[U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 3rd Annual Report 1967] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov] HUD 3rd annual report U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Alabama Huntsville Arkansas Texarkana California Fresno Oakland Richmond Colorado Denver Trinidad Connecticut Bridgeport Hartford New Haven District of Columbia Washington Florida Dade County Tampa Georgia Atlanta Gainesville Hawaii Honolulu Illinois Chicago East St. Louis Indiana Gary Iowa Des Moines Maine Portland Maryland Baltimore Massachusetts Boston Cambridge Lowell Springfield Michigan Detroit Highland Park Minnesota Duluth Minneapolis Missouri Kansas City St. Louis New Hampshire Manchester New Jersey Hoboken Newark Trenton New Mexico Albuquerque New York Buffalo New York City Poughkeepsie Rochester North Carolina Charlotte Ohio Columbus Dayton Toledo Oklahoma Tulsa Oregon Portland Pennsylvania Philadelphia Pittsburgh Reading-Berks County Wilkes Barre Puerto Rico San Juan Rhode Island Providence Tennessee Nashville-Davidson County Smithville-DeKalb County Texas Eagle Pass San Antonio Texarkana Waco Vermont Winooski Virginia Norfolk Washington Seattle ■ • PORTLAND MINNEAPOLIS KES BARRE RK “ITTSBURGB DES MO NES l-l-ORAOO NASHVILLE-DAVIDSON CO SMITHVILLE DeKALB i^SSPHU TEXARKANA ICUISIANA SAN ANTONIO ADE COUNTY HAVEN YORK CITY READING BERKS COUNTY PHILADELPHIA ALABAMA HUNTSVILLE SPRINGFIEL POUGHKEEPSI FEA 0 GEPOP Model Cities 1967 NORTH DAKOTA SOUTH DAKOTA NEBRASKA DENVER KANSAS MINNESOTA •ROCHESTER k ________ TRINIDAD (MEXICO--------- 'ALBUQUERQUE OKLAHOMA "TEXAS TULSA ARKANSAS THE COVER Top. Well-baby clinic operated by the Norfolk Housing Authority. Bottom. Youngsters enjoy a new experience as they hear voices on the telephone for the first time at the Children’s Center operated by the New York City Housing Authority. Back Cover. Westmoreland Union Manor, a senior citizens housing project in Portland, Oregon, built under HUD's direct loan program. Dear Mr. President: I have the honor to transmit herewith for submission to Congress the Annual Report of the Department of Housing and Urban Development for the calendar year 1967. Secretary. The President The White House Washington, D.C. In this report, the Department records the activities and accomplishments in all the programs administered by HUD. Respectfully yours, 2 HUD 3rd . annual report U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Robert C. Weaver, Secretary Washington, D.C. 20410 1967 Page table INTRODUCTION: 1967—Year of New Qf Directions............................... 7 contents mortgage credit operations. 13 Federal Housing Administration...... 13 FHA Special Programs................... 19 Below-Market Interest Rate Program. 19 Rent Supplement Program............... 19 New Programs........................... 19 221(h) Low Income Rehabilitation Sales Housing................. 19 Group Practice Facilities Program. . . 21 New Communities....................... 21 Regular Mortgage Operations....... 21 Profile of the Average 1967 Home Buyer......................... 21 Federal National Mortgage Association. . 22 Secondary Market Operations....... 22 Special Assistance Functions........... 23 Participation Financing Functions. 23 RENEWAL AND HOUSING ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.............................. 25 Renewal Assistance Administration... 26 Urban Renewal Program.................. 26 Other Renewal Assistance Programs. . . 26 Gode Enforcement...................... 26 Demolition Grants..................... 27 Rehabilitation Grants................. 27 Rehabilitation Loans.................. 27 Community Renewal Programs....... 30 Urban Beautification and Urban Parks Programs................................ 30 Urban Beautification and Improvement Program.......................... 30 Urban Parks Program................... 33 Neighborhood Facilities Program... 35 Office of Community Development..... 38 Relocation............................. 38 Social Planning and Services........... 41 Workable Program for Community I mprovement.................... 42 4 Page Housing Assistance Administration.. 42 Low Rent Housing Program............ 42 College Housing Program............. 46 Senior Citizens Housing............. 52 METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS............................. 57 Urban Transportation Programs...... 57 Urban Mass Transportation Capital Improvement Grants................ 57 Research and Demonstration Programs. 58 Technical Studies Program........... 60 Urban Planning Assistance............ 63 Land and Facilities Programs......... 63 Open Space Land Program............. 63 Demonstration Program............... 65 Water and Sewer Grants.............. 67 Public Facility Loans............... 67 Public Works Planning Advances.... 68 Other Activities in Land and Facilities Development....................... 69 DEMONSTRATIONS AND INTER- GOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS.. . 71 Model Cities Administration.......... 71 Model Cities Program................ 71 List of Cities.................... 72 Office of Governmental Relations... 78 Community Development Training Program ............................... 78 HUD City Planning and Urban Studies Fellowship Program................ 78 Urban Information and Technical Assistance Services Program........... 78 Intergovernmental Awards............ 78 Intergovernmental Relations Conference and Liaison Activities.............. 80 Program and Policy Coordination... 80 Support for Model Cities Program.. 80 ADMINISTRATION......................... 81 Management and Organization.......... 81 Budget............................... 82 Page ADP Systems............................ 82 Financial Systems and Services......... 82 Audit.................................. 82 General Services....................... 82 Personnel.............................. 82 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY............... 85 Equal Opportunity...................... 85 International Affairs.................. 87 Policy Analysis and Program Evaluation. 88 Housing Requirements—1967-1978. . . 88 Market Analysis....................... 89 Design Excellence...................... 89 Office of UrbanTechnologyand Research. 92 Grant Programs........................ 92 Low Income Housing Demonstration Program............................ 92 Urban Planning Research and Demonstration Program................. 93 Urban Renewal Demonstration Program .............................. 93 Federal Housing Administration Experimental Housing.................. 94 Technical Studies..................... 97 Earthquake Insurance.................. 97 Advisory Committees.................... 98 Urban Studies Fellowship Advisory Board............................... 98 Committee to Rebuild America’s Slums (appointed by the President)....... 98 Advisory Committee on Housing for Senior Citizens..................... 98 National Commission on Urban Problems (appointed by the President)... 99 Urban Transportation Advisory Committee ............................. 99 Advisory Committee on Urban Development ............................. 99 Regional Advisory Committees on Design and Planning.................. 100 TODAY AND TOMORROW....................... 103 5 INTRODUCTION: Buena Park, Calif.—Park developed with HUD beautification grant. 1967 was a year of momentous changes for HUD. The Department sought and found new answers, new directions, and redirections in the whole range of programs it administers. With this new focus the Department is better able to help people, neighborhoods, and whole urban areas meet the challenge of the massive problems that confront urban America. The Housing Challenge While most Americans are well housed, six million families live in substandard housing, in quarters that are dilapidated or lack basic sanitary facilities, and that are overcrowded. Millions more live in houses and neighborhoods that are deteriorating. These are the homes where sunlight and air are luxuries, where children share their overcrowded rooms with rats and vermin. These are the homes of the disillusioned, the dropouts, the left-behinds and the left-outs, the poverty-stricken, and the minorities. These are the homes where crime is bred. These are the neighborhoods that ex-explode in violence and riots. What has been done about it? Not enough—but more than ever before. HUD’s major concern has been in these areas of critical housing need. In the past, HUD and its predecessors tried public housing—which helped—but wasn’t 1967—year of new directions enough. It was at best a stopping point, where those who moved up had to move out. HUD tried to bring housing costs down—but they went up instead. So HUD looked for new answers or new directions. And it has found many. ■ HUD has sought and found ways to bring about a fusion of private and public resources—each helping the other in meeting urgent housing needs. ■ FHA, which in the past did so much for the suburb and the middle-class homeowner, is now redirecting its efforts to the center city and the low and moderateincome family’s housing needs. Now it is insuring mortgages in large numbers in neighborhoods never before considered eligible. ■ FHA has streamlined its processing of multifamily applications, particularly in the low-income field, so that only one-third as much time is required for approval of urgently needed housing projects. ■ Rehabilitation of existing housing is being encouraged and accelerated for low-income families, under FHA’s programs, with the support of FNMA, HUD’s mortgage support facility. ■ FHA’s below-market interest rate program makes available good private housing at rents not before possible. 7 ■ The rent supplement program, though still underfinanced, provides good, attractive housing to many who had to live in squalor and blight before the program came into being. ■ FHA has stepped up its financing of rehabilitated properties and initiated a program of underwriting low-income tenants for eventual purchase of their homes. ■ The traditional public housing program has been redirected, and greatly expanded by new ideas. New projects are not the massive, cubicle-type but small, well-designed groupings and individualized houses. Good older housing is acquired or individual apartments leased for low-rent occupancy. ■ Also, in the public housing field, public and private enterprise have joined to increase and improve the supply of low-cost housing. As a result of this partnership, one of the most important breakthroughs in low-income housing in 30 years—the Turnkey programs— has come into being. ■ The special problems of the elderly and the handicapped are being dealt with on a large scale. ■ And under the open occupancy policies of HUD, hundreds of thousands of housing units and new areas have been made available to Negroes and other minorities to relieve the pressure of the racial ghetto. Yet all this is not enough. And housing alone is not enough. Housing must be, and is being, meshed with other large scale efforts to provide better education, medical care, family counseling, job training, and participation in neighborhood and community life, and to erase the basic causes of poverty and resentment. The Challenge of the Urban Community Besides housing, HUD is also deeply involved in the total urban scene. It is concerned with neighborhoods—their facilities and services—and with the lives and opportunities of the people who live there. And these problems have grown and changed. A Small Town Spruces Up “I pay just $78 a month for a brand new house on a 25-year loan. This place will be clear before you know it, and not only do we enjoy it now, someday it will belong to the children.” As he talked, Homer Williams seemed to reflect the spirit of Kinloch, where parents now can see a better day for their children. Homer Williams, a building custodian, and his wife and four children had lived in a rundown, four-room frame house totally lacking modern conveniences in the Maline Creek urban renewal project area in Kinloch, St. Louis County, Missouri. The renewal agency purchased and demolished the substandard dwelling, and Mr. Williams contracted to buy a new three-bedroom home on the same lot with FHA financing. Kinloch (1960 population, 6,501) is a good example of how a small community can use various HUD programs to provide better housing and upgraded environment for its people, and improve its economic base and job picture. Urban renewal, HUD relocation grants, FHA mortgage insurance, public housing, and a HUD sewer and water grant are all being used in Kinloch’s coordinated efforts. According to the 1960 Census of Housing, nearly 1,760 units in the all-Negro community of Kinloch were substandard. More than half lacked plumbing. Today, Kinloch has 150 public housing units and the Housing Authority has a waiting list of eligible tenants. Three-bedroom homes are springing up in the 115-acre Maline urban renewal area, which covers one-fourth of the city. A steel fabricating plant in the area contributes to a broader tax base and offers employment to residents of the densely populated city. Another project stimulating economic growth and industrial development, and creating job opportunities, is the sewerage system due for completion in June 1968. A $684,900 HUD grant was made to aid construction of the project in Kinloch, which had no sewerage facilities. The project will cost $823,000. Construction began in March 1967. Health hazards caused by individual disposal systems will be eliminated by this system, which will become part of a coordinated system for the St. Louis metropolitan area. Among residents of minimum-rent public housing units for elderly are 75-year-old Mrs. Georgia Lewis and 71-year-old Mrs. Ivory Cade, who now occupy one-bedroom apartments in the Belue-Hadnot and Charles Folwell projects. Mrs. Lewis, a widow, was displaced by urban renewal. ‘‘My apartment has a bathroom and gas heat,” said Mrs. Lewis. She also appreciates the fact that she has no taxes to pay, as she did in her old home in the Maline Creek area. She is proud of her well-equipped kitchen. Mrs. Cade, the first tenant in her apartment building, moved there in January 1967. She was able to do domestic work until the following month; then, for reasons of health, she was unable to accept further employment. Seated in her cozy living room, Mrs. Cade expressed gratitude that ‘‘I pay just $21 a month here. Urban renewal was welcome to take my old place, because I had no bathroom, gas heat, or street lights.” 8 Kinloch, Missouri.—As it was before urban renewal. The same area today. Homer Williams and his wife and their FHA-insured home. The family occupied a substandard dwelling on the same lot before urban renewal. Mrs. Georgia Lewis, 75, was relocated from a deteriorated house in the Maline Creek urban renewal area. Now she rents this comfortable apartment from the Housing Authority. In the first postwar decade (1950-1960), the population of our urban areas was swollen by nearly 29 million people. Five million of them were Negroes and other nonwhites. A large proportion, white and Negro, were from rural areas. They had few skills and were not prepared for modern urban life. Millions of people moved to the new, sprawling suburbs. Shaded avenues became teeming freeways. The heart of the city became overcrowded, overworked, rundown, obsolete. Transfusions, and sometimes major surgery, were needed. Urban renewal was the first assault on these city problems. It was designed to clear out blight, open up the central areas and rebuild them. The bulldozers moved in, areas were cleared, slums were demolished, neighborhoods were destroyed, and people were uprooted and moved elsewhere, most of them to better housing and better neighborhoods. New gleaming apartments, office buildings, public buildings, and parks replaced the blight. What urban renewal did needed doing, but it wasn’t enough. Furthermore, as the crust of physical decay was scraped off, it uncovered problems that previously were hidden. The human blight beneath the crust lay exposed—revealing a culture bred in poverty, neglect, and crime. This is the way it was when President Kennedy instituted new directions and programs in housing and urban affairs. This is the way it still was when President Johnson in 1965 sent to Congress the first of his great urban messages, “The Central City and Its Suburbs.” This is the challenge that was given to HUD when it took its place at the Cabinet table and was charged with the problem of saving our cities. And many of the problems still remain—but much that we are doing is changing: ■ Urban renewal, which since 1949 had been used to clear blight and rebuild the cleared areas for tomorrow’s needs, has now been redirected. The bulldozer has been relegated to the background. A new set of national goals and priorities has been created, giving urban renewal new and broader objectives. It is providing an ever-increasing number of desirable sites for low- and moderate-income housing—instead of just higher priced housing or commercial buildings. Demolition and clearance will happen only when there isn’t any other way. The program is now concentrating on preserving neighborhoods and rehabilitating buildings in order to minimize the displacement of families. ■ HUD assistance to those displaced by governmental action has been broadened and a relocation service on a total community basis has been instituted so that housing can be provided for all. ■ The social and human needs of the residents of renewal areas are now a basic part of the renewal process. Through Federal and local cooperation, people are helped, along with area renewal. ■ New quality standards have been introduced to give good design its proper place in HUD programs and bring beauty into blighted areas and raise the horizons of the residents. ■ Parks, playgrounds, neighborhood facilities, and recreation centers are being built in slum and ghetto areas with HUD grant assistance. ■ Money-poor homeowners who once had to give up their homes because they could not improve them may now receive grants and low-cost loans so they can rehabilitate and modernize their homes. ■ Intensive neighborhood improvement programs, along with rehabilitation by homeowners, are arresting blight and decay in cities all over the country. In 1966, President Johnson called for, and the Congress enacted, a new massive offensive against urban blight physical and human—the Model Cities program—large enough to have a major impact on the whole community, comprehensive and intensive enough to change the entire outlook of the people as well as the physical area. ■ The “first round” of Model Cities has been selected. Sixty-three communities, all over the U.S., are now drafting blueprints for total attacks on the human and physical needs of their worst neighborhoods. The smallest community has a population of 5,000, the largest eight million. Almost 200 communities applied. ■ New health centers, vocational training, educational programs, and social services will be coordinated with basic environmental changes and better housing. ■ Another group of communities, a “second round,” as large or larger, will be added to this list of action communities in 1968. The number of cities will be determined by available funds. The program is underway—the most innovative and comprehensive since the Nation first recognized the urban problem in 1949. The Challenge of the Suburbs These are some of the things happening under HUD in central cities. But other things have happened and are happening beyond the central city—where people have moved and are moving by the 10 millions. Today the word “suburbs” means only one thing— “sprawl.” For more than 20 years we have been covering the vacant land around urban centers with housing, shopping centers, streets, businesses, schools, and other facilities. A lot of people thought they were moving out to the quiet and beauty of the countryside—but the city followed them, with all its problems of traffic, housing, and congestion. Of course, we didn’t plan it that way. In fact, there was no planning at all. The suburbs are just an “urban happening”—-and most of them look like it. The Continuing Challenge And there is more to come. There will be approximately 100 million new Americans in the next 35 years, most of them crowded into new or existing cities and suburbs. What we used to call “small towns” are now spilling all over the countryside. So a major part of HUD’s job is trying to help communities, urban areas, and States to plan for the kind of development this growth requires. This means comprehensive planning, and hundreds of metropolitan areas and thousands of small communities have been carrying out such planning with Federal help for years. Now, a number of States have responded to HUD’s appeals to undertake statewide urban planning. But planning must be followed by action. HUD’s several programs to provide urban areas with needed facilities require that these investments be made according to the locally developed future plans for an area—not just spent willy-nilly, here-and-there, on another “happening.” They include: ■ Grants to undertake metropolitan and regional planning on a full and comprehensive basis, including all public facilities and transportation needs. ■ Water and sewer grants. ■ Experiments in new transportation techniques—high speed rapid transit, helicopter lifts from airport to city, etc. ■ Mass transit grants to revitalize transportation in urban and suburban areas—modernization of bus service—speed-up of commuter lines—providing new or improved public transportation between ghetto areas and job opportunities. Raising the quality of the suburban environment is another HUD goal. This is done through providing for open space and recreational areas, for growth that does not devour and destroy the land but saves it and uses it for the people. ■ HUD grants to States, counties, communities, and park districts have made possible the retention of almost 250,000 acres for public use. The Challenge of New Directions All these are part of the manyfaceted HUD programs. But they do not solve all the problems. Nor does HUD have all the answers— no one does. Realizing how much remains to be done, how much is needed, and how little time remains for action, HUD is constantly on the lookout for new answers and new ideas. HUD is searching and researching for new approaches, new products, new techniques and methods to meet our housing and urban needs— probing the “think-tanks” of science and technology, challenging the keenest brains of industry, academia, and government, and involving the ideas and energies of the people themselves. When Congress responded to President Johnson’s request for HUD’s first major appropriations for urban research and technology —$10 million—HUD immediately set up a special office to carry out the work. HUD funds are now at work: ■ With science and technology to bring the latest developments from industrial production, electronics, and even outer space to bear on solving urban needs. ■ With colleges and research institutions on planning, social problems, design, and training for the needs of people in urban areas. HUD already has many experiments and demonstrations underway searching for new techniques and approaches in mass transit, low-cost housing, urban renewal, and planning, as well as others. Some examples: ■ Rehabilitation of old but sound residential structures for low-in-come families, including a successful test of rehabilitating a city tenement in 48 hours for the tenants already living there. ■ Self-help projects to enable low-income families to care for and improve their properties and to guide them into homeownership. ■ Use of prefabricated materials and local labor on an Indian reservation; or the factory production of units that can be stacked one on top of the other to lower the cost of multifamily units. And HUD has taken innovative steps to require that local authorities tell the residents of blighted areas what each citizen can do to improve his area and how every citizen can become actively involved in community efforts; HUD has also encouraged localities to give residents a meaningful voice in determining how local programs will be carried out. 11 Highlights of 1967 ■ THE MODEL CITIES PROGRAM was initiated with the selection of 63 communities in the “first round" of planning grants to undertake comprehensive coordinated programs to attack the human and physical needs of their worst neighborhoods. ■ At the yearend, FHA was approving between 800 and 1,000 mortgages a week in central city areas that formerly were not considered eligible. ■ The rehabilitation of an apartment in 48-hours was successfully completed in an “Instant Rehabilitation" experiment in New York City. ■ In June, Secretary Weaver announced new national goals and criteria for urban renewal projects. Henceforth, projects must contribute effectively to the conservation or expansion of housing for low- and moderate-income families; the development of employment opportunities; and attacking areas of high tension and great social need. ■ 87 grants for neighborhood facilities were made in 1967, representing $33.2 million. The first center to be built on an Indian reservation was completed for the Kalispel Tribe in Usk, Washington. ■ 604 Planning Assistance grants, in the amount of $25.4 million were approved. Cumulative total for the program to December 31, 1967, is 3,347 grants in the amount of $148 million. ■ Public works planning advances reached $133.9 million for 5,263 projects. ■ At a White House press conference on September 13, President Johnson announced that the life insurance companies of the country have pledged to divert $1 billion from their normal stream of investments to improve housing conditions and finance jobcreating enterprises in core city areas. The $1 billion will be for projects that have not ordinarily been financed by the companies because of their high risk location. ■ During the year the 100,000th dwelling unit on urban renewal land was completed. Total units at yearend were 117,500. ■ FHA insured mortgages and loans in the amount of $7.1 billion, covering 412,000 homes, 41,000 multifamily units, and 448,000 property improvement loans. Total insurance since 1934 reached $120 billion, covering more than 10 million housing units. Insurance on over 4.4 million mortgages is in force, a record number. ■ 200 new communities came into the low-rent public housing program for the first time, bringing the total to 2,913 communities. Some 38,700 new units were completed, leased, or acquired. About 2.5 million people currently live in public housing projects which provide 673,000 units, 33 percent being elderly. ■ 66 new localities began participation in the urban renewal program. All told, 912 communities were actively participating; 1,947 projects had been approved. Total land area in projects was 158 square miles—about the combined land area of Boston, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C. ■ More than 300 open space grants of all types in the amount of $45 million were approved. Total grants, since the program began, reached over 1,000, in the amount of $146 million, for 239,000 acres, roughly the size of Mt. Rainier National Park. ■ Grants under the urban planning assistance program, since 1954, reached $148 million, covering 3,347 projects. ■ Some 28,000 units of senior citizens housing were provided under HUD programs. Total units completed to date aggregate 124,000. 44,000 additional units were approved during the year, bringing the total approvals to 234,000. ■ 125 college housing loans were approved for $178 million. Since 1950, over 2,900 such loans, for $3.3 billion have been made, representing accommodations for 757,000 students in colleges and teaching hospitals. One-third of all students in institution-owned college housing are assisted by this program. ■ 19 Mass Transit Capital Improvement grants were made during the year. Cumulatively mass transit grants for over $314 million have been made. ■ 2 low-income housing demonstration grants were made in 1967. Since 1961, 46 grants have been approved for a total of $8.8 million. ■ The first Urban Beautification project was approved in January 1966. A total of 141 projects in more than 100 localities for $14.5 million had been approved at yearend 1967. ■ 21,000 housing units were approved for rent supplement contracts representing $19 million. ■ FNMA purchases of mortgages totaled $2.7 billion, the largest amount purchased in any one year (except for 1966) since its inception in 1938. This volume covered housing for 170,800 American families, and increased FNMA’s combined portfolio to $9 billion at yearend. 12 mortgage credit operations Federal Housing Administration Within the span of one generation, the Federal Housing Administration has been assigned several missions of vital importance and has done much toward increasing and improving the home financing and housing resources of the country. In 1934, it pioneered a new concept of mortgage financing which helped revive the Depression-caused lag in homebuilding and mortgage lending. It administered a system of housing construction priorities during World War II and met the upsurge in housing demand after the war. It also was able to fill the accelerated demand for housing in the 1950’s, after Korea. In the 1960’s, FHA has helped finance housing for the disadvantaged, the elderly, and the handicapped through its special mortgage insurance programs, and in 1965 was assigned the administration of the Rent Supplement program. Mortgage Insurance for the Inner City In 1967, FHA faced perhaps its most difficult challenge—to do its part to help secure decent housing for the low-income families and victims of discrimination who live in the hearts of America’s cities and to simplify and speed up its processing procedures. During the year, FHA emphasized the use of all its programs in the inner city. In July, instructions were isued to field personnel stressing their authority to insure Section 203(b) home mortgages in riot or riot-threatened areas without a finding of economic soundness. This new policy, authorized by Congress in 1966, means that if a particular unit meets minimum property standards and the mortgagor qualifies, the dwelling is insurable even though the neighborhood might not permit a finding of economic soundness. In the fall of 1967, approvals of Section 203 existing home cases in the high-risk areas of central cities climbed steadily from about 200 a week to between 800 and 1,000. A major segment of the mortgage lending industry responded quickly to the new call for financing inner city housing. On September 13, 1967, the President announced that a group of life insurance companies would make available $1 billion for permanent mortgage financing for inner city residential properties and for jobcreating opportunities. The companies had by yearend made firm commitments to purchase about $50 million in Government-insured mortgages covering about 3,000 units. Most of this represents permanent financing for FHA Section 221(d) (3) rent supplement projects. In addition, FHA made arrangements to forward to the insurance companies lists of home mortgage conditional commitments involving inner-city properties. 