eal f a c to r s de termi n i ng elig i bi: ity t o l ive i n At l anta Public Hous ing : ( 1 ) The a ppl ic a nt must hav e\an address in Metropol i -::2. ::. Atlanta . Th is doe s n ot mean h e mu s t hav e r es id enc e :o~ any l ength of time , bu t he mus t be living _; u pon a pp li cation somewh e r e in t he a r ea . ( 2 ) The a pplic ant may no t have a net inc ome ( determ~ncc ~ram g ross r epo r ted inc ome, emp loyer 1 s records, and incl~d ~ng ce r t ain deduc tions for chi l dren, health , and other f acto~s ~ighe r than the maximums estab l ished by t he Housing frnt :o r~ty . '::::-,ecc af'c : fo i' a family o: 1 - ;i;3,G0 0 ; 2 - :;i3_, i,.0 1 ; 3 - :-~~ .ovv; Lr - ~;3, 800; 5 - '.;i4 , 000 ; 6 - :;;! ~, 300; 7 - '.;:LJ., L,.00; J - :::._,., ::) C\.~ ; S - :;L~, 600; 10 or more - :;).;., 7 00 . Tl esc cw ,..axin,tEl :.:..~-:.12u::·. c2 -,.,,.·,. ·rcre ,:,et i' n Dc•c ~r.w,cJJlb /\.""\.,.l:, ·~ 1 965 !:'."' ' a ·r. -'-- '1 t:.:' .l~i· , , .· - -: " ---. · · ,·~ s,-' S -...L uL ~V s '/ .._, ~ir.cc t:n e lS,50 ' s . Once el.::..t:.::ibi2. i -cy has b8e n :;:' cn::.:-1~· , :.·;..-.::.::.lie s ~ay earn more t han t he maxiiw and cont i ue oc cupanc y ~p ~o certain limit s . The se c ont i nue d occupancy max imums ar2 ..L 1,;... - \- ) '-"'lJ. \._,; l.., J.V V ...... . \,.,,,.i.......,. '-' �Page 2 . El i~ibility continu ed : $3J750 for one person, rising a t increments of about $ 300 pe r person) to a maximwn of $5 ,875 for a famil y of 10 or more . Every family moving into public housing must show some sourc e of income whether it be employment ., welfare or social security. ( 3) Families of 10 or mor e must receive a special waiver from the authority to be eligi b le . All other families., me eting other qualifications, a re eligib l e . ( 4 ) Fai,,i l ies must pass a p olice check as to ·moral chara cter . Wh il e pa st convictions will not prohi bit eligibility., being presently wanted f or a_ c rime will. (5) Each family must demons trate the physical and mental capacity to care for themselves without placing a burden up on the Housing Authority . I n addit ion, there are two further requirements for the e lderly : (a) a doc t or ' s heal t h certif i cate,; (b) a spons or 1~h o can be called in case of death or illness . ?ina lly., f i r st priority i n public h ousing goe s to persons who ha ve b een di splac ed by gov~ r mnent housing . Although occupancy is 99% full, space is held to a very s mall degree for such pe r sons . The Housing Autho r ity wi ll also house persons on a n eme r Gen c y basis. 8 or 9 Cuban families are now being so housed . Re nts are determineddupon th e basis of income ., s ou r c e o:r i n come., family siz.e , standar d deduc tions ., · n e eds and o-'che r vari a bles including t h e nwnber of children under s ch oo_ ~?e . The mi nimum rent is $20 and rent can be as high as $0 5 or mor e . For the elderly t he av e r age rent is $29 . 00., while the minimwn elderly rent in a high rise is $25 . 00. Present Utilization : 8.,784 units built., llL~O units i n planning, 1200 units reservation made but n o planning as yet. Total funds re c eiv ed to date - _$63,808,000 . 00 f or 15 projects . Name Units .. r..d s ~ Da te Bt:.i lt ,..., Te c hwood Clark Howell Capitol Gr ady Carve r Ea rris Pe rry Bowen Uni v ers i t y J ohn Hope Egan Herndon Grav es * Childs * Palrr,e:c * 6 04 630 81 5 616 900 510 1000 .650 67 5 606 548 520 210 250 250 2, 61 9 ., 000 3 ., 215 ., 000 3 ., 634 ., 000 2 ., 490 ., 000 10., 200 ., 00 6 ., 397., 000 9 .,217., 000 9 .,7 36,000 2 ., 523 ., 000 2 ., 595 .,000 1., 942 ., 000 1 ., 883 ., 000 2., 177.,000 2 J780Jooo 2,400JOOO - -z_ -- 1936.) 1940 1941 194 2 ·1953 1957 1955 1 964 19LW 19~-0 1941 1941 1 965 1965 1966 Ra c e -" W \\' w ( I) 4 K N \1: (I) j\" K N N K N N 1,.r ( I) w �* Unit s for the eld e rly only . Th e re are 2 ) 383 (inc . udi n g tho s e i n Gr a v e s ) Chi ld s ) and Palmer) e lderly units sc a ttered t h rough out the pro j e cts. 1. Dn l ... ~ o the rwis e noted) st ructur e s are 2 or 3 stori es hi gh a nd d o not h a ve hall ways. 2. A hi gh - rise with hall ways. 3, I t is intere sting to n ote t h at in 1941 about 550 uni~s c os t 2 million dollars; today 2 million will not buil d half t h at many u nit s . 4. Th is means that the p ro j ect is predominantly white with a s ma ll amount of integration. Wh en (I) is not s h own it indicates the project is 100% of the indicated race. / - ·3 .- �Pr og rarr,: Low Rent Public Housing , 11 Turnkey 11 Me t h od Nature and Puroose : ~h is is a new techni que for the p r ovi s ion of public housing which permits a priv ate deve loper o r buil der to de a l with a local hous ing authority in essent i ally th e same way a s h e is accustomed to deal with his private cli ent s . Und er th is s y stem, c alled t he 11 turnkey 11 approach, a develop e r who has a site or an option, or c an obta i n one, may approach the Atlanta Housing Autho ri ty with a p ropos a l to buil d in accordanc e wit h p l ans a nd specifications prepared by his own arc hitect and to a standard of good desi g n , quality and workmanship . In the ev ent that the deve lop e r 's propo s al is a ccep t able to -ch e Housing Au th ority , th e p a rties 1,.rill e:-.te r into a contrac t unde r which t he Housing Authori t y . a g r ees to purcha se t he c omp leted b uil d ing . Th is c6ntract will be backed by t he Housing Assistance Adminis t r ation 's financial assistance c ommitment to the Hous ing Auth ority , a nd it will enable the d evelope r to s e cure comme rical c onst ructi on financin g in his usua l way . It is anticipated that the developer will be worki n g wi -cn architects, contractors and subcont ractors of his own choice and will bring to the Housing Autho ri ty t he benefit s of his experi enc e and know- how i n p rodu c ing the desired hou s i ng and related fa ciliti es and amenities . The housing $hould be suitabl e , wel l-desig ned, and well constructed, able to stand hard wear f or at least 40 ye a rs , be designed fo r e con omi c a l admini s trati on and mai nten a n ce , b e produced in the most efficient and economic a l ma n ner , and be J,oc a ted i n fte;i. e;hb Q;rh QQQ § t hg. t will prQvide o. t@ti: - -t l1= fui a· a d~cent ~nvirorune nt and on site s a cc eptabl e t o t h e Housing Auth ori ty a nd HAA f or l ow- r ent hous i n g . It will be necessar y for the developer and the Housing Authority to d iscuss in g ene ra l terms the types and si zes ( n umber of b e d rooms) of the h ous ing and f a cilities to be deve lop e d . Th e d e velope r s h ould con sult wi th t he Housin g Authorit y f rom t i me t o time during t he course of his planni n g t o insure t h e a cc e p tance of his p l ans when th ey are dev e lop e d . In or d er t o p r omote .s maller p ublicly - owne d d ev e lopme~t s , e spe cially to enable l ow- income families to l iv e i n tn e same e nvironmen t with famili e s o r i n div iduals of highe r i n c ome a n d possib ly u nde r arrang eme n ts whe r eb y th e t ena~0 s a nd the p rop e r ty a r e no t s p e cifi c a lly id e nti fied as be i ~g pu blic or priv at e . Fo r thes e r e as ons d ev el op e r s ar e enc ourag ed to prop o se sites cons i de r ed· t o b e t oo l a r 6 e fo r e xclus ive ly publ ic h ou s i n g to p l an comb ined priva te - p ublic d evelooment s which will be n e fi t b oth t he l ow- i n come tenants s ub s i di z e d by t he HAA t h r ough t h e Hous ing Autho rity ~nd t t e te na nts of th e d ev e lop e r who may be low, mid d l e , or h i ghe r inc ome , dep endin g on fina n c ing and e conomic fea sib i l ity . Suc h a c omb i nat ion could als o i n clude c ooperativ e or cond ominium housing . - '-\ - �Pa~c 2 . Eligibility : Private developers wh o h ave sites or op tions on sites should contact the Atla nta Housing Authority. Present Ut ilization : This s h ould be an e x c e llent means through which None. t o c onst ruc t in a s h orter length of time the 1,200 units f or wh ich t he Atlanta Housing Authority presently has a reservation . �Program: FHA 221 Mort gage Insuranc e for Low and Yio derate Priced Homes. Nature and Purpose : A program of mortgag e insurance to assist p rivate i n dustry for the c ons tructi on or rehabilitation of individua_ sales h ousing , and for the purchase and r epa ir of new or existing multi - family units (up to 4 - family units) that are to be sold or rented to low - income fam ilies . The p rog ram p r ovioes h ousing for families dis plac ed by urban r enewal or 0-.:-. : ..-:..· g ove rnment a ction . Also for fc.r:-.ili es wi th low or moderate incomes and elderly or handicappe d persons . FHA d o es not g rant mort gage insurance d irectly to the contrac to r . I nstead upon approach by a con tra ctor , and foll owing app rova l a s to pr op e rty standards, location, need, e tc., t he FHA issues a commit tment to the con tr a ctor to issue 221 mortgage insuranc e to the buyers of t h e homes once th ey are built . The contra ct o r then finances his operations a s normal on t he private market . 221 mortgag e i nsu rance is also ava ilabl e f or non - new const ruction when an ind ivi dual is buying a house and rehab ilitat ing it to live in. The s ame elig i bilities and down payments apply . Normally, the FHA mort gage insurance will be for all c osts . Howeve r, if constru ction has started on the house b e fore the 221 i ns uranc e 1'ias rec eiv ed , th e mort gage i nsur ed cannot be for mo re t han 90% of value. Ad ditiona lly, i f the borrower is no t to be an o wne r - occupier (for example, a person renting hous i ng or mul ti - family units), . or if he is refinancing the p roperty, the mo rt gage c annot be more than 85% o f t he a mount Ln:;n,n·ab:Le for an own@ t=occupie r., or 85% of the prop ei :cty v lu , wh ichever is less . Norma l ly , the max i mum mort gage term is 30 years . How ev e r, it c an be increased to 40 years when: ( a) in t he c ase of a d is plac ed family, the FHA dete r m~nes the mort gagor c annot make the required payments on a short e r - t erm mor t gage, ( b) in the c ase of ot h er mo rtgag ors, the mor t gag o r is ~he owner-occupant . and the FHA determines he c an 1 t ~ake the necessa ry payments in a shorter - term mort g a g e , p rovided the h ouse was a pp roved by FHA or VA before, and ins pe c ted during, construc t ion . Normal ly , builders have sold home s at a pri c e allowing fo r the maximu..'n mortgage to c over the pu rc hase price . Th ere f ore , the average purchase price would n o r,.ally b e the max imum mortgage to cover the purc hase price. Theref ore, ~t he avera ge pu r chase pric e would normally be the maximum mortgag e plus $ 200 for certifie d buyers or p lus 3% fo r other s. In Atla nt a t he maximum mo rtgage has ri sen a s the national maximum has risen. However, as t he maximum mortgage in - ( ·- �Nature and Pu rpose continued : 1958 was purc has e $11,200 t $11,330 t $ 1 1 ,000 and to day it is $12 ,50 0 , the average price c a n be s a i d to have been from a bout o $1 2 ,700 for c ertified buye rs and f rom about o $12,850 for oth er buye rs. It shoul d be noted that mortgage s on the multi - family renta l housing or home s rented under this prog ram are a ll at the established FHA interest rat e ( 5 3/4%) and that on this housing the r e are n o income limitations on occupants a s there are on the below-market interest rate housing unde r 22l(d )(3). .