Search (82 results)

Applied Filters (Reset)

  • Tags = Folder topic: Task Force on Cities | 1966

Filters

Result Types

Item Types

Tags

Featured

Box 22, Folder 17, Complete Folder

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_022_017.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 22, Folder 17, Complete Folder
  • Text: , 1fr liSiP £ST WESTERN U NION. M>V 23 e56 lJES2TtJ DE W.A034 lMff' GOVT PD TRE WRITE 1DUSE VASHIMGTON DC 23 Nn sma, J>ONT DD ATllc NEW YORK UMABlt.lTATtOM TOUi SET FOR SUMDAl', U/2T/.S. MElT AT fflffE t>1 NI$• CAIOL HA t:fSD\\Jit ,IQ CDrrRA L PARE i · SOUl'H, PRO PIPTL.Y AT f.lOO '·"· Kl:Ef IHG ON NOffftBD as, VlU. • IN WASlJI~TON AT lOtOO .t.K.,. IDOM ~f.l, EIECUTl9.E OJ'rJCE BIJILJ>JNC:. SECRETARY mvn TO l'ID:T 1JITH GIO'UP !l>NDAY EYllUN~, , TO «ioo p.,. MON U'AN AWN, d~EA~ 1 270 ( 1-5 1 ) /if~ �-LW ~ ATlMffA GA JIM 20 19$7 MR~ MIii 11!0~~ -exte·-~en r- kX F JT TOUR TELECP..#>\ Jute l"O MAYOR idt,LEk ATLA ?.Q TO Rt CHARD C LE.NE THE Wt TE ~~ VA"'-"fUft;TOH DC I~ U~l.tV.:REl). Wt; t-f~E BEEN UNABt! N LOCAT"E flO'!)RI!.~~ COUL1'.t YOU Ary\ff~ ~AT nEJtAR™EtfT. t~ WiTH. WE!fT'EfflJl UlH 'Jet JA. l ~100 EXT 266 .......::··...c., <" . - () ' / . ._,.;;r 1270 ( 1·5 1 ) --:..~ ~ .J'/' ;.,"' :....,.._.., , •. �ATLANTA, GEORGIA PHONE 522- 4463 7 FORM 25-6 �Some addition8l inf ormation on t he Ribicoff Hearings From the Desk of ArDee Ames l ,, ·-·· ... - --- - - -·.·· ,_. - - . . . .,.. - - · -··---- .. �From the Desk of ArDee Ames �From i::he Desk of ArDee Ames Some additional clippings on the Rib icoff He arings. �From the Desk of Ardee Ames �- SENDING CALL LETTERS FJT 11/16/ 66 CHARGE rn UNION BLANK Mayo r I s Office , 20 6 City Hall ' Mr. Ardee Ames The White House Washington, D . C . MAYOR IVAN ALLEN, JR . WILL ATTEND THE TASK FORCE MEETING ON NOVEMBER 19th .AT 9:30 A . M. Mrs. Ann Moses E x ecutive Secretary Send the above messa ge, subiecl lo the terms on back hereof, which are hereby agreed to PL EASE TYPE OR WRITE PLAINLY W tT HIN BORDER-DO NOT FO LD 1269- (R 4-55) �I L:. MESSAGE T KE BY THIS COMPA IV A ES ECT T T .E FOLLO GT MS: CLASSES OF SEP.VICE DOMESTIC SERVICES INTERNAT!ONAL SERVICES f'ULL RAT£ (FR) TCLCGRAM Tb •,. t :. J.Jm tic 1tn·1:-e. Th r I t o, f'na rr< C"·I tu Htoro.w, lcttt- iv r; t & r lowlJlfii: morn1n,. tr, le '.\1 r tie t .,,_ 'P."Ti:t o In c:O..!e, c!phrr. or In :tD)' ltma'UACO es, �WESTERN 1'5P EST NOY 15 66 1F171· OEA,'4 OE WA069 QOYT FD WUX THE WHITE MOUSE TfASHitGTON OC 1,- Pf'T HON~BLE IVAH ALLEN,. DOMT DVR IUYM ~ - A'ft.ANTA GA ATLA ,/ / I TM£ S.EC I\) $ -f "'O s: C) "3 z .... 0 c- 8 14 4 ) �C. Memorandum TO : Date: November 17, 1966 Paul :1. 'lvisaker Proj ect/No. : Q\ · Ezr - · re ·rant z Subject: Area of emphasis f or _1\fhi t e House Task Force on the Ci t y In tryi ng to \ r ite a l et t er in response to your reques t at t he fi r s t tas k f or ce meeting , I - ve 'ecome i mpress ed by t hee tent t o whic the maj ority of the problems tat ,e tal · about today have be r evi wed over and over again in t he past. On mos t of thes e I am r elatively inexperienced , and rathe_ t han t r ying t o s et out a gra .d f rar.iewoT. on al l oft e proble. s that we shou l d t ry t o deal with , I would like to co c nt te o. o, pa ti cul ar area whi ch I feel very str ongly about . T·.e Federal GoverTu~ent spons o: s a great deal of research i n city pr oblems , s ome of it a cade~ic, and the bul · of it practical . Neither benef its substanti al ly from t he other . ~- eor i cal study o= t he city conc e. t ates various l y on urban growth and f or m, soci al ecology, or the plani ng process, , aking litt l e cont r i bution to t he unders t andi ng of action pol i c ies . Proj ects are deve l oped on an ad hoc basis to meet a comproise a~o .g the exp essed eeds of t hei mor e voca l constituent s ; the out come i s fre uently wide of t he first objective and t here i s seldom any attempt to show how it got t .ere . Te z a Le o co tro led experim nt s i n t he f ield and l ittle cumulat i on of evide ce . 4 Performance in both the academic and pr actical area s of urban s t udies could be improved by p::-ov::.ding a bridge bet ween the t wo ki nds of work . I sugges t that a portion--pos ibly 2%- 5%- - of eve_y Feder al progra directly or remot ely aff ect ing t he city be cornm~tted for exp rimental work , and that thes e experi ment s be conducted under t. e diTect·on of an interl ocking body whi ch wou l d repres ent and s erve all the affett ed Federal agenc ies, State and local ofx icials where appr opriate and repre sent atives of industry , labor and the academi c communi t y . In addition to performing ( 1) res arch and (2) experi ent al projects, thi s body could: · (3) pTovide policy coordination between agencies, (4) serve s a c learing hous e f or information on regu lar and exp erimental programs of the linki ng agencies, and for consulting services i n r esearch and planning , (5) direct cont act research fo r other publ ic and non-prof it bodies . By: 120 Broadway San Franc isco, Ca li fo rnia 94111 Phone 415 434 3830 �Page two These _pe::i .1 e .ta l progrc:.1s Nould :. eviell the effect of possible changes in codes, ~ or practices , ma:ket organizat i o and many other aspects of our work in c.:.ties Khich affect cost and erJ..or-1ance of our physica l structures . We would equa _ly be co .cer .ed with t he relation or people t o one another , t· ,e i .troduct·on of social s ervices, and the development of nei ghborhoods . By structu ing the -- eri : ental prog·ams, i t should be poss ible to develop a data base which wou d enable future decis.:.ons to be made on major programs for the city on bctte .:.. fo _ ation t han we ave today . Givei. sue a means of coordina·~ion, Federally sponsored urban studies could be st uctured .:.n a planned, cu ulative s equence, co. tribute reliable experimental evide ce, ru~ p~ovide a sound bridge between a cademic and practical sttidy in the fie d . I hope that a1. .ot stressing a point of view on a single subject too strongly fo _ t .e first go- r ou d . Ezra Ehre ·rantz �.., EVtE ~VDl\Y U1 tEll}J:r' ,;~c; tr/~r; ,,, · life is a relentless. search for it." In analyzing this coexistence of the p a thological and the healthy, Lewis gives considerable precision to a term th.at he originated: the "culture of poverty." And he provides some im· ~:; JeH::HAEL HARRINGTON portant · theoretical insights of con~ VIDA" is unquestiona bly one siderable relevance to some of the . of the most important books political debates going on in America published in the United States today. this year. It is a shat tering account E ssentially w hat Lewis does is to of three g ene rations of the Rios famincorporate two of the m..s last decade, the la tent nobility they are the ir own best novelists. The Rios f amily m akes n ever h ad to cope wi th the k inds surfaces, a nd, if it cannot of ,p roblems which confront the transform m odern society, it . the dialectical concep t of the Rios fam ily every day. still m akes a disproportiona te culture of p over ty unbea ra bly It is f rom t h is va n tage p oint . contribu tion to social chan ge real; the world which they describe is intolerable and their tha t Lewis can s ee the neigh- and the common goood. r eminiscences should m ove a borhood gang as a "considerI h ave, to be sure, some quesable advance" over t he m on! tions and r eserva tions about s tone to t ear s. Yet U:!ey have n ot been overwhelm ed; they r av.aging d espairs a n d anomie aspects of Lewis's discussion . I tha t can be found in the cul- think t hat the number of Amer- h a ve a capa cit y t o a ct on t heir t ure of poverty. One r emembers icans who live in the culture own behalf that demands libof p overty, and are poor, is eration, not n obles se oblige. the fea r\ul case in point that (Continued from Page 1) in Harlem in the 1950's when I IL r \ �THE WALL STREET JOURt'l\JAL - NOVEMBER 18, 1966 GOP on the Offense P\,evived Party Seeking ~1ore Positive In1age \;\Tith. 'NeYV Fecieralisn1' l\1ore Local, State Activity With Federal I-Ielp Is Goal; Beating LBJ to the Punch? But Unity l\Jay Shatter by '68 By JOSEPH W. B t a,ff R ep orter of S ULLirA N T H E "\\' ALT, STREET Jot:RN.\L WASHINGTON - Congressional R epu blica ns are b eginni ng to fl ex thei r n,ew p ostelection muscles. And like th e ex-weakling in the tra ditional beach scene, they're getting a n exhila r a ting f eeling tha t they can outfight the "big bully' ' - in t his case L yndon J ohnson. This n ew optimism is not based on prospects for r a mming through s pecifi c GOP-sponsor ed · legisla ti on in a Congress s till dominated by the D e m ocr a ts . R ather, t he R epublicam p la n to seize the lniti a live in polit ical thinking fr om their foes and bui ld a posit ive image for themselves. At bottom, there's a sense tl1at momentum : fro m last week's big elec.tion gains m ay en- , able the GOP to break loos e from its long defensive s tance in Congress. By qui ckly advancing a n ew political motif of their own, R epublican lea de rs, especia ll y in the House , hope to shift th e public focus away from the standard _ meas ure of th e past generation: Na m ely , h ow li beral or cons ervative is the GOP 's stand on Democra tic we lfare prog rams . With the l!l68 Presidential election in mind, moreov er , th ese Republic;m strategis ts t hink t hey ' ve hi t. on a theme th a t ca n uni te p arty liber a ls such as New York's Sen. J acob J a vits , midd le-roaders such as Gov, Geo rge Romney of · Michigan and conserva ti ves such as iroYernor-elect Rona ld R eagan of California, Goldwa te r Goa ls , Re,·ers3 neasons In capsule form, th e e m e rging strategy consis ts of pursuing m a ny of U1e goa ls Ba rry Goldwa ter ad,·oca ted in his 1961 Presidentia l bid but r evers ir.g th e reasons for doing so. T he objec t w ill still b e a mu ch bigge r rol e for stale and local goYernm ent and private enterp rise in comba ting the country's. ills . But Instead of invoking th e need "to pres eHe the tried and t rue rnlutions of the p a st," the stre~s will be on " mod ernizing ' ' and " energ izing" gove rnm enta l s tructure:, to cope with the rohle m s of th e future. And ins lPad of leaving a n Impression tha t they WOllld disman tl e pa rts of th e F ede ra l Go,·ernment, the GOP s lrate-_ giEmmittee. · · -/ Aside from such bipartisa n un derlakings as raising Social Security benefits or overhaulin;; the cli-aft, GOP lawmakers don' t see much imm ediate chance of actually framing i-najor legis1acion. As various Grea t Society programs come up for extens ion, though, there's _hope for us ing the pa rty's added voting power to . give s tates and localities a bigger rol e. In the c·a se of F ede.r al s chool aid , which comes u·p for r ene,,:al In · 1968, current thinkin;_;- is lo press for · giving coi-n mun lties much more leeway to s et iheir owa priorities. As for r c\"enuc-sha ring with the states , ! ew Republica ns entertain a ny serious hope of getting such a program .of: the ground in the next two yea rs. "We'll hold out rcvenue-shar- , ing as the first order of bu~in ~~s a fter we 1\ r e;;ain control of Congress In 196 ', ·· s ays a lop party planner. . ..,.. �,~ uHHH uld HUI V0L0 THE NEW YORK TI MES - NOV. 19, 1966 W!DE_SCHOOL PLAN ., I 1/~o,1-a;-4ci(\-, Seeks to Help the Poor by · Making Permanent the Gains of Heaci Start By HAROLD GAL Sp~c lal to The ~ e·1-.· York T!mes WASHINGTON, Nov. 19Sa rge nt Shriver has proposed a broa d program to help unde rprivileged child ren retain the gains th ey make in the Government's H ead Start proj ec t. The direc tor of th e Office of Economic Oppo rtu nity, which admin[sters the program for prekind ergar ten children, warned th a t the p resen t elementary school system was "critically inadequate to mee t the needs of children of pove rty." He . urged educators across the · country to do the following: · l,iProvide one teacher for every 15 children. (]Utilize new sou rces of educational manpov:er, such as teacher aides, "subprofession, als" and volunteers. CjEstablish a program of t utorial assista nce in which older ' students from high schools and college would take part. GEs tablish neighborhood councils and community associations, outside of parent-te ac her groups, Uiat would get paren ts involved i n the activities of every public sc!iool. t;Provide an adequate supply of all necessary supplies, including toys and film s, and make broad use of electronic learnino- : ai ds. "' : c:l l nitiate prog ra ms to "train : "childhood development spe- : cialists who wou ld work exclu- : sively in ea rly primary grades, diagnose obstacles to a child's progress and p!·escribe help by other professions, s uch a s psychologists, sociologists and reading specia li sts. Mr. Shriver put his proposals forward in an addre;;.s yester - 1 day before the opening session i of the · annual meetino- of the ' Great Cities R esearch° Council · at the Pfister Hotel in :Milwa ukee. The sessi on was a ttended bv i top ed ucational officials and I other leaders from . the 1 larg- ~ est cities in the lJnited States. Mr. Shriver spoke from notes, and the official text of his re- I marks was made public in I 1 \\'ashington today. T he Shriver program: which he called Project Keep ::\Ioving, I teacher f or every 15 children; ?>Ir. S-hriver said that puttin<> teacher's aides and other adult; in to the class room could m a.t- e 1 J foZ:. any. failure to achieve a l-ta-1.:> ratio. He urged that the neighbor- · Continued From Pa o-e 1 C 1 7 hood be dr3:wn into the school 0 • ____ ,, , so that cluldren and parents was Inspired by a major study a!ike coul~ feel tha t ed:tcation : made publ ic on Oct. 23. T hat wa~ a basic pa rt of their total study found tha t the education- environme~t. . al adva.,tages gained by a pre- M~. S_hn\·er said th at elecschool child in the h ead start tro1_1ic aids ~ad alrea~y proved program tended , to disappear th en· effectiveness rn Hea d sLx to eight m onths after the Start c_lassrooms.. . child had started h is r eo-ula r He did not say m h is address 0 schooling. whe~e funds for Proj ect Keep The study •was d irected b y l\~?vmg would .come from. A:t . Dr. Max Wolff, senior r esearch ame m t~e Off~ce ?f Econo.mic : sociologist at the Cente t· for Opportumty said m \?ashing- , Urban Educa tion in New York. t.on today that Mr. Shnver belt was sponsored by the F er- heved th.at fund s would be Kauf Graduat e School of Ed- m ade .available ~hro.ugh F ederal : ucation at Yeshiva University and Slate agencies if th ere wa.3 . and supported by fu nds from c:1ough pressure from commun!- , the Office of Economic Op- ti.es throughout the country. . portunity. Pointing to the Wolff study, : Mr. Shriver said that "the . 'One Grade at a Time' readiness and receptivity" that · Mr. Shriver conc~ded tha t his many children "gained in H ead i proposals could not be accom- Start has been crushed by the plished all at once. H e said. broken promises of first grade. 1 howeve r, th a t "any u rb:rn schooi Projec t Keep :Moving, he said, ~ system with imagination and a could stir "a r e\·olution in edu- · r easonable use of r e ·ources cation from preschool through 1 could t ack le the job one grade college." at a time." " Only if we maintain the : H e called Projec t Head Sta rt pace of Hea d Sta rt throu ghout ' "a shor t-t enn experi ence, and a the school sys t.:!m," h e said, ! shot of educational adrena lin "ca n we create an educational whose effects ca n w ear off in process whi ch \ Vill give every : the grinding bor2dom a nd frus - disadvantaged child in our na- . tration of s lum classrooms." tion a chance t o obtain the h ighAckno\l'ledging th ?. t it would est educ2.tion level in h is · be d iffi cult to provide one pow:eri' SHRIVER PROPOSES WIDE SCHOOTiJ DI1 AN Ill!) �.., THE EVENING STAR Washin.gtcin, b: c:; Frldoy/ Novem6rir .i8, 1966 \·• ·=-- ' •\ ' ~' I ' _, ~• ' ~ ~ . : A-3 X .,.c; ."' ,•• - - - - - - - P O I N T OF V I E V I - - - - - - - GOP Bg]res By MARY McGRORY Star Staff Writer Rep. 1\11elvin R. Laird, chairman of the House Republican - Conference, has unveiled the economlirl]L~ 5ra1Q.iQP I ·'s e Union" message, which the _newly revivetrminority party plans to repeat-January. He expounded at length on a federal-state tax2 h,l)~inf-n!an ~ ~ginallv pushed bVTvafter1'ieller. wno ser ved noTFi Tue New r."7cinticr and the Great Society as chairman of the President's Council of Econom"ic Advisers. Congressional Republicans are putting a major effort into their minority declaration this year. With 47 new House ' members and a brilliant array of new faces in the Seriate, they hope their "State of the Union" which was somewhat facetiou_sly received i!i 1966, will be taken seriously in 1957. Laird told the press he thinks the real action in the coming year will be in the House, where the swelling of R epublican ranks means that some of the legislative goals might actually _be accomplished. Jn drafting the "State of the Union," the views of the newly elected governors a·nd legislators will be consulted, but L aird said he hoped the House Republicans "would not get involved in presidential politics." He and House Minority Leader Gerald E . Ford alr eady are involved to some extent, since they ; ·aised the money to fin ance the highly ·successful 30-staet campaign tour of Richard M. Nixon. They sought and received clearaz:ice from Ford's governor, George W. Romney, the leading contender. They said they were working not for the candidacy of Nixon but for the congr essmen whom he was boosting. The drafters of the "State of the Union" paper foresee little difficulty with the domestic proposals. The Republican governors went on record in July 1965 in favor of the taxsharing scheme. But if .Senate Min;rity Leader Everet t M. Dirksen EconoR~uic Plan· opposition were formed during , reserves for himself the right to speak again on foreign the Eisenhower years, when · the then· Senate Minority · policy, as- he did in 1965, the Republicans will find them- Leader Lyndorr B. Johnson · took the position that partisan· selves in difficulties. differences stopped at the , Dirksen pleased neither ha_wks nor doves of his party water's edge. with his previous declaration. The rule was observed, He will again fail the hardexcept in 1954 when Johnson, liners like Nixon and Rep. in concert with several other Ford, who favor increased air Democrats, took exceptio.n to and sea power use and the the Eisenhower policies in soft-liners; like Sen.-elect Viet Nam. Charles H. Percy of Illinois Dirksen initially made a few and Sen.-elect Mark 0. Hat- noises about Viet Nam last field of Oregon, who empha- · year, but refused the _langua ge size negotiation. , provided him by the Joint The Senate minority leader Minority Conference and went is a law unto himself, and all the way with LBJ in his none of the technicians in the portion ot the ·'State of the House leadership can appeal . Union." to him to shape his views to Romney is botll vulnerable theirs. · and defensive on for eign Dirksen's thinl-:ing on loyal policy. He r evealed in his first post-election national television appearance s~mday that he not only has no position but no views he dares express. It is this weakness that may prove to be the opportun ity of 48-year-olcl Sen.-elect P ercy, who proposed the all-Asia peace conference, which he _ insists, despite the presidential trip to i\'Ianila, has never occurred. · Percy makes no secret to fello w Republicans of his feelin g that he is far more informed on quesliohs of war and peace than the governor of Michigan. · He has one other adva ntage over Romn ey. He supported his party's nomi nee in 1964 and Romney did not, a circumstance for which the . Goldwater wing of the par ty has not yet for given him. If P ercy- no matter what . Dirksen s ays in the " State of . the Union" message-forges out. a peace position, then it could mean problems, not only · for Rom ney, but for President J ohnson as ,1·ell in 1968. r �THE WASHINGTON POST - NOV. 19, 1966 ·- --- Teachers Seen Using Slunis as Excuse By Henry W. Pierce iwere among more than 2500 , excuse their own failure 1o ·I which is incorrect All the an. p IT '1: S ~UR G H, Nov.. rn Ipersons attending the four- 1jteach the youngsters properly. th~opologi.sts here ha Ye main'. The Nat10n s schools are usmg day American Anthropogical c·t E J tamed trac the culture of povI . 1 es xamp e · erty on e t h b · d 1ower-c 1ass children's "povcr- Association meetin" here. ' , c c P . as een m1sus~ . ty culture" as an excuse for . hSe told about a New York . But perhaps it's our own pomt not educatin" them adequate- ·An th ropologists, who tradi- City teacher in an underprivi- j of view that needs changing." Jy a lead in.'.: social scientist tionally have studied such !edged school district who took . He charged that anthro polo- I charged her; today. things as tribal cultures and her students to the _airport as l?ists a_re "very ~rnch inrnlvedl Dr. Estelle Fuchs, anthro- man's remo te past, have pa.~-t .of a class. proJ~ct. th~,ir own middle-class culpologi;;t at New York's Hunter . . It was the first time those , tures. . I 111 t 1 College and author of the shown . a spurt of i~te_reS children had been out of their · .· controversial "Pickets at the P_O~erty groups w1th 1_n the own neighborhood," she de- ! - - - - - - -- - - ~ ~ Gates," said schools tend to Umted States. A sc~s1qn on clared, adding: i freeze underprivileoed . chil- poverty drew a stand mg-room 1 "They were amazed when . dren into a lower-;lass way crowd here, while sessions on I they got their first glimpse of 1 of life. tribal .customs and on baboon I an escalator. One of them: Washington schools arc a behav10r drew only scattered : asked_ whether it tickled if you 11 prime example of this, she attendance. . Irode 1t. That teacher used the : said. Dr. Fuchs, one of six speak- 1incident to prove her students She also cited schools in Iers ~.n "'!~e Culture of Po\·· 1hadn'~, the intelligence to Pittsburgh, Los Angeles, Bos- / rt_y, said _ schools a:e l~ard-1learn . . _I ton and New York. i emng many_ of the c!Jffe1ece_s i Dr. Fuchs called this att1- j t ' between middle-class Amen- tude "typical" among many · . t n· An th ropo 1og1s 1ssen .s , . . ;, cans an d 1ower-c 1ass groups. teachers. But a \\. ahs mgton University "School ad ministrators are . anthropologist, Dr. Charles A. usinN the 'culture of poverty' ' 1'ot Scheduled Valentine, di ~agreed with her. conc~pt to absolve themselves At the end of the session, ·Dr. Va!entme_ charf5cd an- from responsibility," she de- Dr. Valentine, who was not a scheduled s peaker, stood up t)1ropolog1sts with fa1_lurc to clared. live among underprt\'lleged I Teachers, she said, often use and declar ed: . groups as a means of study- Iin such terms as "psycho lo Ni- "It seems to me ther e has ing them. Ically unready" and "~uturally been a common thread run"Anthropologists can sludy Iimpoverished home liie" to j ning through these discussions a South Seas culture and find · · , order, hut they go into Harlem and find nothing but disorder . They study our own slumdwellers with questionnaires and interviews ; they are apparently too afraid lo go and live as on e of them," he as- . sertecl. He -added: "It boils down to this: we are good ,a nthropologists overseas and bad anthro-. pologists at h ome." Dr. Valentine said he intends to "live among the poor" · -as par t ·of a study h e is undertaking n ext year in the Brownsville section of Brooklyn . Four-Day Meeting Dr. Fuchs and Dr. Valentine 0 r ! • Im i , . . I ~ - �.. THE EVENING STAR . ., Washington, D. C., Saturday, November 19, 1966 CHARLES BARTLETT ,- ·Poverty Program to The available insights indicate that President Johnson bas been . more than slightly surprised and discomfited by the election returns. Predictions are rife within the bureaucracy that he will "bunker up" and play a more cautious lead for the next two years. Johnson has conjectured to associates that they all may have erred in bragging excessively about their legislative triumphs. He balked even before the election of beiug finished with the Great Society because its legislative foundations had been enacted. Such hints of an intention to embark on a new tack of leadership are bolstered by polls, which show that a significant segment of the voters, about 48 percent in one Republican survey, would prefer him to be more conservative. A· much smaller group, 19 percent in the Republican poll, wants a more liberal President. One crucial test of the President's dlrection will be the anti-poverty program, .