13 high social priorities involved. In Accelerated Multifamily Processing Allegheny Housing Rehabilitation During the year, FHA developed new processing techniques specifically intended to promote multifamily rehabilitation in the poor areas of the inner city. A new Multifamily Rehabilitation Handbook was completed. This manual was keyed to the special requirements of Section 221(d) (3) Below Market Interest Rate and Rent Supplement financing. It set forth far-reaching policy and procedural changes designed to process and promote rehabilitation projects, not only in approved urban renewal and code enforcement areas, but in older, rundown neighborhoods where the need for upgrading is most acute. Other efforts to improve processing advanced in 1967. The Technical Standards staff tested in nine Insuring Offices a variety of techniques that became known as AMP, or Accelerated Multifamily Processing. Beginning in February 1967, new multifamily proposals were processed under this total management systems approach with the goal of reducing normal processing time by two-thirds—from Feasibility Conference to Firm Commitment in six months. After eight months of operation in the selected Insuring slightly more than two months from inception of the program in October, this review resulted in issuance of about 240 commitments, and termination of 580 ineligible applications. This activity made possible the recapture (for use in more promising proposals) of almost $96 million in Below Market Interest Rate funds and over $2.6 million in Rent Supplement contract authority. Residential Rehabilitation The massive rehabilitation programs undertaken during 1967 in four major cities reflect the increased use of FHA programs in inter-city areas. The Department concluded agreements with the city of Chicago and with ACTION-Hous-ing, Inc. of Pittsburgh to provide the policy and procedural framework for substantial rehabilitation efforts in those cities. Pittsburgh The Pittsburgh project involves a fusion of Federal programs with the capital, energy, and know-how that private industry can mobilize. Under this plan, ACTION-Hous-ing, Inc., will bring about the formation of a privately funded Corporation. Upon completion, the rehabilitated housing will be transferred to local nonprofit groups and other FHA-insured groups for ownership and management. Late in the year, FHA had developed an experimental processing method to be tested on a 66-unit project in the Homewood-Brushton area of Pittsburgh. The method eliminates normal requirements for work write-ups, plans, and specifications and replaces these with a performancetype specification. When the construction is completed, FHA will insure the loan, provided only that the work done was consistent with the general agreement on the level of rehabilitation to be accomplished. Chicago FHA is also participating in the HUD pilot program with the city of Chicago to accomplish the large-scale rehabilitation of approximately 1,000 deteriorated, absentee-owned structures at rents which neighborhood residents can afford in the Lawndale Urban Renewal Area. This involves close coordination of programs of FHA, RHA, and HAA. Again, FHA is Offices, AMP had achieved an average processing time—from application to firm commitment—of 167 calendar days, well within the Pittsburgh____First FHA-insured rehabilitation house (before). six months’ goal, for the 20 projects to which it was applied. While developing AMP procedures to prevent future backlogs, FHA also began to clean up the existing multifamily backlog. Ten two-man processing teams went into field offices with authority to waive or modify all policy and procedural requirements as judged necessary to expedite cases. The first phase concentrated on Section 221(d) (3) Below Market Interest Rate and Rent Supplement cases, in recognition of the 14 concentrating on adapting its processing to the urgent needs of the program by designating a special rehabilitation team—under Regional Office supervision— working in close cooperation with the Chicago Department of Urban Renewal and the contractor. Great attention is being devoted to building into the rehabilitation plan ways of reducing dislocation of the residents. There will be no net reduction in units available to house low- and moderate-income people. For all structures eliminated in the construction process, new units will be built on vacant land. Boston A rehabilitation project in Boston has as its objective 2,000 units completed and ready for occupancy by June 30, 1968. From a starting date of October 1, FHA accomplished its preliminary goal of issuing all commitments by November 30, a substantial cut in manual processing time. By the end of the year, tenants were already moving into rehabilitated housing. Working with experienced contractors and limited dividend mortgagors associated with the Pittsburgh.—First FHA-insured rehabilitation house (after). Boston experiment, FHA can accept a sponsor’s application and specifications for processing following examination of the proposed buildings for structural soundness. Instead of item-by-item computations during processing, cost estimation of the rehabilitation work is made on the basis of average factors derived from comparable construction jobs. As in the case of AMP and the techniques of the Multifamily Rehabilitation Handbook, the Insuring Office staff strives for simultaneous team processing rather than consecutive processing by individual sections. Old but sound brick residential structures scattered throughout a four-square-mile area in the Roxbury-Dorchester section of Boston are being upgraded. In all, 2,074 units will be rehabilitated for families currently living in the area. Omaha The city of Omaha began work this year on a program of rehabilitation which will upgrade rundown areas all over the city. FHA concluded an agreement with the Mayor of Omaha to provide processing most conducive to this goal. Underwriting decisions are made quickly in accordance with streamlined procedures set forth in the Rehabilitation Handbook. Following inspection of certain properties, FHA issued a commitment on 100 units in only two days. Another 33-unit project was underway at yearend, and two other projects of 100 and 128 units, respectively, had been processed in a matter of days. Experimental Housing FHA is continuing to use its Section 233 Experimental Housing Program in a variety of ways to apply modern technology to the urgent need for low-income housing. A dramatic achievement in 1967 was completion of the “Instant Rehabilitation” experiment on East Fifth Street, New York City, where within the target time of 48 consecutive hours, tenant move-out was completed and work began at 10 A.M., Tuesday, April 11. At 11 A.M., Thursday, April 13, Secretary Weaver and New York Mayor Lindsay presided over ceremonies welcoming the tenants back to a completely restored, “like new” apartment house. The central core unit method of construction which helped make possible 48-hour rehabilitation of the New York City tenement is being adapted to single-family construction by a builder in Hampton, Virginia. The Cora Street Project in Pittsburgh and the Belvedere rent supplement project in the Hough area of Cleveland were completed for occupancy in 1967. The former achieved maximum use of repair work instead of replacement to create standard living accommodations, and the latter demonstrated the advantage of lathing and plastering directly over old plaster to minimize demolition. A Section 233 project in Richmond, California, is proceeding under the “Uniment” construction 15 system of fitting together apartment-size units into a completed multifamily project. This construction technique should prove a useful vehicle for low-income new construction carried out under the Model Cities program. The Magnolia Homes project in Vicksburg, Mississippi, using the latest mobile home and prefabricated construction techniques to produce sound, efficient, low-cost housing, was completed and occupied in 1967. Similar techniques are being applied to produce housing for married university students in Amherst, Massachusetts. Omaha.—Four derelict houses used by seven families have been replaced with three new, two-bedroom homes under FHA 221(d)3 loan. “It’s Made a World of Difference” “It’s been a wonderful experience. It’s wonderful living here since it’s been made over. Before it was barely livable.” This is the reaction of Mrs. Willie Mae Grier, mother of four small children, about her rehabilitated home at 633 East Fifth Street on New York City’s lower East Side. She had occupied three small shabby dark rooms in the same building, a typical rundown tenement—but in 48 hours, through use of space-age techniques, it was transformed into a sparkling bright up-to-date apartment house. There were a new kitchen and bathroom, new walls, floors, windows, new plumbing, heating and electrical wiring. There was a new door with a shiny new doorknob—replacing a door that had been hacked up with ugly scars from many attempts by vandals and thieves to jimmy it open. Mrs. Grier recalls the time when she and her 16 children were packing their worldly belongings into suitcases and cardboard boxes before being taken, with the nine other families, to a nearby hotel for two nights. Forty-eight hours later, they all moved back in the same building and found everything had changed but the address. Instead of the small dreary rooms, the family is now living in a spacious three-bedroom apartment, with a large living room area, comfortably furnished. “It has been real fun furnishing it and making it cheerful for the children. I don’t have to worry about cockroaches running all over the floors, no rats and no rat poison that you’ve got to hide so the kids won’t eat it. Before we couldn’t entertain our friends because of the condition of the place, but we can now. Just after we moved in I had a housewarming and everyone who knew the building was simply amazed at the big change.” Mrs. Grier and her four children moved to a nearby hotel during the 48 hours their apartment was renovated. The short stay away from usual surroundings caused only the smallest inconvenience. 308-901 O—68-----2 17 Forty-eight hours later, Mrs. Grier and her family moved into a new world. Bright walls, new floors, and a clean, modern kitchen prompted her to say, "It’s really gorgeous and it has made a world of difference for me and the children.” Meanwhile, wrecking crews tore out old walls and windows, replaced electrical wiring, and cut large holes from roof to basement. Prefabricated core units, containing complete bathroom facilities on one side and a kitchen on the other, were lowered one atop the other. The walls and ceilings were replaced and new floor covering installed. Cutting through the roof. FHA Special Programs Below Market Interest Rate Program The Below Market Interest Rate program continues to be the fastest growing FHA multifamily housing program. In its less than six years of existence, about 74,000 units have been put under construction across the Nation. By the end of 1967, about 50,000 of these had been completed. FHA had insured over $1 billion in Below Market Interest Rate mortgages. Permanent financing for housing under the program is provided by the Federal National Mortgage Association. After completion of projects financed with market-rate loans, FNMA buys the mortgages from private investors which have made the construction loans. The interest on the long-term mortgages is set at a below-market rate of 3 percent to make possible lower rents. Through 1967, $2.2 billion in Below Market Interest Rate funds had been allocated for purchase of these mortgages. FHA had applications in process for 203 projects of 25,300 units involving $383 million in mortgage amount. There were commitments outstanding of $344 million to cover 272 projects of 25,000 units. The program is intended to serve families who earn too much for public housing but not enough to enable them to obtain standard housing in the normal rental market. Rent Supplement Program The Rent Supplement program— in which rent of low-income families is supplemented by a direct payment to the private project owner—attracted an increasingly strong response from private sponsors during 1967, and the volume of new proposals submitted to FHA resulted in complete allocation of the congressional rent supplement contract authority. By September 30, all of the original $32 million authorization had been allocated to 447 projects with 34,-100 proposed supplemented units. Congress then authorized $10 million in new funds. By the end of 1967, after little more than a year and one-half of operation of the program, FHA had made allocations of rent supplement funds covering 36,400 housing units out of 51,400 total units planned for 489 projects in 308 cities across the country. This represents considerable progress for such a short experience with a newly created program. New Programs 221(h) Low Income Rehabilitation Sales Housing The Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966 authorized a new program under Section 221(h) of the National Housing Act for the purchase and rehabilitation of housing by nonprofit organizations for resale to low-income purchasers. FHA insures a 100 percent mortgage for a private nonprofit sponsor to buy and upgrade property containing five or more single-family units of deteriorating or substandard housing. At final endorsement this project mortgage bears a below-market interest rate of 3 percent. After the individual units are rehabilitated, they are released from the project mortgage and sold to low-income purchasers who also receive 3 percent mortgage financing. FHA does not charge an insurance premium on these individual mortgages. To qualify as an individual mortgagor, the purchaser’s income must be within public housing limits. He must be an acceptable credit risk, but FHA gives consideration to the guidance and assistance which the nonprofit sponsor can provide to the prospective homeowner. The authorizing legislation placed a $20 million limit on the aggregate principal balance of all mortgages insured and outstanding at any one time. Allocations made by the end of the year after release of the program guidelines in April covered 73 projects of about 600 units in 37 different cities totaling about $7 million. FHA had issued commitments on 13 projects of 78 units involving $787,900 in mortgage amount, and had applications in process for $545,500 in mortgages on 8 projects of 50 units. “There’s More Excitement In What We Do” “It’s just so wonderful, because I never dreamed we’d ever have our own home. We’re a big family, and since moving here there’s more excitement in what we do. The boys and their father work around the house and the girls help me with the housework. “It’s a whole new world for us. Once we were crawling, but now we're walking.” Mrs. Mabel Leonard is the mother of 14 children ranging in age from 18 months to 19 years. These are her feelings about her family’s new home in Boston’s Roxbury section, bought with an FHA-insured mortgage. There may appear to be nothing unusual about purchasing a home with an FHA-insured mortgage— but it was for Mr. and Mrs. George Leonard, since they were the first welfare family in the Nation to do it. It was made possible by the National Housing Act’s Section 221(h), which helps to provide homes within reach of low- and moderate-income families. 19 The Federal poverty minimum for a family of 16 is $9,200. Mr. Leonard, who has a sixth grade education, earns $3,600 as a sole-puller at a rubber plant in nearby Malden. Before moving, the Leonards occupied two floors of a rickety, roach-infested three-story house in Roxbury. The rent, not including heat, was $95 a month for eight rooms. Their new home, just 75 yards away, is a sturdy 13-room frame house with asphalt siding purchased for $5,700. The family’s monthly payment for principal, interest, taxes, and insurance comes to $79. When the Leonard family moved to Boston from Marion, South Carolina, five years ago, housing posed a problem. They did not meet the three-year residency requirement for public housing, nor were they within the family income limit. Mr. Leonard’s wages plus the welfare supplement made his income too high to qualify. Mrs. Leonard recalls those first two years as a time of hardship for all the family. “We couldn’t send our children to school because we couldn’t buy clothes for them. I didn't want to go on welfare since I could work to help my husband. But we finally had to apply for assistance when the electricity and gas was turned off for nonpayment of bills.” After they had exhausted all other possibilities to find a more suitable place to live, help finally came from Fair Housing, Inc. The Roxbury organization located a house that needed a minimum of renovation. Credit references came from a drug store, an oil company, and a life insurance firm. All three gave the family Triple-A ratings. The Leonard’s FHA-insured mortgage is with the Workingmen’s Cooperative Bank. Fair Housing put up $500 to cover closing costs and the down payment. In a home they can call their own, Mrs. Leonard on the front stoop of their new house with nine of her 14 children. 20 Group Practice Facilities Program Another FHA program authorized by Congress in 1966 permits mortgage insurance to finance construction or rehabilitation of, and purchase of equipment for, facilities for the group practice of medicine, dentistry, or optometry. The program is intended to assure the availability of credit for projects sponsored by a nonprofit organization. Formal application by the sponsor for mortgage insurance is submitted through an FHA-ap-proved mortgagee who agrees to make the mortgage loan. The sponsor must show that it has made a bona fide but unsuccessful effort to obtain conventional mortgage financing on terms comparable to those available under the FHA program. FHA insures a mortgage of up to 90 percent of the FHA estimate of the value of the property, including equipment, not to exceed a maximum mortgage amount of $5 million. The mortgage may run for a term of 25 years. Interest is charged at the FHA market rate, and the FHA insurance premium is collected. New Communities Congress in late 1966 authorized FHA mortgage insurance for new communities, as an amendment to and an extension of the existing Title X Land Development program. This authority permits FHA to insure mortgage financing for the purchase of land and the development of improved building sites, to create new communities. A maximum mortgage amount of $25 million is provided. At the end of 1967 there were several pending proposals in the preapplication stage. Regular Mortgage Operations Since enactment of the National Housing Act of 1934, FHA has insured $120 billion in mortgages and loans; has assisted 9 million American families to become homeowners; has helped to finance about 1.2 million rental apartment units; and has insured 29 million home improvement loans. The $120 billion was divided: $88 billion for home mortgages; about $14 billion in multifamily projects; and $18 billion in property improvement loans. FHA does not lend money or build housing. It insures loans made by private lending institutions to private owners. FHA’s operations have been self-supporting, its income coming from insurance premiums, fees, and investments. It has reserves of over $1 billion after having paid its losses and all expenses of operations. Typical house insured by FHA in 1967. Tightness of mortgage money adversely affected new housing construction again in 1967. Mortgage financing—both FHA- and VA-underwritten—as well as conventional—declined. FHA’s share of total starts increased from 13.9 percent in 1966 to 14.2 percent in 1967. FHA starts rose from 158,000 in 1966 to 180,000 in 1967. Total dollar volume of mortgages and loans insured during the year was $7.1 billion. Mortgages insured covered 453,300 dwelling units—about 4 percent fewer than in 1966. These included 395,800 home mortgages in the amount of $5.9 billion covering 411,800 units, and 389 multifamily project mortgages amounting to $641 million for the financing of 41,500 units. Also insured were 448,000 home improvement loans in the amount of $623 million. The bulk of the home mortgage activity in 1967 involved existing construction — some 333,000 units — with the rest in new construction. New construction accounted for 37,000 units of multifamily project mortgage insurance. Profile of the Average 1967 Home Buyer The average FHA new-home buyer in 1967: ■ Was 33 years of age. ■ His before-tax monthly income was $820—up from $749 in 1966. ■ His prospective monthly housing expense was : mortgage payment $139, estimated repairs and maintenance $11, heating and utilities $25, for a total of 21 $175. This came to 21 percent of income—the same as 1966. Real estate taxes included in the payment averaged $22 monthly. ■ The home was priced at $18,600, an increase of $1,000 over the 1966 average. ■ Closing costs, which have increased every year since 1959, averaged $418, bringing total acquisition cost to $19,029. ■ Lot prices continued to climb— they averaged $3,777 in 1967, or 20 percent of estimated value of house and lot together. ■ The average mortgage was for $17,551—92 percent of acquisition cost. ■ The average mortgage term was 29.8 years. The average existing home buyer: ■ Was also 33 years old. ■ His before-tax monthly income was $774. ■ Property was priced at $15,933. Closing costs averaged $360. ■ The average mortgage was for $15,151, for a term of 28.5 years, and represented 93 percent of FHA valuation of property. ■ The average monthly housing cost was $162. Reduction in Acquired Property Inventory One of the most significant management achievements by FHA in 1967 was the reduction of the acquired homes inventory to about 31,000 properties at the end of the year. In its mortgage insurance programs, FHA assumes risks and expects some mortgage failures— this is the nature of an insurance service. Foreclosures and claims under FHA’s insurance had brought the agency’s acquired homes inventory up to 52,000 properties in 1963. In October 1965, FHA initiated an intensive effort to recondition every acquired home property for sale—both to improve neighbor hoods and to provide better housing. Headquarters organized field property disposition conferences on a regional basis to involve the Insuring Offices in the sales effort, to improve the program through better communication, and to provide for the exchange of ideas on new techniques. A successful sales campaign of this type requires more than one year to create and implement, and it was in 1967 that results became visible. In the course of the year, FHA achieved a total inventory reduction of 8,700 properties or 22 percent. This was a 14 percent greater reduction than that of the same period in 1966. Cost certifications on multifamily projects, calendar year 1967 Number Costs certified and recognized Amount insured Section 207 64 $210,206,797 $182,993,457 Section 213 28 57,787,235 54,186,300 Section 220 25 90,821,490 79,659,875 Section 221 123 194,490,318 184,386,633 Section 232 54 45,719,186 41,953,386 Section 233 3 720,694 711,100 Section 234 2 6,667,507 5,857,300 Section 810 2 4,150,812 3,689,000 Total..................... 301 610,564,039 553,437,051 Federal National Mortgage Association In addition to its mortgage insurance and other programs, HUD conducts a sizable mortgage credit operation through the Federal National Mortgage Association. FNMA was created to provide a degree of stability to the general mortgage market and render assistance to various governmental programs related to housing by purchasing, servicing, selling or otherwise dealing in federally underwritten mortgages. These activities have enabled the Association to provide a substantial portion of the home Cost Certificates on Multifamily Projects To prevent the possibility of “mortgaging out” on an FHA-insured multifamily project, the mortgagor is required by statute to certify, before the mortgage is finally endorsed for insurance, to the actual cost of the project. If the mortgage amount is more than the statutory ratio applied to such actual costs recognized by FHA, the mortgage amount must be correspondingly reduced. During calendar year 1967, cost certificates were received as follows on completed multifamily housing projects insured by the FHA: financing required by the housing programs of the Department. In fulfilling these responsibilities FNMA conducts three independent operations. Secondary Market Operations Through its Secondary Market Operations, FNMA purchases mortgages when and where mortgage funds are in short supply and sells them during periods and in localities of ample credit. The year 1967 was characterized by rising interest rates and a tightening of funds for mortgage investments which adversely affected a large segment of the Nation’s economy. Reflecting these conditions, mortgage holders turned 22 over a large volume of mortgages to FNMA. The Association’s mortgage purchases totaled $1.4 billion during the year, more than half the all-time high of $2.1 billion in 1966. The 1967 purchases provided home financing for 100,000 families. This heavy purchasing activity furnished a substantial measure of relief needed by home buyers and the ailing housing industry. The purchases were financed principally with funds borrowed from the public through the sales of debentures and short-term discount notes and, in small part, with Government borrowings. Special Assistance Functions Under its Special Assistance Functions, FNMA provides assistance for federally financed programs such as housing for families of low and moderate incomes, rehabilitation and construction of housing in urban renewal areas, housing for elderly persons, victims of major diasters and other selected home mortgage programs. During 1967, FNMA’s $340 million of mortgage purchases under its Special Assistance Functions provided financing for 25,100 units of housing, primarily for low- and moderate-income families. In its third operation, the Management and Liquidating Functions, FNMA manages and liquidates a substantial portion of mortgages acquired by the “old FNMA” under contracts made before November 1954, and those acquired subsequently from various Government departments and agencies. Mortgage acquisitions under this operation during 1967 totaled $520 million and provided financing for 45,800 units of housing. Participation Financing Functions FNMA also administers a participation financing program under which private capital is substituted for U.S. financing of certain mortgages and loans in which specified departments and agencies have a finanical interest. The program involves the sales to the public of certificates of participation in pools of these assets which are set aside for this financing purpose. During 1967, FNMA sold $3.9 billion of such certificates and by the end of the year cumulative sales since November 1964 amounted to $6 billion. Since its inception in 1938, FNMA’s mortgage purchases have amounted to $18.8 billion and have provided home financing for 1,848,000 families. Over the years, liquidations have occurred through mortgage sales and repayments and other credits, and at yearend the combined portfolio approximated $9 billion. FNMA is a self-supporting corporation and to date has received no direct appropriation for the payment of administrative or other expense. Pittsburgh.—Cora Street rehabilitation (before and after). 23 Boston.—Award-winning FHA-insured moderate income housing. New Providence, NJ.—FHA-insured nursing home. renewal and housing assistance programs Urban renewal and low-rent housing (and the programs associated with them) are the primary tools in the Federal assistance programs directed toward alleviating such physical and social problems as deteriorating neighborhoods and commercial districts and families occupying substandard housing in urban ghettos. They do more— they provide the means for bringing to bear the programs concerned with the human problems of those trapped in the ghettos. These programs are administered by the Assistant Secretary for Renewal and Housing. The programs date from 1937. In that year, Congress authorized a low-rent housing program to provide decent housing to those who cannot afford such housing without assistance. Housing under the program is owned and operated by local housing authorities created under State law. Federal loans and annual contributions are provided to the local authorities to assist in financing the construction, rehabilitation, acquisition, or leasing of this housing and for maintaining low rents. In Title I of the Housing Act of 1949, Congress authorized a program of Federal assistance for clearance and redevelopment of slum areas. This program has been greatly expanded to include a large number of community upgrading and development provisions. Federal loans, grants, and technical assistance are available to local public agencies or governmental units authorized under State law to undertake urban renewal activities. All these activities are locally conceived, planned, and executed. The Renewal Assistance Administration (formerly the Urban Renewal Administration) is responsible for urban renewal and related programs. The low-rent housing, Section 202 Senior Citizens direct loan, and College Housing loan programs are administered by the Housing Assistance Administration (formerly the Public Housing Administration). Neighborhood Facilities, Relocation, the Workable Program for Community Improvement, and HUD’s Social Planning and Services programs are also administered by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Renewal and Housing Assistance. 25 Renewal Assistance Administration Urban Renewal Program 1967 was a year of new directions for the urban renewal program. The overwhelming demands from localities for urban renewal funds exceeded available authorization authority. It was, therefore, essential to develop a method of approving new projects on the basis of urgency. A system was introduced which set forth national goals for urban renewal projects. Under this system, priority is given to those projects that increase the supply of low- and moderate-income housing, provide employment opportunities for the unemployed and underemployed, or treat areas of critical and urgent social and physical need. Other types of projects receive a priority if the locality has a balanced renewal program that meets the national goals. In addition, a grant management program has been undertaken to ensure that previously committed funds are being fully utilized. During the year, steps were taken to further decentralize program operations to the Regional Offices. These and other efforts will result in reducing application processing time by at least 50 percent in keeping with the President’s directive of May 11, 1967. At the end of 1967, there were 1,947 approved urban renewal projects in 912 communities in 48 States, Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. This compares to 1,812 approved urban renewal projects in 846 communities at the end of 1966. In 1967, 66 new communities received approval for their first urban renewal projects. Approval was given for 135 new projects during the year for a cumulative total of 1,947 approved projects. Of the total, at yearend, 572 were in planning; 1,037 in execution; and 338 completed. Total grant authority approved for urban renewal projects in 1967 was $586.3 million for a cumulative total of $6.3 billion. Other Renewal Assistance Programs In addition to “urban renewal projects” a number of other local undertakings designed to arrest and correct blight and upgrade communities are eligible for Federal assistance. These activities are administered under the broad heading of “renewal assistance” and include code enforcement grants; demolition grants; community renewal programs; urban renewal rehabilitation grants and loans; neighborhood facilities; urban beautification; and the provision of open-space land in built-up areas. Code Enforcement Grants are made to local governments to assist in carrying out Concentrated Code Enforcement projects in neighborhoods which show signs of incipient urban blight and deterioration. A comprehensive Code Enforcement project, together with public improvements and supporting facilities and services by the locality, is designed to arrest the blight and add to total neighborhood improvement. Grants may include two-thirds (three-fourths for communities with 50,000 or less population) of the cost of planning and carrying out Code Enforcement projects, including the provision and repair of necessary streets, curbs, sidewalks, trees, and publicly owned street lighting. The federally assisted Code Enforcement program is designed to prevent the need for more drastic action involving extensive rehabilitation or clearance. The program increased from 32 grants in National Goals In June, Secretary Weaver announced national goals and new criteria for judging applications for urban renewal projects. “Critical urban needs and an expanding national demand,” said Secretary Weaver, “require the most productive possible use of renewal funds. Priority consideration must be given to those programs that are most effectively helping to reach our national urban goals.” To receive such consideration, all new and currently pending Survey and Planning applications must contribute effectively to the conservation and expansion of housing for low- and moderate-income families; the development of employment opportunities, and the renewal of neighborhoods with critical and urgent needs. Housing legislation for 1966 requires that, in urban renewal areas which propose predominantly residential reuse, “a substantial number of the standard housing units provided must be for low and moderate income families or persons.” HUD will therefore give top consideration to projects which contribute to the development of centers of employment opportunity for jobless, under-employed or low-income persons, through commercial or industrial redevelopment. Similar consideration will be given to projects which attack areas of physical decay, high tensions, or great social need, in which the locality is prepared to use all available local, State, and Federal resources to combat its problems. 