· Eligib ility : P riority i s g ive n to families who are qualifie d on credit, family - re l ated by blood, and c e rtifi ed by t he U. R. A. as be ing d isplaced by g overnmental action . These persons c an p ay a minimwn $ 200 d own payment. Other persons who a re not fa:-:iilies but are ove r 62 years o f a g e or phys i c a l ly hand ic apped can , if otherwise qua li f ied ., qualify fo r the minimum $200 drn·m Rayment , or $400 fo r a two - family dwe llin g ., $6 00 for th r ee ., $800 f or f our. All other persons, i f they ar e families o r over 6 2 or handicapped are eli g ible for 221 home mortgage i ns urance but only f or sing le family units, but they must pay down 3% of t he t o tal aquis i tion cost o f the home -which would be about $37 5 ,00 t o day as t he maximum mortgage insurable in Atla nta under 221 is $12, 500. Non- c e r tified · fami li es a r e a llowed t o purc hase 221 housing bec ause, a lthoug h the p rog ram is int ended for displaced pe rsons , the FHA desires t o s ee all units, constructed with FHA encourage ment under 221, purchased. Present Utilization : From 1935 throug h 1965, 3 , 8 31 home mort gage s have been issue d u nder this prog r a m at a v alu e o f $ 37.,991 .,450 . In 1965, 252 home mo r tgages were insure d f or const ru ction u n der 221 at a value of $2 ., 565 ,900 (thes e fi gures included i n 1935 65 to tal abov ~ ) . In 1965., 6~ home mort ~a g es were _p rof o ~e d fo r construction., but as of J anuary 1 960 ., not cons Gruc vea, for-a total of $769,000 ( not i ncluded i n 1936-65 total above ). These tota ls include 221 new sales housing ., homes bo~ght a n d rehabi litated under 221., and homes bough and rehabilita ted ~ya n on- occupant under 221. These fi gur e s are fo r th e standa rd Metrop o litan Atlanta a r e a . There has not b een any ma rke t-rate 221 mort gage insuranc e f o r ·multi- family h ousing ( up to 4 - family units) in Atlan t a as o f J anuary, 1 966 . �Progra m: FHi\ 221 ( d) ( 3) Mortgag e Insurance At Below Ma rket Ra te Int eres t For Ren~a l and Coop erativ e Housing For _Families of Low and Moderate Income Nature and Purpose : There are a number of famil i es whose incomes ·a re too h i gh for p ublic housing , but not high enough to comp ete fo r adequate hous i ng in the private marke t. Some of these familie s have been forced into the mar ke t because of urban renewal or . other gove r nmental action . To help the se families obta in housing at p ric es they c an afford, ~h e Fede r a l Housing Administration insures mortgages on special terms unde r the provisions of Section 22l(d)(3) of the Nat ional Housing Act . · To keep t h e rents within t h e means of the p eople f or whom the hous ing i s intended , the Act autho riz es a mort gag e interest rate below the current market rate on FHA- insured mortgages . Priorities f or occupancy are g ive n to families dis placed by g overnmental action. Othe r families whose incomes are within th e limits e stablishe d b y FEA a l so can qualify for occupancy, as c a n single -elderly or handic apped persons . Proposed new construction, and existing properties r equiring rehabilitation, with five or more units may be eligible for mort g age insurance . A mortgag e i nsu r ed under Section 22l ( d)(3) may c a rry a marke t inte r est rate (at the p r e sent time not more than pe rc e nt), or a below-market rat e . 5t Under th ese p rovisions, the intere st rate durin g construc~ion may be as h i gh as the establis hed FHA maximum interest r a te a t the time of construction . Upon fina l e n do r sement of t h e loan, th e interest r a te will b e lowered t o 3 p erc e n t ·. FEA wa ives th e mortgage insurance premiu m o f ½ perc ent f or p rojects with this low interest rate . For.public a g e nc ies , cooperatives (includ ing investor :... sp onsored ), and non-profit _sponsors, mort gag es on new con structi on ma y not exc ee d t he r e pla c ement cos t o f th e proj e c t ; on r e habili t a tion pro j e cts, t h e e st i mate d co st o f rehabi lit at ion plus t h e v a lue of th e proj ec t before r ehab i l itati on; or -i f refina n c i ~g is ~nvolved , the estimated cost of rehabilitation p lus t · e amount re qui r e d to r e finance t h e out - s t anding indebt e dn e ss . Fo r l i mite d - d istri bution mortgag ors, mo rt gages ma y not exce ed 90 pe rc e nt of these amounts . T:Crn mortgage on any p roj e c t i s f urth e r limi t e d by s u ch fa ctors as family income limits estab li shed by the FHA, and deb t s ervice considerations . s·-- �Nature and Purpose continued The max i mum mortgag e term is 40 years or three quarte rs of the ?HA estimate of the remaining economic life of the prope r ty, whi chever is less. The maximun mort g a g e araount is $12,500,000 . The mortgag e on any proj ec t is l143.215.248.55t ed by construction costs and median income fig ures es tajlish ed by FHA f or the area . Information regarding these limita tions for a pa rticula r area may be obtained from the local FHA insuring office. Public and private limited distribution projects : If advances are to be insured during const r uction two percent of the orig inal principal amount of the mortgage will be required as working capital . This fund must be deposited with the mortgag ee by the mort gagor and must come from sourc es other than mortgag e proceeds. ?riva te nonprofit projec ts ~ An allowance of two percent to make th e pro ject operational, in lieu of working capital , may be included in the mortgage . Wit h re s pec t to rent, carrying c ha r ges , and o ccupancy requi rement s, FHA control s will be maintained unti l the i nsured mortg age is p a id in ful l . To prevent ea rly refinancing and releas e o f FHA controls, full or partial p re - payment of the insured mortgage without app roval of the FHA Commissioner is prohibite d , except that limited d istribution mortgagors may pay in full aft e r 20 years f rom the date of final endors ement without such approval . All housing financed unde r the p rogram must operate in a ccordance with re gulat ion s as to rentals, c harges, methods of operation and occupancy requirements set forth by t he ?iiA. Occupanc y is limited to families and to elde rly or handi capped indivi duals of low and moderate income, with preferenc e being giv e n to di splacees . . Project s may be sold only with the prior approval of FHA and subject to prescribe d conditions. Elig ibility : Proje cts may be deve loped b y public agencies (except loc a l h ousin g authoriti es that obtain their funds exclusiv e l y f or p ublic housing f r om the Fe deral Government) or by c o-- opera ti ves (inc luding inve stor - sponsored), priv ate nonp rofit c o rpo ~ations or as sociations, or limited di st ribution corp ora tions , or other mortg a g ors approve d by t h e FHA Commissione r . A n onprofi t mort g agor is a corporat ion or associ a tion organi z e d for p urposes other than the making of prof it f or its e lf or p e r s ons identified with it a nd found by Fn A to b e i n n o ma nne r c ontroll e d by or under the dire ction o f p e rsons or firms seeking to deriv e profit from it . '--1, - �Page 3, .; Elig i b ility continued builde r- se ller mortgagor is a special type of l im~te d d is tribut ion mortgago r organized to build or rehabilitate a proje ct and sell it, i~nediately upon complet ion, to a p r i v ate nonprofit o rganization at the c ertified c ost of the project . r A public mortga g or is a Federal i nstrumentality, a Sta te or its p olitical subdivision, or a n instrumentality o f a SGat e o r of its political subdivision, wh ich c ertifies t h a t it is not receiving financial assistance exclusively for pub lic h ousing from the Federal Government and whic h is acceptable t o the FHA . A limit ed d istribution mo rtgag or i s a corpo r ati on r estricted as to distr ibution of inc ome by the laws of the Stat e of its incorporation ( or by FHA) - or a trust, pa rt ne rs ~ ip , a ss oc iation , individual, or oth er entity restricted by law or by t h e FHA a s to distribution s of income - forme d exc lusively for the purpose of providing housing and r e g ulat ed as to rents, c harg es, rat e o f return, and operating methods i n a manner satisfac tory to the FHA . A cooperative mortgagor is a nonprof it coopera-cive 0 .-m e rs h ip hous ing corporation approved by FHA . Pe r manent oc c u panc y i s restricted to t he membe rs , and e lig i bility and transfe rs of membership are subject t o FHA controls . 1 ,.,,. An investor - sponsor mo r tgag or i s a s pecial type of l imi t ed· distribution mortgagor organized to build or rehabilit ate a project and transfer it to a cooperative . If the project is not sold to a coopera tive with in two years after co~ ple tion , the investor sp onsor wi ll op erate it as a limite d dist ribution corpo r at ion, for the purposes a ut h orized . To live in these l ow rent p r ojects, famili e s mu st be making less than $ 5,250 per year . It should be noted that these - income limitations do not apply to re gular 221 housing . This is a maximum income limitation which va rie s by family s iz e . There is no absolute minimum but a minimum n e t i n come a ft e r t a xe s and obli~a t i ons, whi ch v aries by the type of a pa r tment involv ed and the types of oblig ations out s t a nding , is required . · P ri o rities are given to families c e rtified by U . R . A : a s d i sp laced by g overnment action . For individua l s t o be e l i g i bl e , they a lso mu s t h a ve suff i c i e nt f ina nc i al c apa city a n d be b l ood - re l ated ( e xcep t f or p e rsons over 62 or -che handi c app e d ). Th e r e are no mini mum income l i mits, but each f amily must pass a credit check to show they can .afford the housing . --- I / v •, - �Page 4. · Pr ese nt Uti li zation : A t ot a l of 16 p ro je cts , p rov idi ng 2,071 u nit s hav e bee n bu ilt, a re under const ruct i on, or i n p l anning i n ~etrop ol itan Atla nta . Those proje c ts, statu s and rental rang es and income limita tions f oll ow: Occupied Wheat Stre et Ga rd ens 323 I rwin Street , N. E. Sp ons or : Church Homes, Inc. ( Pri va t e , n onp ro fit) 2Bo u n i t s - $2, 975,000 - Op ened 196 5 Rent a l Housing Income Limi t s: 2 person s - $5 , 650 6 , 650 3 & 4 5 & 6 7,650 All 2 bedroom apartment s, unfu r nis hed, ligh t , ga s a n d t eleph one a ddi t i ona l . $69 . 50 mont h Rents : Up s tai rs Downsta r is - 72 , 50 month All en Temp l e Apartme nts 1 11 Allen Templ e Court , N.W. Sp ons or : All en Temp le Chu rch ( Priva te , n onp ro f it ) 150 units (10 bu i ldi ngs, 15 units ea ch ) , finan c ing not y et clo sed - Op ened Dec emb e r, 1965 . Rental Housing 2 person s I nc ome Limits: $5 , 250 6 , 650 3 & 4 5 & 6 7,150 7 .or more 8 , 500 2 and 3 b e dro om apa rtment s , unfu r n i she d . Light, gas a nd. t eleph one a dditiona l. Rents : 2 bedroom on t er rac e $62 . 00 month 2 bed r oom 1st and 2nd f l. 65 . 00 72 , 50 3 bed room on t erra ce 3 bed room· l st and 2nd f l. 75,00 East'wyck Village 2892 Eas t wyck Circle , De c a t u r Sp ons or: FCH Company, I n c. ( Founda t ion f or Coop e r a t i v e Hous i ng, Sta nf or d, Conn. ) (P r ivate , nonp rofi t) 6 se ctions, 441 units - $5, 37 3 , 400 - Opened 1965 Coope rative Housi ng 1 p e rson $4 , 650 (mu s t b e over 62 yea rs) I ncome Limi ts : 2 5 , 650 6 , 650 3 & 4 7,650 5 & 6 7 or more 8,650 - J) -- �Page 5, Eas twyck Village continued Furni s hed apartments . Water , sewerageand garbage are $3,70 additional . Payments : 1 ·b8d: oom $53 . 00 month 2 bedro~ 69 . 00 month 2 bedroom , l ½ bath s, basement 3 bedroom 77.00 3 be d room, l ½ baths, b asement 4 be drooms, l ½ baths, basement $79 . 00 mon t h 84 .00 94 . oo · under Con struction Allen Temple Apartment s # 2 11 Al len Temple Court, N. W. Spons or: Allen Te~p le Church (P riv~ t e, nonprofi t) 225 units, completion early 1967 · Rental Hous ing Same as Allen Temple · Apa rtments # l I nc ome Limits: Same as Allen Temple Apartments # 1 Rents: Cambri dge Sauare 3061 Oakdale Road, Doraville, Georgia Sponsor : FCH Company, Inc. ( Private, · nonprofit) 134 units - complet ion March 1967 124 units - completion September, 1967 Cooperative Housing Income Limits: 1 person 3 5 & & 4 6_ 7 or more Unfurnished apartments . addit iona l $3 .70 c harge Payments: $L~, 350 (must be over 62 years) 5,250 6, 200 2 7~150 8,050 Wa ter, sewerage and garbage are an 1 bedroom $58 . oo 2 bedroom 69 .00 2 b ed room , l ½ bath , basement 79 .00 3 b e droom 3 bedroom, 1.1 bath basement 4 bedroom, l ½ bath: basement 79 . 00 86 . oo 97 . 00 I n P_anning o r di s cuss i on : Wheat St re e t Ga rdens ( addi tion) 323 I rwin St r eet, N. E . Sponsor : Chur c h Home s, Inc . ( P rivat e , n onp rof it) 240 units in p l a nni n g , construc t ion to s t art spring 1967 ( will probably b e mostly 3 bedroom apa rtments ) Rental housing . �/ Pac;e 6 . I I n Planning or dis cus s i on · continue d 97 unit s in planning , commitment issue d (but, b e c au s e rent v alue s were t oo low, mi ght be reconsidered), no con s t ruction plans yet . Bal lard He i ghts 84 u nit s in planning, no formal application yet Halyc on 200 units in planning , no formal app lication yet ?a r k Wes t 96 units in planning, no formal application yet . ' .I -, , ) ·- �
  • Tags: Box 22, Box 22 Folder 19, Folder topic: Task Force on Cities | 1966
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: December 29, 2017