·. which is certain to founder in the next Congress unless he wraps a strong, protective _arm around it. Johnson applied the Gavin plan to the war against poverty 0t the same time that he rejected it for the war in South Viet Nam. The domestic war bas been a holding operation and · its enclaves are on the verge of being overrun. , Tl-ie · tenbative guidelines on which the Budget Bureau has shaped its hearings foreshadow no significant change in next year's poverty package. The total appropriation will be approximately the same and the Office of Economic Opportunity will not be stripped of any of its progriams, as the Republicans proposed last spring. But this in itself is not enough to save a program so close to being destroyed by its enemies . The poverty warriors have been left almost defenseless by the President's failure to translate the enthusiasm with which he declared war on poverty in 1964 into the funds 1 and support needed to sustain an offensive. Johnson did almost nothing to help Sargent Shriver and. f . bis associates in the past Congress and he may well intend to let them be devoured by the next Congress. The blood will not be on his hands · but he will be rid of a Pandora's box of embarrassments. · The President may have underestimated the implications of his promise to stamp out poverty in 1964. He probably did not realize that he was launching a social revolution that would cause old-line social workers, bureaucrats, mayors, governors, senators, congressmen and the poor themselves to rise up in noisy, intermittent indignation. As an old New Dealer who likes programs that kindle gratitude, Johnson may well be mystified by a welfare program capable of causing so much dissent. The trou bles. arise because Shriver and his cohorts have unflinchingly declared war against all the forces which submerge the poor. Convinced that this was more than a matter of putting federal money in poor men's hands, they have poked their way deep into the subterranean caverns of the social structure, roused all kinds of bats, and raised new questions. Johnson undoubtedly envisioned something more like the Labor Department's Neighborhood 'Youth Corps. which is a simple, almost a leaf-raking type of program that funnels more than onequarler of a billion dollars into kids' pockets withou t teaching them much or raising man~' - -- - ('-. issues. It is a safe, unimagi.na~ tive welfare program and it is. extremely popular with Con: ! • · gress. The war on poverty will settle into this comfortable pattern if Congress abolishes the OEO. The bureaucrats.' know the New Deal techniques well and they will back away from contentions like · the , current one that sandwiches Shriver between the liberals who advocate sterilization and . the Catholics who oppose birth, control. -. George Bernard Shaw wrote_ that "nothing is ever done in this world until men are prepared to kill one another if it is not done." The kind of allout war that the President declared and Shriver ha~ waged may involve too manr basic changes to be accomplished in a tepid political climate. a\ But P ar.dora's box has been opened . "The rich man thinks of the future," according to an old proverb, "but the poor_ m an thinks of today." Johnson has raised hopes that are unlikely to subside because of a conservative tinge in the election re turns. © 1966 l I I l Ir t . L _ .rI I �TH~ NEW YORK 1BIES, SUN'rJAY, NOVEMBER 20, __1966. Lawyers Begin Drive Agai11st Poverty lea-al · profession-the fasioning were U1. e deserving poor and the By SIDXEY E. ZION 0 {' legal remedies to achieve undeserving poor." Speclu to The :Sew York Times human r ights through the ap- "As a practical reality," he CHICAGO, Nov. 19;;--A major plication of imagination schol- continued, "we are still living ~ffort t? .~evelop new_ and arship." . with that today." imaginative legal remed ies to For example, he said that He pointed to states that deny combat _:poverty was started class actions by slum tenants aid to dep endent children because here this weekend by the could succeed eYen in states the moU1.er, whose husband has N.A.A.C.P. Legal Denense and where there was no legislation deserted her, is suspected of Educational Fund, Inc. providing for this right. The having sexual relations with an"\.Ve are mo ving into an era class action, which is a lawsuit other man. of pove_rty Jaw which in some bro_ughl by a nun:be;; of persons Compilation of Cases sense 1s com parable to the actmg t ogether, 1s a descendcivil rights law· of the mid- ant of the 17th century," Pro- A 246-page book, p repared by 1930's," Ja ck Greenberg, direc- fessor Levi said. · Cl_le- Legal Defense Fund, was tor-counsel of the fund, said. Similarly, he suggested, a dis tributed to all the la'_vyers Mr. Greenbern- called on tha tenant could force a landlord t o here. The book, which will be 200 lawyers g~thered at th e rehabilita te an . apartment on expand ed_ ~eriodically, contains University of Chica go Law the basis of "the ancient doc- court decisions, legal essays and School to benefit .from t he trine of abatement of a nui- forms that lawyers can use in Mbes t thinking" on the legal sance." preparing cases. The subj ects aspects of slum housing, we!A Char o-e to Lawyers covered 11:re consumer credit, O fare, consumer fraud, and the • • slum housmg, problems of farm farm and migratory workers. I_n most s~ates, Profes~or 1;:_~~1 and migratory workers, and "Those of us who years ago said, there 1s n_o effec tl\•e leo1"- welfare laws. were concerned solely with lation to reqmre la ndl ord s t o "If we could mobilice the orthodox issues of civil rights," repair ruridown apartments. people h ere," said :Michael he sa id, "have little by little B_u~. he said, by th~ use t ra - :\Ieltsncr, a lawyer for the legal and for a time not fully realiz- d1tional legal d oct1 ines, fa sh- de fens e fund, "there would be ino- lt been dea ino- more and ioncd with skill," the goal can a t remendous exposure of the ·m;re with ques ti on; of poverty be accomplished, _ problems of th e poor to the Ap- : and issues affecting all ·Amer- "The cha:ge" to la\\ y ers in pella te Court and to th e people : icans. our generation. he concluded . of the country." · _ . is t o throw open the door s of H e continu ed: "The trouble · 1-ie\\ Techniques Sought the courtroom where t radition - now is th a t th ere is not a genVirtually all of the lawyers ally w ehave sea r ched fo·r truth era! undcrs ta ndin " as to how h~re for th e week end confe1:ence and eq_u ity, so th a t r ights Ion?. people li\"e in slu nZs, what hap- : on la w a nd poverty are act1\"ely rec ogm Zed can be effectua ted. pens t o the m io- ratory work er, enga ged in r epresenting poor :Mr. Levi is profes sor of urba n th e credit ab ufes that afflic t · persons, either through f ederal- studies a t Chicago. o-he tt o people, anci the way t he ly funded organiza tions such as This morning a welfare law poo r are trea ted in the lower the Office of Economic Oppor - expert, Edwa rd V. Spa rer, crim inal courts." Mr. Greenberg said that the . t~ni_ty or throu gh_ legal a id so- wa rned the. Ia wye:s tha t. there c1eties, or as priva te Iav,ryers was m creas mg resis tance m th e confer ence here was "the first cooperating with the Legal De- co untry t? t~e "bas ic prem ise" of its kind in the country" and fense Fund. that the mdi gent have a nght th a t h e hoped it could be set up . E ssentia lly, t he purpose of th e to assistan ce. on a na tion a l and rco-ional basis · conference is to expose th e Mr. Sparer, \\"l'io is legal ?i- in th e futu re. "' lawyers to new thinking on old r ector of the Center of Social The Leo-aJ Defense Fund is subjects, and to explore various Welfa re ai:id. Pu~lic P olicy at not a pa rt of t he National Asnovel legal techniques tha t Columbia limver si ty, n oted th a t socia ti on fo r the Ad\·ancement mig ht be used on behalf of the some ·welfa re depa rtmen ts an d ·of Colored P eople. It is an in' disadva ntaged._ cou~t_s had recently t a l~e n th e ldcpendcn t, non profit corpora' In the ope ning address yes- pos1_t ion ~hat persons m ight b~ ti on \;,ith its ow11 boa rd, budge t, t erday on ~! um housi ng, Pr_of.jdemed aid _e\·en thou ? h th e) a ncl a staff of a ttorn eys devo ted , Juli an_ ~ o~ the .Umvers1ty 1m et the ehg1bihty requ1 rem cntsl to p rovi ding a ssistan ce in legal of Chicago, sa id: of the law. action. '· · · "In cs ence our task ls as ' "It all s ta rted," he said , "in , an cient - ~nd hon orable as th e th e Eliza betha n days when th ere r ~! I L ,-,--- I r �THE NEW YORK THIES - NOVEMBER 2l, l966 WIDER UREA:-NROLE • • • . • -. :: : ..... . . ~- ... ..., ., • • ',iii • - - -- • • • • . governn'ient · \v"iL~in m etropol_i- .been lagging fa t'. behind both Ag ricu_lture, Robert c. W eaver tan . areas, and innova tions m local and Federal a ctivity." . of .Housing and Urba n De\·eI. · ' rela tions between the · Federal "Yet," it- wen t on, "the s ta.tes opment ; Senators Sam J . Ervin Government, the sta tes and occupy_ :critical position within··fr{in1~ North c a:·olina:· Ka rl E. i . , . ,. . Joe~~ C0!lJm)-_tnities a re . __needed the . American F ederal sys tems lEdmundofS S. ~t\_Dakota,' ~n~ !i . ·· • · , · · · to overcome these obstacl es," a nr! possess ,t he power a nd ·res · . : us_,ie °,,f ll[ci.ine,41 'I · _._;' • ,. ~-. - ·c,.· . ,··· -- ; · it sajd. .- _-_- -· · . ·· . · , . . , . . sou:<:es ~o. s tre~gthen l9cal ca - ~ :P~';- enta t_1\ es , Euoene J. U.S. Report Scores Lao- 1n The r eport was prepared for pac1ties and stimulate greater Fou00n 11ta·no_f NNe,\thYCork ,1. L. _ Hd. ·. . . "' th . . b B J . r r th· t rt i o i or a roma an Facin& ,·Cities'" P(ciblem Fr1e~~;n~~ss~~fat/ pro~116:57, 29 December 2017 (EST) of 143.215.248.55 16:57, 29 December 2017 (EST)!~,f ion '\ 1 · m me ropo 1 a_n Florence P. Dwyer of N ew Jer. 0 .__. · , · . "" · · •• sey; ·and i\fayors Neal S. Bla is1 - - - - -.- ..- .- . . i " . ,, c1L_y . pla nning at Massachusetts . _ Specific Proposals dell of Hon 0 I I H . G Id;. .. · · · , !. t nst1tute. of ·T echnology, . a n_d . . . · u u, e1m~n o WASHINGTON, Nov. 20 issued ' b·y- the House Go\'ern- Many ·of the. comm1ss10n s n~r of St. Peters~ur g , Fla., (AP)-A report issued toni o-ht m ent Ope·rations Committee. spe_cific_ pror.iosals, _s u~h a s st~te Ri~ha rd , C. Lee of N ew H an n, . . '.' Much of the r eport was de- leg1sla t10n t o l!m1t · zoning a n A:tnur A. Na fta lm of Mmby _a House committee predict_- voted to. the need for st a te powers of smaller suburbs and neapol!s. ed_ tha t the F edera l sys t em legislation providing g r eater to limit_ incorpo_ration of s~pa - - - -- might be g ravely weaken_ed ui:i- home rule, m etropolita n plan- ra t e umts w1th11:_ m etro?ohtan less states increased their ro1e nin o- and s tren o- thenin o- of a-en- area s, have been issued m earin so)ving the problems of ;-net- eral·go\'ernmen"'ta l units, a t op- lier reports. ·. . . . ( ropohta n area s.. pos ed to school dis trict s wa ter l\'fembcrs of the comm1ss1on R ·' It said states ha d !ag ged far a nd sewera o-e boa rd s a n~! other include Govs. John N. Dempsey n behind F ederal and ;,;~:11 gov- s in o-le-purpt se o-roups. . jof Connecticut , Nelson A. 2 ernments in dealing wi.h s uch / But it noted° tha t the vas t -Rockefeller of New York, Ca rl c p_r?blems and that, a s a re5Ult. increase in ·Federal program s F . S':.nders o_f Georg ia a nd Rob- ~ cities had bypassed ~ta tes :, ml ,a imed at metropolita n areas ert _E. Smylie of Ida ho ; Secre- JJg one directly to \\ a slrn1g tL·,: · should serve as a basis fo r en- t;i. n es H enry H . Fowler of the ' for h elp. · couraging m etropolita n pla n- Treasury, Orville L. F reeman of .1 .., .~ · ·. "l\I!nimizin g state pa r~iripa - ning for both the centra l city tion m u rban a ffa irs 1~ t:111ta - a nd surrou ndi ng suburbs. mount to r emo\'ing s t~ ce in fl u- "The Cong ress a nd executive ence from a critica l n 11ge ~f agencies should a uthorize a nd domesti c iss ues," th e r epor t encou rag e r esponsible j oint pa r said, adding tha t withou t st.ate ticipa tion in urba n development part icipa tion it is doubtfu l programs b.y local g overnments whether local g overnment can having common p rog ra m objecbe r eorganized t o meet its tives in m et ropo li ta n a reas tha t g rowing r espons ibilities." everla p politica l bounda ries," \Vha t is seen a s a n urgen t the repor t said. need t o re-establish a role for . Willia m G. Colman, th e comthe sta tes is a · p rincipa l theme mission's executive di rector, of the 168-pag e r eport, a prod- said in a st a tement a ccompanyuce of seven yea rs of work by ing the r eport tha t "the soluthe bipar t isa n Commi s,jnu_ on tions to metropolita n problems Inter.£"o\·ernmenta f R 0 l 0 ion~. can be de\·e1oped by the states, notes t a t with metropoli- b y the F edera l Government, or t a n areas g rowing so fa st that by both." some 75 per cen t of the naAl though the . r epor t mil.de it tion·s -popula t ion would live clear that the commission fa. there by 1980, the Governmen t vo·red ·such . developmen t a t a ll would have to pro\·ide man:r of levels, l\Ir . Colman said tha t the services· indivi duals could "the decis ion as to wh ich it will furnish themselves in a p re- be res ts · to a considerable exdomi nan tly rura l economy. t ent wi th the sta te · governBut the repor t a sser ted tha t ments, becaus e it they choose · "poor coordin a tion a nd conflicts not ot a ct , th e m etropoli tan . of interest among governmen ts problem by default, becomes often block effec ti\·e action to la rgely a Federal problem." 1 deal w ith metropolita n prob- The report suggest ed th a t · !ems." . this had a lrea dy ha ppened, a nd "Chan·g es in th e structure of said t::a t " the s ta te rol e ha s' (~U-RG-ED--FOR:STAT-ES r I ·f 'l -- �. ___ \ ....._.,... . . l ' THE NEW YORK TIMES, ·.M ONDAY, N OVE':\1:BER 21, 1966. .POPULAT.ION ISSUEIf _ .,. .,~· .\/,·<:.··'.-,·.: -,:-~:'-~ ,,,·-~-~I . ~i-,. ! ; !:· -- ., . ···:.~ '.l ··· PERTURBS H TIRTZ [ J./, -: . •'·· ' · ,._ .~~,, · H 1 .., Dangers F oreseen i ·r,'i "Just as science has made training in ,two \\.;Y~ by_ pro~·id-· ,ri-;/" ~ war t oo dangerous to be left _to ing an across-the-board mcrease I the aenerals, Mr. W irtz said, in medical t raining and by !)roj ;- _ .-_ .-·· · · I' "scie; ce, when it unloc_ks t~e viding a S30-million fund to ·<:- ;:Y;r ,. ·f arcane of thought an~ llfe Will es tablish 60 academic chairs to tf .>.• ·. • ;:_ · • ,-:,. · I either h ave made science t oo s tabilize the college's long-range He Discerns Inadequacies in i j f ,...,, . ·, ·.:.~ . . dangerous t o be left t o th e sci- educational program. ~ '\ !1~~;,;_s,' / : ,~,. _,entists or will have made gov- ' Ee indicat ed that medical Birth Control Discussio1is i . 'fl'::.;J -~ _s;.'t_·,..-·:· F.'t!i ernment t oo danger~us t o be student enrollment would in{_-,_ , }it,-.:,; ;{ ;,;~~ {- · .t;;' left t o the governed.' crease from 96 t o 120 a class, that enrollment for doc torates is E~~s!;~~h~~ll~:lv;~~it~~ would double from 45 to 90 and 1 t hat there would be a substanW il- ; · ·\ . .,% ,f>_}:f--'.:_'_,_, began yes terday a S120-m1l!Jon s e! ;et:~; Jard Wirtz observed critically 'Z.h'f': _: pt /d, development program over a ti2! inc rease in the number of . ' \,\i,,~j:;,,,. . .. • ·  :::-",-i.fa; 1 10-year period to _strengthen_ :nte:n residents and post-docyest erday' tha t the controversia l "'(.lf_,:. and ex tend the me~1cal school toral fellcws trained. question . of birth control had t ...' .·, \_·, .. • . -~'0 progra ms of education a nd reTo pr'.lvide fac ilities for its not been dis cussed openly- :. . . ·. .qf. i..,._Y:: ~ search a nd the development of cxp~.nded enrollment, t he E in"unless -to be der ided"-a t the /r · _;;:·,,,.- , / ' · :,.J ::xtensive facilities. Medical School is planning r_ecentlyth heldh eletchtion catm- f:_ .· · ·"· J ack D. Weiler, chairman of ste::-i ./ E duca~:anal Center . paigns roug out e coun ry. f -·-..1.,, the Medical College's Board of :nr15-story He":~h Sciences on its N oting that some population ;. ,/ ,Overseers, a nnounced that the · -campu.;;. experts· predict there will be f , campaign h ad · started _ wi~h T he build ing would proYide three billion people 01· m ore by t/_ .· preliminary pledges of Sl J-nul- classrooms, lecture nails and t he year 2,000, :Mr. Wirtz added ~ . lion. laboratories, as \\'ell a s other that "t ~ere is ? . ;;:owing aware- i One of t he highlight s of the facilities, including a two -story ness tha t centuries after 1\1:al- I convocation was t he presenta computer center and headquarthus's warning- that t her e may , tion of honorary degrees to four ' t ers for a greatly expanded pronot be fo od to feed so many." l.......... prominent Americans for vari- gram of preventive medicine His r eference to :Malthus reThe New York T i mes ous achievements in their and communit y health. 1 ferred t o Thomas R. Malthu3, VIEWS BIRTH RISE: fields. · Three large middle - income 18th century economist who Secreta ry of Dabor W. WitCited were 1\fr. Wirtz, who apartment houses ,::'.I'. be built was a uthor of the theory that la rd W irtz said birth con- was awarded the degree of on' the campus site to provide_ population t ends to increase docto r of laws ; Cha rles H. Revresidential quarters fo r nurses, fa ster than the f::l:Jd supply, and trol issue s h ould h a ve been son. chairman of the boa rd of h ouse staff, married s tudc:-its, tha t war , disease and famine a re d iscussed m ore openly iii Revlon, I nc., doctor of humane pos t-doct oral fellows and juniur I !'!~ce~=~ry t k ee:' t:w popula- . t i!3 .::.Cl_ccfio-;: · · ca m 1i::i.i~l]s.;_: letters ; Dr. Albert B. Sabin, faculty. · tion in balanc with the food who developed oral polio vacsupply. P opula tion H althus said,, cine, doct or of science, and Dr. mus t be checked by moral reSidney Farber of Ha rvard straint.Medical School, doctor of sciSpeaking at a s pecia l convoence. cation at the Albert Eins tein Dr. Samuel Belki n, president Colle"'e of :Medicine in th e upof , Yeshiva University. who 0 per Bronx, Secreta ry Wi:·tz awarded the degrees, observed used t he birth control qu estion t hat the r ecipients represented as an example of the failure of,· the "creative pa rtnership of in his words, "the majority" to government, science and philanface u p t o t he k:iowledge· thropy in the growth and development of American medical science ~- consta ntly dc·,elop· · education and re earch." ing. . · · · I 'l'he new program. j\fr. Weiler "There is, at least," h e said, sa id, would streng then medical "a rouah equiv:i lent between both th; na ture and the infinite importa nce of t wo pur.,uits: that by the life scienti~( of th e method· of creating life, a nd that by society of how t o con- 1 . o! bi rth.. . J t \::::c:.L l \L' {1 r. 't '/;;,:~lt)( <.· f ·· ·., f. i A ·_·._ .: · t I _.-. )~,!~ · ~~t -:• l I"_ 0 I L L _ f I ~. �r 15, 1 66 Force Tot At th , direction of P ul Yl of the pr y r, I tt chi • Ch pin on lo - r n i , co y es for co If y _ aibl roul to t l c.re of dt trl utt of lee it to t' _ oth .~ merm>e:r•• �STATEMENT ON LANDLORD-TENANT RELATIONS For a tenant who is poor and lives in a slum, the balance of power in landlord-tenant relations is an unequal one. The slum dweller's ability to compete in the market place by moving elsewhere is · sharply limited. His ability to -seek legal redress is hampered both by his level of poverty and the lack of an adequate · framework of legal protection. His ability to obtain protection from government is limited by inadequate code enforcement programs and a lack of effective governmental sanctions in dealing with major code violations. Reformation of landlord-tenant law is a state and local government responsibility, but of major importance to the national welfare. The federal government already has substantial authority to help protect the rights of tenants through better code enforcement. The steps ta.ken by the federal government, while indirect, can be of decisive importance. I I I Recommendations: 1. The Task Force therefore recommends: That a National Institute of Urban Housing Law be es- tablished and adequately funded on a long-term basis. The Institute should be em.powered to prepare model statutes, develop briefs, and serve as a clearinghouse of housing law information. ~-- ... __ / / �2. That the administration of HUD' s "Workable Program" which now statutorily calls for an effective program of code enforcement, be strengthened (a) by giving the matter highest possible priority in the · Department, (b) by clarifying regulations and developing specific criteria on what constitutes an effective program, and (c) ~by requiring · uniform statistical reporting to determine comparable rates of municipal performance. 3. That HUD's program of aid for concentrated code enforce- ment (Sec. 117) be revised to allow the use of such funds in hard ·core slum areas to cope with most urgent code violations, or new legislation should be sought to provide a new aid program for urgent repairs and intensified municipal services in such slum areas. 4. That HEW should be directed, either by legislation or administrative action, to require as a condition of continued welfare payments that state and local governments establish a program that: (a) provides a system for the inspection and certification of major code violations and the opportunity for welfare recipients to elect to with- I I hold their rent where justified, (b) allows rent to be placed in escrow for the repair of such violations, and (c) requir~s enactment of appropriate legislation prohibiting summary eviction of such welfare tenants. 5. That all federal departments concerned with property acqui- sition prohibit peyroents for values rep~esented by the amount of code violations. 