26 Urban Renewal in 1967 18,356 dwelling units were completed on urban renewal project land; the cumulative total of dwelling units is 117,500. Of these, 3,637 new FHA Section 221(d)(3) units for low- and moderate-income families were completed during the year, bringing the total of 221(d)(3) units to 14,002. Some 1,842 new public housing units on urban renewal project land were completed in 1967; total public housing units on urban renewal land is 11,687. Of dwelling units of all types, 110,498 were occupied; about 32 percent of the known occupants were nonwhite. The total land area in the 1,375 projects approved for execution or completed was 101,176 acres— 158 square miles. In these projects, land either acquired or to be acquired rose to 51,934 acres, an increase of 9 percent over 1966. Redevelopment had been completed on 13,295 acres, and construction underway on another 3,981 acres; this work had been completed on 2,392 acres during 1967, compared to 2,083 in 1966. Land committed to redevelopers at yearend was 23,925 acres; an additional 2,347 acres had redevelopers selected but not yet committed. This compares to 20,801 acres and 2,129 acres on December 31, 1966. Value of the residential redevelopment completed and underway at the end of 1967 was $2.2 billion; commercial construction $1.7 billion; industrial $277 million; public and private institutional $1.7 billion; or a total of over $5.9 billion. During 1967, some 608 commercial and industrial structures were either started or completed on project land, for a cumulative total of 3,479. Institutional construction begun during the year accounted for 147 structures, for a cumulative total of 1,121. The demand for renewal assistance continued to grow. On December 31, 1967, applications involving an unadjusted capital demand for over $1.9 billion were on hand; at the end of 1966, the corresponding figure was about $1.4 billion. At the end of 1967, 436 cities had undertaken or were to undertake rehabilitation in 674 urban renewal projects. During 1967, 93 additional projects involving rehabilitation were approved. The number of buildings in the rehabilitation workload for the 380 projects approved for execution or completed increased by 12,104 to a total of 100,372; dwelling units in these buildings totaled 212,849. 294 projects in 246 cities were in the planning stage at the end of 1967. These involved 64,678 buildings and 121,415 dwelling units. Of the dwelling units in projects in execution or completed on December 31, 1967, 53 percent had the work completed or in process. 1966 to 70 in 1967, and the amount of funds approved increased from $35.5 million in 1966 to $85.1 million in 1967. Demolition Grants Grants are authorized to assist in financing the actual cost of demolishing structures determined to be structurally unsound or unfit for human habitation. To obtain grant assistance for such demolition, local governments must have legal authority to clear the structures and must have exhausted all available legal procedures to obtain remedial action by owners. Grants cover two-thirds of the net cost of demolition. By the end of 1966, 34 demolition grants totaling $6.5 million had been approved in 31 cities. There were 53 projects, in 49 cities, totaling $9.1 million by the end of 1967. Rehabilitation Grants The program of grants to owneroccupants for necessary rehabilitation and improvements of their homes in federally aided urban renewal and concentrated code enforcement areas continued to accelerate during 1967. These grants of up to $1,500 assist persons who otherwise could not afford required rehabilitation. During 1967, 2,515 individuals and families in substandard dwellings received $3.5 million in grants to rehabilitate their homes. This compares with 1,990 grants totaling $2.8 million made in calendar year 1966. A total of 4,514 grants had been made to December 31, 1967, totaling $6.3 million. Without this program, recipients now living in standard housing would have been faced with the prospect of relocation. Rehabilitation Loans The 3 percent direct Federal loan program is one of the most effective tools available for stimulating rehabilitation. RAA loans for up to 20 years were made at a rate averaging 250 per month for the last five months of 1967. Loans totaling $11 million were made in 2,100 cases during the year. This compares with 636 loans totaling $3 million during all of 1966. The amount loaned during the second half of 1967 was three times that of the same period of 1966. At the end of 1967, 2,700 loans in the amount of $14.1 million had been made. The loans finance rehabilitation of property in federally aided urban renewal and concentrated code enforcement projects. These loans help property owners to obtain adequate financing 27 I 11111 Typical Housing—HemisFair site—before clearance. HemisFair—Tower of the Americas in background (left). A $156 Million Former Slum In San Antonio, where just three years ago some 1,600 people lived in a squalid slum, a world’s fair was rapidly nearing completion at yearend. Scheduled for opening in April 1968, the former blighted area represents a $156 million investment in buildings and facilities. Millions of people are expected to attend HemisFair, bringing a substantial boost to San Antonio’s economy. And when HemisFair closes, San Antonio will retain over $64 million of structures and improvements on the site for permanent public use. HemisFair is right in the heart of the city. Obtaining the site was made feasible by a HUD renewal grant of $16.4 million, which assisted in defraying the costs of land acquisition and demolition of buildings. None of the fair buildings received HUD assistance. The 1,600 former residents were moved into better housing than they ever had before. HemisFair commemorates the 250th anniversary of the settlement of San Antonio. It is the first world's fair to be held in the Southwest. Its theme is Texas’ historic role as a bridge between the divergent cultures of the Americas and to demonstrate the history, accomplishments, developments, and aspirations of the State of Texas and the nations of the Western Hemisphere. 29 to meet applicable rehabilitation standards, traditionally a major obstacle to the success of rehabilitation programs. The maximum residential loan is $10,000 per dwelling unit or such higher amount up to $14,500 as found necessary by the Secretary in high cost areas. Nonresidential loans may not exceed $50,000. Community Renewal Programs Federal grants are available to help finance the preparation of a locality’s Community Renewal Program—the effective programing of local renewal activities. A CRP assists a locality in evaluating its physical, social, and economic needs and resources; developing local goals, objectives, and programs; assessing relocation and other social resources; programing for equal opportunity in housing; analyzing legal and administrative organization tools; and measuring financial resources. Thus, the CRP serves as a necessary bridge between long-range general planning and immediate detailed project planning, between public and private requirements in community development, between physical and social issues, and between technical and political considerations. During 1967, CRP policies were expanded to cover several major new areas. These included substantially strengthened equal opportunity in housing policies; recognition of the need for supplemental CRP assistance to assure program continuity in major cities; development of formal coordina-tive relationships with major new urban programs such as Model Cities and manpower development ; recognition of the expanded nature of renewal reflected in the urban renewal national goals; and the need for CRP’s to incorporate programing of employment opportunities development actions for urban ghetto residents. Preparation of 11 community renewal programs involving $4.3 million in grants were approved during 1967. This compares to 19 programs approved during 1966 and total grants of $4.2 million. By the end of 1967, a total of 174 communities were using or about to use this method of outlining staged programs for renewal. Urban Beautification and Urban Parks Programs In addition to the program assisting localities to acquire undeveloped land for preservation of open spaces for park, recreation, conservation, or scenic purposes, administered as part of the Metropolitan Development programs, RAA makes grants for park and beautification purposes in built-up areas. Urban Beautification and Improvement Program This program has spurred communities throughout the Nation to engage in a wide variety of beautification and improvement activities. In 1967, 79 urban beautification grants totaling $6.1 million were approved, bringing the total to 141 grants in the amount of $14.5 million. These grants ranged from the improvement of parks and green space in declining, congested neighborhoods to making transitways attractive. During 1967, national criteria were established for the program, relating beautification to other activities for community improvement. Many cities now are coordinating these activities. In Richmond, Va., the beautification emphasis has been placed on poor neighborhoods. The city has been exerting special effort in code enforcement in these areas, and the beautification and improvement program will supplement these efforts. Among the activities included in this year’s program will be the refurbishing of 30 Vallejo, Calif.—Award-winning waterfront landscaping, Marina Vista urban renewal project. 31 Fire House No. 3 (circa 1880). The Fire House a few years ago. Sacramento Reclaims Its Past Sacramento has been called the West's most historic city. Today, it is preserving the remaining mementos of its past while employing urban renewal to revitalize its deteriorated and blighted areas. The city, founded in 1839, became an important point of convergence of wagon and river traffic. Nine years after its founding, gold was discovered a few miles away at Sutter’s Mill. Sacramento then became the headquarters of the Gold Rush and a dramatic population influx resulted. Mining equipment, traders, prospectors, businessmen, and provisions arrived pell-mell by ship from the East. Sacramento, in turn, became the western terminus of the stagecoach, the pony express, the telegraph, and the railroad. It was made the capital of California in 1854. 32 Calamity was a repeated visitor to Old Sacramento. Floods, fires, and epidemics took severe tolls of life and property. The fire of 1852 virtually destroyed the city; however, by 1854 Sacramento had been substantially rebuilt. Of the buildings rebuilt during the period 1854-1857, 90 of historical or architectural significance still stand, most of them neglected and deteriorated. Some day, in the not too distant future, 28 acres of what has been one of the country’s worst skid rows will be recreated as “Old Sacramento.’’ Utilizing HUD renewal funds for acquisition and demolition, along with State assistance for a 9-acre park, and private investment for restoration of buildings, 40 structures will be preserved and restored to their 100-years-ago condition. The restored Fire House today. seven playgrounds and street landscaping. Berkeley, California, is one of 20 cities which have requested HUD assistance for two consecutive years to accelerate local beautification efforts. The city’s beautification activities are geared to its 10-year capital improvement program. At the present time, beautification activities are being concentrated in the San Pablo and West Berkeley neighborhoods and the Berkeley waterfront. The high degree of interest in the Urban Beautification program evidences a growing concern in American for a quality environment. This concern is manifest in a variety of ways—from cleaning up rivers and streams to controlling billboards along highways. But in the Nation’s cities many neighborhoods continue to be overcrowded and uninviting—lacking in the basic amenities and esthetic improvements important to a sense of community spirit and neighbor hood pride. The Urban Beautification and Improvement program provides an effective tool for that gray area of urban life where the future quality of a neighborhood turns on the immediate care given it. Urban Parks Program The Urban Parks program provides for the acquisition, clearance, and development of land in built-up portions of the urban area. In these densely populated neighborhoods, often the only way of obtaining land for open-space use is to create it by the demolition of existing structures. In 1967, 31 urban park grants totaling $8 million were approved to establish small parks in congested neighborhoods, bringing to 54 and $12.4 million the total to date. In 1967, new national criteria were established for this program as well as for the Urban Beautification program. Preference is given to projects located in low income and older residential neighborhoods as well as projects which extend the benefits of other HUD programs. This latter, supportive role of urban parks resulted during the past year in the creation of joint urban parkneighborhood centers and combined school-urban park recreation areas. Dallas and New York are developing urban parks in conjunction with neighborhood centers funded under HUD’s Neighborhood Facilities program. These expanded sites will help the neighborhood facility function as a total social, health, and recreation center. Blighted houses on 1.7 acres of land in Orlando, Florida will be cleared to establish a school-urban park recreation area in an overcrowded neighborhood with no recreational facilities. An adjacent elementary school serves 700 children. One of the duplex buildings on the site will be remodeled for 308—901 O—68----3l 33 neighborhood use; the remainder of the area will be developed with playground equipment, game courts, and family picnic facilities. As the above examples illus trate, the adequacy of park land is more than a question of acres— it is a question of the right number of acres in the right place. The Urban Parks program is able to create open space where it did not previously exist and thereby correct past deficiencies and foster amenities which help stabilize and rehabilitate neighborhoods. Restored El Paseo de Ybor (The Plaza). Renewal Brings Back Ybor City’s Latin Look The distinctive aromas of humming cigar factories and coffee mills, together with Mediterranean architectural flavor, identify Ybor City, the Latin quarter of Tampa, Florida, which served as a social and commercial center of Tampa’s booming 1880's. But like so many other once-prosperous areas, Ybor City fell upon hard times. After the Spanish-American War had drawn to a close, the city settled into a dormant period that was to last for decades. Its buildings took on an unkempt, neglected look as they grew older. Its people, with only a few exceptions, either took refuge in apathy or moved away. In the early 1960’s, however, this all changed. It was then that Tampa city leaders, perhaps with envious glances at Mobile, Alabama, and Savannah, Georgia, began to think about restoration and revival. After the usual preliminary studies, the city with the assistance of a HUD renewal project is now moving forward with bold plans to return Ybor City to its nineteenth-century charm and elegance. In the belief that Ybor City’s resurgence depends upon a careful adherence to its history, renewal is taking the form of selective rehabilitation rather than 34 wholesale removal of buildings. Stressing architectural detail and local color, the new Ybor City offers interesting shops, landscaped pedestrian malls, cast iron street lights, iron grillwork balconies, and historic buildings to residents and tourists alike. A dozen or so new businesses have already located in Ybor City. Danilo Fernandez, who roasts dark coffee beans at La Naviera Coffee Mills, felt that his business should be located in Ybor City to take advantage of the Latin atmosphere.. He, like others— newcomers and oldtimers alike—likes his surroundings. And for all the merchants, business has been good. ‘‘I’ve kept 99 percent of my old customers,” estimated Rudy Portocarrero, ‘‘and I've got a few new ones from the walking trade.” Sam Argintar, who presides over his remodeled men’s store, says that business prospects have “never been more promising.” For these and other merchants, Ybor City’s revival with HUD assistance has meant a new beginning. Already a pleasant, stable neighborhood, Ybor City hopes to become an exciting tourist attraction in the years ahead. Neighborhood Facilities Program In August 1966, President Johnson asked for “the establishment in every ghetto in America of a Neighborhood Center to serve the people who live there.” Some 142 centers across the country serving about 2 million persons have been funded through the HUD Neighborhood Facilities program, which provides Federal grants to assist in financing the cost of constructing, rehabilitating, and expanding multiservice neighborhood centers. These centers provide programs of health, welfare, cultural, social, recreational, and similar community services. They must be consistent with comprehensive planning for the development of the locality; they must be located conveniently for the use by a significant portion of low- and moderate-income families in the neighborhoods served, and they may not be converted to other uses for a period of 20 years without consent of the Department. Priority is given to those projects that primarily benefit low-income families or otherwise substantially further the objectives of a Community Action Program approved under Title II of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. Grants under this program are normally two-thirds of project development cost (three-fourths in The Chattanooga Center Is Many Things The Alton Park Neighborhood Center in Chattanooga, Tenn., was opened in 1967. The Center is operated by the Chattanooga-Hamilton County Community Action for Economic Opportunity, Inc. It provides a whole range of services in one central location, supplied by public and private agencies. The Center, adjacent to a junior high school, is an example of Federal, State, and local cooperation at its best. The land on which the facility stands was donated by the local school board; construction funds were provided by HUD and the city of Chattanooga; funds for coordination and operation of the Center are being provided by the CEO; and the adult education program will be operated by the school system. The facility is serving over 20,000 residents in South Chattanooga with educational, health, manpower, social welfare, and general family services. There are also recreational activities, and neighborhood clubs and groups are using the Center as their meeting place. A Social Services coordinator interviews each applicant for assistance, obtains basic information regarding the applicant, which is recorded, and then refers the person to the agency or service set up to handle the problem or problems involved. Among the services provided: Day care center for children of working mothers; health and dental clinic; social services; Head Start; sewing classes; homemaking classes, etc. A bus is available to pick up clients and transport them between their homes and the Center. Construction cost of the Center was $538,743. A HUD grant of $359,162 paid two-thirds of the cost. 35 Staff matches resources to needs. The Center’s little yellow bus is a familiar symbol of help to the neighborhood residents. Learning and playing while mother works. Learning to sew. areas of high unemployment). The local community must furnish the balance of the cost of providing the facility and assume responsibility for operating and maintaining it. In 1967, 87 grant reservations for $33.2 million were made for neighborhood facilities, an increase of 190 percent over the $11.5 million in reservations made through 1966. By the end of 1967, 33 projects were under construction or completed. In 1967, changes were made in the administration of the program to ensure that the projects approved would be those which serve the greatest numbers of low-income families in the most effective manner. In making this determination, a community should examine the problem characteristics of the neighborhood thoroughly. Professionals who work in the neighborhood and neighborhood residents should be consulted. Census Bureau data should be analyzed. Local agencies, such as Community Action Agencies, public health, school and draft boards, welfare offices, and housing and 36 This is no fun—but other good things happen at the Center. redevelopment agencies should be called upon to supply information they have assembled about the neighborhood and its residents. Services can then be provided on the basis of what is required to meet the identified needs. In July 1967, responsibility for the review and selection of projects to be funded was decentralized to HUD’s seven Regional Offices. Pilot Program During 1967 a neighborhood center demonstration program called the Neighborhood Centers Pilot Program was launched by HUD in cooperation with the Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare and the Office of Economic Opportunity. The cities involved in the pilot program are: New York, Boston, Chattanooga, Chicago, Cincinnati, Dallas, Detroit, Louisville, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, St. Louis, Washington, D.C., Jacksonville, and Oakland. The 14 target areas within these cities include an average population of 50,000 of whom some 67 percent are nonwhite, 33 percent have incomes under $3,000, and 11 percent are unemployed. Office of Community Development The Office of Community Development, under the Assistant Secretary for Renewal and Housing Assistance, is responsible for the centralized Relocation activities of HUD, Social Services and Planning, and the Workable Program for Community Improvement. Relocation Since the beginning of the urban renewal program, through the end of 1967, about 237,000 families and 107,000 individuals have been relocated nationally. Even though about 90 percent of these were relocated into standard housing, and a large percentage into better housing than they occupied before displacement, moving from old familiar surroundings has meant hardship to many. Many others, however, have found that the move has been beneficial—better environment; an opportunity to own their own homes, in certain cases; more convenience, etc. The vast majority of them have obtained satisfactory housing. This is evidenced by the fact that the quarters of over 206,000 families had been inspected by LPA’s by the end of 1967 and 94 percent were found to be of standard quality. Many small businesses have also benefited. Numerous business firms had failed to move to larger or more modem facilities because of inertia, putting it off, or other reasons. When renewal came along, they had no choice but to move. As a result, they are happier and their businesses are more profitable and efficient than before displacement. Relocation Payments Until the advent of urban renewal, no Federal program that caused displacement of individuals, families, or businesses made any provision for relocation assistance to those displaced. From its earliest beginnings, the urban renewal program had statutory provisions that required localities to offer decent, safe, and sanitary relocation housing to families displaced under the program and to provide assistance to both families and businesses in finding suitable relocation housing or facilities. Payments for moving costs and other relocation expenses were authorized in 1956. A Federal grant pays the costs involved. Over the years, these provisions have been expanded either by statute or administrative action. Relocation payment limits have been increased for both families and businesses; property owners may receive reimbursement for certain costs connected with the transfer of their property; special Small Business Administration loans have been made available to displaced businesses; and special provisions have been extended to low- and moderate-income displaced families and individuals in renting or purchasing relocation housing. Other Relocation Assistance Other assistance is provided through rent supplements which are available to low-income families and individuals who need assistance in renting decent, safe, and sanitary homes within their economic means. The FHA Section 221(d)(3) program provides rental units at reduced rents for those with low and moderate incomes through its below-market interest rate program. Property owners may receive reimbursement for certain settlement costs connected with the transfer of their property. The Small Business Administration not only makes loans to displaced businesses but also A New Start “After 25 years, we were hesitant about starting over again,” said Mrs. Stephanie Breslauer. She and her husband Gustav are co-owners of a small department store in the Hyde Park section of Chicago. The Breslauers’ store was displaced from its former location on 55th Street in the Hyde Park urban renewal area and relocated in one of the first cooperatively owned shopping centers in the Nation. “By moving only two blocks we kept our old customers and gained some new ones,” Mr. Breslauer said. “This shopping center has been marvelous for us and for all of Hyde Park.” The Breslauers and 12 other merchants about to be displaced by urban renewal formed a corporation, pooled their cash, and purchased a parcel of land designated by the Chicago Department of Urban Renewal for displaced businesses. The stores are individually owned and financed, but cooperative spaces, such as parking, mall, and sidewalk areas, are centrally owned, managed, and maintained by the corporation. The Breslauers used their own cash for the land purchase. Their store was financed by an insurance company and the leasehold equipment and fixtures were paid for with a loan from the Small Business Administration. Says Mrs. Breslauer, “The relocation assistance from the Department of Housing and Urban Development was a big help. Today the new store is doing better than we ever anticipated.” 38 The Breslauers check ad for new store. The new Breslauers'. The shopping center is owned and operated by the displaced merchants. The relocation facilities contrasted with the former Breslauers’. 39 furnishes technical and managerial counseling to help them to reestablish. In recent years, other Federal programs causing displacement, such as the highway program, have had relocation assistance and payments provisions incorporated into their operations, but on a more limited basis than HUD’s. In 1964, other HUD programs— Urban Mass Transportation and Public Housing—were required to institute relocation programs. While some of the other programs of HUD do not have specific legislative requirements covering relocation, HUD has administratively determined that a relocation assistance program be a condition for Federal aid. Relocation Plan Required An application for HUD assistance for any activity which will cause displacement must be accompanied by an estimate of the number of business concerns, families, and individuals to be displaced and a description of the housing resources which are or will be available to the displaced persons and an indication of the commercial space which can accommodate the business concerns which must relocate. In order to assure that adequate rehousing resources will be available, an applicant must provide information on the characteristics of the local housing market. If the data provided do not demonstrate that sufficient housing will be available within the financial means of the families and individuals to be displaced, the locality must present proposals showing how the necessary dwelling units will be provided. In 1966, another significant step was taken. A centralized, Department-wide relocation staff was set up by the Secretary in the Office of Community Development. This staff is responsible for developing policies, standards, procedures, Norfolk.—Well-baby clinics and hobby shops are housed in HUD-assisted housing projects. 40 and regulations for administering the relocation aspects of all HUD programs. The policies and procedures being developed will provide a framework for assisting local agencies in dealing with communitywide relocation problems. Local urban renewal and housing agencies, as well as other public bodies, are encouraged to provide the services and assistance which will minimize the problems often attendant to relocation. The principal focus is on low-income and minority group families who usually experience difficulty in finding another location. These families are helped in securing employment and are assisted in obtaining welfare and related counseling services. It is the purpose of these concerted services to use the relocation process as a positive tool to help people break out of the poverty cycle and to enhance their personal growth. In 1967, 17,572 families were relocated from urban renewal project areas, most from substandard housing. Of those whose housing conditions could be ascertained 96 percent were found to have relocated to standard housing. But relocation is seldom painless. Homeowners frequently can’t find suitable homes at prices comparable to those they receive for their older residences. Small marginal businesses are often dislocated. HUD provides special cash payments for them. But, despite the Department’s leadership position in relocation assistance, we are still not satisfied with what we are authorized to do in this field. Social Planning and Services HUD is placing increasing emphasis on the social as well as the physical needs of the citizens it serves. To increase the effectiveness of HUD programs as they relate to the needs of the unemployed, disadvantaged, and minority group citizens, the Social 41 Planning and Services Staff was established. This staff, located within the Office of Community Development, advises and formulates policy for the Department on citizen participation, community organization, manpower development, and the social planning of viable urban communities. It devises methods for determining community and neighborhood needs for social, health, education, employment, and related service facilities provided by specific Departmental programs. The staff provides technical lia-sion on social policy and services with other Federal agencies and national public and private social service organizations. The Social Planning Staff also works closely with other Federal agencies in coordinating their programs. Among its other activities are coordination with the Labor Department and Model Cities Administration to utilize the Labor Department’s New Careers and other manpower programs in the operation of HUD programs; development of legislative ideas and proposals to effectuate social planning in all Department programs ; research and application of the New Town In Town concepts to bring new perspective to Departmental efforts to enrich the human environment of cities. The Social Planning and Services Staff has also been designated coordinator for summer programs of Renewal and Housing Assistance. This is part of the campaign by the President’s Council on Youth Opportunity to encourage the employment of teenagers during the summer months in useful jobs which benefit both themselves and the community. Workable Program for Community Improvement In 1954, Congress specified that HUD programs for renewal and 42 for housing of low-income families should be extended only to communities which have an effective local plan of action to eliminate and prevent slums and blight and foster sound development. This plan of action, called the Workable Program for Community Improvement, requires commitment of local public and private resources as part of a coordinated effort to assure the most productive use of the HUD aids. Communities submit requests for certification and annual recertification to the HUD Regional Offices, which also provide assistance to the communities in establishing local goals and in evaluating progress. A Workable Program is a prerequisite for the following HUD aids: ■ Urban renewal, code enforcement, and demolition projects. ■ Low-rent public housing. ■ Special FHA mortgage insurance for housing in urban renewal project areas and for families of low and moderate income. The Workable Program staff, in the RHA Office of Community Development, is responsible for the development and implementation of uniform policies throughout the country. A major change in policy became effective on September 2, 1967. As provided in the 1964 Housing Act, a Workable Program may not be certified or recertified unless the community has had a housing code in effect for at least six months and an effective program for its enforcement. Regulations were issued early in the year to provide for an orderly transition from the old to the new code requirements. Another policy change provided for a modification of requirements for communities under 10,000. The certification period for these small communities was extended to two years. A Departmental committee, with representatives of the Conference of Mayors and the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials, as well as HUD representatives has been evaluating the Workable Program. The committee is reviewing the accomplishments of the Workable Program over the past 12 years and is reorienting the program to emphasize economic, social, and cultural development and planning of communities. The members are also considering other possible changes to relate the Workable Program more specifically to national and local goals. During 1967, 361 communities adopted Workable Programs and received initial certification of their programs. 