Box 22, Folder 19, Document 2

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_022_019_002.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 22, Folder 19, Document 2
  • Text: Note MS OF DVIEREST RELATED TO iD RALSED Ae git .aes * ARTES ops ey peers EDICGTE SUBGOM SALES Oo 3 Siew a ave fe= thE: GAL eed Tne Kivicoflf subcommittce resumed today lts benrvings on the proper role of the fedsral governzent in the attack ca urban problems. Senunter Rioleor? relessed & list of 37 whlinceses who will enpear before the subocnalttes Curing the poerlod Novemoor 9-December 15. A copy of the list is attached. David Rockefeller, Prasident of the Chate Manhatten Bank, was the sole witness at this mornings’s seasion. Mr. Nachkefeller @eserlbe several efforts by private busincsocs in the ficla of urban rensbilitae tion which indicate that the private sector has the eapacity for ine erenced participation Im the solution of uvoen problems. He discussed the factors influencing the macunt of business involvement in the . eifairs of the city. Tha main points raiaed In his testimony and éuring the questicsing seriod wexe the following; 1. The Need for Commercially Orilentated Redevelonment Mr. Rockefeller stressed that usiess urben redevelopment projects ia thea central cities gonerate aubstmmtlal tax revcnucs thoy will have @ harufal impact on the Sinancial position of the city as a who ae The Promor Role of Businesses in the Solution of tirbsen Problets Mr. Rockefeller écclarad thet urban rehabilitation is primorily th : joo of private enterprise. 3. The Nesd for Governmmt Eaccuronemens of Risiness Fertictuation in Urban Tevelonment Mr. ‘Rockefaller maintained tint greater govermaent encouragement of business participation in urban Gevelupuant le necessary. fin calicd for tax incentives to encourage investment in urban rehabilitation &8 well @s Closer liason between government units and the private sector. h, ous Estsbitennont of a Pusinens AAvinory Comittee to the a ra OP aS ee ee pave 5: ceca reacreae eta e IN ae oe rte, Le ats fe Lee = ee x retery of Pouging ond Urban fevelorment Mr. Rockefeller urged that consideration be given to Suiting up & group from the business and financial community which would advice the Secretary of Housing and Urban Developient. He noted Sha & eivicory group assists the Seerctary of the Treasury on International Monetary Arranges. ots. oye. 5. The Advisibility of Establishing a "Comsat" Type Cornoration for Urban Rehabilitation. Senator Javits expressed the hope that the atiministration finally had realized the value of the "Comsat" approach to housing problems. ess of the original "Comsat" My. Rockefeller commented that the e lar epproach would necessarily vel undertaking is no guarantee that a si succeed in the housing field. He stre private business in urban rehebilitatio profit can be realized. ssed that participation by will be assured only if a 6. The Aetion of FNMA in Moking Available ei 0 Million in Special =] S Assistance Fonds. Senetor Ribicoff suggested that in view of the tightness of the money market the total amount of special assistance funds authorized by Congress should have been released. Mr. Rockefeller stated that the administration polloy on special assistance funds was reasonable.
  • Tags: Box 22, Box 22 Folder 19, Folder topic: Task Force on Cities | 1966
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 30, 2021

Box 22, Folder 19, Document 4

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_022_019_004.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 22, Folder 19, Document 4
  • Text: Knowledgable Persons in Neighborhood Centers Field Dr. Fred Duhi (Dre. Duhl's brother) Masse General. Hospital Boston, Masse Marvin Labes Mayor's Committee for Total Action Against Poverty Detroit, Michigan Mr © Lal.l Director, Poverty Program New Orleans, Lao Robert Choate Public Affairs Foundation Washington, D. Co Mel Roman Albert Einstein College Bronx, New York Hyland Lewis foward University Ap lh 1) P pf vy Howard Nemoroveki. { ue San Francisco, California Norman Lourie Pa. Dept. of Public Welfare Lee Rainwater Washington University St. Louis, Missouri. Herman Gallegos (Mexican) National Committee on Civil Rights Pie } Barney O'Cayote U. S. Dept. of Interior Salt Lake City, Uteh Preston Wilcox (Negro) Columbia Univ. School of Social Work we - Tee. Arlt chek zal GAL Chute 4a, 6 olla Dull onf Hue / Stern Family Fund gy if is hn hc aesmle bbe eo Ld, ar Sanford K rvitz Brandeis niversity Richard Strickhartz Detroit, Michigan David Hunter Henrik Blum Pde Contra-Costa County Health Dept. t Martinez, California Dimitri Iatrices (Greek Boston College (Available in Uanuary) . jw wn face ce . Antonia Chayes ABCD | : Boston, Mass. = ihe RAE an A bt mn 1 etl" ae. etd Mortimer Brown yt ae Chicago, Illinois Richard Poston N. C. Dept. of Welfare Dr. George Esser, Director North Carolina Fund Francis McKinley (Indian) Arizona State University Rev. Arthur Brazier (Negro) Pres. Woodlawn Orgz. Chicago, Illinois John Martin (Negro) OEO San Francisco Regional Office
  • Tags: Box 22, Box 22 Folder 19, Folder topic: Task Force on Cities | 1966
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 30, 2021