6. I -- _/ That federal departments dealing with the audit and veri- fication of real estate and mortgage loan assets require certification, for each property concerned, that no official complaints of code violations I are presently pending. �December 1, 1966 SUMMA_·1w REPORT TO T:FIE ?R~SIDEI\i'T BY THE TASK FORCE ONT}~ CITIES ... ., - DJTRODUCTION The Task Force was convened on October 28 to give con sideration to issues and proposals in four areas : centers, (2) homern-mership by the poor, Corporation, and (4) (3) (1) neighborhood Urban Development landlord-tenant relations . GENERAL CONCLUSIONS Neighborhood Centers: A federal inter - agency progr ara should be initiated on a demonstration basis . But t he goal should be to shape the tot al service system of a city, so that it effectively meets needs from the individual's viewpoint and not just to te st out different kinds of "models II as though neighborhood centers a.r e ends in t hemselves r ather than t he delivery ar m of the city's service system. Homeownership by the Poor : trying on a pilot program basis . Is a good i dea and well worth But it is no panacea . It should be made part of a. larger neighborhood i mprovement program. It should make mmership possible outside the slum as well as i n i ·~. Dwellings should be rehabilitated prior to asswnption of mmership . Low interest loans and rent supplements or other subsidies from owners will be necessary . �2. Uroan Developr .ent Corooration : As a means of stimulat ing teci_r1ological and o-che r cost-s aving i nnovations, it is an attr active idea . But it must be done on a large enough sc ale if it is to have any i mpact . A number of risks ar e involved. Fir,. commitments on t he availab ility of low- interest loans and rent supplements must be made . Landlord - ten2.nt relations : The federal government ha s present authority, and can issue additional administr ative regulations , to help tenants by requiring vigorous code enforcement a s a condi tion of federal assistance . In addition, consideration should be given to using welfare payments as lever age to correct serious code violation s by l andlords . s·lmn areas . HlJ1) 1 s aid program for code enforcement should be used in A National I nstitute of Urban Housing Law should be es - tablished . fl :ff ,t " · �SlJi,~,_;_/illy STATEJ'l.lEI,iT ON 1JEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS The Ta sk Force is concerned over what appears to be a tendency to look at ne i ghb orhood centers through t he i·r.cong end of the telescope . The quest ion is not how many cente rs we need, n or whether t hey should be pure information centers , di agnosis centers, one stop r:mlti - purpose centers, or othe r combinations . The ques tion is how to t ake the bewildering maze of pr e sent social service s (broadly defined)- a..'1.d develop a system for delivering those services in a manner th.s.t ma..1-rn s sense from the st andpoint of the men, women , and children who need he l p the most. Ne i ghb orh ood centers c an serve as the delivery ar m for the city's system of social services . They can serve effectively, however, only if the city's system is rationally orgru1iz ed to :provide coordinated and mutually reinfor cing s ervices in a manner that genuine ly meets the consumer's needs . They cannot and should not - - be come small repli c as that simply mirror and se ek to compete wit h the larger institutions that make up the pr e sent dis or g anized system . In t he long run that woul d only add one more twist to an already t ortuous maze . Unless there is reorgani zation at the federal, s t ate , and local l evel t o develop a system that is tailored from the viewpoint oi t he i ndividual's needs, the establishment of neighborhood centers in every ghetto of America wil l have little lasting value. �Recommendations: 1. The Task Force therefore recommends: That the proposed inter-agency demonstration in 14 cities negotiate only with cities willing to develop plans and mechanisms for the coordination and rational delivery of its service system. 2. That, to the extent possible, this inter-agency demonstra- tion be carried out in cities participating in the Model Cities Program. 3. That the inter-agency steering committee be directed to study and make recommendations for revision of federal statutory and administrative regulations that would contribute to the development of a coordinated system 4. That, to provide greater funding flexibility, legislation should be sought to enable HUD to use present funds for services as well as physical facilities. 5, That any neighborhood c~nters established be equipped with the mandate and resources to serve as an effective catalyst, influence and advocate for making the total system more responsive -to individual's needs. 6. That the program be carried out with maximum participation and involvement of the people to be served. I I I _,,...- I ~ �SUBCOMM ITT EE REPO RT ON PROMOT ING HOME OWNERSH IP AMONG SLUM RES IDENTS I. Fact ua l Background l. 2. 3. The federal governmen t already prov ides a very significant subs idy for home ownership among middle-income and upper- income groups t hrough income tax deduc tions for int erest and property taxes. a. In 1962, th is subsidy amounted to a $2.9 bi llion tax saving for midd le- and upper- income groups. b. The uppermost 20% of a ll fami lies (w ith incomes over $9, 000) rece ived a subsidy o f $1 . 7 bil lion in 1962 - o r doub le the total 1962 housing subs idy given 1·0 th e lowermost 20% in t he fo rm o f public housing costs, welfare hous ing payments, and tax deductions combined. In ge neral, own e r-occupied ho mes in slum areas a re in better physica l condit io n t han ren t e r-occupied homes. However, this may result from the fac t t hat owners genera lly have higher incomes and mo re assets than ren t ers, rath er than from ownership per se . a. Th e proport ion of substa nda rd uni ts a mong fami lies w ith inco mes be low $4 , 000 in c ent ra l cities in 1960 was 8% for own er-occupied uni ts a nd 21% for renteroccupied un its. b. The pro po rt ion o f unso und dwe lling un its among a ll fam i ies in c entra l citi es in 1960 wa s 11% fo r owner-occupie d un its and 33% for ren t er-occupied un its . c. Th ere is a st rong consensus a mong housing expe rts and so cia l wo rkers ex perienc e d in slums tha t prov iding fa mi ies who want to own homes w it h a chanc e to do so wo ul d induc e signifi cantl y grea ter responsibil ity on t he ir part towa rd ma intenan c e o f bot h property and genera I neighborhood cond itio ns. Low-income residen ts get less qua lity pe r do lla r of rent than higher-income residents, and non - white get less t han w h tes. 0 a. In Houston , 80% o f low-in co me families pay ing $40 to $60 pe r month rent Iived in deterio ra ti ng or dila pida ted units, as compa red to only 21 % o f families with incomes o f $3, 000 to $6,000 payin g the same rents . Similar fi ndings (but less ext re me) were ma de in all cities recentl y studied. b. In Chi cago, w hites a nd non-whHes both pai d a median rent of $88 per month in 1960 , but the med ian unit fo r non - w hites was small e r and mo re crowded, and 30 . 7% o f a ll non-white occupied units were deteriorating or dilapidated, as compared w ith 11. 6% of al! white-occupied units. �-2- 4. Absentee ownership is higher in slum areas than in non-sl°um areas for comparable types of property. However, this could be a result of slum cond itions (for example, many peop le wealthy enough to be owners may not want to live in slums) rather than a cause of t hem. 5. Res iden ts o f poveri·y areas and racia l gheHos consider obtaining decent housing to be one of their most significan t prob lems. Yet they often feel frustrated by their apparent inabi Iity i·o improve their housing conditions through their own action. a. II~ 111. Most soc ial workers and other o bservers of slums believe that many very lowincome families have a strong desire l·o own their own homes. Objecti v es of Programs Encouragi ng Ho me O w nership 1. Providing more persons living in s lums wi t h an opportunity of shaping their own destiny regard ing the na t ure and condition of the ir housing. Thi$ would help t hem (a) develop a stake in society, (b) derive signifi cant benefits from governmental and other institutions they now regard wi th suspicion or host i lity, (c) learn how to make good use of such institutions, and (d) increase the feelings of self-estee m, pride, and adequacy which are so batt~red by life in s lum areas. 2. Improving the quality of housing occupied by s lum dwellers, and the qua lity they receive per dollar of expenditure on housing. 3. Providing a greater incentive for s lum a'wel lers to better mainta in the pro perty they Iive in, and to generally improve their own Iives. 4. Improv ing landlord-tenant rela tions among slum dwellers by shifti ng fro m absentee to resident landlo rds. 5. Prov iding easier and more widely accessible means for some slum fami Iies to " escape" from s lum areas by buying ho mes in non-slum and non-ghetto areas wh ich are nearer to new sources of jobs and have better-q ua lity env i ronments and government servic_e s. Constraints Under Which Any Programs Should Operate 1. Programs encouraging home ownership among persons now liv ing in s lums should involve two major facets: improving housing conditions and household morale in slum areas, and helping households now living in those areas move to better neighborhoods. Neither of these facets should be neglected. a. Those parts of any program concerned wi th slum areas themselves should be linked w ith re habili tation of housing in such areas. b. Those parts of any program concerned with helping people move out of s lums need not be linked w ith rehabilitation. �-32. 3. 4. Home-ownership-encourag ing programs shou ld be tried and developed only in three types of a reas: a. Slum areas where the en i·ire env ironmen t is being upgraded through o ther programs, such as improved government services, better schoo ls, intensive socia l work, etc. Ownership a lone is no t a panacea and c anno t co pe with a ll t he dep ressive factors in s lums. Hence s lum ownership programs should be tied in wii-h Model C ities Prog rams. b. O lder bui· well-established and stabl e neighborhoods genera ll y in good physical cond ii"ion and sup p lied wi t h good-qua lity govern ment services. In such areas, programs cou ld be both lin ked wi th rehabilitation o f t he few run-down struc t ures presen t, o r ca rried out wi t h hous ing a lready in good co ndition. The un its invo lved would be occup ied by e ith er new owne rs moving in from slum areas, or present renters in the neighborhood assuming owne rshi p . c. Newer and ou tl ying and suburban ne ighbo rhoods in excel len t conditio n and supp lied wi th good-qua lity governmen l· services. Here s lum dwe ll ers would assume own ership o f hous ing a lready in good cond ition. Programs en cou ra gi ng ho me ownership by s lum dwellers must no t work to thei r disadvantage. These programs shou ld nei ther cause suc h ho useho lds to in v est in property likely to deprec iate rapid ly in va lue , no r II lock them in to the s lums" and b lock their chance to move out into better ne igh borhoods. The refore: a. Such programs should no t be undertaken in slum areas w here cond itions are so bad tha t most o f t he dwe llings w ill e ventua ll y be demo li shed and replaced. b. Such programs shou ld not be un dertaken in any slum a reas un less 11 a ll-out 11 environment-improv ing programs are also currentl y underway. c. Suc h programs shou ld embody a "take-out " feature . It wou ld co nsist o f a guarantee by some public agen cy to buy the un it ba c k from its new owne rs within a certain time period a t no loss to them in case they decide (1) they would rather move ou t of th e slum area altogether, (2) they cannot handle the con tinuing burdens of owne rship, or (3) they do no t want to own this property beca use of con tin ui ng decline in the quality of the neighborhood as a whole. However, owners would be allowed to keep at least a portion of any capital gains resulting from their selling their property to other persons likely to maintain the property adequately. Ownership-encouraging programs linked to the rehabilitation of s lum properties should require it to occur before those properties are transferred to thei r new owners. The costs of rehabilitation can then be built into the debt structure of �- 4- these properties. Such cos"i·s can ·i·hen be subs idi zed th rough (a) e 1m!naJ·ion o f any required down-payment, (b) use of below-market-interest-rate loan fu:-i ds, (c) prov ision o f rent subsidies to tenants in resident land lo rd bui Idings, and (d) prov ision o f owne rship subsidy paymeni·s to new owners who are not land lo rds. 5. In order to make even t he lowest- income groups e lig ib le for these programs , 't would be desirable to chan ge pub lic aid regu lations so that we lfare payments fo r hous ing cou ld be appl ied against debt service and other ownershi p costs as we as a gainst rent. 6. Such programs shou ld not resu li· in the reaping of large profits by a bsentee owne rs who have refused to keep up th e ir propert ies, but who are required by t hese programs to se l I their properi"ies to o thers. 7. O wnership-encouragi ng programs for s lum dwel lers mus1· embody sign if cant preand post-ownersh ip counse ling and financial help admin istered by o rgan iza t ion s located in the slum areas themselves. These supplementary programs a re essen t ' a l to he lp t he new own ers w ith the lega l, fi nanc ial, maint enance, and rehabilita tion prob lems they w i 11 en counter a fter assum ing own ershi p. 8. Such pro gra ms shou ld no t requ ·re eit her the new owners or their ten an ts to ra ' se signi fi cantly the propo rtions o f thei r in comes they spend on housing, since t ha t pro portion is a lready high. 9. Because o f t he uncertainty conc erning the possib le success o f owne rsh ip-encouraging programs, and the particular forms o f them wh ic h w il I be most effective , they should be started on an experimenta l basis. This implies t ha t: -a. Sev e ra l different formats shou ld be started simu ltaneous ly, and eac h shou ld be tested un der a variety of condifions. b. Such programs shou ld be started on a rela t ive ly sma ll sca le, a nd expanded to larger-scale o peratio ns on ly aft er some experien ce has been ga ined about wh ich forma ts are most e ffec tive. c. Ea c h experiment shou ld be designed so that its effectiven ess can be accurate ly eval uated w ithin a rel a tive ly sho rt ti me. The obje c tives which shou ld be weight ed most heav ily in such eva luation shou ld be those concerni ng th e pro~ gram's impact upon t he ind iv idua l househo lds and fami li es invo lved, ra th e r than its impac t upon the phys ica l condition of housing, or th e flsca! status o f the c ities concern e d. d. The federal agenc y sponso ring such programs shou ld develop a set of specifl c formats w hic h it seeks to t est , and shou Id be sure that eac h o f th ese formats is g iven an e ffective test in one o r mo re c ities. �-5e. IV. Individual experiments shou ld be in corporated in the Mode l C ities Prog ram in many cases, since this program has been created to stimulate and test innovations in cop ing with s lum cond itions. 9. Programs encouraging home ownership among slum dwellers shou ld not be eva luated in terms of their effectiveness a t sav ing money in relation to other housing programs (such as urban renewa l o r public hous ing). They w ill probab ly cost no less than such o ther prog rams, and perhaps more. -Bui· they can be evalua1·ed in terms of thei r effectiveness at sav ing money in the long run by red ucing the costs of o ther programs aimed at coping wh"h the impacts of s lum a reas upon individuals. Examples are welfare programs, po lice action, and anti-de linquen cy programs. l 0. Ownership-encouraging prog rams can be best undertaken when norma l market forces are bringing about a rapid expansion in the i·otal supply of housing t hrough extensive construction of new mu lti-fami ly and single-family homes. O therwise the add itional demand fo r housing generated mighi· simp ly a ggrava t e any existing shortages and drive up prices and rents, rather than increasing the supp ly ava ilable to low-income families. This means such programs w ill func tion best when interest rates are re lative ly low rather than in a 11 tight money 11 c lima te . Suggested Programs l. A program to locate s lum dwe llers now renti ng in absentee-owned bui Idings who migh t become successful resident land lords , to find bui Idings appropriate for conv ersion from absen tee- to resident-l and lordship, and to assist the persons found to assume own ership o f those bui !d ings. a. The program wou ld invo lve full subsic;lies for down payments where re uired, and wou ld fi nance on-go ing o perating expenses and debt amortization out o f rents. b. Costs o f any rehabilitation necessary to bring the buildings up to con formity w ith re levant codes wou ld be cap ita lized into the debt structure. c. Below-market-interest-rate loans wou ld be used to finan c e purchase~ d. It wou ld concentrate upon buildings now in poor condition, but still capable o f satisfactory rehabilitation w ithout enormous costs. These buildings cou ld be a cquired from their absen tee owners through a 11 sq ueeze-out 11 process of code enforcement w ii-h minimum public investment. e. This program wou ld be applied on ly in 11 minimum-sized pieces. 11 Each would invo lve a c erta in minimum number of buildings located c lose together in a single block o r a few adjacent blocks. The number of uni ts wou ld be of sufficient "c ritical mass 11 to affect the entire environment of �-6- the b lock or b locks invo lved . Mo reover, eac h such "critica l-mass-sized piece" wou ld be processed simu l'·aneously and as a who le by the govern ment agency hand li ng the prog ram, ra-rher than one bui lding at a time. 2. f. The famil ies seek ing 1·0 become resident land lo rds unde r this program would no t have to remain in i·he spec ifi c buil dings t hey now occupy, but shou ld be allowed to assume ownersh ip in the neighborhoods whe re they now reside. g. In cases where recoverlng the cost of rehabilita tion requ ired rents ·n excess o f the ability to pay o f loca l low-in co me ho useholds, ren t subsidies would be linked into the ownersh ip-encouragement progra m. The combin ed effec t wou ld (1 ) provide rehabilita ted un its for low-income renl·ers and (2) a llow some low-income fami lies to become resident land lords in these rehabil ita t ed bui !dings. h. The program shou ld be run by new, loca l ly-offic e d o rgan izations operating under th e jurisdic i"ion of t he Ass istant Secretary 6f Housing and Urban Deve lopment for Demonstrations and Resea rc h. (1) Because the basi c o biec tiv e o f this program wou ld be a c hange in the soc ial cond it io ns and men ta l a ttil- udes o f s lum dwellers., it wou ld be des irab le fo r primary responsibility to rest in some a gen cy other than FHA . This wou ld a llow FHA to reta in its bas ic " prudent inv estment" o rienta tion w ithout conflkHng with the o bjectiv es o f t hi s program, w hi ch vary from II prudent investment. 11 As lon g as this program is muc h smaller t han FHA 's ot her activ ities (and it must be at least to start), it wou ld be diffi cu lt for FHA to generate the necessary enthusiasm and out look to encou rag e !·he high-risk and frank ly experimental operat·ons essent ia l to success. (2) The Assistant Secreta ry shou ld set general standards of performance and evaluat ion for the program. However, he shou ld be fre e to c reate a variety o f specifc o rganizationa l a rrangemen ts with loca l groups to o perate the program in different metropo litan a reas. Examp les are non-pro fit co rporations, chu rch groups, un ions, or city departments . (3) Each such organ ization shou ld opera t e loca l neighbo rhood o ffi c es to assist new owners w ith (a) pre-ownersh i p training in housekeep ing , mak ing minor repa irs, and lega l responsibi lities, (b) counsel ing on main t enance and fi nancing du ri ng the initial ownershi p period, and (c) fo l low- on counseli ng as necessary. A simi la r progra m to he lp ren t e rs in slum areas take over ownership o f indiv idual un its in mu lt i-fami ly bu il d ings on a condom in ium basis (but not on a cooperati ve ownership basis). �-7- a. This program would hav e a ll o f ·i· he attributes of the first program described above except the use o f rent subsidi es (parl· g). b. If the in co m_es o f the potential owners were not suffi c ient to pay the ca rrying costs o f ownership, then an add it iona l con t inuing su bsidy cou ld be used. This subsidy wou ld be considered the eq uiva len1· o f i·he in.terest and pro perty- tax ded uc tion subsi dy en joyed by midd le-in co me and upper- in come househo lds. Since low- income househo lds do not hav e enough income to benefit fro m such ded uctions, they wou ld be given direct cash equiva lents. The higher the income, the lower the equiva lent; t he larger the household, the hig her the equiva lent -- o ther things being equa l . 3. Anothe r program to he lp renters of sing le-fami ly dwe llings in slum areas ( like Watts) i·ake over ownershi p o f their dwe llings o r o f o ther similar sing le-fam ily dwe llings nearby . This program wou ld a lso have a ll of the a tt ributes o f th e first program desc ribed above except the use o f reni· subs idies. It wou ld make use o f in co me-ta xdeduction-equiva lents, as desc ribed under the second program set fo rth above. 4. A fourth program design ed to encou rage slum dwel lers to mov e into non- slum areas by buying s ing le-fam ily o r two-fam ily bui ldings, o r individua l un its in con do mini um bui ldings, in such a reas. a. This prog ra m wou ld invo lve fu ll subsidies fo r downpayments where req uired. b. It wou ld be focuss ed upon bui Idings a lready in standard condition and therefore needing v ery li tt le rehab i litation. c, It wou ld invo lve indiv idua l bui ldings· scattered throughout neighborhoods containing soc io-economic lev els above th e slum areas , but not as high as upper.,. middle-in come areas . Howev er, the condom ini um parts of the program wou ld invo lve entire bui Idings o perated unde r the program. d. It wou ld incorporate the aspec ts o f the first program desc ribed a bove set fo rth · in paragraphs IV, 1, f-g-h . It wou ld a lso in co rporat e the cont in uing subsidy based upon income-t ax-deduction ·eq uivalents described in paragraph IV, 2, b above. e. The o rganization o pera ting this progra m should have a metropolitan-areawide jurisdiction rather than covering on ly the c entral c ity therein. In fact, it shou ld emphasize placement o f former slum dwellers in suburban areas where possible. Yet this organization should be the same as, or close ly linked to, w hatev er organization administers the o ther programs described abov e . f. The exact locations of the housing se lected for use in this program should be based upon the fol low ing considerations: �- 8- 5. (1) The housing un its se lected shou ld be in sound neighborhoods but sho u ld not be far beyond the econo mi c capabi Iities of th e households moving out of the s lums. Hen ce these househo lds mig h·i- be expec ted to assume fu ll ownership w ithout a con ti nu ing subsidy a fter a c ertain period. (2) There shou ld be a mixture of Negro and white households in vo lved. Some of the s lum move-outs shou ld resuli· in re location o f Negro fa milies in previous ly a ll -wh ite o r predominan·tl y-whi t e areas, a nd some shou ld resu l-r in p lacemeni· o f Negroes in previous ly Negro areas and wh il-es in prev ious ly whi t e a reas. (3) In no cases should the househo lds moved out o f s lums under ·this program be conc entrated together in the rec eiv ing neighbo rhoods i·o suc h an exteni· as to become a dominant group in any given b lock o r elementary schoo l d istrict. (4) If possible, the neigh bo rhoods chosen shou ld be c lose to the type o f jobs possessed by the fami I ies mov ing oui· o f the s lums , and to so_urces o f new employment o ppo rt uni ties being created in the metropolitan area. (5) If possible, the neighbo rhoods c hosen shou ld be parts of c il"ies benefiting fro m o ther federal programs (suc h as urban renewal, the Interstate Highway Progra m, or federal aid to education) the contin uance o f whic h might be linked a t least informa lly w ith wi llin ness to coo perate w ith this program. Sim il arly, this program might be linked with defense procu rement acti v ities in commun ities be nefiting from defense production con trac ts . g. This program wo u ld not invo lve the c reation o f resident land lords (exc ept in two-unit bui !dings) by eliminatio n o f absen tee land lordsh ip . h. It might be desirab le to link this program w ith th e o the r programs encouraging own ership of buildings in s lums by s lum-dwe llers . This cou ld be done through some type of formu la wh ich wou ld require prov isio n of a certain number of · 11 s lum-escape 11 un its for each set o f "slum-renovation " units invo lved . Al l of the above programs should be linked to a number of o ther federa l programs or policies aimed at reducing the impact of ethnic discrimina tion upon housing markets. Discrimination creates a " back-pressure" in areas readily avai lable to minority groups which tends to raise prices therein . This makes it ha rder for resi ents to own their own homes, and reduces the incenHve of absentee lan d lo rds to improve deteriorated slum properti e s. Among the possible ways to counteract these forces might be: a. Requirement that any dwe lling uni ts financed with mortgages furnished by institutions supported by federal agencies (such as banks and savings and loan associations) be sold or rented on a non-discriminatory basis. �----- ·------------ - -- --- -·- -·-- - - -9b. CreaHon o f pub li c ho us ing on va c ant land, parH cu la rly in subu rban areas; preferab ly on sca ttered sites an re la ti ve ly sma li u low- dse pro jec ts. Th is assumes that the hous ng so c reated wou ld be ntegrai-edu preferab ly with a Negro mino rity u ra ther than l 00 perc ent Negro. 