1,030 communities had their Programs recertified. By the end of 1967, there were 1,700 communities with Workable Programs in effect or in the process of recertification. Housing Assistance Administration Low Rent Housing Program To increase the production of low-rent housing was a pervading theme of 1967 in the Housing Assistance Administration, and numerous steps were taken to realize this goal. Among them: ■ Greater involvement of private enterprise through the Turnkey process. ■ Reduction of processing time through decentralization of responsibility to Regional Offices. ■ Increasing emphasis on “instant housing”—the leasing and acquisition programs. ■ Modernization program for older projects. The average annual production of low-rent housing units has been around 35,000, but the growing need for such housing led President Johnson and Secretary Weaver to announce in September 1967 that completions in the ensuing year would be doubled. Every effort is being made to facilitate the construction of projects now underway to have them ready for occupancy by September 30, 1968, to acquire existing housing for use by low-income families, and to lease available housing for early occupancy. Greater responsibility is being vested in Regional Offices to reduce the time required to process applications for new low-rent housing developments. This decentralization stems from a Task Force study which took place during the Summer of 1967. With a goal of more completed units in less time, greater emphasis was placed on the leasing program and the acquisition (and rehabilitation) of existing structures. At the end of 1967, there were over 673,000 units of public housing under management, occupied by over 2.5 million persons. Of this number 69,650 units were specifically designed for senior citizen occupancy. In addition, many regular units were occupied by the elderly, so that 33 percent of all public housing units were occupied by senior citizens. During the year, 147 new local housing authorities and 200 localities began participating in the low-rent public housing program. Applications for about 153,000 units of low-rent housing were received in Regional Offices. Program reservations for 80,000 dwelling units were approved; annual contributions contracts for 72,400 units were executed; construction started on 33,000 units by the conventional and Turnkey methods, and 38,700 units were completed, leased, or acquired. Cooperation With Private Industry HUD’s drive to produce more low-income public housing quickly brought about the development of the Turnkey process as an additional method of providing such housing. During 1967, the procedures of the process were simplified, streamlined, and broadened to encourage greater participation by private enterprise in public housing construction. Turnkey Process The Turnkey process of developing public housing allows a private developer to build on his own site to his own plans and specifications. The completed housing then is purchased by the local housing authority. Early results show that Turnkey construction can be completed in two to three years less time than is needed under the traditional method of public housing construction and at a saving of 10 to 15 percent. Turnkey develpment (Turnkey I) began late in 1965 and the first Turnkey facility was turned over to the National Capital Housing Authority in Washington, D.C., late in 1966. At the end of 1967, 27,378 units of Turnkey I housing had received reservation approval. In November, Secretary Weaver announced a pilot program to combine Turnkey I (development) and Turnkey II (management) . It was launched in three cities—New York, St. Louis, and Indianapolis. In New York City, a 929-unit housing facility will be constructed by a private developer and then operated by a private management firm. In St. Louis, an existing housing facility built in the traditional manner of constructing public housing will be placed under private management by the housing authority. In Indianapolis, the housing authority was switching the construction of nearly 700 units to the Turnkey process. Another phase of the process— Turnkey HI—provides for homeownership. The precedent-making use of tenant ownership of public housing will come about in a 200-unit facility in North Gulfport, Miss., and other such developments are expected to follow. Leased Housing The Leased Housing Program, which began in 1965, is still a relatively minor portion of the low-rent housing program, but developments during 1967 have shown clearly that it has a tremendous potential as a means of providing additional units to help solve the housing problems of low-income of 32,000 units had been programed and 8,900 units were leased and available for occupancy. During the year, the 6,900 dwelling units made available for occupancy by the leasing program represented 18 percent of the total units made available by the low-rent program as a whole. For the 12-month period ending September 30, 1968, in order to meet expanded goals for housing low-income families established at the direction of President Johnson, approximately 30,000 units are to be leased. This figure will represent 43 percent of the total to be made available for occupancy. Conventional Construction While a great deal of emphasis was placed on new approaches and methods in 1967, the conventional construction of public housing produced most of the low-rent public housing during the year. Nearly 28,000 units were constructed under this traditional method, which involves a number of steps by the Local Housing Authority—engaging an architect, selecting a site, preparing a development program, preparing plans and specifications, advertising for bids, and awarding construction contracts. Local Housing Authorities select the method of construction of the facilities. 43 Public Housing—Section 23 Leasing Program A striking example of HUD’s Leasing Program is in Fall River, Massachusetts. The rundown blighted structure was transformed into an attractive residence for low-income senior citizens. The before and after photographs illustrate how obsolete and wornout facilities can be modernized through cooperation between a housing authority and private property owners. Expansion of Community Service Programs During 1967, HAA continued to stress liaison with public and private national agencies (HEW, Labor, OEO, Federal Extension Service, Boy Scouts, etc.) to stimulate community services for and with public housing residents. A major objective is to help residents increase their earnings and become self-dependent. Therefore, emphasis is placed on programs to increase employability and employment. As an example, a * WlW*-4 "A Trisket, A Tasket, Cub Scouts Weave a Basket” at Youth Center in Victoria Courts, part of San Antonio Housing Authority's community center program. program was launched to secure the cooperation of local authorities in reaching disadvantaged youth in low-rent housing to acquaint them with the opportunities offered by the Job Corps. Youth Opportunities Program During the summer of 1967, the HAA encouraged local authorities to provide recreation and employment opportunities for the youth living in their projects. Maximum use was made of the Neighborhood Youth Corps program to employ project youth as maintenance and clerical aides to assist in authority project operations. Youth were also employed as recreation aides to initiate new programs or augment existing ones for younger children. Survey Report Published “A Study of Community Facilities and Programs Serving Residents of Low-Rent Public Housing,” containing the results of a 1966 survey, was published and is available upon request. It reports on more than 37,100 community service programs serving 3,000 low-rent projects. Modernization Program In November, a $125 million program to modernize more than 50,000 existing low-rent public housing dwellings was announced. HUD will set aside sufficient funds to help local housing authorities amortize bonds or loan notes issued to finance the work. The units to be modernized are those in the oldest and largest projects—those that are in the worst physical condition and most in ineed of improved management practices. The objectives are to raise the quality of life of the tenants,and enhance their opportunities for economic advancement. Along with the physical modernization program will come changes in management practices and policies to provide the tenants with a greater voice in project matters. Therefore, it will be mandatory that the improvement of a project is accompanied by changes in the management policies and practices which will feature tenant involvement and programs to improve their earnings. Each approved modernization program will be pointed toward making the project a physical asset to its neighborhood and providing for the project residents to become participants in their neighborhood development. Waco, Tex.—Kate Ross Homes (built in 1941) after modernization. College Housing Program Another HUD program tailored for a specific housing need is the College Housing program which provides direct loans to colleges, universities and teaching hospitals to support the construction of student residence halls, married student and faculty housing, student centers, infirmaries, and other housing-related facilities on college campuses. The program also covers housing for student nurses, interns, and residents at nonprofit hospitals. The interest rate on College Housing loans in effect during 1967 was 3 percent. At the end of 1967, loans had been approved for construction of more than 757,000 accommodations on college campuses and at teaching hospitals. Since 1950, institutions in 49 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam have participated. College Housing loans approved during 1967 will provide accommodations for nearly 39,000 persons. Reservations of funds outstanding at year’s end will provide an additional 26,000 accommodations. Institutions in 37 States and Guam participated in the program during 1967. 46 HUD College Housing Program.—Deborah Clark women’s dormitory building, University of California, Santa Barbara. Worcester, Mass.—Residence hall, Clark College. Dinner for 100 at Hilliard Center. Easter bonnets for sale. Raising Money for Fun A complete chicken dinner—“the kind that mother used to make"—is still available in Chicago for $1.25, and every Wednesday noon some 75 to 100 people enjoy the bargain. Where? At Hilliard Center, the Chicago Housing Authority’s community building in the Hilliard Housing project. Reservations are necessary since space is limited. All the food is prepared and served by senior citizens who live in the two round towers. The restaurant project is not a business venture. It came into being when a group of Hilliard residents discussed the possibility of visiting the Nation’s capital and nearby historic Williamsburg. They learned that a busload of people could make the trip for $120 each. To raise funds to defray at least part of their travel expenses, the restaurant was launched. The profits realized will be divided among those who contribute skills and services. The bus will hold 46 people. Any senior citizen in the project interested in joining the party is welcome. Capitalizing on the hopes of every woman to own a brand-new Easter bonnet, the Prairie Towers Resident Council set up “shop’’ and sold gay millinery creations to their neighbors. This enterprising group arranged to get merchandise on consignment and at the close of the sale they had a $60 profit. The sale was the first of a series of fund-raising events planned by the Council which is composed of residents of the building at 4120 South Prairie Avenue, part of the Chicago Housing Authority’s Washington Park Homes community. Next on the schedule is a series of dinners which, it is hoped, will be a source of larger profits. “We will have a better place to live and to rear our children,” said the Council president, “if we work together and do something positive for our neighbors.” Many of the building’s children have never seen a “live” theater performance, and one of the summer activities includes performances at the Peter Pan and the Goodman theaters. Other plans anticipate trips to museums, zoos, parks, industrial complexes, and forest preserves. If sufficient money is available, summer camp scholarships will be awarded. 48 Homeownership Through “Turnkey” and Sweat Equity The recently developed Turnkey III process, combined with “sweat equity," is making homeownership possible for a number of Cherokee Indian families in Oklahoma. Because of this program, living conditions for the Thomas Fields family are about to change drastically. They are moving into a new three-bedroom masonry block home they will eventually own. Mrs. Fields is a smiling, personable brunet who looks younger than her 32 years. She was married at 16 and is the mother of nine children, ages 1 to 15. Her husband is a railway laborer whose employment is seasonal, never exceeding six months during any year. His average gross annual income is $3,000. Mr. and Mrs. Fields are members of the Cherokee Nation of Northeastern Oklahoma. Home to their large family is a substandard three-room shack in Briggs Township near the small town of Tahlequah. This dwelling lacks plumbing and heating, and the family must depend upon a single wood-burning stove of ancient vintage for warmth in winter. The Cherokee Nation has set up a Tribal Housing Authority. The Housing Authority has entered into an annual contributions contract with HUD under the Low Rent Public Housing program, which provides the financing for the houses being built by the International Basic Economy Corporation, the Turnkey developer. IBEC produces dwellings with the help of the Cherokee families, who receive “sweat equity” credit toward ownership. Their contributions of land and labor, and the contributions under the Federal contract available for low-income families to help pay the required rent under their lease-purchase agreements, will enable the Tribal Housing Authority to amortize the housing loan in about 17 years, at which time the tenants can acquire ownership. Mrs. Fields proudly takes visitors through the home they soon will occupy. “We can’t believe,” she says, “that we will pay only $18 a month to live here, and we’ll own it while the baby is still a teenager.” She recalls that “Tom worked so hard on the place when he was laid off by the railroad, and even worked every weekend when the railroad kept him employed during the week.” Mrs. Fields modestly admits helping her husband with the house “however I could.” The young mother remembered someone having called their old shack a “hovel.” “Whatever that is, it sounds bad,” she smiled, “and I guess it fits it. Sometimes we can’t get it warm enough, especially in December and January, and I’ve worried so much about the baby.” Mrs. Fields mentioned the gas heating system and the modern plumbing among her family’s impressions of the new home. Each family will be able to enter into a leasepurchase agreement, which will ultimately result in homeownership. The plan works like this: The family provides an acre of land as the site for the house. (Most Cherokee families have 640 acres of land under a land grant from the Indian Bureau.) The land is valued at $250. The members of the family will assist in the construction of their own house and will be given credit for the value of the labor they put in. This is the “sweat equity” feature. In addition to the rent they pay, the family will be responsible for maintaining the house and grounds. Generally, the value of the sweat equity will be calculated at $1,250. At the time that the family’s contribution reaches the $1,250 figure, the debt is amortized and title will be transferred to tenant. Mr. Fields (left) shows his new dwelling. Earning the “sweat equity.” Mrs. Fields and two of her nine children outside former home. 50 The Chavez Family Has a New Home The 10 members of the Pedro Chavez family once lived in a rundown adobe house in the Barelas section of Albuquerque. The walls were cracked, the linoleum floors in two of the rooms were badly cracked, and some of the floorboards were loose. The house had no indoor bath or toilet. Now, the Chavez family lives in a six-room stucco house with modern indoor plumbing in the South Valley. The house is span-clean, and Mr. Chavez has begun to dig up the front yard to make a lawn. For their new home, the Chavezes pay $59 monthly, under the HUD-assisted leased housing program. Under the program with Federal funds, the Albuquerque Housing Authority leases houses from owners and rents them to low-income families. The families each pay a rental based on their income, the Housing Authority pays the balance. Mr. Chavez has been totally disabled since he Mr. Chavez prepares the lawn of their new home. underwent two stomach operations last year. He and his wife are raising the eight children still at home— seven are married and live elsewhere—on a veteran’s pension and assistance from the Department of Public Welfare, totaling $3,600 a year. “There weren’t enough rooms in our old house,’’ says Mrs. Chavez. “Now we have four bedrooms.” The Albuquerque Housing Authority has 112 families living in leased housing. Many of the leased houses were vacant and neglected before the Authority took them over; in many cases, juveniles vandalized the vacant houses. These have been rehabilitated and brought up to standard condition. Thus, the program brings two benefits: families are provided decent housing; and the houses are put in first-class condition and well maintained, eliminating the neighborhood eyesores that formerly existed. The old Chavez residence. Senior Citizens Housing The Nation’s senior citizens, 60 years of age or over, now exceed 25 million. By 1980, it is estimated that our elderly population will rise to more than 32 million. HUD’s housing programs for the elderly have been developed to help the Nation’s communities meet the special needs of their older and handicapped citizens, while at the same time expanding the range of available housing choices. To do this, a wide variety of HUD-administered programs is now available. Included are the low-rent public housing program for the low-income elderly and handicapped; Section 202 direct loans for nonprofit rental and cooperative housing for the moderate-income elderly and handicapped; and FHA Section 231 mortgage insurance for profit and nonprofit rental housing for the elderly and handicapped. In addition, other programs are directed toward helping senior Life Begins at Forty for Crazy Water Hotel The Crazy Water Hotel in Mineral Wells, Texas, once was among the most famous inns in the State. Built in 1927, it surrounds the site of a well which at the time was said to produce “healing” water. In 1872 (so the story goes) a judge hauled water from the Brazos River and gave it to a “crazy” woman living in the country. She reputedly was cured and the judge began giving the water to others. When he tired of hauling water, he drilled what he called the “crazy well.” The original Crazy Water Hotel was built around it. The fame of the water spread widely after the turn of the century, when bathing in “therapeutic” mineral waters was fashionable in this country and in Europe. With the passage of time, the number of tourists diminished and the once-famous well was closed. The 200-room Crazy Water Hotel had few guests. It was plagued by financial difficulties and was in a state of disrepair. But better times were ahead for the re sort. In 1964, it was purchased by Mr. and Mrs. John Matthews, who began the difficult job of renovation. The couple approached HUD officials in 1966 with the idea of turning the hotel into a federally assisted retirement center. The plan was well accepted. So that Federal funds could be channeled into the project, the Mineral Wells Housing Authority, which had been inactive since 1949, was reactivated. The Authority leased 60 rooms under HUD’s low-rent leasing program for low-income elderly persons. The program has been so successful that the Authority has been authorized to lease 40 additional rooms. The units are leased on a congregate basis. Occupants live in individual rooms or suites, but share central cooking and dining facilities. Other areas are set aside for community activities. Each tenant pays 25 percent of his income as rent. The local housing authority, with annual contributions from HUD, makes up the difference between the tenant payments and the regular rent. Mr. and Mrs. Gerald Johnson sold their home and now enjoy congregate living. citizens. The new rent supplement program, mortgage insurance for profit- and nonprofit-sponsored nursing homes; mortgage insurance to assist older people to finance the purchase of their own homes; grants to assist in the development of multipurpose neighborhood facilities such as senior citizens’ centers, and direct loans and/or grants to assist homeowners in urban renewal and concentrated code enforcement areas to rehabilitate their homes to meet required standards. Progress in 1967 The year 1967 was marked by new commitments among the three HUD senior citizen rental programs, totaling over 43,000 units, and bringing the cumulative total up to nearly 234,000. Construction began on 27,000 units during the year, for a cumulative total of nearly 166,400. The number of units completed during the year amounted to 28,100, bringing the aggregate to 124,000. The Best Possible World It was the best possible world for William and Olga Stephens, aged 74 and 65 respectively, when they moved into a new 201-apartment, 11-story building built expressly for elderly folk. The event marked more than just a better place to live—it was the beginning of their honeymoon. Although they had married secretly a couple of weeks before, they were just starting their lives together under one roof. The apartment building—rated on a par with a quality hotel—is a low-rent housing project of the San Antonio (Texas) Housing Authority. Mr. and Mrs. Stephens occupy a 2-bedroom apartment and pay a monthly rental of $47.50. In addition to a comfortable environment they have the use of counseling services, craft rooms, a health center, and educational and recreational facilities located on the first floor. These are provided by Senior Community Services, Inc., an agency of the United Fund. The newlywed Mr. and Mrs. Stephens. A couple of thousand miles across country in Atlantic City, NJ., Mr. and Mrs. Morris Rosensweig have taken up tenancy in Best of Life Park. This 13-floor, 208-unit apartment building was constructed for the elderly whose annual incomes do not exceed $3,950 (single), or $4,650 (couples). Says Mrs. Rosensweig, “Every morning the sun fills this room with warmth and it is so cheerful. Now you couldn’t get us to move.” Best of Life Park was developed under Section 202 direct loan provisions of the Housing Act of 1959. Featured are individual ocean-view terraces for each apartment, self-operated elevators, modern kitchens with specific features for elderly persons, laundries and waste disposal rooms on each floor, ample onpremises parking, convenience to community facilities, a comprehensive program of social activities, arts and crafts, and entertainment for the occupants, and similar amenities for elderly citizens. Mr. and Mrs. Morris Rosensweig. 54 Low Rent Program Under the low-rent public housing program, 37,600 units for the elderly were approved for annual contributions contracts. This program, intended for the low-income elderly, is the largest Federal senior citizens program, involving commitments for 157,600 units specially designed for older people. Over 19,300 low-rent units were placed under construction, bringing the aggregate total to over 96,800. Over 17,000 units were completed for a grand total of 69,000. As it has done in recent years, housing for the elderly under the low-rent program continues to represent a very substantial portion of the entire program. In 1967, 50 percent of the total number of units approved for annual contributions contracts were to be specially designed for occupancy by low-income senior citizens. Older people are, of course, eligible to live in low-rent housing units not specially designed for senior citizens. On December 31, 1967, 33 percent of all units, including those in specially designed units, housed elderly tenants. Direct Loan Program Direct long-term low-interest loans to assist in financing new construction and rehabilitation or conversion of existing housing and related facilities for rental by the moderate-income elderly or the handicapped are authorized by Section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959. Loans may be made only to private nonprofit corporations, consumer cooperatives, and public agencies not receiving Federal financial assistance exclusively for public housing. The program is designed to provide independent housing for lower-middle-income elderly or handicapped persons and families whose incomes are too high for public housing or rent supplements but not sufficient to meet the cost of private rental housing. During 1967, 36 projects, with 5,650 units and Ioans of $73 million were approved under this direct loan program. This brought the cumulative total to 251, covering over 32,900 units, in the amount of nearly $397 million. Forty-four projects were placed under construction, with 6,900 units, involving loans of over $85 million. Forty-one projects containing some 6,000 units were completed, and 54 projects with 9,000 units were under construction at the end of the year. There were a total of 150 at yearend, with 17,550 units and loans of over $206 million. FHA Section 231 Under Section 231, FHA insures mortgages on rental housing designed for the elderly or handicapped, in any age bracket, in a wide income range. The projects may be new construction, or may involve rehabilitation. Eligible sponsors include both profit and nonprofit groups. Through the end of 1967, total net commitments under this program amounted to about 281 projects, with over 43,000 units involving over $527 million in mortgage insurance. At the end of 1967, 241 projects with a total of over 36,000 units had been completed and finally endorsed. Of these, 16 projects with 4,600 units were completed and finally endorsed in 1967. Among the notable events affecting Section 231 projects during the year was the execution in June of the first contract with a Local Housing Authority to provide for leasing of units in an existing Section 231 project—another example of the use of the Section 231 leasing program to provide good housing quickly for older people in the low-income group. First Public Housing For Handicapped Tenants Opens How wide should doors be for people in wheelchairs or on crutches? Is a shower or a bathtub more safe and convenient for handicapped persons? Is it feasible for handicapped and nonhandicapped senior citizens to share the same building? Besides shelter, what other services are necessary to strengthen the independence, dignity, and happiness of older and handicapped citizens? These and other questions will be answered as a result of a pioneering effort of the Toledo Metropolitan Housing Authority, with HUD assistance. On December 1, 1967, the Nation’s first public housing facility specially designed to meet the physical and social needs of handicapped and elderly persons was opened. Vistula Manor in Toledo is an eightstory, 165-unit building, built and operated by the Housing Authority under HUD’s low-rent housing program. The $2.6 million building is in downtown Toledo on land in the Vistula Meadows urban renewal project. But before construction began, the Housing Authority entered into a contract with the University of Toledo to conduct a six-month research program to decide what the needs were and what special features should be included in such a facility. Now that the building is open and tenanted, another six months’ work will be devoted to evaluating the operation, which should provide valuable information for future buildings for the elderly and the handicapped. Both the predesign studies and the evaluation are financed with a HUD Low Income Housing Demonstration grant of $106,315. 55 Special Features Special features include an automatic entrance door, specially timed; extra wide elevators; enough space in apartments to allow easy manipulation of wheelchairs; and windows set at a height to give a full view from a sitting position anywhere in the room. Parking facilities in the basement are designed to make getting in and out of automobiles easier for persons in wheelchairs. Ramps are provided instead of stairs. Other specials: Sliding doors. Some bathrooms with showers large enough for a person in a wheelchair, with special seats for use during the shower. Thermostats that permit the presetting of water temperature, faucet controls on the opposite end from the faucets, and conveniently placed grab bars. Counters, sink heights, oven, and storage facilities are set to allow work from a sitting position. The sink cabinet can be opened underneath to accommodate wheelchair users, and the bottom of the sink is insulated with asbestos to prevent burns to the legs of the users. More than just the tenants’ convenience had to be considered. Their safety is more important. Each living unit is equipped with an emergency alarm system. A switch just outside the bathroom door activates a buzzer and red light in the corridor and also shows up on a control panel in both the management office and custodian’s apartment. Prime consideration was given to fire detection and evacuation procedures in case of emergency. Special detection equipment, manned 24 hours a day, was installed; and evacuation methods (including fire drills) have been established. The tenants have easy access to downtown. A Goodwill Industries building, which will provide training facilities and a place of employment for the residents, will be connected to the residence building by a covered passageway. The Toledo Health Department and the Visiting Nurse Association have established a joint onsite facility to examine and test handicapped tenants to determine what type of work each is capable of doing. Records of the physical abilities of each tenant will be made available to prospective employers. Vistula Manor came about through the activities of an unusually broad-based citizens advisory committee. The committee, headed by a real estate broker, includes a representative cross section of civic, educational, business, and social welfare organizations, along with representatives of local handicapped groups and local officials. Miss Geneva Corlett, a switchboard operator, in her kitchen. 