Box 22, Folder 19, Document 8

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_022_019_008.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 22, Folder 19, Document 8
  • Text: WORKING PAPER COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION . 1. Concept In its proposal for the establishment of an Urban Development Corpor- ation* HUD asserts, 'The greatest domestic challenge that faces America today is the need to rehabilitate and rebuild the nation's slum neigh- borhoods and the 5,000,000 substandard and deteriorating dwellings’ in which 20 million Americans live. The problem exists in large and small cities throughout the entire country.” The Proposal points out that neither government nor industry can do this alone, and proposes a nationally based, private, non-profit institution--UDC--which has access to substantial amounts of FHA insured mortgage credit, and the ability to offer major inducements to cities, industry, labor, and residents of slums. It proposes that UDC be directed at rehabilitation, bi with the objective of rehabilitating 500,000 -s1um dwelling units within ‘the next decade. The proposed short term goal is rehabilitating 30,000 dwelling units during PRA the first two years of its oper- ation. For these first two years it is asserted the UDC will require a reservation of $200 million in 221(d)(3) below market interest rate (BMIR) mortgage credit funds, $200 million in FNMA special assistance funds for _ rent supplement dwellings, and $9 million in rent supplement funds. In addition, $12 million in working capital will be required for the first two years of operation which is to be supplied by foundation and corporate grants and loans, and HUD demonstration funds. *"\A Proposal for a Nationally Based Private Non-Profit Urban Development Corporation to Rehabilitate and Replace Substandard Urban Slum Dwellings," HUD, Nov. 1966 9, The kernel of the UDC concept is that the large and orderly market it provides will produce an efficient, aggressive and technologically advanced rehabilitation industry. This new industry will serve the total rehabilitation market, private as well as public. 2. Feasibility There appear to be four key questions concerning feasibility of this proposal: - Technological - Social . Scale of operations required - Acceptability The technological feasibility of massive rehabilitation of many types of slum dwellings has been demonstrated. The most striking example is the 114th Street program in Harlem. There the batldinge-wexe largely gutted, and attractive, healthy, modern apartments’ created, one for each of the far below-~standard units that were scrapped. HUD estimates that there are more than 5 million units in the nation's slums that are structurally sound and susceptible to such rehabilitation. That many slum neighborhoods have potential to respond to the impact of rehabilitation is also strikingly demonstrated by the 114th Street experiment. The pride shown by the residents of the rehabilitated units, the low level of vandalism during construction, and the enthusiasm of the neighborhood for the project illustrate this. HUD estimates that 5 million units suitable for rehabilitation are located in slum neigh- borhoods with the potential to respond to the improvements offered. The minimum effective scale is largely a matter of judgement. Experts consulted seem to agree that the scale proposed (30,000 units annually in the first two years, 50,000 units/thereafter) is sufficient to provide the leverage needed with labor, contractors, the materials industry, and city administrations to achieve the innovations desired and to visibly affect the quality of life in the nation's slums. A commitment to only the first 30,000 units may be sufficient but on this opinions differ. HUD has been in contact with industry, labor and city representa- tives and reports that in every case those interviewed were persuaded of the merits of the UDC idea. Organized labor's reaction was favorable to the suggestion of a national contract with UDC containing work rules providing for _ appropriate to efficient rehabilitation and/crews which include labor from the slum neighborhoods. Builders and developers were pleased with the significant role the private. sector could play. Manufacturers expressed interest in undertaking research and development of products” for a new rehabilitation market. 3. Costs In the UDC proposal the average total cost per dwelling units is estimated to be $13,000. This is a conservative estimate based on the very limited experience to date. There is reason to believe that UDC activity will bring the unit costs down due to economies of scale, improved contractor management, increased labor productivity, and to technological innovations induced by the new rehabilitation industry. That there will be cost reduction is highly likely, and that this reduc- tion will spur private rehabilitation seems probable, but there is no basis for quantitatively estimating the degree of reduction possible and, in all likelihood, will not be until after a-few years of UDC operation. It is possible that costs could go as low as $9,000 per unit. The UDC proposal suggests that the initial 30,000 units be financed half with BMIR (Below Market Interest Rate) mortgage credit and half with FNMA special assistance funds for rent supplement dwellings. The annual rent supplement funds that would be required depends, of course, on the average ability to pay. If the BMIR funded 15,000 units were all rented to families with annual incomes over $4,000, the annual rent Sip lemeits required for the remaining 15,000 units would be between $12.2 million and $19.6 it ten, depending upon the tenants' incomes. The mortgage credit and rent supplement funds required for the first five years of operation are shown in Table 1, based on the estimated cost of $13,000/unit. The average annual tenant income can be expected to be between $2,000 (which was the 1965 national average income of the 2.5 million slum families with incomes below $4,000/year) and $4,000 which is typical of incomes in Harlem. The commitment to future rent supplement payments depends, of course, on the degree to which costs are reduced by the new rehabilitation industry and upon the changes in family income. Table 2 illustrates this. It can be seen that unless costs are reduced to below $9,000/unit TABLE 1 Funding Requirements (For Unit Cost = $13,000) YEAR 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 Units Constructed During Year 5,000 25,000 | 50,000 | 50,000} 50,000 Units Completed 5,000 30,000 | 80,000 | 130,000] 180,000 - Average Units Com- pleted During Year 2,500 17,500 | 55,000 | 105,000} 165,000 Annual BMIR Mortgage Credit ($,millions)* 33 167 325 325 325 Annual FNMA Mortgage Credit* 33 167 325 325 325 Annual Rent Supple- ment Funds($,mil- lions) ** (Tenant Income = $4,000) 1.0 ek 22 43 63 Annual Rent Supple- ment Funds($,mil- lions )** (Tenant Income = $2,000) 1.6 bL.3 36 69 108 *Based on half the units being financed with BMIR 3%-40 year -mortgages, the other half with 6%-40 year mortgages. **Based on rent supplements applicable to the one-half of the units that are financed at 6%-40 years. TABLE . 2 _ Annual Rent Supplement in $ Millions, After Five Years (90,000 Units, 6% 40 Year Mortgages) Average Tenant Average Unit Cost Annual Income $9,000 $11,000 $13,000 $4,000 23 48 73 $3,000 45 70 95 - $2,000 68 93 118 or average incomes rise to over $4,000/yeay rent supplements will be required indefinitely. 4. Additional Benefits a. Cost Reduction for Private Rehabilitation The total market for rehabilitation is far greater than the 500,000 units proposed for UDC action during the next decade. Even if half of the 5 million units presently suitable for rehabilitation are torn down, the private sector market for rehabilitation is 4 times larger than that proposed for UDC over the next decade. Cost reductions stimulated by UDC will therefore pay a large dividend in terms of reduced economic rent for slum families. This tan be considered to multiply‘? by 5 the savings which are reflected in the rehabilitation directly sponsored by UDC. b. Slum Employment Rehabilitation is, and probably will remain, a labor-intensive industry. Approximately one-half man year of on-site labor is required per rehabilitated unit. If half of this were to be provided by local labor, rehabilitation at the rate of 50,000 units per year will directly employ some 12,000 slum dwellers. Since, presumably, the same people would participate in the private rehabilitation market, the number of slum dwellers employed in the new rehabilitation industry might be 50,000. c. Application of New Technology to New Construction The degree to which technological innovation stimulated by rehabilitation will be effective in reducing the cost of new construction is uncertain. What is clear is that new products will be used when they become available market items, thereby improving the quality if not the cost of new construction. d. Interaction With Other Programs UDC-sponsored rehabilitation activities can strongly reenforce other programs. Among these are the Demonstration Cities, home ownership for slum dwellers, and neighborhood Service Centers. 5. Additional Problems a. Mortgage Terms and Economic Life The use of 40 year mortgages (and consequently an implied remaining economic life of 55 years) has been assumed by HUD. However, it is by no means clear that rehabilitation can provide either physical or economic lifetimes approaching this in a substantial fraction (perhaps most) of the neighborhoods under consideration. Reduction of the mortgage terms to 20 years would require an increased annual rent supplement of $330/unit. b. Property Acquisition Limited experience suggests that it is possible to assemble properties for rehabilitation, using only the threat of rigid code en- forcement to keep prices from rising. Alternately, or in conjunction, condemnation proceedings can be used in Urban Renewal Areas. c. Rehabilitation vs. New Housing While rehabilitation has well known social advantages over slum clearances followed by new construction, it offers far less opportunity for cost reduction through technological innovations and raises the thorny problem of the wisdom of investing heavily in obsolescent properties. An intriguing proposal for neighborhood redevelopment using a mix of rehabilitation and new housing was developed in a working session on UDG*. UDC's concern with rehabilitation to the exclusion of new housing could become a block to the kind of federal effort needed to obtain cost reduction through major innovations in construction. technology and project management. It has been suggested that the reason the Proposal selected rehabi- litation rather than a mixed rehabilitation/new housing objective for the UDC was the concern that labor in particular (and perhaps the construction and materials industries as well) would strongly oppose the UDC unless it clearly restricted its activities to rehabilitation. This is a matter of judgment and could very well be correct. It must be noted, however, that acceptance of UDC might be forthcoming if these groups realize that new construction based on improved and economizing technology is inevitable and UDC can provide a sympathetic client with which they could cooperate to gradually modernize traditional practices. This is a subject that future staff work might illumine. d. Effect on Equity Holders - If the costs of rehabilitation remain high, the federal govern- ment, UDC and the cities involved will be predisposed to use all means at their disposal to drive down the costs for acquiring the properties for rehabilitation. Rigid code enforcement has been suggested as the major tool for this. It is not clear that a self-avowed policy of liquidating the equity holders by code enforcement won't develop 2 fatal backlash. *Interim Report; Study of the Feasibility of an Urban Development Corporation 10. e. Relationships The proposed relationships of UDC with the local government, various national groups, and the neighborhood (including the question of continuing responsibility for maintenance and upkeep of the rehabilitated buildings) are largely undefined, 6. Conclusions a. While very many details of UDC remain to be worked out, it appears highly likely that the major objectives will be met if a strong Presidential commitment is given. b. This is the only practical mechanism that has been found for visibly improving the quality of slum housing within the next few years. c. The minimum effective scale of the UDC is one which can stimulate a new industry in the U.S.--the rehabilitation industry. Without the UDC this industry will probably not develop. The proposed level of UDC effort appears to be the minimum needed if it is to be successful. d. The costs--in terms of below market interest rate mortgage credit and rent supplements amount to a subsidy of a substantial fraction of the total rent. The rent supplements involve a firm long term commitment, which is uncertain.
  • Tags: Box 22, Box 22 Folder 19, Folder topic: Task Force on Cities | 1966
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 30, 2021

Box 22, Folder 19, Document 13

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_022_019_013.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 22, Folder 19, Document 13
  • Text: i. 2. wb -_— 10/24/66. , a oo NEW PROGRAMS DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Initiated (or to be Initiated) under Legislation ° Fnected from June 30, 1901 to Date MAJOR NEW PROGRAMS OF SPECTAL SOCTAL OR ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE 1961 Below-market interest rate FHA rental housing for lowe and moderate. income families. 1964 Urban mass transportation matching grants. 1965 © Rent supplements for special categories of loweincome conte Se eee new low-cost FHA housing. Matching grants for basic water and sewer facilities. Matching grants for neighborhood facilities. 1966 Demonstration cities program. Supplemental incentive grants for planned metropolitan development. Mortgage insurance program for ae commnities", FNMA “participation sales" program for obligations of Department end other Governnent agencies. OTHER SUBSTANTIAL NEW PROGRAMS 1961 Matching grants for open space land acquisition. Grants for demonstrations of new or improved means of providing housing for low-income families, wo special loan iusurance programe for housing rehabilitetion. Mortgege insurance under new long-term low-downpeyment sales housing program. Mortgage insurance for experimental housing. Mortgage insurance fox condominiums. Toans for mass transportation facilities, and grents for mass trans- portation demonstrations. 1964 Direct leans at 3 percent for rehabilitation of housing or business i vt properties in urban renewal areas. d fe jee Pe Fellowships for city planning end urben studies. gt Y Matching grants to States for training urben professional personnel’ . Mortgage insugance for rehabilitation loans outside urban renewal areas. “Relocation adjustment payments” to displaced femilies and businesses. 2.285 Clearinghouse service and technical assistance for States and localities on commmnity and metropolitan development problema, Matching grants for demolition of unsafe structures. Rehsbilitation grants to bomeewners in urban renewal areas. Leasing of private housing for levw-income femiiies wader public housing program of Department. - ; Matching granta for urban beautification. Matching grants for advance acquisition of land for public facilities. Matching grants for code enforcement in deteriorating areas. Mortgage insurance for development of land for subdivisions. Mortgage ineurance for veterans homes, 1965 Matching grants for urban information centers and technical agsistance for small cities. Mortgage insurance for group medical practice facilities. FHA mortgage insurance program for below-market interest rate sales : housing for low-income families, (rehabilitation by nonprofit corporations) Variety of financial asgistance to the preservation and restoration of historic structures and areas. Teans and grants for Alaske housing. Provision of Metropolitan Expediters. Research program on cost reduction techniques for housing construction and rehabilitation and urban development. Research program on actions to improve understanding and Improvement of urban environment.
  • Tags: Box 22, Box 22 Folder 19, Folder topic: Task Force on Cities | 1966
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 30, 2021