0 0 c. Subs diz a tion o f privat e groups des"gned to he lp Neg ro househo lds move onto prev ious ly a ll -wh t e neighborhoods in suburbs and pe d phera l ne ighbo rhoods in c entral ci·H es. (An examp le ss the group o f th us type in Ha rtford 0 Connect icut) . Such subs idy cou ld consist o f gran Hng o f tax exemptions u o r a llow in g the sa le o f ta x-exempt secu rit° es,. as we ll as provhbn of g rants to cover cap ita l or ope ra ting costs. · 0 0 V. Estimated Costs of Owne rsh ip-En co uragement Programs Undertaken a t Va d ous Sca les l. Bas ic assumptions unde rl y ing l·hese cost estimates are de r°ved from FHA expe d en ce and census data. They are as fol lows: a. Th e total cost o f acqu ring and rehabilitating e ither singl e-fam nl y o r m t· fam ily hous ing will be $1 2,,500 per un it . b. Tota l per-uni t mon -i·h ly ope rating expenses a re $48 .46 for sing le-fam ily houses, and $49 . 42 for mu lti -fam ly bu il d ings (i nc lud ing a $9 a lowan ce for vacancy and contingencies but no a Ilowance for management fees). 0 0 c. Househo ld inc o mes have ri sen about 25% since 1959, when t he in come d istribution among occupan ts of substandard hous·ng uni ts who ea rned less than $6,000 per yea r was as fo ll ows: Unde r $2,000 $2,999 17 . 2% $3;000 - $3, 999 13.5% $4,000 - $4, 999 9.3% $5,000 - $5v999 6 . 4% $2,000 Tota l d. 51.9% 100 .0% Th e proposed prog rams will extend ass istance to members of a ll th ese ·ncome groups proportionately . Henc e ca lcu lotions about the total subsidy re quired can be based upon th e we ighted average 1965 in come o f th e entire group, which as $2,840 per year. �- 10- e. Househo lds can devote 25% o f t heir incomes to housing. Thss a mo un ts to a we ghted average of $59.16 per mon1-h for th e en f re g roup invo ved. 0 2. f. A ! costs of acq uisition a nd re ha bi ta tion w "I be :nco rporat ed nto the tota l in "Ha l loan and amo rtazed over a 30-year period on a no-dow n- payme, t bas·s. g. Mu lt"-fam!!y p rograms w ill uta aze 12-un it buo! d ings and provode no ex p!k H a llowance for owner profts. 0 0 These assumpt 'ons lead to t he fo l owing conc lus'ons: a. The annua I ra t e of d h e c t subs idy per un H, not coun ti ng ad mi nistra tive costs or losses of int e rest from be low-markel- ra i·es,. wou ld be $504 fo r a seng le-fa mq y program a nd $5 16 for a mult~-famely program at a 3% nt e rest ra t e. Hence direct subsid ies per un it a re very similar fo r the two programs. 0 b. D rect subs idy costs a re ve ry sensit°ve to c ha nges in int erest ra te . For a s ngl efa mi y program, the va ria t on is fro m $772 per uni t per year a t 6% to $504 a t 3% and $288 a t z e ro nteres1. However g if losses in int erest a re co nted a s costs, th s sensitiv ity drops to zero. 0 0 0 0 0 c. Direct subsedy costs are a lso very sensitive to c hanges in the ·ncome-co mpos1t"on of the groups serve d. Exc luding fam H°es w"th inco mes below $20 000 ra ~ses the we "ght ed average a mou ,t ava "lable per month fo r hous ing fro m $59 . 16 to $94 .88 . This reduc es the annua l s'ngle- fam ily subsidy a t 3% 'nterest from $504 per un it to $75 - - a drop of 85% . However, it a lso exc ludes 52% o f the ho use ho lds w ith incomes unde r $6 8 000 liv ing in substa nda rd hous"ng. d. To·ta l costs a t va d o us sca les o f operatcon (exc luding a dministratuon) a re snmll a r fo r both song! e-fa mal y and mu lti -famoly programs. Hen ce they ca n both be 1tl ustrated by the fo iow cng ta ble for singl e-family pro gra ms,. assumong a 3% int e rest ra te : Number o f Housing Units Annual Direct Subsidy Charges ($ m· I lions) Requi red !nut[a i Loan Fund A llocat·ons ($ m 1!'ons) 0 $ 62 . 5 5;000 $ 2 . 520 10,.000 5.040 125 . 0 25g000 12. 600 312.5 50,000 25 . 200 625 . 0 50.400 1,250 .0 �- 11 - e. 3. Th e above tab le ·s based upon pro po rt·ona i pa rt dpat ion by a H uncome groups un der $6, 000 pe r year. Va·ia tions in tota l cosi·s a t th ese sca les res u ltung from changes ·n int erest ra t es or in come-g roup compos itio n can be roug h ly est; ma t ed from po ints (b) and (c) a bove. 0 The s"gn· .c·cance of th e sca le of ho me-owne rsh ip programs depends upon the tota l number of s lum fam i ies Bv ng ·n substanda rd hous ng who wou ld Hke to beco me owners • 0 0 . 4. a. n 1960, t he re we re 6.9 millio n ren te r househo lds lov ing ·n cent ra l c Hes. Aboul· 818, 000 (1 2%1 le ved in substanda rd un its; 508 , 000 of these had ~ri comes unde r $4, 000. Ano t her 992,000 (14%) lived in standard but c rowded un its; 390,000 o f these had oncomes unde r $4u 000. Hence th e paten-Ha ! centra l..: d ty "unive rse" consists o f 1.8 m' llion ren t ers in substandard or c rowded Lm!ts 17 o f whom 898 1 000 had incomes under $4,000 in 1960. Of course., now he re nea r a l I of these househo lds wish to become owners. b. There w e re ac t ua ll y more renter househo lds in substandard un' ts o uts;de c entra l c ities t han ins ide th em in 1960: 1,923; 000 vs. 818 8 000. Howeve r, except for 205 , 000 local·ed in the urban fringes o f metropo litan a reas, t hese househo lds shou ld perhaps no t be co nsidered as "s lu m res idents. 11 0 is The cost o f home-owne rsh ip programs sim il a r to tha t o f ren t supp lement prog rams 8 coun t 'ng on !y direc t subsidy pay ments. The d rect rent supp lemen t s bs udy a verages about $600 per uni t per yea , as co mpared to $504 pe r uni t per yea r for scng !efamily ho me ownership a t 3% interest. Howev er, if interest losses due to below market rates are co unted, th en another $268 per un H per yea r must be added (H th e market ra t e ·s conside red to be 6%). Th s inc r~ases the per un it per year cost o f th e home- ownershop prog ram to abou t· 29% a bove that fo r th e ren t supp lement prog ram, exc luding adm in°st ra ti ve costs from both . 0 0 VI. Recommended Add st°o!1a l Researc h 1. Some o f the concepts and quant fned esta ma t es set forth abov e have been based upo n adm tted !y [n adequa t e o r unreHab le da ta. Therefore, we recommend t hat additiona l resea rc h be undertaken before the programs described here ln a re g uven flnal app rova l in concept or designed in detail. 0 0 2. Consequent ly,, re li ab le information about the fo l lowing shou ld be o bta ined: a. Ac cura t e est ·mat es of tota l operat'ng costs for mu lti -fam ily hous b g to be deve loped under any owne rsh ip program. Th e opera ti ng cost estlma t es a n d conti ngency a llowances used 1n t he above ca lcu la tions were sup p!o ed by FHA . Howeve r.v we be lieve they may be low v because opera ti ng costs no rma l!y run 60% of to ta l g ross revenue 6 and no t all funds ava il ab le for debt service are actua ll y app lied to debt service. �-12b. Th e required a tt ribut es of home owne rs in slums . Probab ly they revolve around steady emp loymen t , ·rhe a va il abi lity of mu lti p le fam ly membe rs some o f wh o m are ho me and ca n keep i"rac k of t he pro per·'·y , reasonab ly good c harac ter reco rd, etc. 0 c. The spec ifi c urban areas c lassified as s lum a reas for pu rposes o f these programs, a nd c ertain da ta about them . (1) Number o f dwe lling un its by ·' ype o f struc t ure : sma ll mu lti - fam i y, la rge mu lti - fam il y, a nd sing le fam ily . (2) Number of ho useho lds li ving t herein a nd their ma jo r inco me, ethni c , a nd fami ly size c haraderisti cs . (3) Condi t io n o f structures. d. The numbe r o f pe rso ns o r ho useho l s in i·hese areas who hav e the requ·red c harac teristi cs for ownership, abso ute ly and as a perc entage o f the tota l. e. Ways in whi c h ownersh ip programs can be ti ed into over-a ll stra i"egi es conc erning low-in co me ho using and th e ame li o ratio n o f gheHos so t hat they do no t mere ly perpet uate s lums by II lock"ng in 11 the new owners of o ld bui ldings. �=r----- -,..,-.-..,--.x,.-n.,·. ,- --·--- ··- --- --·-- --~-·-- · - . . . ' - - - - i ' t ·, j ' ~ ' . d: ·• ··., . . .. ' . Draft: IBJD/l'o/25/66 · · NEIGHBORHOOD Cf! :-:T?R PI LOT PRCGR/IJ-1 I. '. l Introduction A. Purpose of the pilot J?TOGr<".:-:r On Friday, August 19, the Pr ~sident in his Syracuse, New York, I speech asked. • • "the Secretary c f I{ou3inc; and Urban Development to set a.s his goal the est~blishmer: t --· in every ehetto .in A."llerica .-- · I of· a neighborhood center to service the people who· live there." ! .I Acco:..~din~ly initial_ steps tc ;.ro r o. fulfilling this · goal were t l I taken when, under Executive OrdE t·. 11297, t he Department of: Housing · ~ a~ Urban Development convened a meetin3 on A~gust / · / 30,; 1966; of 1 Federal agencies to develop a rE DO~t to the President and initiate . / a · program of, action to meet the Pres ident's r equest. ·1 As a re sult of a serie s of :i n'cer-agency meetings a ·plan for · ,/ l : / f ./ ,: . a program ·o f pilot projects, wh::i ch would become the first-step toward the President I s goal, haro bee_n developed. This program · will be desi gned and carried out a long t he -f ollowing lines. · 1 I 1. •X- ·X- ·X· K· ·X· -'i<· ll. ·Purnoses of a Ne ighbor hood Cent o· A neighborhood center shoulo facilitate the deliverance of ' services to people in low-inconc nei ghborhoods and .provide a broad range of health, recreation, soc ial and employment service s . More social, .health, employnent, recreation, and education services are nee.1)ressed. I III.· Criteria for a Neir,hborhood Ccrtcr ¥.any variations are possfoJc in the design of neighbor~ood centerG; and local conditions, resou=c0::., 1:ced.s , choices, and p;>:-og_ra.r.is will determine specific solutions. To be considered a neighborhood center ror this pilot program, however ~ the facility must provide at a minimum a :progrEUn for the following ser vices : . 1. Inf'ormation on citizenr' ri5hts and on how and where to get services and assistancE. 2. Diagnosis of problems e nd referral to service agencies. · 3. Follow-up or outreach f 0 1· continued counseling .and services. 4. Co-ordination among aeEncies (Federal, State, local-public a nd private) supplying cervi ce s to t he neighborhood:. 5. Involvement by t he ne i f hborhood resident s. Whei;iever feasible the progrc1m for t hese ·r.iinirr.um · services should be · expanded t o :t,nclude other t ype:: of services and acti vities, depend.i ng on the needs of the particular ser·vice area. 1\lnong them are: 1. Social services . 2. A broad range of active end passive recr ~ational facilities . �------ i 3. I. I Employment informat i on. r c:E'm.·i·al , counceling and training facili tics. I / 4. I I Houcing ascistance. I 5. Acti vi tiec ·directed t o I 6. Health services includ:.ri~ cxcmi nution and consultive services. 7. Cultural enrich.-nent. -8. tl:c need.::; of tenior · ci tizer.s. Non-curricular and remc·dfa1 education. 9. Decentralization of r:m.1ty Ci ty Hall service functions to the neighborhood. The :fll'o/Sical size of t he nc·i c;hi)orhood center will depend oh the. scope of the cervi ce progr am i-,. j_:, t o h ou ::;e. I In addition to the con- · cept of the neighborhood centeJ· ~s a s incle building, consideration raa.y be Given, wher e the neig:ioc,:;.·:1ood i s small in area but dense· i n po:pulation, to the concept of r. ,st r uctu::-e havin~ many services supported by other· off ices or str.".ctu:..·e s p1·oviding su:p:porting services. ' I . I V. I. I I A l':e ir.:hbm.· hood Center Exanrole Although a cent er wi l l have mo.ny ccml)onents, such a facility :crc1.st · be organized a nd administrated · in a coherent f ashion... This would r e - I I I • l. l. l Reception , referral, cb c:i.:snos i s , :follow -up , .outr~ach, and related gener.a li zed se1 vices be performed through a com:non reception and adminir.tlcJtion system. 2. All or most of the comrunity's nocial s ervice agencies providing services of nee<' to the neighborhood . should be located in one building or witl-·in waL'l;~~-~<:::-!fii~ .- *ti~ ..:..;...~/ ___:____ ~ !· ' • _ ,:·j, l I I l · 3. If smaller infonnation, u.::.ci. rc,fc-r;_·o.l or servi·c e center::; are located in the r.ei,;l1L1orhcoc1 ) they snould be related II j ! to the larger one-stop :-;crvicc cer-.'ccr. ~• I A center would be design.eel i1; a flexible manner so that · the Sl)ace ·can be utilized to the optimum· &nd sriace areas would be· ·d esigned to serve multi-functions. · The s:9acc ·.mule. i :'1.clude meeting areas, office$ . i I for counseling services, speci: llizecl service areas, and recreatior..al · facilities. J.. A neighborhood cc:1-'.:.· cr micht contain: A CAA :progra.'il componen-; i·ihich would f ocus on the organization and participation o-1' t i tc 1·csic.ents of the neighborhood. · It \. would be responsible f,n· ic1suri:nc that th~ other components of the Center work to · Ji.e i:lencfit and satisfaction of the · neighborhood. Loca l Cl.J?s mi z,.~t a l s o provide services such . as l egal a id. 2~ Recreation ·services ancl fac ilities . This might include a small outdoor recreati,m a1·ea~ •,,ith a swinnning pool when war-..canted , and a multi-·:9ur:pose gymnasium which could also be used for large gath1 ir ings) . including theatrical proa.u·c ~ions. 3. A preventative progra:.~ of healtn services which ·might i nclude a prenatal clinic, a wc:11:-baby clinic, a mental hygienic clinic and an ambul ato:·y health services clinic. 4. · An educational and cul~;ural com:9onent which would include a pre-school program o:' the HeadGtart variety, adult literacy, _special adult classes . . and drama ~ro&rams. LS well as special library, music, art l I I J �., .... 5 5 • . Employment services wot: J.c: t e an inte.zral po.rt of the Center. Information 'would be p:r0vi,;ec: 0:1 the job opportuniticz; testine; services and b ·.1:,.-::.ccl jo1) t:::.·o.ining services should be available. In additior, :::;peci:3.l jo·o oriented procra:-:is such as the Job Corps, t he I• 2ic;i'.l:orl1ooci Yoath CorJ.)s, and the Work and Training Proeram fer 91.1.blic assistance clients might also-- be coordinated t~::m::;h this part of -the Center. r 6. Assistance wi -r.11 respect to hou::;j_n:; and rc:.location should be provided in tne Center. Ict'orn:e.tion should be available on relevant local housinc r r ograms, and assistance,sha~ld be o:':fered to clients on :: ow to :i:,,prove their homes, how to ' secw.·e ·adeQuate :financi ni, and the availability .of public housing and integrated l1 ousing. 7. Family services and hchz manac0men~ is another importan~ component. Pulllic welf s.rc case wor l~crs might operate from the Center and pre ·,iicle advice and counseling to the neighborho~. Family e ricl marital counseling might be · offered as well as cons ~~er education, money management, and homemaker services. I ./ "', . .., tJ ... . SJ �. j/ , ,·/ / · •.. /- .PLANrrnrG FOR NEIGHBORHOOD PROGRA1,S . Introductioh I I i• · A neighborhood program will or~narily be one part of a larger city'W'i.de comir.unity action program. Thus questions must be asked about the city at large and the whole cor::munity action planning, along with an inquiry into the ·neighborhood. program itself'. Funds are likely to be limited so that in I:10st cases a choice of some neighborhoods must be made, either to start the city's program or to be ' . _.. -~ ' used as a. "demonstration." At the outset, reasons for preferring certain neighbqrhoods over others ( should be explored. In soce cities past social .dis"Gurbances or chronic , trouble may dictate the choice of a neighborhood for concerted social i ) · effort. There is a caveat: A city may prefer to choose neighborhoods with problems that can be dealt ·with rather quickly be.c ause succes~ . .. will be more certain and visible. Unfavo1·abh coinJ?arisons should not be made once programs a.re initiated between the more easily solved neighborhood. · problems and the knottier ones. i· The preference of one kind of neighbor- hood. over another may result from wise and responsible political. decision, ., but the basis for decisions should be understood both by the coc::ru.nity and by the federal agencies. In the attached outline we have asked a series of questions designed ·· to otter some go.tides for those evaluating neighborhood progrf!J=!S. Because these programs are so frankly ex:perimental, no such outline can provide .\ I more than a. general approach. More reliable criteria will emerge from. concrete experience with actual programs, their inevitable failures and . . ' :~_:• •:·-~·.~·~~ "'.'"'-···success~s ~• •••., .,- ·~--:-•••N'.-~~·-:~ ··." .--·-:-··.··•••·~~- •':"'--~' ,•--,.<••~~:..,;:.,-•~:"' '" ,,,-.-··-->---~-·- - ·.-:.'•·- ':, ,, - i- ~ ·· I- ...,:., . •• •• �--'-_ i-, -' 4 -=. · , ,,=-· .••,., · · ~ .. ~--·-~.·..__JI· ~-,-=,-~........ - , ___,_ .. 'c'-· __,....._ c-._.,,W __,_.......,--,..1s.... ·, . . -.............. - -. • .· ,. ·_,. ·~~· .. fe_" w ·· ·~ · . .· I . - -· ~·-· - -~ - - ,,. . ,II • . r -r . 2 A detailed knowledge of the city, the sponsors, and the over-all political context will be necessary for judg::ie_!lt. ~ each case. Still., it may be a useful exercise to try to articulate in advance so:::ie of the factors that shouJ.cl enter into evaluation, even though judgments a.re likely to be intuitive. The discussion that follows is divided into two parts: (1) criteria for defining the appropriate neighborhood; and (2) criteria for judging the substance of programs for a neighborhood. It is not inappropriate to point out that some decisions to accept or reject a proposal for neighborhood programs must be piaa.e on a primarily political basis. The Federal. progra!:l needs Congressional support and it needs the support of all the t r aditional agencies in the Executive branch / with which it must cooperate . I of any city is F1trther, the over-all political situat i on an essential i ngredient in the success or failure of a community action program and of the neighborhood program which is its natural offspri ng . This point is probably understood, if not articulated, by applicant s and evaluators alike . The f orms t o be filled out for the '. ~~pt~ - of _~ou·s·~ - &:_Ur b~ :_DevelolJ.~!1t · 'jr.ay__·· ·· set up standards and expectations., but t hey are not like aptitude t ests . A high score does not imply autooat ic admission to "school. " As long as funds a.re insufficient t o j;lermit ·:every soU!ld progral:1 t o 'be accepted., it should be understood that choices involve a variety of factors, not the least of which .is political. There is another risk. . . ·--·---·--..... The existence of complicated .forms., the pro- mulgation of standards. and the coi::J::lOn knowledge that.. choices . . .. . have to be / /·• I �made, may lead cities to imitate slavishly the type of progr8.l:l.S that have been accepted before. This could lead to rigidity -- ·a calcification which is the enemy o'f innovation and imaginative use of these special local characteristics of a city and neighborhood. Neighborhood / I , The limted experience thus far with community action programs and the longer history of settlement houses ,have led those :working with problems of organization to insist upon a small local ·area as the lowest common denominator for any new social programs. The word . ;'neighborhood" . . is used to mea:i a relatively compact geographical area and also an area which has some sort of functional cohesiveness. Before the concept of neighborhood progra:n becomes a . cliche' easily glossed over, it '!Lay be important to ask sorae questions about what may or may not be ·defined· as "neighborhood" and for what purposes. Reaching out: It is fairly well accepted now that any progra.o of social action tnl.St be broken down into local units so that it can reach out to those people who are unwilling or unable to go very far for service, either because of fear, inexperience or lack of basic skills to make use of available services, on their own. Thus the very first criterion of any_ neighbor- hood program. is that it be sufficiently local to achieve this end. Elasticity: The kind of services ottered, a.ncI ·the characteristics of the people· .- ..... . . ' - . -· .. _. :: ·--... 'I ._ ........ �~·=_--_._. ...~_-_:'"_--_:-__::-_-_...., '- _---_-_cc- ~--:-- -_.. tlo~-~ ~~A~.-- - ____ _: _-~--- .-'" • w · . _ F··· · -· . I served will affect tQe definition of "neighborhood." For example, a i. mother with a sma.ll child has a far greater physical-geographical limitation_than does an adolescent who is used to wandering the city with a gang. Could you serve them both in a neighbor center? The unit for phys- . ica1 hea1th care might be quite different from the unit for mental health care, in part because of the degree of education needed before the patient wants the services offered. A co~text of multiple services, or even ser- vices to a wide age range, indicates both elasticity of the concept of neighborhood and the arbitrariness of any definition. one center may The very fact -that offer a multiplicity of services will ~lso affect the delineation of "neighborhood." Even a single person may define his neigh- borhood very differently for different purposes -- church, school, or . . . socializing, for example. The si"t~ation becomes infinitely mo.re compli- cated when the "target population" encompasses many groups. A neighborhood may exist because of pr eexisting -services or grouping of services, for example, an eff ectively functioning settlement house wi-t h a long tradition, as in t he Nort h End, Boston, or a clinic. The Peckham Health Cent er in England created a very cohesive neighborhood for purposes . many A preex~.s.t i ng sense of community of'ten grows up because of ethnic s imilariti es or racial is olat i on. The sense of coIIII:lunity, however, may be a decept ive f actor on which to rely. An effective :preexisting service may provide a ·coI11I:1unity on which . broader services can be built and should be built. . On the other hand., . the invisible walls which create a ghetto like Harlem., create a "coI:1?:1unity; 1---,- -· ._ _ _ but.one frayed .w.;.th strife and hostility _.which may_have .to 1;,e broken down ' �- I ~ C ' • 5. into very small units to penetrate resistance that the larger cor::::rrunity reini'orces. In other words, a neighborhood has tp be a manageable unit. - If there had been trouble, hostility, delinquency ~r a high crime rate, the negative aspect of a community may argue for the arbitrary creation_ of very s~.all neighborhood units for certain kinds of services, in order that the :population ca.