56 metropolitan development programs The Office of Metropolitan Development administers programs of HUD associated with land and facilities development, urban planning assistance, and urban mass transportation. Under these programs, HUD assists communities in planning and constructing water and sewer systems, hospitals, and other needed public facilities. Areawide comprehensive planning is supported and encouraged through urban planning grants. The Office also provides financial aid for the preservation of undeveloped open space land and for the advance acquisition of sites for public facilities. It assists States and localities in the acquisition and preservation of historic sites and buildings. Under the urban mass transportation program, HUD make grants for capital improvements and for research and technical studies to improve urban transportation systems. Urban Transportation Programs Urban Mass Transportation Capital Improvement Grants Nineteen cities and transit authorities in 11 States were the beneficiaries of 19 HUD transit capital grants during 1967. Ranging in size from the New York City metropolitan area and Chicago to Martinsville, Va., and Jamestown, N.Y., these cities received Federal grants amounting to almost $122 million. With these funds 262 new buses were purchased, and dramatic improvements are fore-shodowed for commuter rail patrons of the Long Island and New Haven Railroads and rapid transit passengers of the Chicago Transit Authority. Compared with 1966 grants, there was a 3.5 percent increase in transit grants for 1967. Chicago, which received a total of more than $46 million in three separate grants, will extend its rapid transit system by 15 miles of brand new route, largely within expressways, using median strips which had been reserved by the city for rapid transit when the expressways were built in 1960. Upon completion of these new links in the Chicago system, some 160,000 daily patrons will have the advantages of time-saving, convenient, modern rapid transit service. The Metropolitan Commuter Transportation Authority, which owns the Long Island Rail Road, received a grant of over $30 million for extension of electrified track some 16 miles between Mineola and Huntington, and for rehabilitation and modernization of existing electrification. The new facilities will more adequately handle the needs of the 270 new high performance cars recently ordered by the line, as well as insuring a more dependable power supply. For many of the Long Island’s 57 “dashing commuters/’ the traditional change of trains at Jamaica will become a thing of the past, as the extension of electrification will make possible direct service between Pennsylvania Station in Manhattan and such suburbs as Hicksville and Huntington. The Connecticut Transportation Authority and New York’s Metropolitan Commuter Transportation Authority received a grant of $28.4 million to begin an improvement and renewal program for the New Haven Railroad’s New York—New Haven suburban commuter service, including the branch to New Canaan. Up to 144 new multipleunit electric cars will be purchased, and improvements are planned to the electrical and signal systems. This is the first step of a larger program which will help to put the New Haven’s vital West End commuter service on a firmer, more permanent basis and will guarantee the 70,000 daily riders uninterrupted service to and from New York City. Such small cities as Martinsville, Va. (population 18,798); Rome, Ga. (32,226); and Jamestown, N.Y. (41,818) have benefited by transit capital grants during 1967. In all three, new buses have been purchased, thus insuring the survival of transit service for persons for whom cessation of transit service might render severe hardship. Through the end of 1967, transit capital grants awarded by HUD reached a total of over $308 million. Most of this money has helped finance major improvements in rail rapid transit and/or rail commuter service. These are generally long range projects that take several years to complete, and thus, their benefits to the public are in the future. On the other hand, most of the new buses financed through HUD capital grants are in service, providing more comfortable and more reliable service to thousands of transit riders in several dozen cities, large and small. In many of the smaller cities, the new buses have literally made the difference between life and death for the transit system serving the area. Research and Demonstration Programs Transit Demonstration Program and Studies In 1967, HUD’s urban transportation research, development, and demonstration program expanded efforts on two fronts—in identifying human needs that can be met through improved transit, and in developing and testing management techniques for more efficient, economic transit systems. HUD awarded 16 demonstration grants totaling $6.5 million in Federal funds and seven research and development contracts totaling almost a half million dollars. The year’s grants bring the entire program effort to 92 grants and 49.7 million. Concern for human needs has been carried forward in new studies of poverty and employment and their relation to transportation in St. Louis, Missouri; Nassau and Suffolk Counties, New York; and Boston, Massachusetts. The famous Watts study of transportation and the poor received approval to move into its third-phase experiments with neighborhood-run nonprofit corporations using buses as enlarged carpools to distant jobs. The transit vehicle itself was examined for its suitability for transit riders, the poor and the rich, the young, the old, in a study of nonrail vehicle design soon to be concluded by the National Academy of Engineering. This study is the first phase of a longer term endeavor to develop a new family of city buses. In another area, new grants are seeking ways to improve management techniques available to transit. In Washington, D.C., the computer is being used to compare alternate routes and schedules to achieve maximum service at the lowest cost. Kent State University has recently begun a study to develop a manager control system that will feed reliable and timely information to transit officials for better planning. In New York State, a mathematical formula which predicts traffic volumes on transit and in private automobiles for a given area is being tested. West Virginia University, with HUD assistance, is working on a device for counting passengers and converting the information into vehicle requirements. In Pittsburgh, the Port Authority of Allegheny County is seeking to improve practices used for informing people about transit, and for advertising and promoting transit services. Other demonstration grants are marketing-testing small bus service in a suburban area, evaluating the effectiveness of connections between commuter railroad service and rail rapid transit, and evaluating the use of air space for urban transportation. Harvard College is conducting a study of the legal problems future research, development, and demonstration programs in urban transportation will face. New Approaches In May 1967, HUD called for a new initiative from the transit industry and others to establish a test and research center for new transit technology. Since then the American Transit Association, the Institute of Rapid Transit, and a number of others have been working with HUD to develop alternative conceptions of what such centers might be and accomplish. In November, HUD called together transit officials, mayors, city 58 “I Probably Would Have Died” A 54-year-old Detroit busdriver credits a two-way radio installed in his vehicle with saving his life when a young robber shot and robbed him and left him for dead. The communication system had been installed just 30 days earlier through a HUD urban transit grant. For Louis F. Thompson, a veteran of 25 years with the Detroit Department of Street Railways, it became his salvation. He tells it this way: “I was working the night shift, and nearing my regular turnaround in the vicinity of the fairgrounds. There was only one passenger aboard and I thought he’d be leaving at the end of the route. As I approached the turnaround he pressed a gun against me and ordered me to keep driving. “After I made the loop he told me to stop. I did and he took my money and then fired four shots at me. Two of them hit me, one in the jaw, the other in the chest. Then he jumped from the bus and started running. “I was bleeding but I hadn’t lost consciousness and I managed to press the emergency communications switch. The dispatcher came on and I told him what had happened. He had police cars and an ambulance on the scene real fast. They caught the gunman about a half-mile away. “If it hadn't been for that two-way radio setup I probably would have died, for at that time of the morning and in that location, there wasn’t anyone around.” Thompson, now fully recovered and back on his driving assignment, has added one new step to his preliminary checkoff list. He makes certain the two-way radio system in whatever vehicle he is assigned is completely operative. Veteran driver Louis F. Thompson. managers, consultants, and many others to a conference on “New Approaches to Urban Transportation,” the first national conference in the history of the urban mass transportation demonstration program. Project staff and local officials came from nine cities including Los Angeles, Seattle, Chicago, and New York to discuss their findings and conclusions with a conference audience of over 500. At the conference close, the Westinghouse Electric Corporation was presented with an award for its work in the field of urban transportation. The conference, in addition to presenting individual project results, had as a major purpose a discussion of the program’s overall accomplishments and a look at its future direction. Over the past years the total program effort to focus on human needs which can be met through improved transit has had a twofold impact. First, the program has offered a reasonable hope that urban mass transit can and will become a viable element of urban life; that urban transit problems are amenable to study and solution. Second, the program has brought new awareness of the meaning of transit to the social and economic fabric of an urban area. As the Nation rushed during past decades into “automobile only” solutions to urban transportation demands, it failed to notice that many people were being left out and always would be left out if they had to depend upon cars only to get to work, to shop, for recreation, or to obtain medical care. Imaginative projects have demonstrated that transit can play a part in insuring equality of opportunity. The total program effort to improve the efficiency and economy of the transit system in both management and equipment has affected both in the following ways: It has been shown that transit marketing and management can be scientifically researched. Research and demonstrations have begun to develop a new understanding of many of the critical decisions faced by transit. In addition the demonstration projects have provided evidence of a vast untapped pool of technological potential. They have shown that suppliers, manufacturers, business and transit industry leaders are willing to pool resources with the Federal Government to produce and try out new ideas and technology. Fare collection devices are leading to automation not only of fare collecting itself but also to automated techniques for collecting, processing, analyzing, and reporting of data for managerial control. Work is relatively advanced on those for rail transit; just beginning for bus operations. The program financed the forerunners of new systems of urban transportation—the transit expressway which has already been purchased for an airport application and is under serious consideration for urban transit. There is also the University of Pennsylvania-sponsored minicar concept—perhaps the first truly urban car to see active service— which incorporates low pollution, quiet, capability of being managed in rental fleets, and a possible future element in bimodal car-type systems. New Systems and Projects The future of the demonstration program has been significantly affected by the congressional directive that HUD prepare a long-range program of research, development, and demonstration which would rapidly bring into being “new systems” of urban transportation. Section 6(b) of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of -1964 called for a report to the Congress in March 1968 formulating and recommending a program of research, development, testing, evaluation and demonstration of new systems of urban transportation. Twelve study contracts, totaling over $2 million, covering studies of near-term evolutionary, and futuristic improvements and innovative systems of urban transportation were awarded early in 1967. These involved consideration of technologic transfers from aerospace as well as improvements and innovations in analytical and evaluation techniques. The contractors working on the study represent large and small industrial firms, consulting firms, nonprofit institutions and universities. As the year closed, the preliminary draft of the report was in preparation. Technical Studies Program Accelerated interest in the new technical studies program, authorized in the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 resulted in the approval of Federal grants for nine studies during 1967. Eight cities and transportation authorities received over $3 million in grants, ranging from a $975,600 grant to the Southern California Rapid Transit District to $4,833 to Great Falls, Montana. Most of the grants were awarded in conjunction with studies of proposed rapid transit systems or new lines. Los Angeles, Baltimore, and Seattle are in the first group, while the Boston and Philadelphia areas are in the second. The results of the studies may be the basis of bond issue referendums to be placed on the ballot during 1968, at least in Southern California and Seattle. Great Falls’ technical study concerns the possible restoration of bus service in the community. In Akron, Ohio, a study of the existing bus system is being made to help resolve transportation problems, and the Kansas City area is the subject of two studies. One concerns the existing bus services 60 rendered by 10 separate private companies and their possible unification under a new public transit authority. The other is to determine public transportation requirements for the Mid-Continental Airport, some 18 miles north west of downtown Kansas City, Mo. All of the technical studies have Federal financing for two-thirds of the cost of planning, engineering, and designing mass transportation projects. Studies completed with assistance from the technical studies program may make it possible for cities to apply under the transit capital grant program for assistance in the implementation of the transit development plan recommended by the stduy. “It Is Indispensible” “I wouldn’t be working at the hospital if it weren’t for the express bus service. It is indispensable.” This is how Mrs. Patsy Heflin, 31, a petite, auburnhaired administrative assistant at Memorial Hospital in Nashville, Tennessee, described the new service that is making it easier for her and many other hospital employees and outpatients to get to work and obtain medical services. Financed by a $482,000 grant from HUD to the Nashville Transit Authority, the direct express busline links nine major medical centers and provides faster, more convenient and reliable service between these centers and downtown Nashville. A second line, a hospital connecting service, is also part of the project. In the first two months of operation, a 61 percent increase in passengers occurred on the medical center express service line, and a 73 percent increase in riders occurred on the hospital connecting service line. The HUD grant is paying two-thirds of the $723,000 project cost. The local share was provided by the privately owned Nashville Transit Company, which also furnished the equipment and personnel for the demonstration. Nashville, a city of 400,000 with 14 hospitals and two medical colleges, was ideally suited for testing the effectiveness of express bus service in meeting the transportation needs of hospital employees and outpatients. The nine medical centers served by the transit demonstration project employ a total of over 6,350 persons. Outpatients average 20,000 a month. Parking and traffic demands near these centers have rapidly outgrown available facilities and land areas, creating a serious need for fast, convenient public transportation. An example of this situation is the University Medical Center area, which includes Vanderbilt Hospital-Medical College, Veterans’ Hospital, St. Thomas Hospital, and Baptist Hospital and Mid-State Medical Center. About 76 percent of all Nashville physicians have their offices in this area. Parking is a major problem for outpatients, visitors, and employees alike. Express buses now provide convenient service at 20-minute intervals. The service, inaugurated in July 1967, originates at a central bus “hub” in the downtown business district, where heated shelter areas make transferring from residential lines comfortable. Another part of the HUD-sponsored demonstration involves a hospital connecting service which links the Meharry Medical College-Hubbard Hospital complex with the Vanderbilt-Veterans Hospital. Medical students and interns find this 20-minute crosstown service particularly valuable. Local leaders feel that improved transportation has forged new links in community-hospital relations as well as between the medical centers. Edward Shea, a local businessman and civic leader, says that “HUD, through the demonstration program, has been of major assistance in undergirding a growing community of interest in the city.” Mrs. Patsy Heflin and coworkers board bus that links nine major medical centers. Nurse Barbara Adkerson uses HUD-financed buslines to commute to work. San Francisco Area Transit System Cited The billion-dollar, 75-mile rapid transit system now under construction by the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) has been cited as “The Outstanding Engineering Project in the U.S. in 1967,” by the National Society of Professional Engineers. The California project was first in a field of 10 engineering feats selected by the Society. Second ranking was given to the launching of Apollo IV and its power supply, the Saturn V rocket. The BART project was praised as “a planned attempt to deal constructively with the need for public transportation in congested areas and to overcome the structural and economic difficulties concerned.” The rapid transit system has received a total of almost $35 million of HUD grants. Two of the grants, for $26.3 million, are for capital improvements (hardware); three grants, totaling $8.2 million are for transportation demonstrations (testing new transit equipment and methods of operation); and a $447,953 grant is for an Urban Beautification Demonstration. Twenty-five miles of the 75-mile system will run on an aerial structure. A linear parkway concept of landscaping the aerial structure has been developed with the demonstration grant which financed 90 percent of the total cost of landscaping. The National Prestressed Concrete Institute gave one of its 1967 design awards to the designers, Tudor Engineering Company, calling the design “a pleasing and satisfying solution to the problem.” Sasaki, Walker, Lackey Associates are the landscape architects. “A pleasing and satisfying solution.” Urban Planning Assistance Comprehensive planning as a device for guiding local, regional, and State decisions concerning urban development is the keystone of HUD’s approach to solving urban problems. The techniques and institutions of comprehensive planning are the means by which communities may study and analyze their own problems and set their own development goals and objectives. HUD fosters comprehensive planning in two ways: ■ It makes grants to local, regional, and State comprehensive planning agencies to assist in their planning activities. ■ It requires comprehensive planning through the Workable Program, areawide planning requirements, and as a prerequisite to HUD assistance for urban renewal, water and sewer facilities, transit, and open space. The principal vehicle for providing comprehensive planning assistance is the Urban Planning Assistance Program, authorized under Section 701 of the Housing Act of 1954, as amended, and known popularly as the “701 Program.” At its inception in 1954, the 701 program was designed to support comprehensive planning by communities of less than 25,000 population and by metropolitan planning agencies serving metropolitan areas. The program now includes grants to: ■ State planning agencies to provide assistance to communities of less than 50,000. ■ Metropolitan planning agencies and metropolitan councils of government. ■ Communities in redevelopment areas designated by the Economic Development Administration. ■ Indian reservations. ■ Communities in disaster areas or those suffering from increases or decreases in population as the result of Federal action. ■ States for statewide comprehensive planning. The planning work accomplished under this program is assisted by grants of up to two-thirds of the estimated project cost (three-quarters in redevelopment area communities). Comprehensive Planning The precise nature of comprehensive planning varies with the level of government and the area being planned. For the smaller communities, emphasis is usually placed on planning for the activities of local government, particularly those relating to the control of land development through zoning and subdivision regulations. In metropolitan areas it generally focuses on major region-serving land uses and facilities, and deals with intergovernmental cooperation in the provision of public services and facilities. For States, the emphasis in planning is on their major responsibilities in conducting statewide activities in such fields as transportation, education, welfare and recreation as well as providing State assistance to units of local government. Significant Activities in 1967 During 1967, 604 grants for $25.4 million were awarded. These include 447 grants for $9.1 million to assist small communities and redevelopment areas, 98 grants for $ 11 million to assist metropolitan areas, and 20 grants for $3.7 million to assist States. Examples of projects supported by urban planning assistance to metropolitan areas include: A Federal grant of $140,340 will permit the Inter-County Regional Planning Commission serving the Denver metropolitan area to conduct thorough studies and prepare plans for two important elements in metropolitan development: drainage systems and water supply. This grant will also support the review and comment on Federal grant applications required by Section 204 of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966. Under concurrent grants from the Public Health Service and HUD to the Kansas State Department of Health and the Kansas State Planning Agency, assistance was provided to that State so that it may more effectively plan for the provision of health services and facilities. Grants were made to the State Planning Agencies in Alaska and Texas to assist them in providing technical assistance to the communities which suffered extensive damage as a result of flooding. Land and Facilities Programs Open Space Land Program The Land and Facilities Development Administration administers the program which provides assistance for acquisition and development of undeveloped land as open space. The purpose of the program is to help communities in the permanent preservation of land consistent with comprehensive urban planning for park, recreation, conservation, historic, and scenic purposes, and to help guide urban growth. Two companion grant programs—for the acquisition of developed land for urban parks and for urban beautification—are administered by the Renewal Assistance Administration. Since the beginning of the program in 1961, about 239,000 acres of undeveloped land, the equivalent of 361 square miles, or a square 19 miles on each side, have beenp reserved as open space in and around urban areas with 63 HUD’s help. In 1967, about 300 open space grants for about $35 million were made to assist in the acquisition of 39,000 acres of undeveloped land. The size of sites acquired ranged from less than 1 acre to more than 1,000 acres. A few examples of 1967 project approvals: ■ a 214-acre regional park in a rapidly suburbanizing area outside of Orlando, Florida; ■ a 180-acre stream valley tract in heavily urbanized Bucks County, Pennsylvania, 4 miles from Philadelphia, which will help guide urban growth and also provide many annual users by 1980; ■ a site midway between Chicago and Milwaukee that is the last remaining example of presettlement prairie vegetation in Wisconsin. It will be used for nature study and preserved in its natural site; ■ acquisition and preservation of the site of the historic Grady House in Athens, Georgia. Preserving A “Paradise” “A veritable Huckleberry Finn paradise lies along the tree-lined banks of the American River," according to the Sacramento Bee. But to many Northern Californians the river is unknown. It is accessible at only a few points. Adventurers who want to operate kayaks or canoes over its rippling waters have only a few places to enter or exit. One lifelong resident, after viewing the area for the first time, said he never dreamed how lovely the river was back there. With subdividers making inroads on riverfront areas in Sacramento, the residents became alarmed. A plan for acquiring a swath of land on each side of the river for park purposes was adopted. A HUD Open Space Land grant made possible the acquisition of 5,000 acres, which not only preserves a fine, unspoiled recreation area but will also influence the direction of future development of the area. Camping along the American River. In 1967, a funding analysis system was instituted for the review of the large backlog of open-space applications. An important result of the new funding analysis system has been an emphasis on assisting projects which are closest to existing urban development. This has meant giving priority to tracts which serve low-income residents, to acquisitions which help guide urban growth, and to sites which will be developed for active neighborhood recreational pursuits. Less stress has been given to large regional facilities which are beyond the fringe of urban development. Further, acquisition projects have been explicitly stressed and development activities restricted except in the case of low-income related projects. Administratively, the funding analysis system has expedited the decision process on applications to the point where it is anticipated that in 1968 the average time for reaching a decision on an undeveloped land application will be 90 days. Demonstration Program The Land and Facilities Development Administration also participates in the administration of the open space land demonstration program which helps in developing innovative approaches to pre serving open space, urban beautification, and historic preservation. In 1967 three demonstration grants were made: (1) to the Boston Redevelopment Authority to help finance a study of the relationship of public and private signs and lighting to the urban environment. (2) to Pulaski, Tennessee for a study of ways in which cities can restore abandoned and neglected public cemeteries to make them community assets. (3) to the University of Arkansas to finance a study of the potential role of municipal codes in solving urban problems such as street deficiencies, dilapidated structures, and vacant and littered lots. New Haven.—Sidewalk Beautification Program (before and after). 308-901 O—68-----5 65 Greenwood Lake, N.J.—Acquisition assisted by HUD open space grant. Philadelphia.—One of the vest pocket parks developed with HUD assistance (before and after). Water and Sewer Grants HUD makes grants of up to 50 percent to assist public agencies in the construction of adequate water and sewer facilities. Grants may be used to cover such project costs as construction of the basic facilities, acquiring the land, easements or rights-of-way needed, and necessary site improvements. One of the objectives of this program is to promote orderly development and intercommunity cooperation by making these grants available for projects consistent with areawide comprehensive planning and designed so that an adequate capacity will be available to serve the reasonably foreseeable growth needs of the area. Public Facility Loans Direct long-term loans are available to public agencies and to Indian tribes for financing construction of public facilities. The purpose of the program is to increase the availability of financing for public works on reasonable terms and conditions. Many communities, particularly small ones, County Water and Sewer Systems Upper Duck River Basin, Tennessee—Aided by $2 million in several HUD water and sewer grants, the entire four county area along the Duck River basin in Central Tennessee will soon have a reliable cooperative water distribution system that will foster good health and promote sound economic growth in the area. The water will be supplied to the region through interlocking and extending several municipal water systems. The Tennessee counties to be served—Bedford, Coffee, Marshall, and Maury—are in the Duck River drainage area, fourth largest tributary watershed in the Tennessee Valley. In dry weather the Duck River and its tributaries drop to a level that cannot meet all local needs for industrial, domestic, and fire protection uses. Shortages occur in various sections of the four counties. When water is too plentiful, inadequate reservoir facilities lead to flood danger. Most of the 110,000 people in the 1,900 square-mile area live in the cities of Columbia, Lewisburg, Shelbyville, Tullahoma and Manchester. For years the five cities have been developing individual water systems to serve their own needs. Thus, they are logical suppliers to outlying areas where lack of an adequate supply of potable water creates public health problems and stifles economic growth. When the Upper Duck River water grid system is completed, residents of fringe areas will receive the same efficient water and fire protection service now available only to urban dwellers. Areas that now fall between existing city systems will then offer an added inducement to new industry that may result in more job opportunities. Yuba County, California—With a $400,000 Public Works Planning advance from HUD in 1964, Yuba County was able to undertake studies upon which preliminary plans for dams, reservoirs, and hydroelectric power facilities were based. In the past there had been periods of devastating floods followed by periods of water deficiencies. The dams would control the flooding and the reservoirs would provide water in drought periods. Without the advance the communities of Yuba County could not have undertaken the projects. The projects have been constructed and the advance repaid. Construction cost was over $167 million. HUD sewer and water loans and grants have assisted many small communities in developing these basic facilities. The water-desalting plant. Fresh Water From the Sea Key West, Fla., residents have begun to drink from the sea. This southernmost U.S. city is the first community to meet the bulk of its fresh water needs from the ocean. A new water desalting plant, partially financed by HUD, provides sanitary water for drinking, bathing, laundering, and watering lawns for an area plagued by water shortage problems since the early 1800’s. Speaking at the July dedication of the largest single-unit desalting plant in the world, Vice President Hubert Humphrey called it “a turning point in mankind’s desperate search for vast new sources of life-sustaining water.” The plant will convert salt water to fresh for the city’s 40,000 residents at the rate of 2.6 million gallons a day. This is the first time that a U.S. municipality has turned to the sea for its water supply. A $4.4 million HUD Public Facility loan provided nearly half the cost of the $10.2 million project. The Florida Keys Aqueduct Commission completed construction of the plant in April 1967 under a “turnkey” contract. find it difficult to obtain private investment capital at reasonable interest rates. From the beginning of the program, applicant communities have been typically very small with limited financial resources, no technical staff, and little or no experience in planning, constructing, and operating public facilities. About 90 percent of the net approvals under the Public Facility Loans program have been in communities of less than 5,000. More than 85 percent of the approved loans have been for water and sewer projects. Over 1,117 such loans, approximating $432.7 million, have been made. The assistance given goes to projects serving populations under 50,000 except in designated economic development areas and in NASA impacted areas. In economic development areas, the population serviced must be under 150,000. NASA impacted areas are eligible without regard to population. Public Works Planning Advances The Housing Act of 1954 provided interest-free advances to localities to assist in financing the advance planning of such basic needs as sewer and water systems and health and recreational facilities; advances must be repaid when construction of the facility begins. By the end of 1967, approximately 5,263 such advances had been made in the amount of $133.9 million. Over 80 percent of the advances approved under this program have gone to communities of 50,000 or less. This program has been particularly beneficial to small localities, and approximately 60 percent of all applications have been for the planning of water and sewer facilities. 