Box 22, Folder 19, Document 5

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_022_019_005.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 22, Folder 19, Document 5
  • Text: Preliminary Draft — LANDLORD-TENANT LAW REFORM ir Archaic landlord—-tenant law and practices, once appropriate to an agricultural society, must be reformed and modernized to meet the need of industrialized urban America. Ancient legal doctrine, construing a lease as a conveyance of an interest in land rather than an agreement, leads to the holding that the obligation of the tenant to pay rent is independent of the duty of the landlord to repair and maintain the premises. The sole reme- dies thus available to the tenant to secure his rights are limited to his vacating the premises and then claiming termination of the lease or himself repairing the premises, financing the cost and there- after claiming a set-off against future rents. Such limitations, while onerous to all tenants, are intolerable in their application to poor people. Their choice of accommodations within their means is minimal; they can neither finance repairs nor, often, even gain access to the parts of the premises requiring repair. While states and local governments, in proper concern for the lives, health and safety of all citizens, prescribe minimum standards for housing accommodations, out-—dated legal practices thwart the poor in direct assertion of their rights. Il Reformation of landlord-tenant law is a state and local government responsibility burdened with consequence to the National welfare. While appropriate solutions may vary between jurisdictions, certain broad principles must apply throughout: A. State and local enforcement of building, health and safety codes must be streamlined and improved. Administrative flexibility and faet finding must be fostered and the power of local courts strengthened. The obligation of code compliance must be a prior charge on the property itself and all rights therein, rather than merely a personal obligation of the owner. B, Compliance with law must be a basic part of every agreement and every right. Obligations of landlord and tenant alike, as pro- vided in building, health and safety codes, must be construed as creating independent rights enforceable by direct legal action. Determination of such issues in the courtroom must be facilitated. C. Public funds must not reward illegal -conduct. Appropriate rent withholding procedures must be developed for the welfare tenant. Appropriate actions must be taken in all public acquisitions to the end that prices paid disregard values achieved from income derived in property operation contrary to minimum building, health and safety codes. OF Se EE Re 9 OE While these responsibilities are local, the Federal Government can and has assisted: 1. The establishment of neighborhood legal centers in slums by the Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity, who are making a major effort to help tenants secure their rights to safe and sanitary housing. 2. The convening of a Conference by the Attorney General to de- velop new procedures to insure that the rights of tenants are fully and effectively enforced. 3. The appointment of a Commission to make a comprehensive review of codes, zoning, taxation and development standards. III Programs and activities of the Federal Government, while indirect in that enforcement of fire prevention, housing, building, health and sanitation law is a responsibility of local government, can be of de- cisive importance: A. 1. Section 101(a) of Public Law 171 qualifies Federal assistance upon the appropriate local public bodies undertaking "positive programs" and "a workable program" for community improvement through the “adoption, modernization, administration and enforcement of housing, zoning, building and other local laws, codes and regulations relating to-land use and adequate stan-= dards of health, sanitation and safety for buildings, in- cluding the use and occupancy of dwellings," Administrative regulations heretofore issued by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development should be further clarified to direct specific enumeration and attention to the application and enforcement of local codes and ordinances related to life, health and safety throughout the locality and to demonstrate increased effort and progress in such enforcement. Such en- forcement of minimum codes shall be required as protection of lives and health of occupants, irrespective of whether a basic- ally sound and stable area is thereby created. 2. The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development can further im- plement the purposes of the legislation through the development of national uniform statistical reporting, whereby yardsticks of comparable municipal performance may be established, =B= A “I \ AME A a 3. The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development can tighten existing regulations to the end that mortgage insurance avail- able through the Federal Housing Administration for property acquisition, rehabilitation and improvement must be condition= ed upon code compliance. At the same time, mortgage insurance and grants under Section 312 can be promoted and expedited. Special personnel can be. designated in each insuring office of the Federal Housing Administration with the specific assignment of coordinating the insuring activities of that agency with city building departments and community organizations to the end that provision of proper financing for complete rehabili- tation to meet code standards be greatly expedited. The Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare can, by administra- tive regulation, require that each local authority participating in administration and disbursement of relief funds establish, in collaboration with appropriate local authorities, ‘systems of hous-— ing inspection and certification to the end that appropriate with- holding of rents, where justified, be undertaken. All Departments of Government concerned with property acquisition, wherever Federal investment is involved, can require that the ac— quiring public authority demonstrate and certify that no part of the award granted or payment made represents values achieved by operation contrary to local codes-of building, health and safety. All Departments of Government dealing with the audit and verifica- tion of real estate and mortgage loan assets can require certifi- cation that as to the property concerned no complaints are present— ly pending by any local authority charging violation of local mini- mum codes of building, health and safety. IV At this time property owners in deteriorated or declining city areas assume that the municipality either cannot or will not enforce its building, housing, health and sanitation laws == an assumption based on experience and occasionally supported by Federal statement: "Characteristic of a typical slum area is the overcrowding of housing units well beyond the levels permitted by local codes. Any effort to enforce the occupancy standards of the code would have as its immediate consequence a massive displacement of the families occupying the overcrowded units. This might be acceptable if it were coupled with a concurrent program to make available to such families decent housing at prices they can afford. Unfortunately, the latter tends to be far slower and more costly than the carrying out of code enforcement. In many cases local courts have recognized this consequence and, as a matter of public policy, have refused to permit enforcement action. aj "By its very nature, a program of code enforcement requires property owners to make substantial investments in repairs and improvements in order to avoid prosecution. Unless that investment is coupled to an increase in rental returns or property values, the owner is likely never to be able to recover the cost. But since we are still dealing with a seriously blighted area, neither the increase in rentals or property values is likely to occur. The present tenants usually cannot afford higher rentals, particularly if occu- pancy is reduced and there are fewer wage earners to pay the rent. Tenants with higher incomes usually cannot be persuaded to move into a still blighted area. The value of the property in a private sale cannot be expected to increase unless the rentals increase nor would the repairs or improve- ments add significantly to the property value in the event of a future public condemnation. "It has been argued that rigid code enforcement in deteri- orated areas will so depress property values that new pur- chasers will be able to afford to make the necessary repairs without increasing rents. In fact, this does not happen on any broad scale. While our understanding of the factors which motivate owners of slum property is very limited, a recent study does cast some light on this. The large 'sophisticated' owners of slum property usually have so little of their own money invested that any feasible reduc-— tion in cost of purchasing could not equal the cost of need-— ed repairs. On the other hand, the small ‘unsophisticated! investor is usually incapable of taking advantage of any such economic effects. "In sum, it is our belief that concentrated code enforcement by itself in badly blighted areas would result in more tur- moil than improvement of housing conditions. But to say that this one approach will not work is not a satisfactory answer to a very real and pressing problem. Although we have not yet arrived at anything we regard as an adequate solution, it would be extremely valuable to present some of the prob-—- lems and possible approaches in order to get broader con- sideration." (Staff Report, Housing and Urban Development, forwarded by the Secretary to Senator John Sparkman, Chair-—- man, Subcommittee on Housing, Senate Committee on Banking and Currency, 7/26/66) The assumption becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: Ae Property owners reduce expenditures for property maintenance and repair wherever possible. Tenant and community morale collapse. Constructive community leadership is denied credibility. = hic If it be assumed that power of state and local government to regulate - housing condition in order to preserve life, health and safety is a prior charge on all interests in property, then the equation as to the feasibility of property repair to minimum standard is simply whether the gross rent roll will cover current operating expense, current taxes, and principal and interest payments to cover the cost of repair. Ante- cedent mortgage commitments, as well as the equity investment, are ir- relevant to the issue, Were mortgagees and property owners, contrary to existing assumptions, convinced of this contingency, their conduct concerning property repair and maintenance would be altered significant-— ly. In these circumstances, it would not be necessary that public ac- tion be asserted against each property in a given neighborhood in order to reverse the prior assumptions. A formidable case exists, therefore, for selection of a few neighbor- hoods in which, after complete inventory of structure condition, owner- ship, mortgage debt, and prior history of code enforcement, an experi- mental program be undertaken by the appropriate local public authority, working in collaboration with the local community, in which a number of the possible Federal sanctions here enumerated were employed, The ef- fort is attractive in: 1. Presenting a new attack upon the syndrome of community decline and collapse. 2. Offering promise of reduced public expenditures by imposing costs upon non-conforming properties. 3. Generating increased voluntary compliance with minimum codes -and standards.
  • Tags: Box 22, Box 22 Folder 19, Folder topic: Task Force on Cities | 1966
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 30, 2021

Box 22, Folder 19, Document 6

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_022_019_006.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 22, Folder 19, Document 6
  • Text: PILOT PROGRAM TO PROMOTE HOME OWNERSHIP AMONG SLUM RESIDENT a NY) THe desire to own a home is a basic part of our tradition, Today 62% of American —\ achieved that desire. Yet there are still millions of families who would like to own their own homes, but cannot. They are too poor to do so under present financing arrangements. At least half a million such households now rent substandard housing in our metropolitan areas. A chance to own a decent home of their own might have a profound effect upon their attitudes toward society, Instead of feeling like frustrated and helpless transients floating along in the poverty and filth of the slums, they could begin developing a sense of control over their own destiny. They could gradually build a stake in their communities, and would leam how to use and benefit from legal and political institutions they now regard with hostility. Furthermore, providing these low-income households with home-ownership assistance would merely be giving them the same advantage we already extend to millions of middle-income and upper- income households. These households now receive a large subsidy in the form of federal income tax deductions for the interest and property taxes paid on their homes. This subsidy amounts fo at least $1.7 billion per year for just the wealthiest 20% of our families. This is double the housing subsidy we extend fo the poorest 20% in the form of all public housing payments, welfare payments, and tax deductions combined. Clearly, tax deductions aren't much help to families with little or no taxable income. So simple justice demands that we encourage home ownership for them in some other way more suited to their needs. Therefore, we recommend enactment of a pilot program of aid to low-income families to help them achieve home ownership. This program should concentrate upon slum dwellers because they now have the least opportunity to own decent homes, and because it would help improve sium living conditions in general. The program should assist slum residents either to move out of slums by buying homes elsewhere, or to acquire ownership of newly rehabilitated units in neighborhoods : which are being up-graded through a wide variety of other programs too -- as in the Model )\ Cities Program. This home-ownership programwouldhelp low-income families buy single family \/\ houses, individual units in multi-family condominiums, or apartment buildings which they \ \ operated as resident landlords -- replacing absentee landlords who had neglected their \ Rene \/ Several types of aid would be involved in this program. First, the slum housing units invoived would be substandard ones rehabilitated by a public agency or a non=profit group before being sold-to new owners. Second, below-market-rate loans should be used to finance owners on a no=downpayment basis. Third, potential owners should receive advanced training in the skills of minor maintenance, financing, and other responsibilities of ownership. Fourth, new owners from the lowest-income groups would need a monthly housing supplement similar to the rent supplement, but applicable to ownership payments. Fifth, some tenants in resident=-landlord buildings would receive rent supplements. Sixth, owners should receive follow-on counseling about financing and repairs. Seventh, the public agency running the program would agree to buy back the housing involved during a fixed period in case the owners could not carry the required burdens, As S e , r : A Pilot Program to Promote Home Ownership Among Slum Residents Page 2 A pilot program incorporating these devices could be undertaken for 10,000 units at an annual cost of about $5.1 million for rent and ownership subsidies, plus a reservation of $125 million in below-market-rate (3%) loan funds, plus administrative costs. These figures assume that owner- ship opportunities would be extended to even the lowest-income families. This program would improve the life of slum residents in several ways besides allowing them to become home-owners. Many would take much befter care of their properties and develop a stronger interest in good neighborhoods. Even landlord-tenani relations might improve because resident landlords would replace absentees. Hence conditions in slums might be significantly improved even for people not involved in the program. In our opinion, this is a program solidly in the American tradition, and well worth trying.
  • Tags: Box 22, Box 22 Folder 19, Folder topic: Task Force on Cities | 1966
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 30, 2021

Box 22, Folder 19, Document 7

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_022_019_007.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 22, Folder 19, Document 7
  • Text: STATEMENT ON HOMEOWNERSHIP BY THE POOR The Task Force is convinced that the encouragement of home- ownership by those now living in slum areas would have great value. It is an idea solidly in the American tradition, and well worth trying as a pilot program. | Offering slum dwellers a chance to own a decent home of their own might have a profound effect upon their attitudes toward society. In-. stead of feeling like frustrated and helpless transients floating along in the poverty and filth of the slums, they could begin developing i stake in their community and a chance for control over their own destiny. It should be stressed, however, that if the program is to actually reach the poor, substantial subsidies will be required. Based on an ex- perience in Pittsburgh, the acquisition and rehabilitation of a dwelling cost $10,400 which required for all charges a monthly payment of $106 or an income of $5,000 -- even with 40 year, 3 percent financing. The justification for housing subsidies for the poor is more than morally compelling. The federal government subsidizes middle-income homeowners by $2.9 billion a year tivo cee deductions. It subsidizes the poor by only $820 million through public housing, public assistance, and tax deductions. Recommendations: The Task Force therefore recommends ¢ ) thet the following criteria should apply: 1. The pilot program should seek to provide opportunities for all forms of ownership among slum dwellers: single family ownership, cooperative or condominium ownership, or evierantp by resident landlords of multi-family dwellings. » . 2. Subsidies in the form of low interest loans, rent sup- plements, or "ownership supplements" should be provided to reach low- income levels. 3. The program should provide opportunity for ownership outside the slum, as well as in it. 4. The program should be based on rehabilitation of the unit to standard condition, and prior to assumption of ownership by the slum dweller. 5. The program should be undertaken ety where major ebporte are underway to upgrade the surrounding neighborhood. 6. Organizational capacity should be provided to acquire and rehabilitate the property, prepare persons for ownership responsibility, and provide continuing financial and other counseling. 7. The program should provide agreement to buy back the house during a limited period in case owners cannot manage the newly assumed burdens. # # #
  • Tags: Box 22, Box 22 Folder 19, Folder topic: Task Force on Cities | 1966
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 30, 2021

Box 22, Folder 19, Document 10

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_022_019_010.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 22, Folder 19, Document 10
  • Text: November 2, 1966 Tos Task Force Members From: ArDee Ames The following are some items of interest: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) A list of phone numbers for each of the Task force members and a list of subcommittee assignments are enclosed. The Task Force office is located in Room 237 Executive Office Building. The phone numbers are 395-3247 and 395-5663. The chairman's office is Room 233 Executive Office Building and the phone number is 395«3440. The subcommittee chairmen are requested to notify this office of any meetings that are scheduled or travel planned in connection with the work of the Task Force. For admittance to the Executive Office Building please contact this office.
  • Tags: Box 22, Box 22 Folder 19, Folder topic: Task Force on Cities | 1966
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 30, 2021