~ rea~ be reached and involved. Use of Personnel Affects Delineation of a Neighborhood The availability and training of the personnel to staff a neighborhood program will affect the parru:ieters of a neighborhood unit. 11,ore is meant here than the ratio of professionals to "cl.:i;ent·. ". It goes ·without saying tha.t one doctor in a clinic will serve a far-smaller population than ten. But personnel can be iI!l_portant in a qualitative sense, . as well • I ·The supporting worker can serve a.s· connective tissue ar.ong professional - -I' services. This is the worker who knows the language of the neighborhood and who is able to direct the people in it to needed services, provide follow-up, and help the person coordinate the various services that may be asser.ibled to neet his particular needs, whether welfare, medical, educational, or employment, or a combination of any or all of these, in any problem or crisis. Such personnel make ·up a psychological transpor- tation and concunication syst~~ An A store-front room may serve a block. exacyle may nake this more concrete: . In it may be neighborhood workers or urban agents who can take in.forr:iation from those on the block and steer them to adult education, eJ::ll)loyment training, work crews, mental health ' clinic, the hospital, a local lawyer, the ·hou.siog authority, etc. ~-~-- - ---~~--- of' -these services·. need -not be represented All ill -the st<;>re-tront room, but - �they must be ~ade accessible by effective workers who can coI:II:1unicate with the people ·the program is designed to serve. The urban agent be- !. coi::.es a path:f~nder for the individual in need, to all the agencies and services required. Thus the concept of "neighborhood" is in part defined by the kind of staff' available, because those who help people find their -; / ' . way through a labyrinth of services ma.1-.e the programs really accessible; I· Actual transportation is of great importance, since the inability to find one's way is so characteristic of the -·poor. Their neighborhood, for purposes, is walking radius. · Here again workers can help make exis- many ting transportation usable and therby make far-flung prog;rams accessible to a neighborhood. We have stated earlier that one varient of the definition of neighborhood is the kind of service th~at is offered. We are assuming that one goa.l i s comprehens·iveness - the offering of a group of interreJA,ted human j. services that will raise the aspirations and the opportunities of the / I 1,/ l people to be served. It is understood, then, that different services will serve different geographical areas. As pointed out, the lowest common denominator may have to be the workers who can link physically · separated services. But this is only one alternative. creation of a new instit ution designed defines the neighbor hood. There are others. For example, the t o have such great impact t hat it Consider the Comi:iu.nity School as it exists i n New Haven, Connecticut, and Flint, Michigan. They draw upon the neighbor- hood. of the families whose children attend t he school. In new Haven, Conte School is made as attractive 'f.l,th a center to~ s~nior citizens, .,..,.,..1.. .. -~ · ·- ·- -:. · ...._:. .."'_ .. _.....,_ ,,_ ',, .., .. ..... .•• -.. .....:•• .__,.._,,..,.:. _ _ __.., .......~ ...- ••:. ..-"."'........ ·· •• __ . , ... _.._ ..•.: - •.- ~· _.,:,_ ••• -- • . ~. - . . : . . . . - - - - · · .-14-• -L "i . II ,O �- . -. 3 .7 - , an auditoriun, bocci courts, a park for young mothers, and so on - that a sense . of community is created by the very fact of the institution. other neighborhood se=:vices, legal, public health, wel:fare, etc., are then brought in to this "neighborhood." the neighborhood by their creation. Other kinds of institutions may define Probabzy this is what the multi- In such cases service center in Boston (Roxbu...-J) is attempting to do. the neighborhood is geographically larger than that served by the block store-front with the "pathfinder" personnel. With a large center, staff may literally walk the streets to ·bring the people to the services con- · I . centrated in one building. - There is no a priori reason t~ prefer one I l I structure of a neighborhood program over the other. I !· i So many neighborhoods are natural neighborhoods, defined by geography; I tradition, or other boundaries that they can be seen quite readily. In ... 'the end, high deference should be given .to the local definition , of a neighborhood. However, the Office of Economic Opportunity can and should insist that the city consider the many variables, including history and I . tradition, which go into the delineation of a neighborhood unit. It should ask for careful consideration of demographic data, for detail about the ethnic background of the people in the neighborhood, the economic and educational level, employment opportunities, housing, recreation and social outlets. A well-thought out proposal is likely to be rich in this kind of.detail. - - - " ' · - - - -- -· - .--- . · ·- - ..-~ · ··~ · " · -- ~ - , . . . . . . . . .. ... • . . . . . . . . . . . .. . , . ·- · - - - ... ~ - - , ..., ,-if' .~ -, .... 1 1· .... • , , ' • •, ' I �.j -=-~ ~-=.tp--=' =:-=-:1=-·=·=·=-·==-c== =--=-=·=~c..cc··=··:.c.._~ -· ~-=r:: r:~~-·-= .--=-::::-;:.;;::_=_=_=-=.·""'t":"'=..=====c.:.._""_==__= .c~'i! "-L "' J: ' 8 THE PROGRAM ·I The substance of the program is no less i.J!;portant than the delination of the neighborhood, and must be adapted to this delineation. I • The first overall re~uirement for a.cy program is the involve:ir.ent of the people to be served in the planning and then the operation of the programs designed to serve theo. l. It is not easy to involve the inarticulate poor, for whom organization is not a familiar phenomenon, but it is possible and it is essential. One · clear goal must be to reduce dependency in all areas, ·not to increase it. . This means that arry "tender plant" of a neighborhood, organization :ir.ust I· be built upon -- a.cy indigenous leadership that is at all constructive must be involved in the planning process. \ A list of needs outlined in the program planning stage, health, education, jobs, etc. should indicate how these needs are felt by the pop~ation. It is difficult to establish criteria from Washington to assure this, but there must be some warning signal of local indifference to neighborhood participation in a program. Furtherz:iore, it is so i~- portant that if there is arry doubt, a field tr~p might be worthwhile. We can anticipate antipathy and resistance to the organization and voice of the poor • . But these are risks that must be.accepted as natural and inevitable and perhaps even welcomed as evidence of involvement. Survey of Existing Services A pr oposal should include a survey of existing socia.J. services and education., including, if possible, cost statistics and th~ ratio of -,1 • • ..:.._ __ ~ • •_ .. . . , / _ . ......... .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . - ~~ - professional and supportive personnel to the neighborhood population. I It �9· would be useful to learn how accessible existing services are which reach the segnents of the nei ghborhood population. build on ;preexisting services , and i f not, Is the new plan going to why not" Often there are good reasons, but as often, a natural center for people, for exSJ:lple, a priest whose church has become a focus for inf'o:rmal social services, may be ignored and a new artif icial center created. Relations wi.th Existing Agencies In some cases there r:iay be value in by-passing existing social service agencies. In ·other cases this may be politically unwise pr unwise because of the strength of an agency. In th,e case of a strop.g well-supported agency, it is entirely possible that a neighborhood program should devel- I rI op from one di scipline or area of Iservice. For example, if the Board of Education were strong and innovative, t he idea of a COI:llllunity 5-C:~Oo_l might be the basis for t he nei ghborhood program and education . would then be t he nucleus . I f there were already a co:mnunity mental health cent er with local support, mental healt h could' be the nucleus of the community action pr ograo. Thus, in the Bronx, New York, a community action pro- gram is emerging from a mental health center out of t he Albert Eins t ein Medical School (Dr. Harris Peck) . In other citi es, t he _Youth Employment, or Opportunity Center has already become a familiar and accepted part of neighborhood and so a comprehensive program erierges with the el:!ployment or job training at its core. The judgment probably should be i:::ade "on the grou.:id." Although comprehensiveness of services riay be the ·goal, it is entirely . --·- ~-· ~--...possible·•"'t hat . ·a s ..a""beg:foni'ng 's 't ra tezy ··ror ·.i,oli ti~al; ..financial,· -or even ' �': xr::·_ ,. . 1: . ~7? · L C :i-----~--~- ---~--~:.. -. ,._. -==-=---=- L .~1 -· , · · 10 I ,1 social reasons, a si::lpler or even segi:1entalized progrru;i shotld be created. In other words, a city might want to start _with health~ education only, and slowly add employoent and perhaps much ,later deal with teenage recreation. Or, there r;,ay be an assault on the problem of teenage delinq~eccy which re~uired an across-the-board approach directed to that age group only, leaving fai:dlies and senior citizens for later. It is possible to choose to work only with the families of very young children or those children themselves, on the theory that the very young a.re the most salvageable part of the population. The reasons behind any of these or ether choices :oay have validit-J, in teros of short e.n~ I:ledill!:l range strategy, but they ,I:lust not become the excw.; e for abandoning the objective of a coqirehensive progra..~. ' \ The planned use of staff, including provision for training _should be examined carefu.1.ly. To ~hat extent does a neighborhood prograo search out indigenous workers, to what extent rely on outsiders? have connecting links to outside services been planned? plan to How A:re they suffi- cient to ma.~e all of the services truly accessible to the population of the neighborhood? Some provision should be made for working out a relationship of cooperation and connection among the traditional agencies and institutions which will either work with, control in part, or i.c:pede a neighborhood program. Friction may be inevitable, but its destructive aspect should be m nimized at the planning stage. A ;,very current exBJ:Iple of this is the creation of neighborhood legal services in liew Haven and in Washington, - - - - · -=--···r- n ~c:--±n- frew Haven, at present, ~liere·-1s ·serious opp~sit .i on °fr9m the �-_-,-_-_. ._-_~--------_-_..._-_-__ -.-.,.-~_-_ :~ . . .-O -,;~.:143.215.248.55-,.~-.. ~~-: .,_ · ,C"" .'.:'._-_-_::::::=::==::----- I,, • ll ,. organized bar which has slowed down the program seriously. In Washington, . the Bar Association and Legal Aid were involved at each step of pla.'llli~ and have thus far given strong support. Including the traditional serrice agencies in the planning process as much as possible and drawing upon their skill a:id experience may substitute cooperation f?r friction. The interrelationship of citywide or even state agencies is a question more directly related to the evaluation of· an entire community action program then for judging the specifics of the neighborhood proposal. Al.so a larger matter is the area of the whole question of information gathering and disse:crinating devices, com.~unication, data .and 9ollection, both formal and informa.J.. There are more ways of assuring effective com- munication than can be listed .here. Citywide newspaper coverage, radio, TV, are the ones first considered.1.- The functional illiteracy of many of the people who z:iost need to be reached means that person-to-:,perl:i_? n '.comI munication, and contact th.rough the places most frequented, whether bar or church, is the basis for an effect ive cor.:i:nunica.tions network that ought to be in every neighborhood picture. ~er a Prog:ram has been Accepted. The styl e of initiat i on of a pr ogram is ·something that should be r egarded with gr eat interes t . In s ome sit uations a quiet launching might be preferable t o one with fanfare. Crisis exploitation, cris i s creation, . and timing must all be con:sidered. We would want to know early what obstacles are anticipated and which obstacles are in fact faced. • ~ · - - · ·· · - - ... - · .,4 . . _ _ _ _ ·Il.1.itaracy, 1:8,ck of social cohesiveness, and · a.pa.thy r:,ay be· prevalent __a.lmost ev.e ry place that a program is co?J,templa.ted. • ••• ~ • • • • • • • • • • • • �' 12 I i ifaat are the plans to deal with them? l How are some of . these obstacles considered in the attempt to involve the neighborhood in Dlanning its own progra:n? f i' It is hard to anticipate whether a program will become rigid or calcified. We have already indicated the possibility that a~pllcation forms, or rumors of hard choices a:nong cities, may cause a proposing co~unity to take a "safe route." If it is made clear from the outset that all of I/ these programs are frankly experimental and that innovation is desired and that _constant feedback and evaluation, as well as program initiative at lower levels, are desirable, rigidity nay be avoided in ~ny places. I . There should be mechanisms for anticipating cris~s or resistance that may ,1- come from the mobilization of a neighborhood. •Progra.o effectiveness o:ften means the assertion or creat~on of a p@litical force which will be ' . fought. There are ways to lay the ground for significant changes, __al- though resistance or even outcry may be inevitable. The situation of the rent strikes in Mobilization for Youth and the political repercussions, raise the question of what kind of preparation might be most effective. Evaluation Plans for evaluating a neighborhood proposal must be built into the proposal from the beginning. This is a subject for another document. The whole area of comounity action is too new for us to be aware in ad- I/ I vance of the many causes of lags in progress or even failure. Feedback mu.st be rapid and constant. We would want to know who is evaluating the neighborhood program and --· . against what criteria • . Is it part of a larger evaluation scheme of a , · '/ �13 .citywide community action progrru:i? and Are there any plans to test theories conclusions against other neighborhood programs in the same and other cities? Long-range goals shouJ.d be broken down into sequenti_al. steps. tnl.St have a planning period beyond the first allocation of funds. Ea.ch But detailed plans should be worked out at shorter intervals _than overall plans and broken down in such a way that parts of a program. can be looked at separately i'rOI:J. other parts of the overall structux~. We would 'Wa!lt to know how often., what kind, and to whom reports are made; how much personal contact is there by the evaluators; how are they trea~ed at progra:;i headquarters., - ignored., exploited or self-supported? Are periodic reviews carried out? 'I Are the goals st.u.""'ficiently formulated in the beginning so that we couJ.d ask later on whether the plans were fulfilled? r -- Whether they were · SJ:1ended? How recent and bow severe and how i're~uent were the amendments? We would want to know whether the evaluation is set up in such a way that side effects could be anticipated or observed, if they occurred. We would be loath to set up any machanical criteria for judging the effectiveness of a comprehensive neighborhood program. course., each with some limited value. There are so~e, of For example, the concept of in- creasing life-long earning power, or, a reduction in _unem:plo~ent, the increase of staying power (retention) of yo\.lllg people in high school drop- I ' ·--··-· I I . outs., in illegitimate births., lowering crime r ate., family break-up, hospital admission., and so on. __ ...... ~-- · mu.st be enployed., ., Probably all of these statistical measures but each· should be.looked at quantitatively to see ' �,· I !I 14 l 1- whether, in fact, it tests the social condition we think it does. -· ample, an increase .. in employment For ex- is a good thing; but if. the -N~gr-oes continue to hold only t'lenial, lower paid jobs, the -eI.1ployment program is no success. If our goal is the tullest development of the resources and capacities of each h\.2::lan being, then we will not be satisfied with· any simple statistical measures. These will be only our mechanical sta.rting .:points. The aspirations of any neighborhood program should escalate with success • ·' ... '- / .. .-. l ...- . . .. . . .. . . . . .,_ .. . _•• • • - .._... . . . . ,. . . . . ·- · , _ , ...... . · - ··- -. . . . . . . . . .. ~ - - .. - - " .. - · ... - - , ... - _... _ ------ . .11 . . . . ... , • .,.. ·- ·- · ·· · •• • �' J . '· - / ::· ;-::'t ·.,. O' P t . . · -" ZS .L,. OUTLINE Neighborhood Programs: A. Some Questions Social Framework l. r E:::iergence of planning ·a. · In general, what conditions J.ed to the emergence of this specific _neighborhood plan? b. Who wi-ote the proposal? c. What is his (their) relation to the neighborhood? I d. Were neighborhood people involved in th~ planning? e. · I,f so, how were they involved? f. To what extent have planning concepts or methods been borroHed from other proposa1sz · g. What attempts have been made to adapt transplanted concepts to the neighborhood? I h. What is the role of tbe outside advisor iri the neighborhood planning? -· . i. 2. What opposition has there been? '·. Social and political environment a. How is the nei ghborhood defined? b. Wnat criteria were used to determine the limits of the neighborhood? -- phys ical geography? -- population to be served? --- service pr oposed? combination of above? / / I I .·· c. Has~ inventory been made? Geographic Historic. • . . . . . .. . . - • ... . • - ~ - _••• • - .. ... , • • 1. , . . . . . .. · -.- · \ �2 Demo~aphic (length of residence; population turnover; cot:II;J.uting patterns for work, play, health; education; etc·. ) Ethnic Health ?l..ental health Economic · (individual fa.mizy income; places of employment: Do dollars circulate in neighborhood or flow out, etc.) Housing · Social (num.oers and tYJ;)es of organizations, churches, neighborhood groups, etc.) F.ducation (education of people, ntl!llber and tsJl)es of schools, etc.) Power structure (fon:al and informal) . Values an.cl morale (e. g. suspicion; what ability does the · neighborhood have ,to cope with its proble:tS?) .. Mobile ability d. _ To what e..~tent is the neiehborhood dependent upon outside resources for jobs; medical care, welfare, education, recreation, inspiration? 3. What social services are now available to the neighborhood? a. What is the per capita ·dollar a.I:lount for social services? b. What is the ratio of social 'service · perso:r:i..."lel to the neighborhood population? ( B. Goal formation .... i- l. Hierarchy of goals a. What are the overriding goals .and how are lesser goals subordinated to them? b. What criteria were used to establish priorities of goals? c. · ·W'aa.t do the neighborhood people thi.Dk · their needs a.re? ., �~(J .. I ·. f· .: --::- - -·- -_,, __--· ..,., I' I I I 3 I- I d. What are the n~~ds for: Health I . F.ducation Work, jobs, inco~e . . "Skills-of-livi~" Social cohesiveness .Advocacy: .I 2. l ., legal and constl!!ler Have the neighborhood people been involved in establishing the . goals? 3. Are the programs intended to ma.~e the people less dependent and more able to cope, or are they merely hand-outs w~ich Will keep the people dependent? ' I- 4. Are long-range goals and purposes for the neighborhood specified? 5. How does this specific proposal fit into the long-rang objectives? .. , 6. Does it meet Federal criteria of desegregation? C. Decision-ma.~ing l. / I I / Institutional network a. Do neighborhood organizations already exist? b. Is there an identifiable central neighborhood authQrity · responsible f or this program? c. What is the relationship between this authority and the existing service agencies -- Federal, state, local, public and privete? d. Should this program be part of an already existing agency? / 2. Precess of decision-making a. What are the attitudes of the traditional agencies to this progra:n? b. ,Are. there ar.y institutional mechanisns for consulting other ___ .. _.... . .. age·n cies- and pressure groups ( traue unions, qhurches, business · organizations , poll ti cal pa.rties) ? What are the me·c hanisms? ·- .- . .. - -. .: ··· ·~--. -_.. -- ·- .. . . - - . - - . ·:. _ . --- -·- - - �} '-·__ ·_- _-_--·~-:::::::::::::::: '":::::: ·-:::: · :::::::~::::4,~ I· ====~-~-=-~ ~~ ._. .,_ ·=· ~~- :=::;::;±:::::: " =·· ·=·"":= ________ ------:---- = c;;... ·- 2Eb=~;;;;;;;;;;;:;~ ~ . ...... - . .. t ~- ,, - - - ~ - - - : . , _ _ _ , .,_,c.:;:-.;,,~------------,-.\..J-· .:_ ~ . ~· 4 6. Does it meet Federal criteria of desegregation? C• . Decision-~aking l. . .. ] Institutional network - a. ... Do neighborhood organizations already exist? . b. Is there an identifiable central neighborhood authority responsible for this program? c. What is the relationship between this authority and the existing service agencies-Federal, state, local, public and private? d. Should this program be ·part of an already existing agency? · 3, / /· . ./· ·/ 2. Process of decision-making . a.. What are the attitudes of · the traditional agencies to this progra=i.? b. A:re there any institutional mechanisms for • I ',1 consulting other agencies and pressure groups (trade unions, churches, business organization~, political parties)? What are the mechanisms? c. .- :. ·,. ·.. 1· . What are the mechanisms used to rec·o gnize and handle frictions among the agencies, groups and this program? ,I I d. What are the differences ·in goals and methods between this program and other agencies and groul)s? e. A:re the people involved to whom the program is addressed? t. Is the factual material on which the plan is based accessible to the public~ g. To what extent is pJ.annixig and decisionmaking public? ·, • ·. · ~ .- ·---· ·- ... - . -.-.,. .. . ·-..., . . ........ ·~ l _ ·.. I. \ . . . . . . . .... ... ~._... .., . . ,. ., ... _- · :·. - ·-,. ~ ·. - . , .,... .... . - - --- _j_ �-- - . ·- - ·- ~'.: ·- - - '!: ..___ : U ~ J :. ,> . ·:·.' ·,~- . . -~-~ ::.__ ) I ' .. · ·.. •: -- c c:.-~r::-t·:~""tr1·:CE Gi·J !IOr5I(,iG FO~ THF; P00I{ EUD n:1d o::o i:m ulcl invite t w.:.n ty of the 1.i.oct kno;.;ledgct1.ble pc.opl_e in the fi eld c,Z hou3in3 the p oor , to .:a. t •.10- day C O'.'l:::°C;'.'~ncc . The c.ceting is for c o:·,t.ul t.o.tio::i. ead the public "1 i ll not be i'cw:l.t:ucl, althou zh oth.:-:r Fcdcrel 1,:g2ncf. es '!:tc purpose of this c01:i.fo:.:-r.cncc i s t o evaluate . tho fccsibi li ty of provici i~~-t~ y c:lr.:; , .::t ~rices tt,lo poor C'.:.n ~ffo:-d . 1-J ~ er-~ secl-d113 from this confcren.(..e (l) eco:10.ni-: .:nd :.-:;ucial tc:i:w ; and (2) identif ication of il lte;..1Et ivc pt·ogr.:1.ms o~ housing o·.r.: il.r,blc f or the 3.3 r.1illion r,,o or · househo l d:3 b 1.<, t i1ould otherw i r;e occU?Y substand~rd or overcrowded u~it ~ cy 1970 . }!-::re specifi cally thcr~ will be c.n idcntifica.tioa oi the obstucies involved cutU:v:d . Tbe c onf f~ rencc will i::,(;! c entered nrott-id f:l.ve issues: '"rd/or cle,n ~nce arc n.,::;cds;:d; the cozl.:.s involved ; capjb ility of occup~~tt:: to r,sy; present locc1t1ons of subct~nd.1rd c:nits; oo-.uposition o:Z occupcnts by l"c.1c ~, avtil ilClbility of lsrd; .nr<:l1it ,i ctural end city planning concerna; th-3 t e -::rmolo.;- ica l problem~ and opportunities of a lar~e-Dcale buildins and ~ebuil
  • Tags: Box 22, Box 22 Folder 17, Folder topic: Task Force on Cities | 1966
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: December 29, 2017