68 Other Activities in Land and Facilities Development The Division of Engineering and Finance provides financial and engineering technical assistance to ongoing programs; participates in developing new programs to cope with the problems in urban areas; represents HUD in Federal Water Resources activities; and assists in developing a career development program for engineers and finance professionals. The technical assistance includes revision of preconstruction and construction engineering procedures. The revisions provide: more assistance to potential applicants in the early stages of project development; a reduction in Federal requirements in project construction administration, through the substitution of standard industry-profession practices; and the extension of the responsibility of area engineers to include concurrence in construction contract awards. The Division has also been participating in the Subcommittee on Standardization of Bidding Procedures and Construction Contracts of the Interagency Committee to provide Continuing Coordination for Sewer and Water Programs. This should produce standardized construction provisions for construction projects assisted under the water and sewer programs of the participating Federal agencies and may very well eliminate many of the difficulties applicant communities are experiencing in meeting Federal requirements when more than one Federal Agency is involved. Water Resources The Division has become extensively engaged in water and related land resources planning activities as a result, primarily, of the Secretary’s recent acceptance of associate membership on the Water Resources Council. It is the principal supporting staff office to the Secretary’s representatives, and itself, represents HUD on three of the Council’s subgroups. The Director also represents HUD on the Federal Advisory Committee on Water Data and the Committee on Water Resources Research of the Federal Council of Science and Technology. The Division furnishes staff support also to the HUD Water Resources Coordinating Committee, established in August 1967, to assure timely formulation of Departmental positions on, or contributions to, unified Federal policy, programs, and procedures which are being developed by these interagency bodies. Career Development The Division is assisting the Office of Personnel in developing a training program for technical personnel. Such a program is necessary to insure that the technical staffs are adequately trained to cope with the multidisciplinary aspects involved in the planning, design, financing, and construction of public facilities assisted under the assigned programs. Community Art Project—Kansas City, Kans. “As the east-west wall in Germany divided a nation, this wall served to bring together various forces in the community who, for years to come, will be able to point with pride to a unique contribution to the rehabilitation of a town," editorialized Kenneth Wells, publisher of the weekly Silver City Record of Kansas City, Kans. The editorial referred to a wall in a small park in the Strong Avenue business district of Kansas City, Kans., which provided the backdrop for a student art project. The completed art work consists of 14 concrete screen panels molded from old bread pans, miscellaneous gears, bowling pins, hub caps, and other junk, and a sculptured concrete arch. The parklet had been planned and built by the local renewal agency as part of the Silver City Urban Renewal Project, which includes a neighborhood known as “Argentine.” The art work for the parklet was designed by 10 Argentine teenagers who were commissioned by their community citizens association for such a project. The Board of Education paid the students’ salaries for the summer work under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The Argentine Activities Association provided funds for materials. The Urban Renewal Board paid the salaries of two senior students at the Kansas City Art Institute who served as supervisors. The Art Institute loaned rooms and equipment. A local steel company donated the services of a crane and operator to tilt the heavy concrete panels and arch into position. Various other individuals and groups within the community adopted the project; among them was Dale Eldred, nationally known sculptor. The retired art superintendent for the Kansas City school system gave the students professional advice and encouragement. Community enthusiasm is reflected in the comments of local high school students. “We are getting a face lifting and it goes along with the change,” one girl commented. “When we went back to school, everyone was asking if we had seen the park. A lot of the kids went down after school to look at it.” They all agreed: “What is important is that the people who worked on it were all from Argentine.” 69 Kansas City, Kans.—Dale Eldred (right), nationally known sculptor and head of the Department of Sculpture at the Kansas City Art Institute, advises the students as they design their panels. A boy discovers a wall need be not only decorative but can be utilitarian as well. A local art connoisseur inspects the students' handiwork. demonstrations and intergovernmental relations The Assistant Secretary for Demonstrations and Intergovernmental Relations is responsible for administering the Model Cities program and other programs dealing with the development of new and improved methods of coordination and cooperation between Federal, State, and local agencies in solving interrelated problems of housing and urban development. The Model Cities program is designed to give selected cities financial and technical assistance to effectively coordinate all local programs and resources and use the wide range of federally assisted urban aids to socially, economically, and physically upgrade deteriorated neighborhoods. The administration of the Model Cities program requires a degree of cooperation and coordination among the various Federal agencies and departments never before attempted in the Government. Two programs in the Office of Intergovernmental Relations and Urban Coordination are designed to improve a State’s ability to aid and coordinate urban activities. The Urban Information and Technical Assistance program provides grants to States to establish or extend services to cities under 100,000. The Community Development Training and Research program provides grants to States to establish or extend services for training public employees in urban skills and to support research to identify urban problems and manpower needs. In conjunction with this same program, the Department awards city planning and urban studies graduate fellowships to help meet the critical need for trained professionals in the urban field. Model Cities Administration Model Cities Program A most important event of the year—and a milestone in the long history of Federal concern with urban problems—was activation of the Model Cities program. In January 1967, a program guide describing the format and procedures to be followed in filing Model Cities applications was distributed to cities and counties across the country. A total of 193 localities, representing 47 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, and ranging in size from less than 1,200 people to more than 8 million, responded by the May 1 deadline. 71 On November 16, 1967, the Secretary announced the 63 communities selected to participate in the first round of Model Cities planning grants. Two overall statements can be made about the 193 applications. First, they comprised a searching and detailed pathology of the urban ills of America; second, they brought forth greater ingenuity and imagination for the solution of these ills than had ever been seen before. There are one million families, or over four million people, in the target areas. Nearly a third of the families have incomes of less than $3,000 a year, and the vast majority earn less than the median income level in the locality. A fourth live in substandard housing, and many more are overcrowded in deteriorating buildings. Unemployment is double the national level and there is substantial underemployment. A third of the adults have less than an eighthgrade education. The infant mortality rate is double that for the Nation as a whole. How They Were Selected Instead of the traditional processing of applications only by the Department directly responsible for the program, the Model Cities applications were reviewed by an interagency committee in Washington. This committee was composed of the six Federal agencies principally concerned with urban problems—the Departments of Labor; Health, Education, and Welfare; Justice (Community Relations Service) ; Commerce (Economic Development Administration) ; the Office of Economic Opportunity; and HUD. The Department of Agriculture also participated when the committee was considering applications of smaller communities. During the months following the May 1 filing deadline, the inter agency committee met frequently to discuss applications, review the capability and functional reports, and to make recommendations on which cities could best carry out a Model Cities program. Of particular usefulness to the interagency committee was the quality of the cities’ in-depth analyses of their own problems, innovative approaches proposed, capacity to carry out the programs, and the commitment of the city government as well as private groups. To achieve an equitable size and geographic distribution, as required by law, the review committee considered groups of cities of the same general size for each region of the country. List of Cities The following cities were selected during 1967 for Model Cities Planning grants. Population figures are based on 1965 estimates. City Population Albuquerque, N. Mex______ 242, 000 Atlanta, Ga_________________ 535, 000 Baltimore, Md_______________ 925, 000 Boston, Mass________________ 616, 000 Bridgeport, Conn____________ 156, 000 Buffalo, N.Y________________ 505, 000 Cambridge, Mass_____________ 104, 000 Charlotte, N.C______________ 230, 000 Chicago, Ill_____________ 3,520,000 Columbus, Ohio______________ 540, 000 Dade County, Fla_________ 1,064,000 Dayton, Ohio_____________ 260, 000 Denver, Colo_____________ 520, 000 Des Moines, Iowa_________ 216, 000 Detroit, Mich____________ 1, 660, 000 Duluth, Minn_________________ 104,000 Eagle Pass, Tex______________ 14, 000 East St. Louis, Ill______ 82, 000 Fresno, Calif_______________ 156, 000 Gainesville, Ga______________ 18, 000 Gary, Ind____________________ 179,000 Hartford, Conn______________ 158, 000 Highland Park, Mich______ 36, 000 Hoboken, N.J_________________ 47, 000 Honolulu, Hawaii_________ 611,000 Huntsville, Ala______________ 127,000 Kansas City, Mo_____________ 530, 000 Lowell, Mass_________________ 87, 000 Manchester, N.H__________ 90, 000 Minneapolis, Minn________ 465, 000 Nashville-Davidson County, Tenn__________ 261,000 Newark, N.J______________ 395, 000 New Haven, Conn__________ 151,000 New York City____________ 8, 080, 000 Norfolk, Va______________ 322,000 Oakland, Calif___________ 378, 000 Philadelphia, Pa_________ 2, 030, 000 Pikeville, Ky_________________ 5, 000 Pittsburgh, Pa______________ 560, 000 Portland, Me_________________ 72, 000 Portland, Oreg______________ 380, 000 Poughkeepsie, N.Y_________ 37, 000 Providence, R.I_____________ 190, 000 Reading-Berks County, Pa________________________ 95,000 Richmond, Calif______________ 83, 000 Rochester, N.Y______________ 305, 000 St. Louis, Mo_______________ 710, 000 San Antonio, Tex__________ 645, 000 San Juan, P.R_______________ 580, 000 Seattle, Wash_______________ 565, 000 Smithville-DeKalb County, Tenn______________________ 11, 000 Springfield, Mass___________ 166, 000 Tampa, Fla__________________ 305, 000 Texarkana, Ark________________ 21,000 Texarkana, Tex_______________ 32, 000 Toledo, Ohio________________ 354, 000 Trenton, N.J________________ 107, 000 Trinidad, Colo_______________ 10, 000 Tulsa, Okla_________________ 280,000 Waco, Tex__________________ 105,000 Washington, D.C___________ 802, 000 Wilkes-Barre, Pa_____________ 59, 000 Winooski, Vt__________________ 8, 000 Discussions with the Cities Immediately after the November announcement, copies of a handbook of instructions on planning requirements, citizen participation policies and performance standards, and various regulations governing administrative and financial matters were sent to the selected cities. These documents formed the basis of initial discussions which regional interagency teams held with each funded city. By the end of December, these initial visits had been followed up by meetings of regional working teams with operating officials in the cities. Early signs of progress in December included the appointment of several City Demonstration Agency directors, the beginning of active dialogue in many cities between officials and neighborhood residents, and the approval of several “letters to proceed.” New Program Guide and Base Study A new program guide was prepared that reflected the experience of both localities and Federal agencies with the guide used during the first round of Model Cities applications. By late December, it was 72 ready for mailing to cities interested in applying for the $12 million in second round Model Cities planning grants approved by Congress in November. An April 15, 1968, date was set for the second round of applications. Congress also approved $200 million in supplemental grants and $100 million of additional urban renewal funds for cities submitting comprehensive plans meeting the statutory requirements. In preparation for this execution phase, Model Cities staff began a detailed examination of the proposals of each of the 63 cities. The Look Ahead As 1967 came to a close, the 63 cities were preparing the revised planning work programs requested in City Discussion Papers, which were prepared by Regional Interagency Teams prior to final selection. There was every indication that these revised work programs would be ready for submission early in 1968 and that before the end of the year a number of cities would be ready to move into the execution stage of the Model Cities program. There was also substantial indication that 150 to 200 cities would apply for the second-round planning grants. Again, as with the program guide, the review procedure utilized during the first round was examined in light of this experience. While the interagency team will continue to be the basis of the review process, it seems likely that more of the detailed review work during the second round will be done at the Regional level. Model Cities Evaluation Also in 1967, HUD initiated a program of evaluating the Model Cities effort. This is aimed at developing broader understanding of the nature and dimensions of urban problems, as well as providing a systematic flow of likely new solutions to urban problems. Three types of evaluation are involved: 1. Operational evaluation of program performance. This involves establishment of goals for each City Demonstration Agency for program development and measurement. CDA’s are responsible for developing their own operational evaluation plans; HUD provides cities with requirements for planning and reporting, technical assistance on data collection, measurement, and development of internal information systems. 2. Analysis of the effectiveness of the Federal effort to coordinate its agencies with State and local governmental efforts in support of the Model Cities program. 3. Sample of cities in-depth studies, on: a. Neighborhood changes—the physical, social, and economic indices of change will be measured and compared from year to year. b. Program impact on people in the Model Neighborhood. Are the benefits of better housing, schooling, jobs, and safer communities realized by a significant proportion of people for whom the programs are designed? c. Changes in institutions, city government, educational and employment systems, welfare system, and the administration of justice. Have these institutions altered sufficiently, have they become flexible enough to service the ever-changing requirements of the neediest group of people in the urban communities? The planning process itself will be studied in a sample of cities to determine the impact of variations in planning on the plans and programs which emerge from the planning period. A Model Cities information system is being developed to assure that the information received will enable the Department to advise cities effectively. Model Cities Tour—Seven Days, Seven Cities On December 3, a group of 50 reporters and urban specialists left Washington for a seven-day tour of seven of the 63 cities that had been selected to receive “first round’’ planning grants: Rochester, Gainesville, St. Louis, Waco, Denver, and Oakland and Richmond, Calif. What’s happening is different in each of the seven cities visited on the Model Cities tour. While each of the cities has common problems, the touring group was exposed to a variety of approaches both to past and future urban ills. In each city the tour followed basically the same format. After arriving from the previous city late the night before, tour members got up early—often before dawn-—to board buses that would take them on a capsule tour of the city. With guides from the city, buses visited existing projects such as manpower training centers, neighborhood centers, and housing projects which demonstrated the kinds of effort the city had already made. Cities Face Varied Problems Travelers interviewed neighborhood residents to get first-hand impressions of life as it is now, and what is expected from the Model Cities improvements. At breakfasts, lunches, and receptions, the reporters and urban specialists talked with the government officials, community leaders, and private businessmen who will play an essential role in the local Model Cities programs. On Saturday, the final day, the tour wound up by taking in two cities, Richmond and Oakland, Calif. Contrasts in the model neighborhoods themselves told the group much about the different kinds of problems the cities face. Entering the model neighborhood area in Rochester, visitors looking out from the two buses received an impromptu performance from five large rats scurrying around a pile of rubbish. Old, rundown housing and junky storefronts of the Rochester model neighborhood soon gave way to the less than picturesque shacks on Jewell’s Alley in Gainesville, Ga. The Gainesville poor live in an enclave of these weathered wooden buildings set on unpaved roads that are little better than mudtracks. Conditions in Waco, Texas, were similar, and a pony tied outside one of the shacks underlined the feeling of the country moved to town. Side by side with the reality of the need and the desperate poverty in these cities were concrete signs—encouraging signs—of past efforts the cities have made to meet the needs. Woven throughout the series of places and projects were striking personalities that stood out because they had on their own initiative moved to do what they could to solve the problems that the tour members were seeing. In Denver, Colo., Catholic Sister Jean Patrice, a faculty member of Loretto Heights College, decided that the college has too long been uninvolved in the problems of the semirural, low-income neighborhood nearby. She and two girls from the school now live in the model neighborhood area and provide the main center for its social services. They voluntarily restrict their incomes to the median income of their neighbors. Initiative Not Lacking Also in Denver, two young men, Chuck Campbell and John Henry, have built on their summer experience with Denver Opportunity to open Au Nature/, a recreation center for young adults. In a store front remodeled by the teenagers themselves, young adults can participate in activities that range from dancing to producing movies with actors, script writers, and sound men from the neighborhood. Despite the fact that tour members became quite proficient at hopping on and off buses and planes— they did it 137 times during the one week—the unanimous feeling was that there just wasn’t enough time to see everything. However, the fast-moving impressionistic introduction to the urban scene was enough to convince the tour members that intense activity is already taking place in the cities and great needs remain to be met. Gainesville, Ga.—Tour group visits Jewell's Alley in heart of Gainesville’s Model City area. The neighborhood will be upgraded and new Neighborhood Center constructed. Waco, Tex.—Skill Class at Connally Tech Waco, Tex.—Typical conditions in Model City neighborhood Denver, Colo.—Reporters talk to a client at Au Nature! Teen-Age Recreation Center. Denver.—A section of the Model City area to undergo major renewal Gainsville.—Day Care Center looks after 100 young sters while mothers work. CAFE BRUNSWICK •(COMS Rochester, N.Y.—Manpower Development Center—part of the Model City human renewal program Richmond, Calif.—Model City area residents meet with tour group for lunch Oakland.—Democracy at work. Residents vote for neighborhood representatives on Model City Planning Board. Oakland.—Neighborhood Action Committee expresses residents’ views about program. Office of Governmental Relations The function of the Office of Governmental Relations is to increase urban program effectiveness by coordinating and strengthening Federal, State, and local public administration and community development efforts. The office administers grant programs which serve to increase and improve technical skills and technical information in the administration and operations of State and local government. It also maintains liaison with other levels of government and public interest groups, is developing an urban clearinghouse service, and works to improve coordination of Federal programs affecting housing and urban development. Community Development Training Program Enacted in 1964 and funded for the first time late in 1967, this program has the purpose of increasing the quantity and quality of manpower in State and local governments through matching grants to States to train persons employed or preparing to be employed by community development agencies. Grants to support training programs in approximately 40 States are expected to be made during the spring of 1968. In addition to administering programs related to training, in vestigation began in the general area of urban manpower requirements by starting an inventory of urban manpower studies, devising a research strategy for determining public-sector manpower needs, and establishing communication with other Federal agencies having programs related to manpower. HUD City Planning and Urban Studies Fellowship Program Grants are made for full-time graduate study in social, economic, and physical development problems of urban areas, with emphasis on coordinating physical and social aspects of community development. Fellowship study programs are directed toward careers in city and regional planning, housing, urban renewal, community development, and related public service. Enacted as Title VIII, Part 2, of the Housing Act of 1964 and funded for the first time late in 1966, the program provided 95 fellowships for study in 40 institutions for the 1967-1968 academic year. The bill extending the program for three years was signed by the President on August 19, 1967. With funding for fiscal year 1968, approximately 100 fellows will be chosen in early spring 1968. Urban Information and Technical Assistance Services Program Enacted in 1966 and funded for the first time late in 1967, with a $2.2 million appropriation for fiscal year 1968, the program makes matching grants to States to help finance programs providing small communities (under 100,000 population) with information and data on urban needs, assistance programs and activities, and technical assistance on local problems. A Small Communities Branch to strengthen liaison and coordination of activities with States, localities, and other agencies was established. This unit will improve program coordination to smaller communities and determine information and technical assistance needs. Research will be undertaken to identify small community needs. Intergovernmental Awards The annual Urban Development Intergovernmental Awards program was begun in 1966 to stimulate, encourage, and recognize superior cooperative achievements between local governments, and actions to improve State-local relations. In 1967, “Cooperative Ventures in Urban America,” a booklet describing the 82 submissions in the 1966 competition, was distributed. From among the 96 submissions in the 1967 competition, 10 Outstanding and 16 Meritorious winners were selected. The award presentation took place in August at the National Association of County Officials conference in Detroit. 1967 Intergovernmental Awards Selected from 96 entries, the award-winning public bodies represent a wide variety of governmental units from 20 different States, ranging from county boards to large, complex State departments. The 10 Outstanding Award winners were: City of Oakland, Calif., for its coordination of manpower activities and long term development plans with State and Federal agencies. City of Des Moines, Iowa, for its “Science of Law Enforcement and Police Procedures” course for high school students. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, for development and approval of its “master plan” for a regional mass transportation system. Wayne County Board of Supervisors, Mich., for accomplishments in health services to low-income school children, air pollution, and intermunicipal police services. 78 New Jersey Department of Community Affairs, for its technical assistance program to help communities applying for and working with federally aided programs, including Model Cities. Joint Legislative Committee on Metropolitan and Regional Areas Study, New York State Legislature, for legislative proposals strengthening county planning and financal incentives for joint facilities serving two or more communities. Cleveland Association of Governmental Officials, Shelby, N.C., for its support of Neighborhood Youth Corps, Head Start, and community action programs. City of Alice, Texas, for its work with Jim Wells County on areawide thoroughfare, library, and school district problems. City of Norfolk, Va., for effective coordination of government efforts in establishing the Tidewater Rehabilitation Institute. The University of Oklahoma Urban and Community Development Center at Tulsa, for its work with governments on the problems of Metropolitan Tulsa. Meritorious award winners were: Board of Commissioners, Madison County, Ala.; Maricopa Association of Governments, Phoenix, Ariz.; Association of Bay Area Governments, Calif.; League of California Cities; City of Ontario, Calif.; City of North Miami, Fla.; Board of Commissioners, Clarke County, Ga.; City of Pomona, Calif.; Shawnee Development Council, Karnak, III.; City of Detroit, Mich.; Office of State and Regional Planning and Community Development, State of Missouri; City of Greensboro, N.C.; Philadelphia Port Corporation, Philadelphia, Pa.; Tocks Island Regional Advisory Council, Stroudsburg, Pa.; South Carolina State Development Board; and City of Alexandria, Va. Vice President Humphrey presents Intergovernmental Award to C. J. Roberts of the University of Oklahoma Urban & Community Development Center. 79 Intergovernmental Relations Conference and Liaison Activities Conference of Governors’ Representatives A Conference of Governors’ Representatives was held in February 1967, at Airlie House, Warrenton, Virginia. Designed to bring about a frank exchange of views on HUD programs and the role and capability of the States in urban affairs, the Conference established vital connections between the Department and the Governors’ representatives. State Information Exchange Service A State information exchange service was established in which HUD supplies designated State officials with information on HUD activities within the State (press releases, quarterly reports on project approvals, etc.) and other materials helpful to State programs in housing and urban development. The States were asked to supply the Department with information about their urban programs and activities. The information exchange program has been expanded to include regional and metropolitan planning agencies, and councils of government. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations Proposed HUD regulations are provided to the ACIR in accordance with Bureau of the Budget Circular A-85. This procedure enables the directors of State and local government organizations to review and comment on proposed regulations affecting HUD assistance programs. Program and Policy Coordination HUD and other Federal departments coordinated programs and policy in such areas as planning, employment, recreation, business development, and air pollution control. Examples: Planning Assistance and Requirements Coordinating Committee The Office of Governmental Relations along with HUD’s Metropolitan Development and Renewal and Housing Assistance Officers, the Office of Economic Opportunity, and the Departments of Health, Education, and Welfare; Labor; Interior; Agriculture; and Commerce formed a committee to consider such problems as the monitoring of planning research and the diversity of planning jurisdiction boundaries and planning requirements of selected Federal, State, and local programs. HUD-Small Business Administration Agreement The Office has been working under an agreement with FHA and SBA to accelerate development of business opportunities in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods by providing improved commercial services and by developing entrepreneurship. Under the agreement, the SBA loan program will be linked with FHA-insured 221(d) (3) housing as a pilot effort in several cities, and particularly in Model Cities neighborhoods. Extension to other cities in 1968 is anticipated. HUD-HEW Agreement On recommendation of a task force, the two departments are co ordinating a range of HUD and HEW programs including: joint participation in a study of State planning; coordination of metropolitan area comprehensive planning with health planning; possibilities for HUD assistance to HEW in a coordinated rat control program; resolution of questions relating to air pollution control; and several other substantative issues. The two departments are considering formation of an overall Task Force for Interdepartmental Coordination. Support for Model Cities Program Model Cities Systems Improvement Team An interagency team, chaired by a HUD official, made a study and recommendations and submitted a final report in response to the President’s charge to his Joint Administrative Task Force to investigate the possibility of shortening grant-and-loan-application-processing time for about 25 Federal assistance programs by approximately 50 percent. Funding and Other Studies The office began a study to: (a) facilitate planning by the 63 Model Cities, and (b) improve budget estimating by the Department by gathering facts on the historical supply of Federal funds as a “base” for use of Model Cities supplemental grant funds. A proposal was developed on the possibility of Federal financial assistance to States to enable them to provide staff for coordination of both Federal and State programs aimed at urban areas in general and Model Cities in particular. 