Box 22, Folder 19, Document 12

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_022_019_012.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 22, Folder 19, Document 12
  • Text: Distribution: - Dr. Julian Levi Honorable Ivan Allen Mr. Ben Alexander Mr. Edwin C. Berry Mr. Stuart Chapin Mr. Anthony Downs Professor John Dunlop Mr. Ezra Ehrenkrantz Mr. Ralph Helstein Dr. Theodore Sizer Mr. ArDee Ames MEETING OF TASK FORCE ON CITIES Washington, October 28, 1966 Rough Notes taken by Paul Ylvisaker Notes taken at meeting with Joe Califano, White House, Saturday, October 22, 1966 Mr. Califano The Task Force is to have a short and long-range agenda with respective deadlines being December 1 and June l. For the short-range the questions:- (1) Should we encourage home-ownership in the slums and if so by what methods? (2) Does the idea of an urban development corporation for rehabilitation make sense? (3) How can we honor the Presidential pledge to provide legal services for tenants in the ghetto? ; (4) How can we honor the Presidential pledge for neighborhood service centers? (5) What about the proposed metropolitan expediter? Task Force should proceed without constraints of costs and politics. We should keep in mind several other task forces operating in areas close to ours. For example, the "In-House" task force under Shriver to develop more permanent answers to the hot summer problem. Another headed by Bill Carmichael on personnel for the Great Society. The subject of transportation is currently being thoroughly examined with a view towards setting up a new Department of Transportation; to that extent it's not a subject on our task force's agenda. Two Congressional committees having the same personnel will be holding hearings during our tenure. One chaired by Senator Muskie, exploring the proposal for a domestic security council. The second chaired by Senator Ribicoff which will resume in December will not call government witnesses for a while. It will con- centrate first on non-governmental experts, beginning with the problems of data and areal power arrangements. Meeting with Secretary Weaver Concerned with:- (1) the development of national urban policy respecting migration and location of the national population; (2) encouraging a more positive role by the states in urban policy development; (3) metropolitan organization. Robert C. Wood Under Secretary Department of Housing and Urban Development HUD is now concerned with several major problems:- “De (1) working at scale: for example, they now have $2 billion of urban renewal applications with only $200 million available; (2) building up the staffing capabilities of the Department ; (3) general reorganization; (4) de-centralization of HUD operations -- better information systems are needed if de-centralization is to be carried out. The new programs occupying HUD's attention of late: "model" cities; new communities; expediter; metropolitan desks; metropolitan planning. HUD has been proceeding on the strategy of open options; the expansion of free choice for the individual; model for neighborhood facilities; home ownership & jobs in the ghetto; provide counterparts for the public sector. Wood's advice to the Task Force:- (1) Address ourselves to thoughts about cities; not only response to them and their needs. (2) Concentrate on the infra-structure in research & training. Real constraint has been manpower. M. Carter McFarland Assistant Commissioner for Programs FHA Has been working closely with Henry Schechter since they were assigned to check out the idea of indigenous ownership of slum property. They have begun with as sympathetic an outlook as possible. At the very least they are con- vinced there is no single panacea; I detected more of a grain of cynicism than he tried to allow in his discussions. They start from a few basic statistics: . 9 million sub-standard dwelling units nationwide; of which 48% are owner-occupied and 52% rented. However, a great variance between central city and suburb. In the slums: 21% owner-occupied and 79% rented -- in the suburbs: 52% owner-occupied and 48% rented. It is their impression that absentee owners are less responsive to maintenance etforts than owners who occupy. Also that absentee ownership is increasing and getting "less desirable." They feel that ownership hasn't been stressed as part of urban renewal and OEO operations. Some proposals: (1) tie in any program with the model cities program which offers supporting services; (2) use the urban development corporation if legislated; (3) allow for several forms of ownership ranging from individual ownership to cooperative. Task Force questions included: - (1) Are there other and more effective techniques for getting the desired results other than encouraging ownership? (2) Can you use old and new techniques for driving down the costs of property in the slum areas? These costs are now being sustained by present govern- mental programs. (3) What can we say about the possibility of "steady state" maintenance? (4) Aren't we trying to eliminate slums and how does slum ownership fit into that objective? William D. Carey Assistant Director Bureau of the Budget So far no comprehensive strategy has been arrived at in the federal government replying to varying proposals for the neighborhood information service centers. During the summer several agencies produced "talking documents" for the Cabinet Committee. Then the President's Syracuse speech "overtook" the Task Force with a "get cracking" order. There emerged a service group for the facilities approach of HUD, the latter focusing on recreation, etc. They were then talking about $50 million drawn from "pooled" program monies. Presently they are thinking of experiments in 14 cities of 3 classes -- the sponsor- -ing coalition would be OEO, HUD, Labor and HEW. ‘The purpose would be to provide one-stop social services to use 3 different models. Physical facilities would not be the primary emphasis. The key would be to bring together all services and clients and evaluate the experiments. Ralph Taylor Assistant Secretary for Demonstrations and Intergovernmental Relations HUD If model cities program is to succeed, need a rehabilitation industry of a scale that hasn't yet emerged. Industry, large contractors and labor are shittish. The proposed UDC approach using low interest rates and much volume as levers, hopefully might break through. The question remains whether the UDC would have 1ts own K&D or let industry do this according to performance standards that UDC would set. Major questions have to do with the market. Another question has to do with local mechanisms. Indigenous cooperatives might be one answer. | As for the proposed expediter -- it's now being called a representative. It should not be confused with the idea of the metropolitan coordinator which is dead. The representative is to be the federal "presence" -- housed in HUD but che available to all agencies. It would be a source of information on federal | programs; clearing house;.liaison; feedback; facilitator. HUD is ready to go in six experimental cities not necessarily the model cities and concentrating on state capitals. Martin Richman Office of Legal Counsel Department of Justice The Attorney General's work with landlord-tenant relations has taken its marching orders from the Syracuse speech. It will be calling a conference in early December. They will be apparently concerned with tax incentives, though they are not dealing directly with the question of reducing local property taxation. Comments from Task Force Mayor Allen Naturally and necessarily is concerned with immediate problems especially the need for public housing and the problems of race and minorities. Mr. Helstein Agrees that the most pressing problem is that of the ghetto. Mr. Downs ‘Disagrees with Secretary Wirtz if it means forgetting the immediate problems of the ghetto and race. Dr. Chapin Especially concerned with three subjects: a (1) Impact on living patterns of the shorter work week. (2) Emerging urban form; concentrating on the inner-city and regional arrangements necessary to get linear development. (3) The dynamite of the central city -- wondering if there isn't a General Gavin idea of enclaves of development. Mr. Hhrenkrantz Two matters on his mind: (1) urban development corporation (2) developing the data systems and inventory we need on an accumulating basis. Mr. Alexander Impressed with the fundamental outline of the urban problem. We have neither a theory on which to operate nor criteria by which to measure purpose.
  • Tags: Box 22, Box 22 Folder 19, Folder topic: Task Force on Cities | 1966
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 30, 2021