Box 22, Folder 18, Document 1

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_022_018_001.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 22, Folder 18, Document 1
  • Text: ot The Department of Housing and Urban Development and The Office of Economic Opportunity CONFERENCE ON HOUSING FOR, THE POOR May 23-24, 1966 Washington Hilton Hotel Washington, D.C. Agenda for CONFERENCE ON HOUSING FOR ‘'TIll: POOR Department of Housing and Urban Development and Office of Economic Opportunity May 23-24, 1966 Washington, D. C. Purpose: The purpose of this Conference is to evaluate the feasibility of providing several million additional standard housing units within the next five years, at prices the poor can afford. We are seeking from this Conference (1) a summary of what we do and do not know about how the poor are housed, in physical, economic and social terms; and (2) identification of alternative programs or combinations of programs and implementation strategies, that might make decent housing available for the several million poor households that would otherwise occupy substandard or overcrowded units by 1970. Program Monday, May 23, 1966 9:00 a.m. Opening Remarks Sargent Shriver, Director Office of Economic Opportunity Robert C. Wood, Under Secretary Dept. Housing & Urban Develop. 9:15 a.m. Conference Procedures Dr. Morton J. Schussheim Director, Office of Program Policy Dept. Housing & Urban Develop. Mr. Alvin L. Schorr, Deputy Chief, Research & Plans Office of Economic Opportunity 9:30 a.m. Statement of Problems and Professor Charles Abrams Its Dimensions Columbia University (The number of units and poor people in need of better housing} the extent to which rehabilitation and/or clearance are required; the costs involved; present locations of substandard units; composition of occupants by race, age, size and family composition; the national goal.) , 11:00 a.m. Social Issues Professor Nathan Glazer University of California (The questions of deghettoizing the poor and particularly the nonwhite poor; the supplemental educational, counseling and back-up services required; the problems of a means test and establishing priority criteria; the attitudes of poor and non-poor to this housing; the difficulties and oppor- © tunities of relocation. Should standards be reduced, e.g. no air conditioning; room sharing; smaller room size; etc...) 1:00 p.m. LUNCH Monday, May 23, 1966 (Cont'd) 5 2:30 - 5:00 Tuesday, May 24, Technological and Land Use Issues Richard J. Canavan National Association of Homebuilders (The type of housing required and its location; the availability of land; architectural and city planning concerns, the technological problems and opportunities of a large-scale building and rebuilding program; the abilities of existing or proposed institutions to implement the program; prospects for cost reduction.) 9:30 a.m. 12:00 2:00 =- 4:00 1966 Economic Issues Professor Chester Rapkin University of Pennsylvania (Alternative means of financing the program; the a effect on the economy of a multi-billion dollar program; the effect on the total housing industry and construction costs; acceptable standards of Space and quality; the effect on the values and condition of existing housing and neighborhoods; efficiencies that might result from a reevaluation of the economics of the housing industry.) LUNCH Program Issues Dr. Louis Winnick Public Affairs Program The Ford Foundation (The types of programs to meet the objective; possible expansion or redirection of existing programs and the invention of new kinds of programs; possible number of units to be developed; the phasing and possible mix of programs over a several-year period.) List of Invited Participants Conference on Housing for the Poor Mr. Charles Abrams Professor of City Planning Columbia University Mrs. Ruth Atkins Community Representatives Advisory Council Office of Economic Opportunity Mr. Richard J. Canavan Staff Vice President Builder Services Division National Association of Homebuilders Mr. Albert M, Cole President, Reynolds Metals Development Corporation Dr. Robert Dentler ' Center for Urban Education Mr. John Eberhardt National Bureau of Standards Professor Bernard Frieden Department of City and Regional Planning Massachusetts Institute of Technology Mr. Robert Gladstone, President Robert Gladstone and Associates Professor Nathan Glazer University of California Dr. William G. Grigsby Institute for Environmental Studies University of Pennsylvania Mr. Nathaniel Keith Consultant Dean Burnham Kelly College of Architecture Cornell University Mr. Saul Klaman Director of Research National Association of Mutual Savings Banks Mr. Arthur Levin Potomac Institute Honorable Sherman Maisel Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System Honorable Arthur Okun, Member Council of Economic Advisers Professor Chester Rapkin Institute for Environmental Studies University of Pennsylvania Mr. Nathaniel H. Rogg Executive Vice President National Association of Homebuilders Dr. John R. Seeley Chairman, Department of Saciology Brandeis University Mr. Miles Stanley National Advisory Council Office of Economic Opportunity Dr. Louis Winnick Public Affairs Program The Ford Foundation Housing Poor Families . The Problem. A program to house all the nation's poor in decent onstage at Sante ‘thay can afford contains two distinguishable elements: 1) how to improve the housing conditions of those presently living in sub- standard quarters; and 2) how to lessen the financial burden of those who live in standard quarters at the price of devoting an excessive burden of chase income for housing. OEO has estimated that upwards of 4 million poor families and poor unrelated individuals in 1964 lived in housing that was dilapidated, lacked plumbing facilities, or was overcrowded = The number who overpay for standard housing is harder to estimate but is large. For example, in 1960 rent-income ratios were computed for 5.7 million tandttee with incomes under $3,000. 4.4 million of them were paying 25 percent of their income or more for rent. An additional .5 million were paying be- tween 20 and 25 percent of their incomes. In theory, housing needs of poor people should decline because of anticipated declines in the proportion of families who are poor and because of continued upgrading of the total housing stock. Between 1950 and 1960, however, poor families received only 2.5 million standard units out of a net overall increase of 19 million. That is, families representing 30 per- cent of the total in 1950 and 20 percent in 1960 showed 13 percent of the 1/ The incidence of housing characteristics in 1960 was applied to 1964 data about the poor population, producing a total of 4.1 million in such units in 1964. If one proceeds alternatively from the housing stock itself and the rate at which improved housing stock reaches poor families, an estimate as high as 5 million poor families in substandard housing would be produced. net overall increase. Moreover, in some places and for some groups, "natural forest! aay exacerbate the problem in the years just ahead. Low income families present ly living in substandard housing are less mobile and have more deviant characteristics than those who were able to take advantage of », the filtering process during the 1950s. And such forces as zoning and sub- division controls are likely to ocidens ade impediments to the distribution downward of standard housing. That the current welfare system -~- an example of the pure income approach to housing =-- has not produced larger results ‘is another argument for seeking substantial approach to the supply side of thd equation. : Obviously, some improvement will occur naturally and one must bane ; too that cash income maintenance programs will meet increasing portions of | family income deficits. Reasoning from 4 million families and individuals in substandard housing in 1964 and additional millions paying more than they can afford for standard housing, one may estimate the objective more or less at will. OEO has estimated that the objective should be pitched to the expectation that the median income of families who should be reached would be $3,000 (for a family of four). From this base, one must deter~ mine an overall objective within the target date of five or six years. Developing a Program. In approaching the development of a program it is necessary to judge what may be built and what may be reclaimed. Such an approach represents more than simple economy. It allows room for families that may wish not to give up their homes and provides a pattern for continned maintenance of the nateius supply. In the decade from 1950 to 1960, are thing less than one-fourth of the net increase in standard dwellings rep- resented rehabilitated units. On one hand, there has been considerable reduction in the stock of housing that lacks plumbing facilities and is comparatively easily rehabilitated. On the other hand, new aids are available for rehabilitation and new effort is to be invested in it. It is, in any event, necessary to make some assumption about the proportion of standard housing that would be secured by rehabilitation and the pro- portion that would be built new. Similarly, it fs necessary to make judgments about the geographic distribution of additional standard housing. Although substandard housing is disproportionately distributed in rural areas, some number of the people now using it will be seeking housing in urban areas. Finally, plans for a substantial program should include consideration of staging a buildup of the construction industry. For example, a net increase of 1 million units a year might be built up to at the rate of 200,000 or 300,000 each year for several years. The supply of housing for low-income families can be increased either through government incentives to the private sector or through direct con= struction by public housing authorities. Incentives to the private sector include subsidization of land costs and reduction in the cost of borrowing building capital (low interest loans or subsidized interest rates). Use of these aids provides an attractive incentive to private builders (and re- habilitation contractors) while permitting some control over the allocation of benefits and rentals or sales prices. However, these forms of assistance % are not sufficient to produce housing in the $50 a month range. To do this, poor families must also be subsidized. ‘A-program of the magnitude being described might be. fashioned entirely out of two elements --- rental or purchase assistance and interest and land subsidization. ‘The obverse side of these assistances are conditions as to beneficiaries and uses. Obviously, many variants of the two elements are possible and alterna- tive programs may be featitonad de well. Related questions that would arise include the uses and place of code enforcement, the type of research that might be most productive, the special needs of rural areas, the methods of assuring desegregation, and related needs for providing public and social services.
  • Tags: Box 22, Box 22 Folder 18, Folder topic: Task Force on Cities | 1966
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 30, 2021

Box 22, Folder 17, Document 15

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_022_017_015.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 22, Folder 17, Document 15
  • Text: THE EVENING STAR Woshington, D: C.; Friday, "November 18, 196 x POINT OF VIEW— 2 huis ey Te GOP Bares Economic Plan By MARY McGRORY Star Staff Writer Rep. Melvin R. Laird, chair- man of the House Republican Conference, has unveiled the rincipal economic provision GOP "Sialeoi-the nion "message, which the newly revived minority party plans to repeat—January. He expounded at length on a federal-state_tax-sharing plan which.cas_originally pushed by Walter Heller, who served both the New Frontier and the Great Society as chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, Congressional Republicans are putting a major effort into their minority declaration this year, With 47 new House members and a brilliant array of new faces in the Seriate, they hope their “State of the Union” which was somewhat facetiously received in 1966, will be taken seriously in 1957. Laird told the press he thinks the real action in the coming year will be in the House, where the swelling of Republican ranks means that some of the legislative goals might actually be accom- plished. In drafting the “State of the Union,” the views of the newly elected governors and legisla- tors will be consulted, but Laird said he hoped the House Republicans “would not get involved in presidential poli- tics.” He and House Minority Leader Gerald E. Ford al- ready are involved to some extent, since they raised the money to finance the highly | successful 30-staet campaign tour of Richard M. Nixon. They sought and received clearance from Ford's gover- nor, George W. Romney, the leading contender. They said they were working not for the candidacy of Nixon but for the congressmen whom he was boosting. Fe The drafters of the “State of the Union” paper foresee little difficulty with the domestic proposals. The Republican governors went on record in July 1965 in favor of the tax- sharing scheme, |. But if Senate Minority Leader Everett M. Dirksen reserves for himself the right to speak again on foreign policy, as. he did in 1965, the Republicans will find them- selves in difficulties. . Dirksen pleased neither hawks nor doves of his party with his previous declaration. He will again fail the hard- liners like Nixon and Rep. Ford, who favor increased air and sea power use and the soft-liners, like Sen.-elect Charles H. Percy of Illinois and Sen.-elect Mark O. Hat- field of Oregon, who empha- size negotiation. The Senate minority leader is a law unto himself, and none of the technicians in the House leadership can appeal to him to shape his views to theirs. Dirksen’s thinking on loyal opposition were formed during ~ the Eisenhower years, when © the then Senate Minority - Leader Lyndon B. Johnson took the position that partisan differences stopped at the water's edge, - The rule was observed, except in 1954 when Johnson, in concert with several other Democrats, took exception to the Eisenhower policies in Viet Nam. : Dirksen initially made a few noises about Viet Nam last year, but refused the language ‘provided him by the Joint Minority Conference and went all the way with LBJ in his portion of the “State of the . Union.” Romney is both vulnerable and defensive on foreign policy, He revealed in his first post-election national televi- sion appearance Sunday that he not only has no position but no views he dares express. It is this weakness that may prove to be the opportunity of 48-year-old Sen.-elect Percy, who proposed the all-Asia peace conference, which he | insists, despite the presiden- tial trip to Manila, has never occurred. \ Percy makes no secret to fellow Republicans of his feeling that he is far more informed on questions of war and peace than the governor of Michigan. He has one other advantage over Romney. He supported his party's nominee in 1964 and Romney did not, a cir- cumstance for which the Goldwater wing of the party has not yet forgiven him. If Percy—no matter what - Dirksen says in the ‘‘State of the Union’ message—forges out. a peace position, then it could mean problems, not only ‘for Romney, but for President Johnson as well in 1968,
  • Tags: Box 22, Box 22 Folder 17, Folder topic: Task Force on Cities | 1966
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 30, 2021

Box 22, Folder 17, Document 22

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_022_017_022.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 22, Folder 17, Document 22
  • Text: STATEMENT ON LANDLORD-TENANT RELATIONS For a tenant who is poor and lives in a slum, the balance of power in landlord-tenant relations is an unequal one. The slum dweller's ability to compete in the market place by moving elsewhere is sharply limited. His ability to seek legal redress is hampered both by his level of poverty and the lack of an adequate © framework of legal protection. His ability to obtain protection from government is limited by inadequate code enforcement programs and a lack of effective governmental sanctions in dealing with major code violations. Reformation of landlord-tenant law is a state and local government responsibility, but of sade dumewian se to the national welfare. The federal government already has substantial authority to help protect the rights of tenants through better code enforcement. The steps taken by the federal government, while indirect, can be of decisive importance. Recommendations: The Task Force therefore recommends: 1. That a National Institute of Urban Housing Law be es- tablished and adequately funded on a long-term basis. The Institute should be empowered to prepare model statutes, develop briefs, and serve as a clearinghouse of housing law information. 2. That the administration of HUD's "Workable Program" which now statutorily calls for an effective program of code enforcement, be strengthened (a) by giving the matter highest possible priority in the Department, (b) by clarifying regulations and developing specific criteria on what constitutes an effective program, and (c) by requiring uniform statistical reporting to determine comparable rates of municipal performance. 3. That HUD's program of aid for concentrated code enforce- ment (Sec. 117) be revised to allow the use of such funds in hard ‘core slum areas to cope with most urgent code violations, or new legislation should be sought to provide a new aid program for urgent repairs and in- tensified municipal services in such slum areas. 4. That HEW should be directed, either by legislation or administrative action, to require as a condition of continued welfare payments that state and local governments establish a program that: (a) provides a system for the inspection and certification of major code violations and the opportunity for welfare recipients to elect to with- hold their rent where justified, (b) allows rent to be placed in escrow for the repair of such violations, and (c) requires enactment of appropriate legislation prohibiting summary eviction of such welfare tenants. 5. That all federal departments concerned with property acqui- sition prohibit payments for values represented by the amount of code violations. 6. That federal departments dealing with the audit and veri- fication of real estate and mortgage loan assets require certification, for each property concerned, that no official complaints of code violations are presently pending. # i #
  • Tags: Box 22, Box 22 Folder 17, Folder topic: Task Force on Cities | 1966
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 30, 2021

Box 22, Folder 17, Document 23

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_022_017_023.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 22, Folder 17, Document 23
  • Text: December 1, 1965 SUMMARY REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT BY THE TASK FORCE ON THe CITIES TNTRODUCTION The Task Force was convened on October 28 to give con- sideration to issues and proposals in four areas: (1) neighborhood centers, (2) homeownership by the poor, (3) Urban Development Corporation, and (4) landlord-tenant relations. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS Neighborhood Centers: A federal inter-agency program should be initisted on a demonstration basis. But the goal should : be to shape the total service system of a city, so that it effectively meets needs from the individual's viewpoint and not just to test out different kinds of "models" as though neighborhood centers are ends in themselves rather than the delivery arm of the city's service system. Homeownership by the Poor: Is a good idea and well worth trying on a pilot program basis. But it is no panacea. It should be made part of a larger neighborhood improvement program. It should make ownership possible outside the slum as well as in is. Dwellings should be rehabilitated prior to assumption of ownership. Low interest loans and rent supplements or other subsidies from owners will be necessary. Urban Development Corporation: As & means of stimulating ce echnological and other cost-saving innovations, it is an attractive ea. But it must be done on a large enough scale if it is to have ‘a Pu any impact. A number of risks are involved. Firm commitments on the availability of low-interest loans and rent supplements must be made. Landlord-tensent relations: The federal government hes present euthority, and can issue additional administrative regulations, to help tenants by requiring vigorous code enforcement as a condition a ederal assistance. In addition, consideration should be given to Fy or using welfare payments as leverage to correct serious code violations by landlords. HUD's aid program for code enforcement should be used in slum areas. A National Institute of Urban Housing Law should be es- teblished. Oe al wot #
  • Tags: Box 22, Box 22 Folder 17, Folder topic: Task Force on Cities | 1966
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 30, 2021