80 administration With the changes taking place in the programs administered by HUD, the increased complexity of the problems to be solved, and the urgent need for speeding up action on new and expanded programs, a vital question arises: Can the three levels of government—Federal, State, and local—cope with the demands of the most pressing domestic problem of our times; are the available talent and machinery adequate to meet the urban crisis? All three levels must allocate their resources to deal meaningfully with the problems involved before they become insoluble. Modern management tools and techniques—comparable to those used in developing the atomic and space age programs—must be adapted to meet the human needs rising from the urban crisis. At all levels of government, people of talent and ingenuity, who are capable of innovation, who are unwilling to cling to traditional outdated precepts, are needed. Just as the Nation’s top scientists were enlisted in the race to split the atom and launch space vehicles, so must the best scientific talents now be called upon to meet the challenging crisis of people—their homes, their jobs, their environment. At the Federal level, it is necessary to streamline organization structure, apply science and automated techniques to management systems, modernize administrative procedures, make fuller use of Program Planning Budgeting Systems, and maintain a continuing war against red tape in acting upon applications for Federal assistance. During 1967, HUD’s administrative activities were directed toward these and related objectives. Management and Organization A high point in the program operations area was staff support provided to the Joint Administrative Task Force chaired by HUD. Established at the direction of the President, this group was charged with reducing by at least 50 percent the time it takes to process applications for grant-in-aid projects in critical Federal programs. On September 30, the Task Force reported to the President that eight Federal Departments and agencies were taking actions covering 42 programs in four multipurpose areas which, when fully implemented, were expected to achieve an average reduction of 54 percent in application processing time for the 12 HUD programs included in the Task Force study. During the last quarter of 1967 and the first quarter of 1968, the Task Force will have examined 20 additional critical programs of 308-901 O—08-----6 81 which five are HUD’s. Together these 17 HUD programs represent more than $3 billion based on fiscal year 1968 program funding levels. Budget The Office of Budget was reorganized in April to reflect its Department-wide role in formulating policies, plans, standards, and basic procedures with respect to budget design and presentation and the administrative control of funds. A new appropriation structure was developed, presented to, and approved by the Congress. The presentation of justifications to the Congressional Appropriations Committee also was redesigned to shorten and simplify them, place them in the Departmental structure, and strengthen emphasis on administrative management. ADR Systems The Office of ADP Systems Management and Operations was established in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration, making complete data processing services available to all Assistant Secretaries, staff directors, and program managers. Consolidation of the two existing computer installations into the newly established Office will permit more efficient utilization of data processing resources and promote economies through release of rental equipment made surplus by the reorganization. In the area of administration, payrolling and savings bond accounts have been automated, and automated systems for personnel management, nonexpendable property inventory, budget reporting, and reports management are in the process of implementation. Financial Systems and Services The Office of Financial Systems and Services was formed in March by merging the HAA Fiscal Branch with the Division of Finance and Accounts. It prepared a Statement of Accounting Principles and Standards as the initial step for approval of the Department’s accounting system by the Comptroller General. The Statement will be used as the basis for modifying and expanding the existing accounting system. The Central Office payroll was converted to the magnetic tape oriented computer. A new computer system also was installed for accumulating current administrative costs and obligations. This information is compiled and then compared with predetermined cost targets in monthly reports to management. These reports enable management officials to determine whether or not they are living within the authorized operating administrative budget. Audit The Office of Audit, established on October 21, 1966, assumed responsibility for the Department’s audit work except for specified audit activities of FNMA and FHA. It has: ■ Consolidated auditing functions and personnel. ■ Instituted a centralized Audit Policy and Procedures Division and a centralized Audit Operations Division. ■ Inaugurated a policy under which audits for basic Water and Sewer programs are made by independent public accountants employed by the recipient of the grant following completion of the project. ■ Extended the cycle for audits from 12 to 24 months on the Low Rent Housing program for an estimated savings in manpower and travel costs of $291,000 in Fiscal Year 1968. ■ Reached agreement with the Defense Contract Audit Agency to conduct audits for HUD on special research and study contracts, on a reimbursable basis. ■ Agreed with HEW, OEO, and the Labor Department on a single audit for all agencies involved in the Model Cities program, combining maximum audit coverage with a minimum impact on the communities participating in the program. General Services Portending what may be a new era in the storage of government records, a $1.3 million contract was signed with Ampex Corporation of California to videotape FHA’s Insured Home Mortgage files. The equipment will be delivered in May 1969. General Services also: ■ Virtually completed planning for the new HUD building. ■ Established a Forms Management Program. ■ Developed numerical indexes for all HUD forms. ■ Installed an automated purchase order writing system, using magnetic tape units to provide larger memory banks and faster production. ■ By agreement with the Smithsonian Institution, established and maintained a classified catalog of abstracts of building technology for the International Council for Building Research Studies and Documentation. Personnel One of the most urgently needed changes for effective and consistent personnel administration on a Department-wide basis was accomplished by establishing the Policy, Standards, and Evaluation Division in .the Office of Personnel. 82 This new Division, in keeping with the consolidation of the Department into a single, cohesive unit, is vested with the responsibility for developing and issuing to all supervisors and employees of HUD a unified body of personnel policies and procedures to be applied throughout the Department. To bring about an infusion of able young talent for management and program areas, the Office accelerated and expanded its recruiting program on college campuses for quality graduates in a variety of professional and administrative fields to participate in the Housing Intern Training Program, conducted on a Department-wide basis. On the equal employment opportunity front, the Office issued the first Department-wide policy directive, and affirmative action plans were developed to implement it. In the union-management field, employee organizations enjoy some form of recognition in HUD’s Central Office, six Regions, all but two of FNMA’s of fices, and in more than 20 percent of FHA’s units. More than one-fourth of HUD employees are now members of unions. Two key officials received two of the most significant awards available in the Federal service. Mrs. Anne M. Roberts, Deputy Regional Administrator, Region I, was one of six women to receive the Federal Women’s Award for 1967. Assistant Secretary Philip Brownstein won the highly coveted National Civil Service League Award. “Opportunity Unlimited” At his desk. “I chose a Government career because I felt it offered me a better opportunity to have real responsibility and contribute something than would a job in private industry. I joined HHFA, the predecessor of HUD, because it offered a greater challenge than the other agencies I talked to. HUD is handling the most critical domestic problems of our day. HUD’s role will inevitably expand and become more complex. I feel that it offers ‘Opportunity Unlimited’ for a young person just starting a career.” These are the words of Don Morrow, the Deputy Regional Administrator of HUD’s Region IV, with headquarters in Chicago. Just a little over 10 years ago, in June 1957, Morrow had begun his employment with HHFA as a Housing Intern at Grade GS-7. He was named to his current GS-16 position late in 1967. In his present assignment, Morrow assists the Regional Administrator in all phases of administering the 40-odd programs of HUD, with special emphasis on program coordination and administrative problems. Region IV has jurisdiction over all HUD activities in the States of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. While Don Morrow’s rise from intern to supergrade has been more rapid and dramatic than most, it is not unique. Others have also moved into the upper echelons of the Department in relatively short periods, and still others are now climbing the ladder. “In the spring of 1957, I was finishing my graduate work at the Maxwell School at the University of Syracuse,” continued Mr. Morrow. “I had a number of job alternatives. I had taken both Federal and State of New York entrance examinations, and had offers from several agencies in both the State and Federal levels. Even though the State offered more money, 83 I decided on HHFA. I liked the positive approach the HHFA recruiters took. I'm very happy now that I made the choice I did.” Mr. Morrow is typical of many young professionals who have chosen a Federal career. He was born in Arlington, South Dakota, in October 1931; Arlington, population 1,200, is a farming community 75 miles northwest of Sioux Falls. He had a normal small town boyhood, and attended Arlington High School, where he earned his letter in football, basketball, and track. He graduated in 1949, and entered Wesleyan University in Mitchell, South Dakota. At the end of his freshman year, he enlisted in the Army, serving three years as a paratrooper in Korea and the U.S. He chose the paratroopers because he wanted to fly but couldn’t qualify as a pilot because of partial color blindness. In September 1953, he was discharged from the Army and entered South Dakota State University, receiving a ELS. in Political Science in 1956. He then went to Syracuse for a master’s degree in public administration. On joining HHFA as a Program Assistant (Housing Intern), Don was sent to the Chicago Regional Office, where he was assigned to the then Community Facilities Administration programs. During the next few years, he received progressively more important assignments in the CFA programs, achieving the level of GS-14, when, in 1963, he was given a National Institute of Public Affairs Fellowship at Harvard. He spent a year at the Littauer Center in Cambridge, and in 1964 received his second M.P.A. degree in economics and government. Returning to HHFA in 1964, he was assigned to the Philadelphia Regional Office as Acting Regional Director of CFA, a post he held for 15 months. In early 1965, he was named Deputy Assistant Commissioner for Operations in the CFA Central Office in Washington. In 1966, when HHFA was converted to HUD, Morrow was appointed a member of the Task Force to devise an organizational pattern for the administration of CFA programs in the new Department, and later became Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary to implement the organizational plan. Before going back to Chicago, he spent a total of 2i/2 years in Washington, his final assignment there being Director of Administration of the Office of Metropolitan Development. Mr. Morrow, married in 1952, is the father of three children, Lea, 13, Kurt, 12, and Lyn, 10. His hobbies are hunting and sky diving. He doesn’t do much sky diving now, but does get in some diving when time and weather permit. His record so far: about 500 free-fall jumps plus about 200 military jumps. ‘‘I’ve never been injured in a fall,” says Don, ‘‘but I’ve often had sore heels from competition jumping.” What is Don’s advice to young interns? ‘‘Remember, your year’s internship is just the beginning of your learning process. Don’t be overly concerned about the first assignment you get. It’s only the first phase. You’ll have lots of changes in assignments and will handle many diverse programs. This will broaden your experience and prepare you for more important jobs in the future. And don’t expect to be spoon fed. You’ve got to dig and learn. And don’t always think only of what benefit you'll get from a particular assignment. If you think about how you can train yourself so that you can contribute most to HUD, your promotions will come along without any trouble.” The Morrows at home. office of the secretary A number of the Department’s activities and programs are administered under the direct supervision of the Secretary. These include the Equal Opportunity staff, the Division of International Affairs, the Policy Analysis and Program Evaluation staff, the Urban Design staff, and the Office of Urban Technology and Research. Equal Opportunity In an address on August 7, 1967, in San Francisco before the National Association of Real Estate Brokers, the Secretary clarified HUD’s policy on equal opportunity in housing: “We are determined that all of our programs will operate to extract the legal maximum from existing laws and orders to assist in breaking down racially restrictive housing practices and patterns. The goal, of course, is to provide the widest possible opportunities for good housing in wholesome environments to all Americans.” During 1967 HUD took many actions to strengthen its compliance with laws and orders intended to eliminate discrimination in housing and other facilities provided with Federal financial assistance and in employment. These actions implemented Title VI of the the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance; the Executive Order on Equal Opportunity in Housing which requires Federal action to eliminate discrimination in housing and related facilities owned by the Federal Government or provided with Federal financial assistance; and Executive Order 11246 on Equal Opportunity in Government employment and employment under Federal contracts and federally assisted construction contracts. In March 1967, the Secretary established the Intradepartmental Council on Equal Opportunity, composed of representatives of each Assistant Secretary, the General Counsel, and the Director of the Inspection Division. This Council has served as an effective vehicle for moving forward HUD’s civil rights program. Functioning as a clearinghouse for civil rights program information and problems, it has established affirmative criteria, expedited the issuance of procedures and regulations, coordinated compliance activities, and developed many new approaches to accomplish the Department’s objectives in the area of civil rights. The Council meets frequently, and the Assistant to the Secretary (Intergroup Relations) and the Director of the Equal Opportunity Standards and Regulations Staff serve as cochairmen. The Federal nondiscrimination requirements cover over 25 program activities of HUD. These 25 85 include a number of federally assisted housing programs and programs for Urban Renewal, Model Cities, Rent Supplement, Neighborhood Facilities, Open Space Land and Urban Beautification, Advances for Public Works Planning, and Urban Mass Transportation. Free Housing Counseling In 1967, FHA initiated an extensive program of free counseling primarily intended for low-income families, minority groups, servicemen, and others having difficulty finding housing they can afford. Begun in August, in five FHA offices, the program at yearend was being carried out in 15 cities throughout the country. FHA interviews those seeking advice on housing to obtain facts bearing on the range of housing they can afford to rent or buy. Information concerning credit, income, and debts is kept strictly confidential. By December 1967, over 2,000 people had been interviewed and this resulted in more than 100 applications for FHA mortgage insurance. Over 70 percent of those seeking assistance were minority group members. FHA service includes assistance in making appointments for the families to see the various choices of housing suitable to their needs by calling builders, apartment managers, or real estate brokers, to arrange mutually convenient times. It also provides assistance in resolving any problem the homeseeking families may encounter. If suitable FHA-owned houses are available, families are given the names of local brokers who actively participate in the sale of FHA properties. This service has encouraging potential for reaching that part of the public which has not yet been educated to the opportunities in housing available to them. It should have a healthy, stimulating effect on real estate markets and work to the advantage of all concerned. FHA Housing FHA, in August 1967, assured prospective home buyers that no community or neighborhood would be denied home mortgage insurance; that each application for mortgage insurance would be decided on its own merits. Acting under a 1966 amendment to the National Housing Act, FHA also relaxed the requirement for economic soundness if the dwelling is located in an area in which rioting or other civil disorder has taken place or is threatened. At the year’s end FHA was now insuring mortgages on dwelling units in these older dilapidated inner-city areas at the rate of 800 to 1,000 a week. The Secretary requested the Department of Defense to advise FHA of the results of its survey of nonwhite access to multifamily housing near military installations. FHA Insuring Offices have been instructed to determine which of these apartment developments, receiving the benefits of FHA mortgage insurance, still follow discriminatory practices. On the basis of these findings, the insuring offices will take appropriate action under the Executive Order 11063 on Equal Opportunity in Housing. The FHA concluded a survey of all subdivisions approved under FHA programs since the issuance of Executive Order 11063, to determine racial occupancy patterns. The results of this survey will be analyzed and studied in order to determine the effectiveness of the Order and to give direction to future efforts to improve its effectiveness. In addition, the results of the survey will be reviewed for compliance purposes. Employment HUD has a very active compliance program with reference to equal employment opportunity under direct Federal and federally assisted construction contracts. Staff in each of the six continental Regional Offices spend full time on this work. The program includes requirements for affirmative action, preconstruction conferences, and compliance reviews. Over 4,000 preconstruction conferences and over 1,600 compliance reviews have been conducted. In July 1967, the Secretary issued an Order requiring construction contractors and certain subcontractors on HUD-assisted projects over $ 1 million to submit written affirmative action programs. At the same time, HUD Form 907 was issued which gives instructions to contractors and subcontractors for taking affirmative action under Executive Order 11246 (Equal Employment Opportunity). This comprehensive document informs construction contractors of the many ways in which affirmative action may be pursued to create equal employment opportunity. When requested by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance, Department of Labor, preaward conferences are held with the recipients of Federal financial assistance and the contractors and subcontractors involved in the construction of the assisted projects. HUD has conducted over 100 preaward conferences in the areas designated by OFCC. The Assistant Secretary for Administration serves as the Department’s Equal Employment Opportunity Officer and, as such, makes final decisions for the Secretary on complaints of discrimination by employees of HUD. In this capacity he has established an affirmative action program to guarantee equal employment opportunity in HUD. 86 New Directions In 1967 HUD made many policy changes, issued numerous new directives to the recipients of its financial assistance and its own officials, issued many new procedures, and strengthened its compliance operations to eliminate discrimination and provide equal opportunity in its programs. In taking these various actions HUD recognized that equal opportunity in federally assisted housing and other facilities cannot be fully achieved unless appropriate action is taken in the planning and development stage, as well as after the completion of a project or facility. In the past year, therefore, it has placed special emphasis on the planning aspects of projects, the selection and boundaries of sites for projects, the relocation of project residents, the availability of completed project facilities, and similar problems. HUD, in administering its programs this past year, has also given special attention to situations in which proposed projects would perpetuate racial segregation. In 1967 HUD issued a new site selection policy for low-rent public housing which seeks a balanced distribution of the HUD-assisted housing proposed to serve low-income people and minority groups, thus assuring these groups the opportunity of locating outside the areas of their own minority group concentration. Also, a new tenant selection and assignment policy for low-rent public housing was established. It is expected that the new policy will better assure all eligible applicants equal access to local public housing programs. Basically, under the new policy, local housing authorities may assign tenants under a first-come, first-served plan or under a limited free-dom-of-choice plan. Provisions are made for priorities not based on race, color, or national origin and hardship cases. Further, HUD has recognized that under certain programs, such as sewer and water facilities, compliance functions must be undertaken in the early stages of application processing. The most serious problem in these activities relates to the location of such facilities and the areas to be served. In an application for financial assistance for such facilities, the applicant is required to submit a map of the city indicating population distribution by race so as to uncover any evidence of discrimination against minority groups in the choice of the areas to be served. In the administration of programs providing assistance for neighborhood facilities, urban beautification, code enforcement, and mass transportation, the emphasis is now being placed on the social aspects of the proposals. For instance, with respect to the mass transportation programs, careful consideration is being given to assuring service for those areas of the city inhabited by minority groups and the underprivileged. HUD has strengthened nondiscrimination requirements in the reuse of urban renewal project land and the use of public facilities, hospitals, and educational institutions generating noncash local grant-in-aid credit. It is also strengthening its selection of project area and project planning requirements so as to prevent excessive concentration of minority group families and promote equal opportunity in housing within each community. In addition, a new “in depth” look is being taken at some of the dilemmas connected with relocation, especially the problem of the overall inadequacy of the housing supply available to low-income, particularly Negro, displaced persons. International Affairs The Division of International Affairs performs three principal functions. First, HUD seeks out and disseminates information from other developed countries regarding innovations and practices in the field of housing and urban development. Second, HUD provides support and advice for the Department of State in the formulation of policy positions that the United States will assume internationally concerning matters within the competence of HUD, such as housing, building, and urban planning. Third, working in close cooperation with the Agency for International Development, HUD provides information and training for foreigners visiting the United States, together with technical support and assistance for U.S. Government programs abroad. HUD, operating under an agreement with AID, provides FHA mortgage insurance specialists to process applications for Extended Risk Guarantees by the U.S. Government to investors making foreign housing loans. Guarantees have been made on loans of some $150 million, out of a total of $370 million authorized. The bulk of the guaranteed investments have been in Latin America, with lesser amounts in Africa and the Far East. The Pacific Conference A particularly significant undertaking in 1967 was the HUD sponsorship, jointly with AID and the State of Hawaii, of the Pacific Conference on Urban Growth held in Honolulu in May. More than 120 delegates from 17 Asian countries and three territories were in attendance. The Under Secretary and other senior officials of HUD took leading parts in the conference program. A postconference training program has served to reinforce the positive results of the Conference. 87 Honolulu.—Among attendants at the Pacific Conference on Urban Growth were Ratan Sarker, India; Kazuko Arikum, Japan; Eddie Chi, Malaysia; Bruce Daniels, HUD. Policy Analysis and Program Evaluation Housing Requirements 1967-1978 On the basis of new data published by the Census, there were in 1966 about 6 million substandard housing units occupied in the United States. It has been estimated that about 2 million of the latter are dilapidated. An additional 2 million units are expected to become dilapidated over the next decade. (The 2 million units that will become dilapidated over the decade are not part of the 6 million units occupied in 1966.) The 4 million dilapidated and about-to-become-dilapidated units will have to be replaced if we are to eliminate the occupancy of substandard units. An additional 4 million substandard units are not dilapidated but lack plumbing. Based on past trends, it is estimated that, as incomes rise, about 2 million of these will be brought up to standard without public assistance, but the other 2 million will require public assistance to be rehabilitated. Also, due to increases in the number of households, migration, losses of standard units due to demolitions and casualties, increases in seasonal units, and a required increase of vacant units to permit mobility, it is estimated that about another 20 million unassisted new units of standard quality need to be added to the housing supply by 1978. The latter 20 million new units and 2 million rehabilitated units will be provided through the private market, but financial assistance of some type will be required for the occupants of the 6 million substandard units needing either replacement or rehabilitation. To meet these needs 26 million new homes and apartments should be constructed over the next ten years. Six million of these would replace substandard units. Legislation is needed to authorize Federal assistance for the construction and rehabilitation of a few million housing units for the first years of the 10-year program, and to provide additional authority for the Model Cities program, more assistance to planning and to new communities, and under the urban renewal program, a new neighborhood development program. Authority should be provided for 300,000 housing units in fiscal year 1969 for low-income families. This would include new programs of interest rate subsidies to assist homeownership by low-income families and privately owned rental housing, and authority for an additional 75,000 units in fiscal 1969 under the public housing program. The authority for rent supplements should be enlarged to permit assistance to 72,500 units of housing for low-income families. In addition, a program for the provision of improved tenant services in public housing is needed, as well as authority to enable the provision of technical assistance and seed money to nonprofit sponsors of low- and moderate-income housing. Present Housing Additions Through the Private Market During much of 1966 there was a diversion of funds from financing channels for home building and purchases because of strong demands for capital funds resulting from the economic expansion of the 1960’s and rising interest rates. The diversion of funds was not from all these types of institutions, but in some cases, such as mutual savings banks and life insurance companies, it was a diversion on their part from mortgage financing to other types of investments. However, there was a turnabout in savings flows in 1967 which resulted in a significant increase in the supply of funds for home construction and long-term mortgage financing. This gave a great assist to the increase in private housing starts during 1967 from-an average annual rate of 1.1 million in the first quarter to 1.4 million in the fourth quarter. Interest rates as well as construction costs increased in 1967, with one private cost index being about 7 percent higher at the end of the year than at the beginning. Also the average construction cost per unit increased, while the median prices of new single-family houses sold, as reported in the HUD-Census Housing Sales Reports of 88 Washington, D.C.