Box 22, Folder 19, Document 17

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_022_019_017.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 22, Folder 19, Document 17
  • Text: neg ts a A ma | if oan ~ pas Ef OT |) Gb \ onniecceee ST ™ 2 \ \ a 1 "lou At) Program; Low Rent Public Housing fat ire and Purpose: This program provides loans or guarantees of loans to local housing authorities to assist them in the developmen of safe, decent and sanitary low-rent housing projects for low-income families and others who cannot afford standard private housing. iG his program also provides annual contributions to local ousing authorities to assist them in achieving and main- aining the low-rent character of the projects. 7 chp’ ry This program provides direct benefits for poverty-striken people. This program also provides financial assistance to loc housing authorities to assist them in meeting the special nousing needs of the low-income elderly. When providing accommodations designed specifically for the elderly, higher than normal “Low-Rent Public Housing o Programs per room costg, limitations are permitted. An additional contribution to the local housing authority (up to $120 per dwelling unit per year) may be authorized. Siris~d—~a Ss Seciat prograntof-essis tance seat the Don Rene PAT STOOGES EUS TEA LOVES Cie bskesits te AlVTaretsi Zz S7 ligibility: Tne applicant agency must be a local housing authority established by the local government, under state enabling legislation, to ve eligible. The formal application must be approved by the local governing body. The Atlanta Housing Authority operates the program for the City. Although the program is generally limited to low-income families, single persons are eligible for admission in tne case of the elderly, handicapped, and those displaced by urban renewal or other governmental action. ; There are only five real factors determining eligibility to live in Atlanta Public Housi —_ (1) The applicant must have en address in Metropolitan Atlanta. This does not mean he must have residence ror any length of time, but he must be living, upon application somewhere in the area. ; (2) The applicant may not have a net income (determine from gross reported income, employer's records, and inciuding certain deductions for children, health, and other factors) nigner tnan the maximums established by the Housing Authority. “nese are: for a family oO. 1 = -$3,0005. 2. = 93.5400; Si §5,.0005 + = 53,6005 2 — 4 ,Q003 ee = wet 53005 { = ob +003 3 a Or, G - GE 600; 160 or more - 5700, These new maximum income ae ‘ aimits were set in DE 1965, and are the first increases since the 1950's. Once eligibility has been Tound, Tamilies may earn more than the maximum and continue occupancy up to certain limits. These continued occupancy maximums are —\— Eligibility continued: $3,750 for one person, rising at increments of about $300 per person, to a maximum of $5,875 for a family of 10 or more. Every family moving into public housing must show some source of income whether it be employment, welfare or social security. Families or 10 or more must receive a special waiver he authority to be eligible. All oi cher families, meeting other qualifications, are eligible. (4) Families must pass a police check as to moral character. While past convictions will not prohibit eligibility, being presently wanted for a.crime will. (5) Each family must demonstrate the physical and mental capacity to care for themselves without placing a burden upon the Housing Authority. In addition, there are two further requirements for the elderly: (a) a doctor's health certificate; (b) a sponsor who can be called in case of death or illness. Fineélly, Tirst priority in public housing goes to persons wno have been displaced by government housing. Although occupancy is 99% full, space is held to a very small degree for such persons. The Housing Authority will also house persons on an emergency basis. 8 or 9 Cuban families are now being so housed. Rents are determinedilupon tne basis of income, source of income, family size, standard deductions,-needs and ovher variables including the number of children under school age. The minimum rent is $20 and rent can be as hign as $05 or more. For the elderly the average rent is $29.00, wnile the minimum elderly rent in a nigh rise is $25.00. Present Utilization: 8,784 units built, 1140 units in planning, 1200 units reservation made but no planning as yet. Totai Trunds received to date - $63,808,000.00 for 15 projects. Name Units Fund Date Built Race 2 Techwood 604 . 2,619,000 19367 “W Clark Howell 630 3,215,000 L940 W u Capitol 815 3,634,000 1941 W (I) Grady 616 2,490,000 1942 N Carver 900 — 10,200,00 1953 N Harris 510 6,397,000 1957 Ww (I) Perry 1000 . 9,217,000 1955 N Bowen 650 9,736,000 1964. N University 675 eye O08 19440 N John Hope 606 2,595,000 194.0 N Egan 548 1,942,000 L9O4+ N Herndon 520 1,883,000 1941 N Graves * 210 25177,,000 1965 N Childs * 250 2,780,000 1965 W (I) Palmer * 250 2,400,000 1966 W ——— Units for the elderly only. There are 2,383 (including those in Graves, Childs, and Palmer) elderly units scattered througnout the projects. ‘ 5 S otherwise noted, structures are 2 or 3 stories high and do not have hall ways. 5 A hign-rise with hall ways. It is interesting to note that in 1941 about 550 units c 2 million dollars; today 2 million will not build naif t many units. This means that tne project is predominantly wnite with a small amount of integration. When (I) is not shown it indicates the project is 100% of the indicated race. ane Program: Low Rent Public Housing, "Turnkey" Metnod Nature and Purpose: Minti 4 his is a new technique for the provision of public nousing which permits a private developer or builder to deal with local housing authority in essentially the same way as he is accustomed to deal with his private clients. Under this system, called the "turnkey" approach, a developer who has @ site or an option, or can obtain one, may approach the Atlanta Housing Authority with -a proposal to buzid in accordance with plans and specifications prepared by his own architect and to @ standard of good design, quali y an workmanship. In tne event that the developer's propo acceptable to tne Housing Authority, the parties will into a contract under wich the Housing Authority agre purchase the completed building. This contract will backed by the Housing Assistance Administration's f assistance commitment to tne Housing Authority, and enable the developer to secure commerical construct Tinancing in his usual way. po It is anticipated that the developer will be working witn architects, contractors and subcontractors of his own choice and will bring to the Housing Authority the benefits of his experience and know-how in producing the desired nousing and related facilities and amenities. The housing should. be suitable, well-designed, and well- constructed, able to stand hard wear for at least 40 years, be designed for economical administration and maintenance, be produced in the most efficient and economical manner, and be located in neighborhoods that will provide a health= ful ana deeent environment and on sites acceptable to th Housing Authority and HAA for low-rent housing. It will be necessary for the developer and the Housing Authority to iscuss in general terms the types and sizes (number of bedrooms) of the housing and facilities to be developed. The developer should consult with the Housing Authority ‘from time to time during the course of his planning to insure the acceptance of his plans when they are developed. In order to promote smaller publicly-owned developments, especially to enable low-income Tramilies to live in tne same environment with families or individuals of nigner income and possibly under arrangements wneredy tne tenants and the property are not specifically identified as being public or private. For these reasons develope rs are encouraged to propose sites considered’ to be too large Ir exclusively public housing to-.plan combined private-publ developments which will benefit both the low-income ten subsidized by the HAA through the Housing Authority an tenants of the developer who may be low, middle, or hi income, depending on financing and economic reasibilit Such a combination could also include cooperative or condominium housing. tn Mc PHO meta ow K _\ - Private developers who have sites or options on sites should contact the Atlanta Housing Authority. Present Utilization: None. This should be an excellent means through which to construct in a snorter length of time the 1,200 units for which the Atlanta Housing Authority presently has @ reservation. Program: FHA 221 Mortgage Insurance for Low and Moderate Priced Homes. . Nature and Purvose: A program of mortgage insurance to assist private indus Tor the construction or rehabilitation of individual s nousing, and for the purchase and repair of new or exi multi-family units (up to 4-family units) that are to sold or rented to low-income families. The program provides housing for families displaced by urban renewal or over government action. Also for families with low or moderate incomes and elderly or handicapped persons HA does not grant mortgage insurance directly to the ontractor. Instead upon approach by 4@ contractor, and Ollowing approval as to property standards, location, need, etc., the FHA issues a committment to the contractor to issue 221 mortgage insurance to the buyers of the homes once they are built. The contractor then finances his operations as normal on the private market. be OQ a 2el mortgage insurance is also available for non-new construction when an individual is buying a house and rehabilitating it to live in. The same eligibilities and down payments apply. Normally, the FHA mortgage insurance will be for ali costs. However, if construction has started on the house berore . the 221 insurance was received, the mortgage insured cannot be for more than 90% of value. Additionally, if the borrow is not to be an owner-occupier (for example, @ person renting housing or multi-family units), or if he is refinancing the property, the mortgage cannot be more than 85% of the amount insurable for an owner-occupier, or 85% of the property value, whichever is less. Normally, the maximum mortgage term is 30 years. However, it can be increased to 40 years when: (a) in the case of a displaced family, the FHA determines the mortgagor cannot make the required payments on & shorter-term mortgage, (ob) in the case of other mortgagors, the mortgagor is wner-occupant and the FHA determines he can't me the necessary payments in 4& snorter-term en oe ke provided the house was approved by FHA or VA bero: and inspected during, construction. Normally, builders have sold homes at a price allowing for the maximum mortgage to cover the purchase pric Therefore, the average purchase price would normally be the maximum mortgage to cover the purchase price. Therefore, - the average purchase price would normally be the maximum mortgage plus $200 for certified buyers or plus 3% for others. @ L . L In Atlanta the maximum mortgage has risen as the nati maximum has risen. However, as the maximum mortgage in Nature and Purpose continued: 1958 was $11,000 and today it is $12,500, the average purchase price can be said to have been from about $11, 200 = oie, 700 for certified buyers and from about $11,330 to $12,850 for other buyers. It should be noted that mortgages on the multi-family rental housing or homes rented under this program are all at the established FHA interest rate ( 5 3/4%) and that on this housing there are no income limitations on occupants &s tava). on the below- “market interest rate nousing under 221(a Eligibility: riority is given to families who are qualified on cre Pp J45 4 £ GLv, family-related by blood, and certified by the U.R.A. 4s being displaced by governmental action. These persons can pay 4 minimum $200 down payment. Other persons who are nov ramil but are over 62 years of age or physically handicapped car if otherwise qualified, qualify for the minimum $200 down payment, or $400 for a two-family dwelling, $600 for vores $800 for four. All other persons, if they are families or over 62 or handicapped are eligible for 221 home mortgage insurance but only for single family units, but they must pay down 3% of the total aquisition cost of tne home -- which would be about $375.00 today as the maximum mortgage | insurable in Atlanta under 221 is $12,500. Non-certified families are allowed to purchase 221 housing because, although the program is intended for displaced persons, the FHA desires to see all units, constructed with FHA encourage- ment under 221, purchased. Present Utilization: From 1935 through 1965, 3,831 home mortgages have been issued under this program at a value of $37,991,450. In 1965, 252 home mortgages were insured for construction under 221 at a value of $2,565,900 (these figures included in 1935- 65 total above). Tn 1965, 69 home mortgages were proposed for construction, but as of January 1966, not constructed, for-a total of $769,000 (not included in 1936-65 total above). These totals include 221 new sales housing, homes bought and rehabilitated under 221, and homes bough and rehabilivated oy &@ non-occupant under 221. These figures are for tne standard Metropolitan Atlanta area. There hés nov been any market-rate 221 mortgage insurance for multi-family _ Housing (up to 4-family units) in Atlanta as of January, 1966. Se Program: FHA 221(d)(3) Mortgage Insurance At Below Market Rate Interest For Rental and Cooperative Housing For Families of Low and Moderate Income Nature and Purpose: There are a number of families wnose incomes are too nign for public housing, but not high enough to compete for adequate housing in the private market. Some of these families have been forced into the market because of urban renewal or-.other governmental action. To help these families obtain housing at prices they can afford, the Federal Housing Administration insures morvgzages on special terms under the provisions of Section 221(d)(3) of the National Housing Act. To keep the rents within the means of the people for whom the nousing is intended, the Act authorizes a mortgage interest rate below the current market rate on FHA- insured mortgages. Priorities for occupancy are given to families displaced by governmental action. Other families whose incomes are within the limits established by FHA also can qualify for occupancy, as can single elderly or handicapped persons. ; Proposed new construction, and existing properties re rehabilitation, with five or more units may be eligib mortgage insurance. A mortgage insured under Section 221(d may carry 4 & market interest rate (at the present ee not more than 5% percent), or a below-market rate. Under these provisions, the interest rate during construction may be as high as the established FHA maximum interest rate at the time of construction. Upon final endorsement or the loan, the interest rate will be lowered to 3 percent. FHA waives the mortgage insurance premium of 4 percent for projects with this low interest rate. For.public agencies, cooperatives (including investor-sponsored), and non-profit sponsors, mortgages on new CONS OTS LON may not exceed the replacement cost of the project; on renabilitation projects, the estimated cost of rehabilitation plus the value of the project before rehabilitation; or if refinancing is involved, the estimated cost of rehabilitation plus the amount required to refinance the out-standing indebtedness. For limited-distribution mortgagors, mortgages may not exceed 90 percent of these amounts. The mortgage on any project is further limited by such actors as family income limits established by the FHA, and debt service considerations. Nature and Purpose continued The maximum mortgage term is 40 years or three quarters of the FHA estimate of the remaining economic life of the property, whichever is less. The maximum mortgage amount is $12,500,000. The mortgage on any project is Limited by construction costs and median income figures established by FHA for the area, Information regarding these limitations Tor a particular area may be obtained from the local FHA insuring office. advances are to be insured during construction two percent of the original principal amount of the mortgage will be required as working capital. This fund must be deposited with the mortgagee by the mortgagor and must come from sources other than mortgage proceeds. Public and private limited distribution projects: If Private nonprofit projects: An allowance of two percent to make the project operational, in lieu of working capital, may be included in the mortgage. With respect to rent, carrying charges, and occuvancy requirements, FHA controls wiil be maintained until the insured mortgage is paid in full. To prevent early refinancing and release of FHA controls, full or partial pre-payment of the insured mortgage without approval of the FHA Commissioner is prohibited, except that limited distribution mortgagors may pay in full after 20 years from the date of final endorsement witnout such approval. All housing financed under the program must operate in accordance with regulations as to rentals, charges, metnods of operation and occupancy requirements set forth by the FHA. Occupancy is limited to families and to elderly or nandicapped individuals of low and moderate income, with preference peing given to displacees.. Projects may be sold only with the prior approval of FHA and subject to prescribed conditions. Eligibility: Projects may be developed by public agencies (except local housing authorities that obtain their funds exclusively for public housing from the Federal Government) or by co-operatives (including investor-sponsored), private nonprofit corporations or associations, or limited distribution corporations, or other mortgagors approved by the FHA Commissioner. A nonprofit mortgagor is a corporat jon or association organized for purposes other than the making of profit Tor itself or persons identified with it and round by FHA to be in no manner controlled by or under the direction of person or firms seeking to derive profit from it. Page 3. te distribution mortgagor organized to build or reh abeh pave a project and sell it, immediately upon ee ere to 4 private nonprofit organization at the certified cost of the project. A public mortgagor is a Federal instrumentality, a State or its political subdivision, or an instrumentality of a2 State or of its political subdivision, which certifies that it is not receiving financial assistance exclusively for public. housing from the Federal Government and which is acceptable to the FHA. A limited distribution mortgagor is a corporation restricted as to distribution of ga by the laws of the State of its incorporation (or by FHA) - or a trust, partnership, association, individual, or other entity restricted by law or by the FHA as to distributions of income - formed exclusively for the purpose of providing housing and regulated as to rents, charges, rate of return, and operating metnods in a manner satisfactory to the FHA. A cooperative mortgagor is a nonprofit cooperative ownership housing corporation approved by FHA Permanent occupancy is restricted to the members, and eiteibtitty and transfers of membership are subject to FHA controls. An investor-sponsor mortgagor is a special type of limited distribution mortgagor organized to build or rehabilitate @ project and transfer it to a cooperative. If the project is not sold to a cooperative within two years after completion, the investor sponsor will operate it as a limited distrioution corporation, for the purposes authorized. To live in these low rent projects, families must be making less than $5,250 per year. It should be noted that these -income limitations do not apply to regular 221 housing. This is a maximum income limitation which varies by ramil Size. There is no absolute minimum but 4 minimum net income after taxes and obligations, which varies by the type or apartment involved and the types of obligations outstanding, is required. © riorities are given to families certified by U.R.A. isplaced by government action. For individuals to a ligible, they also must have sufficient financial capacity and be blood-related (except for persons over 62 or the handicapped). There are no minimum income limits, but eacn family must pass a credit check to show they can arrord th housing. @ 2 By A total of 16 projects, providing 2,071 units have been built, are under construction, or in planning in Metropolitan Atlanta. Those projects, status and rental ranges and income limitations follow: Occupied Wheat Street Gardens 323 Irwin Street, N.E. Sponsor: Church Homes, Inc. ( Private, nonprofit) 280 units - $2,975,000 Opened 1965 Rental Housing Income Limits: 2 persons - $5,650 3&4 - 6,650 : 5 & 6 - 7,650 All 2 bedroom apartments, unfurnished, light, gas and telephone additional. Rents: Upstairs - $69.50 month Downstaris - 72.50 month len Temple Apartments #1 ll Allen Temple Court, N.W. Sponsor: Allen Temple Church ( Private, nonprofit) 150 units (10 buildings, 15 units each), financing not yet closed - Opened December, 1965. Rental Housing Income Limits: 2 persons - $5,250 3&4 - 6,650 5 & 6 75150 7.or more - 8,500 + 2 and 3 bedroom apartments, unfurnished. Light, gas and telephone additional. Rents: 2 bedroom on terrace $62.00 month 2 bedroom lst and end fl. 65,00 3 bedroom on terrace 72..50 3 bedroom’ 1st and 2nd fl. 75.00 Rastwyck Village 2892 Eastwyck Circle, Decatur Sponsor: FCH Company, Inc. (Foundation for Cooperative Housing, Stanford, Conn.) (Private, nonprofit) 6 sections, 441 units - $5,373,400 - Opened 1965 Cooperative Housing Income Limits: 1 person $4, 650 (must be over 62 years) By 5,650 3&4 6,650 5 & 6 7,050 7 or more 8,650 Kastwyck Village continued Furnished apartments. Water,sewerageand garbage are $3.70 additional. Payments; bedroom $53.00 mont bedroom 69.00 month . : bedroom, 14 baths, basement - $79.00 month bedroom tL <00 bedroom, 14 baths, basement 84.00 bedrooms, 13 baths, basement 94.00 WU) 9 Po I ‘Under Construction Pip PL 7 Allen Temple Apartments # 2 ii Allen Temple Court, N.W. . Sponsor: Allen Temple Church (Private, nonprofit) 225 units, completion early 1967 ~ os Rental Housing income Limits: Same as Allen ‘Temple “Apartments # 1 Rents: Same as Allen Temple Apartments # 1 Cambridge Square 3061 Oakdale Road, Doraville, Georgia Sponsor: FCH Company, Inc. ( Private, nonprofit) 134 units - completion March 1967 . 124 units - completion September, 1967 Cooperative Housing Income Limits: 1 person $4,350 (must be over 62 years) 2 5,250 3& 4 6,200 5 & 6. 7.150 7 or more 8,050 Unfurnished apartments. Water, sewerage and garbage are an additional $3.70 charge 1 bedroom $58.00 2 bedroom 69.00 2 bedroom, 14 bath, basement 79.00 3 bedroom 9: 00 3 bedroom, ae bath, basement 86.00 4. Ss bath, basement 97.00 Payments: bedroom, 1 anning or discussion: Wheat Street Gardens (addition) 323 Irwin Street, N.E. Sponsor: Church Homes, Inc. (Private, nonprofit) 2 2ho units in planning, construction to start spring 1907 (will probably be mostly 3 bedroom apartments) Rental housing. In Planning or discussion - continued College Plaza 97 units in planning, commitment issued (but, because rent values were too low, might be reconsidered), no construction plans yet. Ballard Heights 84 units in planning, no formal application yet Halycon 200 units in planning, no formal application yet Park West 96 units in planning, no formal application yet
  • Tags: Box 22, Box 22 Folder 19, Folder topic: Task Force on Cities | 1966
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 30, 2021