Box 22, Folder 17, Document 21

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_022_017_021.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 22, Folder 17, Document 21
  • Text: November 15, 1966 MEMORANDUM Tor Members of Task Force Frome ArDee Ames At the direction of Paul Ylvisaker, I am attaching a copy of the memo prepared by Mr. Chapin on long-range issues for consideration by the task force. If you would send your memo to this office as soon as possible we will take care of distributing it to the other members.
  • Tags: Box 22, Box 22 Folder 17, Folder topic: Task Force on Cities | 1966
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 30, 2021

Box 22, Folder 18, Document 13

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_022_018_013.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 22, Folder 18, Document 13
  • Text: — THE WASHINGTON POST - 11-30-66 T°y RR AN aT “mm Th ET COLE {RIC YD cae x2 VLOIC Yi SPROUL Ea) Wi7 oan e o a HY -Crisi Att Wy= Ui 1Sis \ELACIK By Andrew J. Glass Washington Post Staff Writer ” Sen. Abraham
  • Tags: Box 22, Box 22 Folder 18, Folder topic: Task Force on Cities | 1966
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 30, 2021

Box 22, Folder 18, Document 14

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_022_018_014.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 22, Folder 18, Document 14
  • Text: THE NEW YORK TIMES - November 27, 1966 | | TAX SHARING PLAN OFFERED BY 6.0.2. Rep. Goodell Asks Allotting of 3% of Income Tax WASHINGTON, Nov. 26 jJ(AP)—4 House Republican leader has already drafted a plan for sharing Federal taxes with state and local govern- ments that will be a corner- stone of Republican policy in the next Congress. The plan calls for turning back 3 per cent of Federal in- come tax receipts to states and localities to use as they sce fit. The amount would rise gradu- ally to 5 per cent. Offered by Representative Charles E. Goodcll, Republican of upstate New York, the plan is the first concrete proposal by the House Republican leadership since the Republican election triumphs of Nov. 3. “This proposal seeks to pro- vide for the great public needs of the 1960's and 1970's by equipping state and local gov- ernments to meet these needs,” Mr. Goodell said. “It is an al- ternative to the philosophy of the Great Society,” he added. Not Replacing Anything Mr. Goodell, chalrman of the Republican Planning and Re- search Committee, said in a statement that tax-sharing would provide needed general aid funds without reducing state and local governments to administrative subdivisions of Washington. It is not being offered, at least originally, as a substitute for any existing programs, he said, although in time it may permit some of them to be cut back, A tax-sharing plan was pro- posed in 1964 by Walter W. Hel- ler, then chairman of the President's Council of Economic of mterest the White House ap- parently put it aside, Represen- tative Henry 8, Reuss, Demo- crat of Wisconsin, has also suggested it in the House. Mr. Goodell said his plan dii- fered frorn Mr, Heller's in mak- ing a specific allotment of tax receipts to local communities, The plan calls for distributing 90 per cent of the funds for state purposes, with 45 per cent to be redistributed by the states to local governments, and 5 per cent to strengthen the executive and management functions of states, The state and local govern-/ ments would have full discretion over how the money was used, but each state would be required to submit its plan for allocating the money and make an annual report on how it was spent. Treasury Post Planned The office of administrator of general aid would be established in the Treasury Department to assume Federal responsibilities under the plan. Mr. Goodell’s plan calls for distributing 90 per cent of the Federal income tax distribution to the states on a basis of pop- ulation, The remaining 10 per cent would be used to raise thel- per capita allotment in the 17}. poorest states. Using estimated income tax payments for 1967, Mr. Goodell said that $1.8-billion would be available for distribution, The average basic allocation would be $8.50 per person, with the equalizing funds raising the poorer states by as much as $6.) Although the Federal Govern- ment would have no control over how the states and localities} used the money, Mr. Goodell said, such use would have to comply with Federal law, includ- ing the Civil Rights Act ban on using money for programs in which there is. racial discrim-|! ination, Mr. Goodell would also require}: a review and possible revision of the program by Congress Advisers, but after a brief flurry] after four years, ¥ —
  • Tags: Box 22, Box 22 Folder 18, Folder topic: Task Force on Cities | 1966
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 30, 2021

Box 22, Folder 18, Document 17

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_022_018_017.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 22, Folder 18, Document 17
  • Text: THE NEW YORK Trvms - 11-30-66 PRIVATE APTAGK: ON SWS BACKED 307 o-— Senate Panel Endorses Bid for Heavy Investment er By ROBERT GB. SEMPLE dr. Special to The New York Tinos WASHINGTON, Nov. 29 —Proposals aimed’; attracting huze_sums_ ar Dtivate capital into slum rehabilitation received) strong endorsement toda ¥ as the}. . Senate Government Operations . subcommittee began a sccond| = round ofh earings on what has! been ‘called. the, ‘crisis’ in. the/ a ees ‘e ay cities: 2-4" : nay Senator Jacob K, Javits, Now, York Republican, a subconunit- tee member, said he was “en- couraged” by recent reports that the Johnson Administration had such a plan under study. Senator Abraham A. Ribicofi, the subcommittee chairman, de- clared that the task ef providing decent housing in slums was not going to be solved ‘by Government: alone, ‘ _ He indicated that “he would listen sympathetically to any Proposal involving: a joint pub- lic-private assault - on ghetto housing. .°* ' we A Tentative Proposal The Administration's tentative! Proposal, developed over thel last six months und refined by the Department of Housing and| Urban Development, calls for! erontion ote national, nonprot-| IL, semi-publie Trhan Develan- ment Comparanir ieee its ari " Sos hope, would attract heavy private. investment into slum! rehabilitation by providing. at variety of Federal incentives} and guarantees, F The substance of the plan was! disclosed in The New York , Times on Sunday. : Even though.no member of the subcommittee would com- mit himself to-a specific ap- proach, today’s hearings indi-| cated a lively interest in the; plan on the part of Mr. Ribicoff! and Mr. Javits, as well as the! comimittce's ‘lead witness, David! Rockefeller, New York financier Mr. Rockefeller, president of the Chase Manhattan Gank, de- clared that. “urban rehbiilita- tion is primarily a task for pri- vate enterprise.” But,.in respon to sustained questioning from Mr. Javits, he coneeded that business would be reluctant to make heavy capital outlays in slum areas because the risk was great and, the profit re- turns poor | |¢ a a ® “ -can industrial organization.” ‘Role as Contractor However, the New York! banker also declared that busi-| ness would probably be able to provide substantial help as a “contractor” acting for the Government—which is one of) the roles for business envisioned the proposal now under study in the Administration. Under the pian, the Urgan Development Corporation would) help acquire rundown housing—| using money from private sour- ees such as banks and founda- tions as well as Government| funds—and then invile industry] to rehabilitate it cheaply and) efficiently. In this way, the report de- scribing the plan wasy, the cor- poration would “fuse the presently fragmented purchas- ing power” of the Government with t e managerial and tech- nological capacity of ‘“Ameri- The program's sponsors have said that neither new appropria- tions ‘nor new legislation oould be immediately required. The plan, in its final form, recommends as a first step the purchase and rehabilitation of $0,000 units in several cities, requiring ahout £400-million. Earlier versions of the plan predicted that in 10° years it could provide—-assuming initial success—5 milliom rehabilitated or newly built, slum units at an aggregate cost of $50-billion. Appears Pessimistic Mr, Ribicoff urged Mr. Racke- feller, who at times appeared pessimistic about awakening business enthusiasm ‘ior large- scale investment in slums on anything other than a contrac- tual basis, to cxamine not the obstacles to redevelopment but the “hopes and the possibil- ities." He suggested that business, especially the construction | in- dustry, would find in slum re- habilitation an enormous mar- kel for supplies ranging from flooring material to disposal units, Mr. Rockefeller also had kind words for local: redevelopment plans such as that envisioned by Senator Robert F. Kennedy in the Bedford-Stuyvesant area ot Brooklyn, The Kennedy plan calls for the establishment of a nonprofit corporation to engi- neer the- rehabilitation of Bed- ford-Stuyvesant housing, The New York banker de- scribed the approach as “most hopeful.” He also expressed considera- ble interest in Mr. Javits's sug- gestion that the Government help industry form a techno- logical consortium similar to the supersonic transport program. The New York Republican Pointed out that the Govern- ment was currently pouring large sums of money inta the aircraft industry in the quest for a successful supersonic line, He suggested, and Mr. Rocke- feller agreed, that some kind of “broad - scale hlanagement group" might be established! with Government. help. and. put to work devising answers to the| “Aeeee sf aenhen Tee *
  • Tags: Box 22, Box 22 Folder 18, Folder topic: Task Force on Cities | 1966
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 30, 2021

Box 22, Folder 18, Document 23

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_022_018_023.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 22, Folder 18, Document 23
  • Text: Dictated -but not read A PILOT PROGRAM TO PROMOTE HOMEOWNERSHIP AMONG SLUM RESIDENTS by Anthony Downs The desire to own a home is a basic part of our tradition. Today 62% of American families have 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 towards society. Instead of feeling like frustrated and helpless we transients floating along in the poverty and filth of the slums, they could begin developing a chance of control over their own destiny. They could gradually build a stake in their communities, and would learn how to use and benefit from legal and political institutions they now regard with hostility. Furthermore, providing the Lagahoors household with home-ownership assistance would now 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 deduction for the interest and property taxes paid on their homes. This subsidy amounts to at least $1.7 billion per year for just the wealthiest 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. Se simple justice demands that we encourage home ownership for them in some other way more suitable 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 at least an opportunity to own decent homes, and because it would help improve slum 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 whoch will be up-graded through a wide variety of other programs too -- as in the Model Cities Program. This home-ownership program would help 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 properties. Several types of aid would be involved in this program. “Fiest, the slum housing units involved 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-down payment basis. Third, potential owners should recieve 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 ta buy back the housing involved during a fixed period in case the owners could not carry the required burdens. In our opinion, this is a program solidly in the American tradition, and well worth trying.
  • Tags: Box 22, Box 22 Folder 18, Folder topic: Task Force on Cities | 1966
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 30, 2021

Box 22, Folder 18, Document 27

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_022_018_027.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 22, Folder 18, Document 27
  • Text: CONFIDENTIAL 6/2/67 DRAFT INTRODUCTION America and its conmunities are changing with unsettling rapidity. Most of this change has been healthy; and most of the problems it _has caused tend to evoke their own solutions, This country - despite its transitional strains and its freely-voiced complaints - has an immense capacity for self-correction. There is always a temptation - and a pressure - to over-react: to give equal ear to every complaint, to chase off after every problen, and to wind up with congeries of programs which may slow up rather than _accelerate the nation's natural and long-run capacity for self-correction, Evidence is accumulating that such has already happened in the federal government's response to urban problems over the past twenty years, These have been years of improvisation, and probing. On balance, they have been constructive, But neither in scale nor impact have they caught up with the dimensions and force of the nation's urban trends and developing problems. The time has come to move from improvisation over a wide front, and in sometimes contrary directions, to an effort a) which is aimed at selected problems of transcending importance; b) which is of a scale large enough to make a difference; c) which is not dissipated by conflicting policies and administrative arrangements; d) which offer powerful incentives to state, local and private initiative, and thereby move toward a "steady state" of continuous problem-solving; e) which begin to erase the public's skepticism -- its growing feeling that public programs are not to be taken seriously, that more is promised than will ever be delivered. The Task Force believes that the first priorities for public action in urban America are related to the growing disparity between city and suburb. - A disparity which is expressed in the segregation between white and black, the gap between income in central city and in suburb, the uneven economic growth in our metropolitan areas, and in our capacity for response to the problems of central cities. Today too many of our central cities have become the political jurisdictions and geographic areas in which accident, design and even progress have housed an inordinately high proportion of our problem people and an outsized share of our problens of public policy. The Task Force on cities decided early in its deliberations to» focus on these urban disparities. We have identified two major approaches. The first is a straight- forward discussion of urban segregation by wee and income and some recommendations intended to alleviate its effects, The second involves a series of recommendations - some modest, some sweeping - intended to increase sharply our ability to deal with urban problens creatively, responsively, and on a larger scale than is presently possible. We also have found it convenient to add three smaller sections to our report; on innovation, the model cities program, and an agenda for future study, While we reconmend that Federal action in these areas be altered, refocused and expanded, we admit two general caveats. 1, That our knowledge of how to deal with urban problems both physical and human is still limited. That a period of intensive and well-managed experimentation is a necessary first step in any large scale strategy for altering the pattern of urban development. 2. While we believe that the sorts of programs we are recommending should have the highest national priority, we recognize how politically and practically difficult it is to spend a larger portion of our resources on the urban poor and the central cities. This is true fimdamentally because the present system of urban development works quite well for most people, Most Americans are happy in suburbs, they have done well in the system, and they look forward to doing better. Our report focuses on the disaffected and they are few. Their potential ee on American society, however, is enormous,
  • Tags: Box 22, Box 22 Folder 18, Folder topic: Task Force on Cities | 1966
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 30, 2021

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 18, Document 7

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_022_018_007.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 22, Folder 18, Document 7
  • Text: Tait t. o> eee: ; ‘ Subcommittee on Executive Reorgenizetion of the Senate Committee on Government Operations Afternoon session: December 5, 1965 Witness: Walter P. Reuther Subject: Problems of the Cities Mr. Reuther was accompanied by Jack T. Conway former Devuty Director of tne Housing and Home Finance Agency and OHO. Mr. Reuther deliveres his statement on behalf of the six and one-half milion industrial workers represented by the Industrial Union Department of the AFL-CIO and the million and one-half members of the United Automobile, Aerosnace and Agricultural Imolement Workers of Americe. He advocated a weaving of all the elements, housing, anti-pollution control and others, in combating urban blight. He said that these efforts must entail the most participation possible by everyone affected end there must be a maximum coordinetion of effors.: He also said that the problems of cities are beyond the economic capebilivies of the local governments. However, he Yeels that tne real drive anc thr o must come from the local level. Mr. Reuther proposed the ereation of a National Nonprofit zousing Corvoration consisting of the best minds from laoor, rinance, industry, education, etc. He prefers this sen vernmental type oF corporation because such an organizaticn would not be entrenched in the bureaucratic a7 ee also thinks tnas & a patterns which are to be found in the government. He + Te type of organization would not involve in-fighting whicn is ometimes prevalent in government organizations. In his opinion, a peleeie organization would be much more Flexible. Mr. Reuther, in suggesting taav the task of retuilding tie city be done by the totel community, described the Detroit Metropolitan Citi Development Authority, of which he is now chairman. He said the Authority is trying to reouild the city and to qualify Detroit a2 Demonstration City. . This Authority now has the active p i industry, retail stores, churches, civil rignts group _He said they are trying to create a community vartnersnin. Mr. Reuther described the three xinds of money which the eEoup Will use to build housing as "seed money", development money and , He said that the seed’ money is nee interest in the progran, but will government if rade through grants In this regard, pension funds could probably & 2 used only for moregag the funds are controlled by 3 osrds which must dec of the money is secure. * not be & permissible invesbiient fi me mw ia) that seed money and dsv or most pension funds. fo Orne function of the nonprofit corporation, according to Ir. Reuthe would be to stimulate and encourage the building of tone income he ie aol he a by giving technical assistance to builders who would operate for a profit. He seid thet there would necessarily be exerts available or on call. He said that the key to the whole problem of providing Low income housing is to demonstrate the practical capability of tiexing pudlic planning compatible with orivete planning and buildings. Mr. Reuther said that he is very enthusiastic about the Den Cities Bill. However, he criticized Congress! attitude tor approsrietion of money Tor domestic programs. He thinks + se programs should be funded shead of tims, so that the pesextieibe wil iad aus ¥ know whet money is available and have the money in time to plan eh He thinks long term committiments should be made for comestic progr as well as for military programs and Yoreign aid. While criticizing present practices of lend use in cities, Mr Reuther sugzested that a lend bank should be created to help local nities provide’ land for low and moderates income housing. He said that the U. 6. gees learn a lot from Great Eritain. He also pointed out that there are no slums in Sweden. Mr. Reuther “gontended thet the only way to reduc houses is to apply modern, advanced technolosy a to such fields as space exolorati at, ES habiovwe $16,000 according to present standards could be dev $8,000 if industry is shown how to do it by researc! government or a private non-profit corporation cy kK he o Mr. Reuther was hignly critical of the present systems of in this country. de seid that the car industry will eventuslly suffer fren self-strangulation on the highways. E person to carry ea ton and a half of me thinks it is ridiculous for a al with him to work everydey. Main questions raised by Subcomnittee; 1. Particivetion by private industry in rebuilding cities. Mr. Ribicoff asked Walter Reuther what ratio would be participation by private industry and gover in Mr. Reutner replied th re he thought the minimum ravio sh government money for EVERY. 35 of private funds used. prososed by David Rock mereller. 2. Teaching migrants to live in the city. The Chairman asked who teaches the farm peoovle now to live i how to avoid turning housing into slum ereas the olight of public housing in many cities unfortunat = Shine is that most new city dwellers abous hew to Live in a elty. Xe + u fr om the slums to go back int kai @ and take cere oF to liv q a D Pe rl ei ad = or] ha ao xs 4> La in) a mh 28 i § ot i =] aw ow Ad qq GO a) ae wet O et) sg 3 Oo 2 MS bO wo Tt AD eed an e-{ oe o Po © < 43 et BE ‘a oD a ey ta Laood iH ‘a -l Pp w a = og 42 Geis ust i qj. Ago Q sto ov e} ood Oh O mM Ay aa: © OQ Oert ed q 5 “<2 G4 «3 wd a) be co od og m9 wd 2 a pod gs Od al yo te 4 Y o£ @ ro a oO 4 s4 46% O 8 & 4 q) uD 0. o Yeisen Ss Pa {> a OR 44 oo o * ao ol @ Y ng > OR ea 2 8 u 0 aed 0) 02 EF 44 43 ea Pp oO a Mot oo Oo aed oO @ a) = yo. a Q 42 oO On a wa by tr a 3 a a fu me Edict ao Oo v a au a a2 OFF O a ao Ee a vo fa oma) ~ ea ke ED »~ fa asf Py S S QO £3 oY i »m Oo Teed A, Oo Gea i O Hed ao Go « to} £ ° 4D Moo sa a a OC a wiy4o qt Oo is O YU 43 wa a cf GO ef] a ma ie) aoao 6 9 ft a o aA ict CF ee gor woo a9 feed hy Oo acl mes ao pd Sadoasd wa at adadas «a a 5d a _ @ as "ta th eh ort FI O04 “4 po s 4 73420 8 a cai ss u ao uomd uw gO a oS 53 6 y hifeet ee UG On @& 9 O @ 9° aoa hy pt H OTD 2 4 tt Ga a&agd eu o OG rd i) GPO ea Be » 2 ooo oO ct ao wv =f oo ots wo ae) ire ood & tri Hf Oled 9G gp goddaa @ Pi” By Site Hat sd og ef > y go” by ao 2 4 wQ wt oO “y Ved SH Oo Ga te bs wd on pwn o dda © Oo ayer ci feo] Cy Pat Gos a . PPO & w aye oo wv ray he Gp oo a ey i oo mou @ ri a “a he oo Op oe oo = Vet ow Bop 42 ho iho OWN OY Ei @ fy r-t O wo oH SF ay teh wa w-o ovr ude 2 Ps Oago d ta a La ca op a) oa EA : : : . . a 4H, {PF @& 2 0 oS w G Py ee aq 4 fg mlm O 47 Q Sw wo AO ed . 7h - Ss . =r an, a0 nt ake fe to cv 1 i Bnousi fea = nm aa e ao not fever, L wo wan coe he ri, G a Wa e- ros w tl od sy (U} p> op a oe me a 43 £3 a) «a eg 42 4 a Mo gob —m ‘ei g a7 @ a 49 4c o Oy $4 “3 0 oO 2 be Syed w 4. Gt ti 4d qa a6 "3 ed A M6 Pr 2 ca a 3) s i * a a Db yk =D o “7 a wa i ae) Qo @ a oes i = ort wade by nt d, Sas a ae aa weet MSYuLCLVecing ere Att Oris Fi a fovember in laygrounds. Pi © 9 wu; was avor of Oo fe eay wi nm Senator Ke ty De Tema page 2 gmt rayne ¥ 2d A c o i Lm FS & ay eucnier Tt. ms fos MQ. . = facu. i oe it aus local level. Mr. Reuther said he is very much in favor of them. 3 eae ional Corporation to work with tne total problem and to be bac p by local corporations. 6. National Nonprofit Housing Corvoretion. - 4% Senator Ribdicoff seid that the onl be capable of assembling the neces foundations, universities, labor, to participate in the national cor The Senator said tnat he hopes the y level of representation from @, industry and other vii. would be the Pres sident will consider tni wn Or by le 7. How to avoid continuetion of 6 welfare state. Congressman James Scheuer (D - N.Y.) who was eee at the hearing asked Mr. Reuther how third sla isto welfare families and predict drop-outs can be avoided. Mr. Reuther sai that the recomex made by the President's n Augomation should be He said that welfare progrems often emphasize the wrong things and incentives, such as earning outside money. He thinks that a recipi be allowed to do this without loosing his welfare payment so that person will aspire to living on a higher plane. ae nag mi ssicn Mr. Reuther said that enother way to avoid a welfare state and put people to work is to have 2 stendardized comouterized emolo: person he could think of who would At present, Mr. Reuther claimed, tne firty entrencnea stave = obstacles to the setting up of efficient ccmputers which could match unemsloyed person to a joo within ea matter of minutes. Mr. Reuther seid that the wnole person, his hobbies as well as his skills, is now taxen into account uncer the present State systens. 8. Missing element in the slums. Consressman Scheuer asked what is the missing sed to help the city end whether this element is more subsidized hou Mr. Conway said that one reason the government has not helped -encug! subsidizing housing is that in the beginning HHA was a financial in element that has not reson made available for private industry. He said tnat the Asency was not a oriented. Change in Witness schedule: inthony Dechan residen National Farmers Union wi now t Anthony Dechant, esident, Naticnal F s Union will t Tuesday December 6. Dr. | jillian Deebele, Graduate Sch Harvard University was shifted from Wednesday to Tuesday Melvin Thom, Netional Indian Youth Council nas been edde Monday, December 12. Members present: Senator Ribicorr Congressman James H. Scheuer, (D-NY)
  • Tags: Box 22, Box 22 Folder 18, Folder topic: Task Force on Cities | 1966
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 30, 2021

Box 22, Folder 17, Document 26

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_022_017_026.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 22, Folder 17, Document 26
  • Text: Draft: HUD/10/25/66° NEIGHBORHOON CENTNR PILOT PROGRAM Introduction at A. Purpose of the pilot progran n he ot On Friday, August 19, the Prosident in his Byraeuse » New York, “ speech asked... "the Secretary cf Housing and Urban Development to set as his goal the establishmert -- in every ghetto in America <=: ° . of a neighborhood center to service the people who live there." Accordingly initial steps tcward fulfilling this goal were ‘taken when, under Executive Order 11297, the Department of Housing and Urban Development convened ¢ meeting on August 30,: 1966; of , Federal agencies to develop a report to the President and initiate ° & program of action to meet the President's request. As a result of a series of inter-agency meetings a*plan for a& program of pilot projects » which would become the first. step toward the President's goal, has been developed. This program: will be designed and carried out along the following lines. xX RH HK Purposes of a Neighborhood Center 2 ot A neighborhood center shoulé facilitate the deliverance of services to people in low-income neighborhoods and provide a broad range of health, recreation, social and employment services. More social , health, employzent, recreation, and education services are needed in the poverty orcas; these services need to ia ead ai E dak bad z : a = : Ba. eal ee ee eee ae be te. Fa we emaretiatents ninene he e = See —=j, ae san a ee eer a 2 ‘ 2 , be Gecentralized to such areas to be most effectively used; and these services- should be provi¢ed to the greatest extent possible in the context of One-Stop or Tcivhborhood Center. -Such ea, center would peeytas adequate deliver; of these services in a coherent, coordinated manner, reach the uninformed, the isolated end alienated ' and provide a forum where the recds of the neighborhood can be ‘expressed. III. ‘Criteria for a Neishborhood Certer Many variations are possivie in the design of neighborhood centers; and local conditions, resources, needs, choices, and prograris will determine specific solutions. To be considered a neighborhood center for this pilot program, however , the facility must provide ata minimum & progran for the following services: i. Information on citizens' rights and on hoe and where to get services and assistance. 2. Diagnosis of problems end referral to seein agencies. 3. Follow-up or outreach for contimed counseling and services 4. Co-ordination among agencies (Federal, state, Localwpublie and private) supplying services to the neighborhood. 5. Involvement by the neighborhood residents. | Whenever feasible the program for these minimum services should be expanded to include ovher types of services and activities, depending » on the needs of the particular service erea. Among them are: — 1 Social services. : | 2. A broad range of active and passive recreational facilities, | ey ae a-ha , . - >. iv. SSS Shey cn al Te i tp tenn ny ein nl Byam See a IY e : ana es = i ere en w 3. Employment information, referral, counseling and training facilities. he Housing assistance. Bh Activities directed to the needs of senior oleaeeties 6. Health services includ:.ne exemination and consultive services. Te tural enrichment. | . 8. Non-curricular and rem-dial. education. 9. Decentralization of many City Hall service functions to the neighborhood. | The physical size of the neighborhood center will depend oh the Scope of the service program ii. is to house. In addition to the con=" cept of the nisi ghbacnooe cente:' 2s a single building, consideration may be given, where the neighborhood is small in area but dense in pooulation, to the concept of ¢. structure having many services sup- : ported by other offices or sim .ctures providing supporting services. A Neighborhood Center Example ; ‘ ee Although a center will have many components, such a facility must - be organized and administrated in a coherent fashion... This would re- quire that: | 1. Reception, referral, diagnosis, Zollow-up, outreach, and . | ; related generalized seivices be performed through a comuon reception and administiation system. 2. All or most of the comunity's social servis agencies pro- viding services of nee¢é to the neighborhood, should be aeeated’ in one building or witrin walking distance of each other. atone ee et gr ne te = = = ——— a = B= ee ee - alae i. [ i | 1 | | \ 3. If smaller information, and referral or service centers are located in the neishborhced, they should be related ade to the larger one-stop service center. ; | Se 5 A center would be designed in a flexible manner so that ‘the spece . can be utilized to the optimum: and space areas would be designed to serve enritaetuneeione, The spice vould include meeting areas, offices | for counseling services, specinlized service areas, and recreational - facilities. A neighborhood ce:ter might contain: 3 1. A CAA vrogram componen: sihich would. foeus. on ‘the organization t Aa: and participation of she resicents of the Hed ambarhooas Lt ould be responsible for insuring that the other componerits sy mtd ik of the Center work to “che benefit and satisfaction or the - neighborhood. Local C:irs might also provide services such as legal aid. 2. Recreation services aml facilities. This might inp @ small outdoor recreation area , with a swimming pool when warranted, and a milti-ourpose gymnasium.which could also ‘be asad. for large gatherings, including theatrical productions. 3. A preventative program of health services which might include . a prenatal clinic, a wall-baby clinic » & mental hygienic clinic and an ambulato:y health services clinic. 4, An educational and cultural component which would include a re<2choah program o:' the Headstart variety, adult literacy, | ‘6 special adult classes is well as special library, music, art and drama programs. 5. Employment services would te an integral part of the Center. Information would be provided on the job opportunitics; testing services and linived job training services should be available. In additior, snecial job oriented programs such - as vhe Job Corps, the Foichborhood Youth Corps, and the Work and Training Program fcr nublic assistance clients might . also: be coordinated throuch this part 6f the Center. 6. Assistance with respect to housing and relocation saould be provided in the Center. Informetion should be Eyaliatie on relevant local housing progrems, and assistance: should be ha offered to clients on ow to improve their homes, how to secure adequate financing, end the availability of public housing and integrated housing. 7. Family services and hore management is another important component. Public welfzre case workers might operate © from the Center and Srcvide advice and counseling to the neighborhood. Family end maritel counseling might be- offered as well as consumer education, money MeneheNentS and homemaker services. AT Pe MAM. ty SE re e
  • Tags: Box 22, Box 22 Folder 17, Folder topic: Task Force on Cities | 1966
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 30, 2021

Box 22, Folder 18, Document 12

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_022_018_012.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 22, Folder 18, Document 12
  • Text: | YORK TIM@S - Decenber 1, rr had WILKINS DEPLORES | £ ANYURBAN AID OUT) ep i Tells Senators Such Savings |, Would Be ‘Criminal’ Special to The New Tors Times bt WASHINGTON, Nov, 30; —Roy Wilkins asserted before! a Senate subcommittee today that it would be “criminal” for) \ either Congress or the Admin: istration to cut back budget expenditures on social and ur ban programs. ; I The executive director of the National Association” for the ¢ 4 Advancement of Colored People| made this point a day ality) eset President Johnson announced,) _. . F a at a news conference in Texas,) Harry Golden, left, the write that he was canceling or de-| director of the National Association for the Advance- | need $5.5-billion | worth off ment of Colored People, tes r Of) = cur=! . é . eral programs in the curs) of » Senate subcommittee on rent fiscal yoar. Cities se hiternational Teleshotos r, nnd Roy Wilkins, executive tifying yesterday at hearing | problems of American cities. | The President insisted that," ~ none of the cuts would “short-'stantial cure for change the young, or the needy,’ cmployment.” Negro un- the iil or the old.” Sources here) "Unfortunately," he went on,, confirmed today that the cuts;the administration of Federal would not require elimination, Manpower development and em- of key Great Society programs ployment programs “has often but would delay the awardjbeen marked by outright racial of some grants and require some discrimination and by precon- belt-tightening as weil. _lecived, stereotyped ideas of Mr. Wilkins said after the;what jobs Negroes can and hearing that although he was should hold. When colored ap- disturbed by the possible con-|plicants have been accepted sequences of some of the cuts— they have often found them-! he did ndét specify them—heiselves being trained’ for blue- had intended his remarks large-|collar, service employment, fre- Iv as a “warning to -the new quently in dying industries.” Congress," which, he feared, The three other witnesses might interpret Mr. Johnson's;Were Harry Golden, author and action as a “mandate” to begin publisher of The Carolina Is- ‘making further slashes. ivaelite; Dr. Rohert Coles. Har- The Negro leader was one of | Vard rescarch psychiatrist, and four witnesses who appeared he-|Judge George Edwards of the fore hearing of the Senate| United States Court of Appeals Government Operations sub- for the Sixth Circuit. committee on urban problems* Mr. Golden proposed that the In other points, he: €Described the “black power” movement of some young Negro activists as “too dangerous, too amateurish, too teen-agerish, too much like a student prank,’ adding: “It isn’t as bad as iig riod in the history of-the world.” sounds, but it's mischievous.” The Negro's struggle for jus- - €Charged that Federal job-| tice, he said, “has not been to training programs had in somejalter a single institution, He did cases helped perpetuate racialynot want to burn the bastille, discrimination. jor ect rid of the tax on tea, nor “Existing Government pro-did he demand a new pariia- grams," Mr. Wilkins said in aiment, or a new Constitution.” ,_»Statement, “have fallen far]| “What he has been telling us “short of providing any sub-jis that the American institu- billion “indemmnity"—in the form of welfare, .housing, and education programs—to pay for his confinement “during the greatest wealth-producing pe- Negro be given a 10-year, $100-) ‘tions are so desirable that he iwants in on them," he said. Judge Edwards struck a re-| \Sponsive chord in the subcom-| |mittee when he called for more yand better-trained policemen in! ‘urban areas and suggested es- |tablishment of a national police| jacademy similar to the service) institutions at West Point and! Annapolis. The subcommittee chairman, j Senator Abraham
  • Tags: Box 22, Box 22 Folder 18, Folder topic: Task Force on Cities | 1966
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 30, 2021

Box 22, Folder 17, Document 19

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_022_017_019.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 22, Folder 17, Document 19
  • Text: THE NEW YORK TIMES - NOVEMBER 21, 1966 WIDER URBANROLE U.S. Report Scores Lag in ’ Facirig Cities’ Problem / ae se WASHINGTON, Nov. 20 (AP)—A report issued tonight by a House ‘committee predict- ed that the Federal system might be gravely weakened un- Jess states increased their role in solving the problems of met- ropolitan areas, | * It said states had tagged far behind Federal and ivcal gov- ernments in dealing wi.n such} But it noted that the vast Rockefeller of New York, Car! problems and that, 4s a result.;increase in Federal programs F. Sanders of Georgia and Rob- cities had bypassed states end/aimed at metropolitan areas ert E. Smylie of Idaho; Secre- to Washingtes should serve as a basis for en-|taries Henry Treasury, Orville L, Freeman of gone directly for help. “Minimizing state participa- tion in urban affairs is tanta- mount to removing stave influ- ence from a critical range of domestic issues," the report said, adding that without state participation it is doubtful whether local government can be reorganized to meet its growing responsibilities.” What is seen as an urgent the states is a principal theme of the 168-page report, a prod- uce of seven years of work by the bipartisan Commission. on Intergovernmental_ Fielations. Tronotes that with metropoli- tan areas growing so fast that tion's population would live “URGED PORSTATES need to re-establish a role for), some 75 per cent of the na-) government within metropoli-| tan areas, and innovations in relations between the ‘Federal Government, the states and local communities are needed to dvercome these otstacles,” sets ee The report was prepared for the commission by Bernard J. Frieden, associate protessor of city planning at Massachusetts Institute, of ‘Technology, , and issued by’ the House Govern-} ment Operations Committee. Much of the report was de- voted to. the need for state legislation providing greater home rule, metropolitan plan- ning and strengthening of gen- jeral governmental units, as op- posed to school districts, water ‘and sewerage boards and other |single-purpose groups, couraging metropolitan plan- ning for both the central] city and surrounding suburbs, “The Congress and executive agencies should authorize and encourage responsible joint par- ticipation in urban development programs by local governments having common program objec- tives in metropolitan areas that everlap political boundaries," the report said. William G. Colman, the com- mission's executive director, said in a statement accompany- ing the report that “the solu- tions to metropolitan problems can be devetoped by the states, (by the Federal Government, o jby both.” : Although the report made it jclear that the commission fa- there by 1980, the Government|vored such development at all would have to provide many of|levels, Mr. Colman said that the services individuals could “the decision as to which it will furnish themselves in a pre-'be rests to a considerable ex- dominantly rural economy. ltent with the state govern- But the report asserted that/ments, because it they choose {poor coordination and conflictsinot ot act, the metropolitan Jof interest among governments|problem by default, becomes often block effective action to|largely a Federal problem." ‘deal with metropolitan prob-| The report suggested that dlems.” this had already happened, and “Changes in the structure of|said tuat “the state role has’ been lagging far behind both! local and Federal activity." “Yet,” it went on, “the states occupy critical position within the American Federal systems and possess the power and -re- sources to strengthen local ca- pacities and stimulate greater cooperation within metropolitan areas.” _ ee . Specific Proposals Many -of the commission's specific proposals, such as state legislation ‘to limit zoning powers of smaller suburbs and to limit incorporation of sepa- rate units within metropolitan areas, have been issued in ear- lier reports. : Members of the commission include Govs. John N. Dempsey of Connecticut, Nelson A. H. Fowler of the rons os Agriculture, Robert C. Weaver of Housing and Urban Deyel- opment; Senators Sam J. Ervin iJr. of’ North Carolina, Karl EB. |Mundt of South Dakota, and Edmund S, Muskie of Maine; Representatives Eugene J8 Keogh of New York, L. H. !Fountain of North Carolina and Florence P. Dwyer of New Jer- sey; and Mayors Neal S. Blais- dell of Honolulu, Herman Gold- ner of St. Petersburg, Fla., Richard C. Lee of New Haven, and Arthur A, Naftalin of Min- neapolis. ly | 1 te ee
  • Tags: Box 22, Box 22 Folder 17, Folder topic: Task Force on Cities | 1966
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 30, 2021

Box 22, Folder 18, Document 3

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_022_018_003.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 22, Folder 18, Document 3
  • Text: —— poowss ‘ 4 (\Juar, Subcommittee on Executive Reorganization of the Senate Committee on Government Operations fternoon session ~ November 29, 1966. Witness: | Richard M. Scammon, Vice-President, Governmental Afrairs Institute, Washington. Mr. Scammon testified on the need for a mid-decade Census, or an inter- censal urban Census. He said that although the 1960 Census is out-of-date, obviously the 1970 census count won't be available for five years. A big factor in the obsolescence of data is the increased mobility of population. According to.Mr. Scammon, there is &@ great need for area rather than figures from a city as a whole. In the questioning by Senator Ribicoff this point was elaborated upon and it was stated that i information had been available concerning the situation in the Watts area of Los Angeles, the riots could have been avoided. Senator Ribicofr said that when a census was taken of Los Angeles the bad figures from such areas as Watts were offset by the figures from more affluent areas. Senator Ribicoff pointed out that Mr. Cohen from the Department of HEW had used figures which dated back to 1961 when he testified before the committee and that government agencies cannot cure social ills without up-to-date statistics which point definitively to the location of those ills. Senator Ribicoff and Mr. Scammon both agreed that a mid-decade census is necessary. Senator Ribicoff mentioned that the Office of Economic Opportunity is planning to take a special census in 1968 in standard metropolitan areas to complile pertinent data on such statistics as the median family income. -Mr, Scammon laid the blame for the fact that a census is taken only every ten years on the Budget Bureau. He said that the costs involved are so tremendous that the Budget Bureau would not agree to a more frequent census. Method of taking the census Senator Ribicoff asked whether or not the method of taking the census is important. He pointed out that a census was conducted in Wetts where questionnaires were mailed to the residents. He questioned whether or not people at these levels would be interested enough to return the comple forms. . Lena bea Lack of data on adult male Negroes Senator Ribicoff also pointed out that in the last census between 15% and 20% of adult male Negroes were missed entirely. Mr. Scammon replied thet there was a slippage in less affluent areas of cities, but he did not know whether Senator Ribicoff's percentages were entirely correct. Advantages of a five-year census Senator Ribicoff said that almost all grant programs are based on the number of people and their needs. - He claimed that we must weigh the advantages of a five-year survey in relation to these programs. He said that a five-year census would be better for decision making by such administrators as the Secretary of HUD. Central location for statistics. Senator Ribicoff also asked whether there should be a central place for the gathering and keeping of statistics, rather than allowing each Depart- ment to have operations of its own. Mr. Scammon said that a task force headed by Congressman Gallagher recommended setting up a central bank for statistics, but that a big concern of the Task Force was the right of privacy of individuals in responding to questionnaires. Senator Ribicoff contended that where the information was merged, the problem of confidentiality was lost. Problems Senator Ribicoff said that the problem of taking an urban census has been to get people to do the work. It was also pointed out that in problem or foreign areas of a city, the census takers must be familiar with the area. in order to gain the confidence of the people who are interviewed. Spending in. cities Senator Kennedy asked through the Chairman whether it is possible to determine how much the government is spending in each city to rebuild. He wants to know how we can get better figures. Mr. Scammon said that this information should be available from the Census Bureau or through the Subcommittee. , Senators present: ibicorf Javits
  • Tags: Box 22, Box 22 Folder 18, Folder topic: Task Force on Cities | 1966
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 30, 2021

Box 22, Folder 18, Document 18

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_022_018_018.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 22, Folder 18, Document 18
  • Text: Point jor HUD to Ponder The coutroversy between Montgomery County and the Department of Housing and Urban De- velopment holds a much broader interest than the rezoning of three square miles in the Washing- ion suburbs. We do not, of course, wish to mini- mize the importance of nullifying the butchery of planning by the old Montgomery County Council in its lame-duck rampage. But this is an interesting test case which is certain to have an important bearing on the relations between HUD and local governinenis in all parts of the country. HUD must necessarily invest its matching funds for the purchase of park land and the protection of open space in accord with the standards that Congress and the agency have prescribed. It can- not be expected to assist a county which makes a farce of planning and zoning protection. At the saine time, however, HUD must avoid usurpation of the powers of local government and the use of pressure in deciding local issues. In the case at hand, we think HUD went over the line in applying pressure at a moment when the unfortunate situation in Rockville seemed to be righting itself. Unquestionably its intentions were good. But unless its pressure can be relaxed, the result may be to defeat its own purpose. Sen- ator Brewster and numerous local officials have pointed out to HUD that the net effect of its pres- sure on the new County, Council to cancel its predecessor's last-minute rezoning decisions may be to throw the entire controversy into court on the issue of intimidation. A significant precedent for such suits is readily at hand. The grant of an exception to the Soviet Union to permit the construction of an embassy- chancery in Chevy Chase was upset in court some months ago because the State Department had brought pressure on the District's Board of Zoning Adjustment. HUD officials should realize that any specific zoning change which they impose upon unwilling local zoning authorities is highly vulner- able to legal attack. @ HUD needs to have assurance that the reckless zone-busting policies of the old Council in Mont- gomery County have been abandoned. It needs as- surance that proper safeguards will be adhered to in areas for which Federal aid is sought. But these assurances appear to have been given not only by statements from the new Council but also by its vigorous action to wipe out the effects of the rezoning spree, so far as that is possible. The grand jury investigation into possible irregularities and abuses aifords-further evidence of the new atmosphere in Rockville. In view of these vigorous efforts to undo the wrongs of the past and to adopt sound new poli- cies, we think HUD should withdraw its freeze of Federal funds for the Maryland suburbs before the Council decides the rezoning cases which it has reopened. HUD could again suspend the matching funds if the final policy which emerges should prove to be unsatisfactory. But if it insists on turning the thumb-screw while the Council is sitting on these controversial cases it may defeat iis own purpose and greatly embarrass the cause of proper development of the National Capital suburbs. The Washington Post - Nov. 28, 1966
  • Tags: Box 22, Box 22 Folder 18, Folder topic: Task Force on Cities | 1966
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 30, 2021

Box 22, Folder 17, Document 29

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_022_017_029.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 22, Folder 17, Document 29
  • Text: 6. Does it meet Federal criteria of desegregation? Gel Decision-making bea 2. Institutional network Be d. Do neighborhood organizations already exist? Is there an identifiable central neighborhood authority responsible for this program? 3 Whet is the relationship between this authority and the existing service agencies== Federal, state, local, public and private? Should this program be! oe of an already existing agency? Process of decision-making . Be b. de Ge f. What are the attitudes of the traditional agencies to this program? Are there any institutional mechanisms for consulting other agencies and pressure groups (trade unions, churches, business organizations, political parties)? What are the mechanisms? What are the mechanisms used to recognize and handle frictions emong the agencies, groups and this program? # What are the differences in goals and methods . between this program and other agencies and ' groups? Are the people involved to whom the program is aiarene est . ‘ Is the factual material on which the muah is based accessible to the public? To what extent is plesning and Secision, making public? ce er i nee one pei onan te pet f
  • Tags: Box 22, Box 22 Folder 17, Folder topic: Task Force on Cities | 1966
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 30, 2021

Box 22, Folder 17, Document 2

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_022_017_002.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 22, Folder 17, Document 2
  • Text:
  • Tags: Box 22, Box 22 Folder 17, Folder topic: Task Force on Cities | 1966
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 30, 2021