Box 22, Folder 19, Document 9

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_022_019_009.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 22, Folder 19, Document 9
  • Text: al hi : Ls09 : Ic) CONFIDENTIAL Memorandum November 2, 1966 To: Paul Ylvisaker From: Stuart Chapin This is to set down a few ideas for the TF agenda. Some of them spell out further the ideas I listed at the end of our meeting in Washington on October 28, The first proposal could be considered in the short-range category, whereas the other two fall mainly in the longer range category. They are in rough form and need “debugging,” and I leave it to you to judge whether any of them have utility for the December 1 assignment. 1. A Program for Easing the Situation of Trapped Minority Groups. Let me first state what is quite obvious to most members of the TF, simply to underscore the urgency of finding solutions. ‘Two statistics about Washington, D. C., dramatize the gravity of the situation and provide clear testimony of the necessity of action -- (1) the fact that approximately 65 percent of the population of the District are nonwhite, and (2) the fact that approximately 95 percent of the school children are nonwhite. Only Federal employment opportunities and constant work by concerned community service groups appear to be keeping this tinderbox from bursting into flame. Though the figures for other central cities have probably not yet reached these dramatic pro- portions, the indications are that similar buildups are in process in most large central cities, Reports from studies of these areas are clear enough that those trapped see no relief in sight and that problems involving education, employment, housing, health and opportunities for upward mobility have reached a critical mass. As brought out in our session on October 28, a total program is urgently needed to bring this segment of the population into the Great Society. Assum- ing that very strong recommendations in this respect are presented to the President and become operative, I would urge inclusion in the total Administra- tion package a new HUD program -- call it a "Program for Humanizing Metro- politan Areas" or a "Program for Urban Development," or some other positive- sounding substitute title for “urban renewal." Two features would distinguish it from earlier emphases: first, it would set up renewal and housing programs on a metropolitan-wide basis as the new Title II type of emphasis in the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act has achieved for other federal grant and loan programs, and second, it would expand on the "workable program" concept to require certain steps for humanizing metropolitan areas as a basis for qualifying for loan and grant assistance. More particularly, under such a program current statutory provisions for the array of different grants-in-aid, loan, and rent supplement authorizations would be amended so that the eligible LPA*ts would be new-type Metropolitan ase SPs” Seg ads eee Area Development Gantestons &* In addition to the jurisdictional change, the key feature of these new Commissions would be an entire new philosophy in the execution of the traditional renewal, public housing, rehabilitation housing, cooperative housing and middle income housing programs, and the new rent supplement program. While the Demonstration Cities Program would become the major central city program, it would be required to meet the workable-program-type criteria developed by the Metropolitan pres Deveicn~ ment Commission, Under the new philosophy an emphasis on “community enclaves" would be featured in contrast to the old massive area-wide clearance and redevelopment or rehabilitation emphasis. The essential objective of this-new approach would be dual -- (1) it would seek to humanize the’ city environment by an across-the-boards effort for the improvement of facilities and services in these enclaves ,2/ each sensitively attuned to the mosaic of living patterns in its environs, and (2) it.would develop and utilize workable programs that would progressively put into effect voluntary open housing guarantees and . introduce various services and improvements in all enclaves. Enclaves would be small in scale, sometimes one block in extent, sometimes two or three, and perhaps affecting no more than a dozen structures in a four or five block area, They would be identified on the basis of a wide range of criteria, including structural conditions in the area, housing vacancies, vacant land, type of existing land use, the proposed transportation and land uses in city plans, the pattern of community orgmizations in the area, social interaction characteristics in the area, and attitudes of residents about their neighbor~ hood, The proposal for humanizing an enclave would wary with the character- istics, opportunities, and needs of each, Program emphases would probably differ in close-in areas from thosé in suburban areas, Experimentation in ways of securing community participation in enclave areas would be an important part of attaining responsible involvement of residents in such ar effort, The housing aspect of the program might involve public land acquisition of scattered properties a few at a time and the replacement of outworn structures with new ones; some might involve rehabilitation by private groups ‘ 1/ The title "Metropolitan Area Development Commission" is intended to convey emphasis on building and development functions, and might be consolidated with the metropolitan planning and programming functions that are emphasized under Title II of the 1966 Act. Whether it is politcalily feasible to phase out the present-day municipal programs in renewal and public housing, T would | defer to others on the TF on this question, but under any circumstances, the new metropolitan emphasis, after allowing for a transition period, should receive the lion's share of loan and grant authorization. 2/ This would mean introducing some of the same coordinative mechanisms provided for under the Demonstration Cities Program into this Program. + or cooperatives and be planred variably, some with and some without rent supplements. The key concept in the development of plans for these enclaves would be ‘voluntary open housing guarantees.3/ Enclaves in outlying sub- urban areas would be encouraged to receive small numbers of deprived families from the central city, and those in central areas would be de- signed tg receive, families of varying socio-economic circumstances seeking close-in locations, For success of such a Program a great deal depends on developing responsible participation by residents of enclave communities and in keeping the scale of adjustment at a low key. To-achieve the full leverage of a program of this kind, special related efforts in local services, education, employment, health, social work, and recreation would be developed, especially in the central city areas, By and large schools would be found in interstitial areas between enclaves and depended upon to help supply a cementing force to the efforts in surrounding enclaves. In short the Program for Humanizing Metropolitan Areas is based on a philosophy of responsible involvement of small groups in making their block or locale a “foster home" for a few new families, A backup effort in special education, employment and other services would be an essential feature of the Program, In effect, in the large metropolitan areas this Program in a metropolitan-wide framework would become a complement to the Demonstration Cities Program which centers on the central city problem. 2. A Stepped-Up Effort in Research on Inter-Group Relations and Livability in the City. The several recent crises in central cities of large metropolitan areas and the groping action efforts to alleviate these situations clearly indicate a failure in backup research, In ‘some respects more serious, there is a lack of an evaluation effort on action taken which would enable conclusions to be drawn on the relative effectiveness of measures used, In any effort to institute action programs in areas as sensitive as those of trapped populations, and certainly in any program to eliminate causes of these conditions, a major research thrust is required, one on the order of that which this country has mounted in space research or in medical research in recent years. Certainly the social problems of today should. be high in priority of attention. But in belatedly researching these problems, the big problems of tomorrow should not be overlooked, One problem rapidly descending on cities is that of adjustments to changed mtterns of living which will come from shorter work week. There is a great deal of speculation on the boredom 3/ Obviously vigorous Administration leadership in amending the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966 to eliminate Sec. 205(£) would be essential. ts of urbanites and their social psychological problems of adjustment; there is speculation about two-house living arrangements becoming much more wide- spread with attendant changes in recreation emphases and traffic patterns; and there are all sorts of unknowns involved in new transportation and communications technologies, With ail this interest and speculation, there is little systematic research going on that would enable cities to take account of these changes in the public works and service programs of a catching-up and remedial sort being launched today, much less enable them to embark on programs of a more positive kind designed for the Great Society. A third research emphasis clearly needed is one which frontally examines the new kind of urban environment respresented in the belts of urban development extending over several states, These appear to be super- ceding the metropolitan area as an urban environment (just at the time when metxo politan-wide approaches are receiving attention in Federal legislation for the first time to a significant extent). The qualitative aspects of living conditions in such regions of the kind noted above is one facet of this environment, but also involved is the whole area of governmental mechanisms for dealing with needs and problems in these belts. Sec. 1011 on the Urban Environmental Studies of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966 needs to be greatly broadened in concept to recognize these three areas of needed research. 3. The Wheaton Proposal for Metropolitan Area Fiscal Responsibility and Action, Although W. L. C. Wheaton*s proposal is already in the public domain, it has not been widely circulated as-yet. In any case, there are features of his concept of "Metropolitan Target Planning" which may have merit for consideration by the TF in the second stage of our work. Very briefly he proposes using Federal zrant programs to achieve a more equitable distribution of fiscal responsibility among the municipalities of a metro- politan area, particularly in the areas of education and housing. I attach a copy of his paper.
  • Tags: Box 22, Box 22 Folder 19, Folder topic: Task Force on Cities | 1966
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 30, 2021

Box 22, Folder 19, Document 15

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_022_019_015.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 22, Folder 19, Document 15
  • Text: MEMORANDUM December 12, 1966 TO : Ivan FROM : Ann RE : Special Task Force meeting in Washington I talked with Ardee Ames and the meeting is set for Thursday, December 15th at 10:00 a.m. I explained to him you inability to get there before noon, and he said that it usually took them an hour or so to warm up, At the luncheon, Mr. Chester Rapkin, who was Chairman of the study group last year, will talk about how they went about what they did, The meeting will be in room 444, Executive Office Building, and the luncheon will be in the cafeteria in the same building. You should go to room 444, and if they have left, check by room 237 (Ardee Ames office) for instructions where to meet for lunch, You are confirmed as follows: EASTERN flight 130, leave Atlanta 10:35 Arrive Washington National 12:00 ,, 4: EASTERN flight 137, Leave Washington National 5:40 p.m. Non-stop to Atlanta 7:12 (dinner served) Also at this meeting, plans will be made as how to continue in January, with interviews, etc, It sounds like a rather important meeting.
  • Tags: Box 22, Box 22 Folder 19, Folder topic: Task Force on Cities | 1966
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 30, 2021