—Khaw Kai Boh, Minister of Housing and Local Government, Malaysia, confers with Secretary Weaver. new houses built for sale, were generally higher in 1967 than during earlier years. Market Analysis The role of market analysis is heightened because of the imperative needs of low- and moderateincome families, the increasing number of subsidized housing programs, and their potential for overlap. This is based also on the necessity to achieve the best alloca- tion of program resources among the separate housing markets. Market analysis consists of the application of systematic procedures and techniques derived from a knowledge of broad patterns of market behavior. Experience obtained from individual housing programs helps to arrive at estimates of prospective demand for rental and sales housing, by unit size, and by specific price-rent ranges. Substantial progress continues to be achieved in the advancement of HUD’s market analysis program. Common data and procedures, as well as uniform judging factors, are being developed wherever possible to obtain broadest use in market analysis findings. More rapid progress will occur next year in developing housing need-resource profiles for all major housing markets. Field economists will have greater and more refined resources with which to respond to immediate needs for market advice. Design Excellence For a number of years, HUD and its predecessor agency have stressed the importance of good design in the buildings and areas which receive HUD assistance. During 1967 the urban design staff unit, which had been established in the Office of the Secretary in 1966, intensified and broadened its activities. It offered professional assistance in program Sixty policy-level officials from 2 developing nations attended a month-long urban development seminar. Group shown is visiting the National Housing Center library following a meeting with labor and housing industry leaders. policy, operations, and development. This involved activity related to the President’s Council on Recreation and Natural Beauty, and the Committee on Employment of the Handicapped. A paper on the design of Multi-Purpose Neighborhood Service Centers was prepared for the Washington Inter-Agency Review Committee. Significant service was also rendered to several internal task forces on Departmental operations, including those related to the use of surplus Federal lands to meet critical urban needs. An evaluation was made of HAA pro grams, and the staff participated in organizing the Design in Urban Transportation Conference, which was held in Washington in May 1967. The Conference was called to emphasize the national need for a stronger concern with the esthetic, social, and urban design aspects of mass transportation development. This HUD meeting brought together over 800 design professionals (architects, engineers, planners, and landscape architects) , transit officials, local, State and Federal government officials, and component manufacturers. The sessions featured visual and 89 graphic presentations of design and planning quality in ongoing system development in the San Francisco Bay area, Philadelphia, Chicago, Boston and Seattle, as well as of future technology and design techniques in European and Canadian cities. A new Design Awards Program for Urban Mass Transportation, a major innovation in the recognition and encouragement of design quality, is being conducted with the support of the urban design staff. Awards will be made in 1968 for winning entries in the categories of systems and components. The jury will consider how the design is related to the optimum development of the metropolitan area, the central city, and the neighborhood. An urban design staff member serves on the Urban Transportation Task Force, which explores various system proposals and their impacts on particular cities, seeks out possible innovations, and outlines the ways in which HUD can help. At the invitation of local officials, the Task Force visited Milwaukee, Hartford, and Columbus, Ohio, in 1967. Liaison with professional societies and other organizations con cerned with design and planning, and with related university interests, was maintained by the urban design staff. This included participation in the Design in Federal Programs Conference of the American Institute of Architects, the Principles and Guidelines Workshop of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the Urban American Symposium on Design Plans for Cities, among others. The design concerns and objectives of the Department were presented at various meetings of citizens, local government officials, and design professionals. “Fountain Of The Four Seasons” A prizewinning fountain by sculptor Francois Stahly has been installed in the Golden Gateway Center's Sydney G. Walton Square. Composed of a labyrinth of stones, the water garden was obtained from a quarry in Marino, Italy. The four vertical elements of sculptured bronze represent the four seasons of the year. Several other sculptures, including work by Beniamino Bufano, Marino Marini, Henry Moore, Charles Perry, and Jan Peter Stern have also been placed in the project's plazas. Another fountain, a shimmering parasol of water, 17 feet in diameter, set in a wide basin of old cobblestones, has been erected in the east plaza of the new Alcoa Building, for the pleasure of the thousands of office workers who will use the plaza daily, as well as for the general public’s. The spectacular new fountain that forms the softly murmuring parasol of water is the work of Australian architect-sculptor Robert Woodward. The Alcoa fountain was commissioned as a part of the million-dollar Golden Gateway Center Collection of Fine Art, and was cosponsored by the City of San Francisco and the Golden Gateway Garage Corporation. The sculp tures and the plazas themselves are soon to be dedicated to the city, and will be San Francisco's first public sculpture garden. The Golden Gateway urban renewal project is an example of Federal, municipal, and private cooperation. The Center combines residential and commercial reuses, public plazas, sitting and walking areas, over underground parking facilities. Funds for planning and redevelopment of the former slum were provided by HUD. The San Francisco Redevelopment Agency used an unusual approach to assure the inclusion of art and sculpture in the Golden Gateway project. When the Redevelopment Agency made the land available for redevelopment it specified that exterior works of art satisfactory to both the Agency and redeveloper, at a value of not less than one percent of construction of all buildings and structures, be included. $1 million has been set aside for this purpose. A number of internationally known sculptors were invited to submit sketch proposals; a jury reviewed the proposals, which were exhibited in the San Francisco Museum of Art, and selected and commissioned the winning works. Office of Urban Technology and Research Increased recognition was given in 1967 to applying the methods of scientific inquiry and the techniques and products that can be developed by modern technology in solving the Nation’s massive, complex, and pressing urban problems. The Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966 directed the Secretary to: ■ Conduct research and studies to test and demonstrate new and improved techniques and methods of applying advances in technology to housing construction, rehabilitation, and maintenance, and to urban development activities. ■ Encourage and promote the acceptance and application of new and improved techniques and methods of constructing, rehabilitating, and maintaining housing, and the application of advances in technology to urban development activities, by all segments of the housing industry, communities, industries engaged in urban development activities, and the general public. Office Established The President requested funds to allow HUD to inaugurate a general research and development program in 1967, and the Secretary established an Office of Urban Technology and Research and selected its head—all before midyear 1967. The Office was assigned responsibility for management of specific research and technology programs, and to serve as a focal point for HUD’s entire research and development program. It was given responsibility for coordinating its program activities within the Department and other Federal Departments and Agencies. The Congress appropriated $10 million for HUD’s general research and technology program late in 1967. With the Department’s previously authorized R&D programs in specific areas (e.g., transportation, low-income housing, urban renewal, etc.) HUD’s total appropriation for urban-related contract and grant activities approximates $20 million. Also, late in 1967, the Department, by Executive Order, was made a member of the Federal Council of Science and Technology. The Department took important initial steps to meet its responsibilities. It continues to gather the nucleus of a professional and administrative staff, and is initiating fundamental R&D administrative procedures. HUD, in cooperation with the Department of Transportation, supported two intensive summer studies held by the Rand Corporation, to assist in analyzing the broad spectrum of urban problems from a scientific and technological viewpoint. The National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering agreed to study certain of the Department’s fundamental research and development goals and to identify strategies needed to harness the social and physical sciences in the search for solutions to urban problems. A decision to establish an Institute for Urban Development was made. It is under study and funds are being set aside by HUD and other Departments for its support. Its purpose will be to study present and anticipated urban-related goals and problems, and to draw policy conclusions of value to Federal and local officials concerned with this country’s urban affairs. In gathering data, it will bring together a wide variety of disciplines (architects, administrators, scientists, engineers, etc.) and build an analytical capability to study complex urban problems. Joint Studies Subsequent to the establishment of the Department of Transportation, members of DOT and HUD began joint study of the most effective ways in which urban-related transportation research and development activities could be allocated between the two. The Department took the initiative to establish contact with the other Federal departments and agencies now conducting urban-related research and development programs as a step toward establishing an interagency urban needs network. HUD maintained close contact with the President’s Commission on Urban Housing (Kaiser Committee), the National Commission on Urban Problems (Douglas Commission), and the Department of Commerce. Similarly assistance was provided to the President’s Commission on Civil Disorders (Kerner Commission), in its efforts to identify the sources of urban riots and unrest. It also worked closely with the Department of Defense on specific projects concerned with low-rent housing research and development and to explore means of reducing the cost of military family housing. Grant Programs In addition to the general research and technology program, the Office of Urban Technology and Research administers several direct grant and research programs: ■ The Low Income Housing Demonstration Program authorized by Section 207 of the Housing act of 1961. Under this program and in conjunction with the HUD/FHA Section 233 Experimental Housing Program, an experiment is being conducted in New York City (East Fifth Street) involving new techniques for the rapid rehabilitation of old law tenement buildings. This experiment is develop 92 ing valuable cost and time information. A project in Detroit, Michigan, is designed to test a new low-cost modular construction system which lends itself to great flexibility of design and use for building on the small lots and sites commonly found in many of our cities. Another significant project underway in Reston, Virginia, is intended to develop and test a new con struction system, utilizing manufactured housing, for including low-cost housing in new towns. ■ The Urban Planning Research and Demonstration Program, authorized by Section 701(b) of the Housing Act of 1954, as amended. Under this program, whose purpose is to improve methods and techniques for comprehensive planning, 33 projects with a total dollar value of some $1,700,000 were approved in 1967. ■ The Urban Renewal Demonstration Program, authorized by Section 314 of the Housing Act of 1954, as amended. Six projects, totaling some $200,000 were approved to develop, assure the comprehensiveness and quality of the study effort. As the year closed, a preliminary draft of the report was in preparation. “I Needed Skid Row” “I needed Skid Row because of a low self-image, but any man in his right mind wants to leave because you live like animals,” said 52-year-old Edmund Sullivan before he left Philadelphia Skid Row two years ago. From the parentless home “Sully” left at age 13 to the Philadelphia row was a long and tortuous road of assorted flophouses, New York’s Bowery, jails, freight cars, countless drunks, and many attempts to “start over.” Today he is a “contact man” for the Philadelphia Diagnostic and Relocation Center, which has relocated over 1,000 skid rowers in its five year history. The work of the center, giving these men the social counseling, medical services, and normal support needed to leave the row, began in May 1963 aided by a $147,016 Urban Renewal Demonstration grant from HUD. A study of the men who live on the row, what should be done to help them leave, and how to prevent future skid rows has been completed. Sully and others have made it, but the center estimates that as urban renewal in the skid row area proceeds over the next two years, about 800 men will need relocation services. What began as a demonstration project was, in 1967, a permanent center “SUlly” makes a point. run jointly by the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority and a specially formed Diagnostic and Relocation Corporation, and financed with HUD urban renewal funds. Men like Sully who know the pitfalls of the road out of the row are the key to the center’s approach to the withdrawn and traditionally suspicious skid rowers. After his first encounter in 1964 with the center, Sully rejected it as another “do-gooder” attempt to reform him. After returning in 1965, it took two trips to institutions which ended back on the row before a contact man for the center and old drinking buddy convinced Sully the road out was worth it. The center offers a “supermarket” of services from free meals and clothing to medical and psychiatric examinations, the constant support of an “anchor counselor,” and referral to other city and State agencies for specific needs. Irving W. Shandler, director of the center, said, “We have learned what v/orks and what doesn’t work in trying to reach and assist these men to overcome their deep but subtle loneliness and desperation. We how know that, given time, staff, and appropriate resources, it is possible to salvage a large percentage of the men living here and on other skid rows across the country.” Lunchtime at the Center. Federal Housing Administration Experimental Housing Certain rehabilitation projects, initiated under the Section 233 Experimental Housing Program in cooperation with the Low-Income Housing Demonstration Program, came to a successful conclusion in 1967. The Cora Street project in Pittsburgh and the Belevedere rent supplement projects in the Hough area of Cleveland were completed for occupancy in 1967. The former achieved maximum use of repair work instead of replacement to create standard living accommodations, and the latter demonstrated the advantage of lathing and plastering directly over old plaster to minimize demolition. The Cora Street project also served as a testing ground for the simplified processing techniques which HUD/FHA is now applying to the other rehabilitation projects in Pittsburgh and Omaha. The Experimental Housing program continues to explore, in a variety of ways, the application of modern technology to the urgent requirement of reducing the cost of housing. For instance a Section 233 project in Richmond, California, is proceeding to test the “uniment” construction method of fitting together precast apartment size units, made of a new material, chemically prestressed concrete, into a completed multifamily high rise project. The central core unit method of construction which helped make possible the rapid rehabilitation on Fifth Street in the New York City tenement is being adapted to single-family construction in Hampton, Virginia. The Magnolia Homes project in Vicksburg, Mississippi, explored the use of some of the latest mobile home and prefabricated construction techniques to produce low-cost housing; and similar techniques are now being explored in a project for married university students in Amherst, Massachusetts. 94 Industry Helps to Lower Housing Costs HUD is involved in a number of cooperative ventures with trade associations, advisory groups, and private firms in its efforts to find methods that will lower housing costs. Here are two examples of HUD-industry cooperation: In Vicksburg, Miss., a new construction system called “piggyback” housing, using production methods of the mobile home industry, made possible the manufacture of 28 living units in 17 days and their erection in 8 days. The units are mass-produced, trucked to the site, and stacked one on top of the other by large cranes. The Vicksburg project, known as Fredella Village, is sponsored by the nonprofit Frederick Y. Dabney Foundation. It consists of 28 low-income townhouses that were produced at a cost saving of 15 percent below standard construction, with further savings anticipated as the system is perfected. The demonstration was conducted under FHA’s experimental housing program, with a $224,000 FHA-insured below-market-rate mortgage. An FHA rent supplement grant has also been made to Fredella Village. The project occupies a one-acre in-city site and replaces a number of shacks. While demolition and site clearance were underway, the housing units were manufactured, in two sections each, at the Vicksburg plant of the Magnolia Homes Manufacturing Corp. The units have a cedar plywood exterior and a specially developed interior wall finish of the U.S. Gypsum Company. The lower level contains a living room and kitchendinette. The top half includes two bedrooms and bath. Storage space is provided on both levels, along with electric appliances and heating, range, oven, refrigerator, and water heater. "Piggyback” housing site before clearance. 95 Each unit is trucked to the site. “Stacking” the units. Four of the 24 units. Technical Studies Under the Technical Studies program, contracts are let with industry, research and educational institutions, and other government agencies to study specific technical problems. Some of the most significant studies completed in 1967 include a guide to airborne impact, and structureborne noise control in multifamily dwellings; fire protection in nursing homes and housing for the elderly; and remedial methods for repair of foundations damaged by high volume change soils. One of the main emphases of this program is the determination of ways to reduce housing costs in both the materials and construction areas. A study now underway is expected to produce a simplified technical guide on low-cost poletype construction for use by builders, sponsors, and HUD/FHA personnel; the pole-type construc- 308-901 0—68----7 tion method is especially suited to mountainous areas, such as Appalachia, where conventional construction methods are extremely expensive. The monthly surveys on new home sales volume and prices conducted by the Bureau of the Census for HUD were continued. Census also completed surveys of mobile home purchasers and of the characteristics of occupants of new dwelling units. The data from both of these surveys are being analyzed preparatory to publication. Three new contracts involving a total expenditure of about $130,000 were let. One calls for the development of an inexpensive technique of local market rental housing vacancy surveys; a second for the development of a strategy for dealing with low-income housing programs to be used in a local market area; and the third to develop a conceptual framework for cost-benefit analysis of three specific aspects of urban renewal. Earthquake Insurance As authorized by the Southeast Hurricane Disaster Relief Act of 1965, a study of alternative programs which could be established to provide financial assistance to those suffering property losses as a result of earthquakes was undertaken in 1966. During 1967, the first part of this study was completed. It consisted of compiling historical and statistical data on some 25,000 earthquakes that have occurred in continental United States. Planning was completed to conduct, in 1968, an earthquake insurance study based upon data available from the State of California which could serve as a “model” for similar studies to cover other areas of the country. 97 Advisory Committees During 1967, the following Advisory Committees and Boards were appointed to assist the Secretary in studying specific problems or advising him concerning various Departmental activities and programs. Urban Studies Fellowship Advisory Board John Bebout Rutgers University New Brunswick, N.J. Charles Graves University of Kentucky Lexington, Ky. John Parker University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, N.C. Charles Abrams Columbia University New York, N.Y. Alan Campbell Syracuse University Syracuse, N.Y. Morton Schussheim University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, Pa. Irving Hand American Institute of Planners Washington, D.C. John Lange National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials Washington, D.C. Bernard Hillenbrand National Association of Counties Washington, D.C. Committee to Rebuild America’s Slums (appointed by the President) Chairman: Edgar F. Kaiser, President Kaiser Industries, Inc. Oakland, Calif. Vice Chairman: Gaylord A. Freeman, Vice Chairman The First National Bank Chicago, Ill. Joseph D. Keenan, International Secretary International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Washington, D.C. Charles Keller, Jr., President Keller Construction Corp. New Orleans, La. Peter Kiewit, President Peter Kiewit Sons’, Inc. Omaha, Nebr. John A. McCone, Investment Banker & Corporate Director San Marino, Calif. George Meany, President AFL-CIO Washington, D.C. Joseph I. Miller, President Cummings Engine Co., Inc. Columbia, Ind. Graham James Morgan, President, Member, Executive Committee, and Director U.S. Gypsum Co. New York, N.Y. Raymond D. Nasher, President Nasher Properties Dallas, Texas. Walter P. Reuther, President United Automobile, Aircraft & Agriculture Workers of America, CIO Detroit, Mich. Walter Alter Rosenblith, Professor of Communications Biophysics Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Mass. John H. Wheller, President Mechanics & Farmers Bank Durham, N.C. Whitney M. Young, Jr., Executive Director National Urban League New York, N.Y. Honorable Joseph Barr, Mayor City of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh, Pa. S. B. Bechtel, Jr., President Bechtel Corp. San Francisco, Calif. R. V. Hansberger, President Boise-Cascade Boise, Idaho Leon Wiener, President National Association of Home Builders Washington, D.C. Advisory Committee on Housing For Senior Citizens Glenn FL Beyer, Ph. D., Director Housing Research Center Cornell University Ithaca, N.Y. Alice Brophy, Director of Model Cities, New York City Human Resources Administration New York, N.Y. Wilma Donahue, Ph. D., Chairman Division of Gerontology Institute for Human Adjustment University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Mich. Mrs. Eone Harger, Director N.J. State Division on Aging Department of Community Affairs Trenton, N.J. Walter C. Nelson, President Eberhardt Company Minneapolis, Minn. Bruce Savage, Realtor Indianapolis, Ind. Very Reverend Monsignor W. Suedkamp, Secretary for Charities Archdiocese of Detroit Detroit, Mich. Dwight Townsend Cooperative League of .America Washington, D.C. Jack T. Conway, Executive Director Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO Washington, D.C. Andrew J. Biemiller, Director Department of Legislation, AFL-CIO Washington, D.C. Hobart Jackson, Executive Director Stephen Smith Home Philadelphia, Pa. Reverend Howard W. Washburn, Consultant on Services to the Aging General Board of Hospitals of the Methodist Church Evanston, Ill. Lewis Cenker Atlanta, Ga. Alexander J. Barket Kansas City, Mo. Professor Donald Kent, Chairman Department of Sociology Pennsylvania State University University Park, Pa. 98 Jack Weinberg, M.D. Illinois State Psychiatric Institute Chicago, Ill. Herbert Shore, Executive Director Golden Acres Dallas, Tex. Dorothy Height, President National Council of Negro Women, Inc. New York, N.Y. Anthony F. Tauriello, Chairman Buffalo Housing Authority Buffalo, N.Y. Louis Beck New York, N.Y. Honorable Otto Kerner, Governor State of Illinois Springfield, Ill. Honorable John E. Babiarz, Mayor City of Wilmington Wilmington, Del. Scott W. Lucas, Attorney-at-Law Washington, D.C. Paul Kirk, Architect Seattle, Wash. John T. Sweeney, Executive Secretary Massachusetts Commission on Aging Boston, Mass. National Commission on Urban Problems (appointed by the President) Chariman: Paul Douglas Washington, D.C. David L. Baker, Supervisor 2nd District of Orange County Orange County, Calif. Hugo Black, Jr., Lawyer Miami, Fla. Lewis Davis, Architect Brody & Associates New York, N.Y. John DeGrove, Professor Florida Atlantic University Boca Raton, Fla. Anthony Downs, Treasurer Real Estate Research Corp. Chicago, Ill. Ezra Ehrenkrantz, President Building Systems Development, Inc. San Francisco, Calif. Alex Feinberg, Lawyer Camden, N.J. Jeh Johnson, Architect Poughkeepsie, N.Y. John Lyons, General President International Association of Bridge Structural & Ornamental Iron W orkers St. Louis, Mo. Richard W. O’Neill, Editor House & Home Magazine New York, N.Y. Richard Ravitch, Vice President HRH Construction Corp. New York, N.Y. Carl Sanders Former Governor of Georgia Atlanta, Ga. Chloethiel W. Smith, Architect & City Planner Washington, D.C. Honorable Thomas Vandergriff, Mayor City of Arlington Arlington, Tex. Coleman Woodbury, Professor of Urban Affairs University of Wisconsin Madison, Wis. Urban Transportation Advisory Committee Carmack Cochran, President Nashville Transit Company Nashville, Tenn. Lewis M. Schneider Harvard Business School Boston, Mass. Donald S. Berry, Chairman Department of Civil Engineering Northwestern University Evanston, Ill. Edward A. Pellissier, President Columbus Transit Company Columbus, Ohio Charles E. Keiser, Operating Manager Chicago Transit Authority Chicago, Ill. William Lassow, Assistant to the Chairman New York City Transit Authority Brooklyn, N.Y. Norman Kennedy, Associate Director Institute of Transportation & Traffic Engineering University of California Richmond, Calif. Dr. John R. Meyer Department of Economics Harvard University Cambridge, Mass. Daniel Bell New York, N.Y. Charles Luna, President Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen Cleveland. Ohio Dr. Adam Yarmolinsky Law School of Harvard University Cambridge, Mass. B. R. Stokes, General Manager Bay Area Rapid Transit District San Francisco, Calif. John C. Kohl, Executive Secretary Division of Engineering National Academy of Sciences-Nation Research Council Washington, D.C. Wilfred Owen Brookings Institution Washington, D.C. Henry Rowan Rand Corp. Santa Monica, Calif. Robert W. Walker, Vice President Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company San Francisco, Calif. William B. Johnson, Vice President Illinois Central Railroad Chicago, Ill. John S. Golden, Washington Director Stanford Research Institute Arlington, Va. Advisory Committee on Urban Development Alan Keith Campbell Metropolitan Studies Program Syracuse, N.Y. Governor John H. Chafee State of Rhode Island Providence, R.I. Grady Clay, Editor Landscape Architecture Quarterly Louisville, Ky. Thomas G. Currigan, Mayor City of Denver Denver, Colo. Whitney M. Young, Jr., Executive Director National Urban League New York, N.Y. 99 Ralph Guzman, Assistant Project Director Mexican-American Study Project Graduate School of Business Administration University of California Los Angeles, Calif. LeRoy Jones, Commissioner Connecticut Department of Community Affairs Hartford, Conn. C. David Loeks, President Mid-Hudson Patterns for Progress, Inc. New Paltz, N.Y. John H. Mulroy, County Executive Onondaga County Syracuse, N.Y. Raymond Nasher, Builder-Developer Dallas, Texas Robert B. Pease, Executive Director Allegheny Conference on Community Development Pittsburgh, Pa. Harvey S. Perloff, Director Urban & Regional Studies Resources for the Future Washington, D.C. James Redman, Superintendent of Schools Chicago, Ill. Mrs. Dorothy Rubel, Executive Director Metropolitan Housing & Planning Council Chicago, Ill. William L. Slayton, Executive Vice President Urban America, Inc. Washington, D.C. Walter Washington, Commissioner City of Washington Washington, D.C. Graham Watt, City Manager Dayton, Ohio Roger Wilkins, Senior Vice President The Travelers Corp. Hartford, Conn. Jack Woodard, Coordinator of Urban Group Division of Domestic Missions Domestic Department of Executive Council Episcopal Church New York, N.Y. Regional Advisory Committees on Design and Planning Region I: Ulrich Franzen, Al A New York, N.Y. Dr. Kevin Lynch, AIP Professor of City Planning Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Mass. Hideo Sasaki, ASLA Sasaki, Dawson, DeMay & Associates, Inc. Watertown, Mass. George H. Leland, ASCE Edwards & Kelcey, Inc. Newark, N.J. Region II: George W. Qualls, AIA Philadelphia, Pa. David A. Wallace, AIA, AIP Wallace, McHarg, Roberts & Todd Philadelphia, Pa. George E. Patton, ASLA Philadelphia, Pa. James A. Romano, NSPE, ASCE Gannett, Fleming, Gorddry & Carpenter Harrisburg, Pa. Region III: James H. Finch, FAIA Atlanta, Ga. Andrew E. Steiner, Assoc. AIP Atlanta, Ga. Hubert B. Owens, FASLA Landscape Architecture Building University of Georgia Athens, Ga. Clarence R. Jones, NSPE, ASME Jones & Associates, Architects-Engineers Augusta, Ga. Region IV: Matthew L. Rockwell, AIA, AIP Executive Director Northeastern Illinois Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Chicago, Ill. Charles A. Blessing, AIP, FAIA Director of City Planning City Plan Commission Detroit, Mich. Eldridge H. Lovelace, FASLA, AIP, FASCE St. Louis, Mo. Robert B. Richards, NSPE, ASCE DeLeuw, Gather & Company Chicago, Ill. Region V: E. G. Hamilton, AIA Dallas, Texas Samuel B. Zisman, AIP San Antonio, Tex. Robert M. O’Donnell, ASLA Denver, Colo. T. Carr Forrest, Jr. NSPE, ASCE Forrest & Cotton, Inc. Dallas, Tex. Region VI: Donald L. Hardison, FAIA Richmond, Calif. Sidney H. Williams, AIP San Francisco, Calif. Robert N. Royston, ASLA San Francisco, Calif. Leo W. Ruth, Tr., NSPE, ASCE, ASME Ruth, Going & Beck San Jose, Calif. Region VII: Osvaldo L. Toro, AIA Santurce, Puerto Rico Frank A. Molther, Assoc, AIP Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico Hunter Randolph, FASLA Santurce, Puerto Rico Octavio R. Picon Santurce, Puerto Rico 100 Historic Preservation Alexandria, Va., has unveiled a new downtown. In doing so, it spruced up a declining business district, faithfully preserved its colonial charm, and stimulated the economic growth of the city. The urban renewal complex features a $5.1 million retail and office development called Tavern Square and a $1.6 million garden park called Market Square. Adjacent to City Hall, the improvement also provides underground parking for 436 vehicles in the two downtown blocks. The new downtown provides an esthetically attractive and economically favorable balance in open space and density of development. It also comes to grips with the need for developing new revenues for the city to replace diminished tax revenues from the business and blighted buildings that generally prevailed under the pre-urban renewal conditions. Market Square features garden areas with 25-foot magnolia trees brought in from nurseries in North Carolina and South Carolina. Other traditional colonial plantings are placed in three gardens around a 75-foot square reflecting pool with 22 fountains. A large open area provides space for community exhibits, concerts, fairs, and other gatherings. The tavern was a favorite with George Washington, his family and his friends as a place for wining, dining, and festive balls. It was from the Tavern’s steps that Washington gave his first military review in 1754 and made his last appearance on November 5, 1798, when he lead his final military review. Both Tavern Square and Market Square proved to be a treasure lode of colonial artifacts when the old buildings were removed. An archeologist from the Smithsonian Institution recovered from Colonial wells and privies filled with debris, hundreds of artifacts in sound condition—bowls, pots, spoons, coins, shoe leather from a colonial cobbler's shop, bottles, etc. Other items were recovered in bits, pieces, and shreds and restored painstakingly at the Smithsonian, where many of them are displayed. A quantity of the artifacts will be returned to Alexandria for permanent display. 101 today and tomorrow Alexandria. Market Square. As we look back on 1967, we see that much has happened that is encouraging—but not enough. In spite of all we have done, our urban and housing problems are still with us—and growing. The goals set by Congress in 1949— a decent home in a suitable environment for every American family—are far from being met. It is an anomalous situation that faces us. On the one hand, we find ourselves in an economy of great affluence; our Gross National Product is at an all-time high; unemployment is hovering around record lows. On the other hand, poverty still infests our cities and towns. More than 9 million people are drawing welfare payments; more than three times that number earn less than is considered necessary for a minimum level of living. The Nation has an estimated 6 million homes which are classed as substandard. Violence erupts—and the communities where rioting has filled the streets are a roster of some of our greatest cities. The looting and destruction of stores and businesses can only aggravate the hardships of unemployment where they are already severe. These losses, too, can only breed fear among investors, lenders, and insurers and make them more reluctant than before to operate in these areas where their help is so badly needed. Neighborhoods and families groping for the sunlight of American society have only been pushed further backward into dark shadows of despair. Restoring law and order is, of course, the first essential. And order will come. There is a second danger. It is that in this emotional climate, we may be diverted from the fundamental efforts to achieve equal rights and to rebuild and recreate our urban areas for the benefit of all our people. We Have Made a Beginning This Nation can be proud of the beginning steps that have been taken in these past few years to deal with the dire problems of our urban areas. We cannot be proud, of course, of the previous decades of neglect during which the present urban dilemmas were born. But the important point is that the first steps have been taken. The foremost worry today is that these efforts may be slowed or stopped in mid-stride. Instead, they must be accelerated and augmented. We have developed good housing programs spanning the whole range of American economic life— from FHA insurance for moderate income families to rent supplements and low-rent public housing for the poorest families. Urban renewal programs are rebuilding vast 103 sections of our cities. Programs are available and working for whole metropolitan areas to improve transportation and planning, to preserve and create open spaces, to install water and sewer systems. It is obvious that these efforts have not remade the face of urban America. Far from it. But they have proved that much can be done. They have demonstrated how it can be done. These are actual, working programs in existence and ready to be expanded— if and when this Nation decides that its vast resources should be concentrated on doing what we know must be done. What Are Our Needs? In order to achieve an urban environment that is responsive to man’s needs, we must identify those needs and develop programs and procedures to meet them. And what are these needs? More and Faster Action Is Needed HUD knows this and is pressing for it. HUD looks to the States and the cities to join fully in the drive. HUD looks to private enterprise to continue and add to its growing contribution. HUD looks to the people themselves—the poor as well as the affluent—to become concerned and to actively participate in the fight for better urban life. And HUD looks to the Congress to provide the authority and the funds for what needs to be done. If the legislative authority is forthcoming and if adequate finding is made available, we can, at long last, rid our Nation of the appalling situation that finds 20 million of our people still living in wretched housing. And we can make our communities what we want them to be. We have reached the point where the American dream can become a reality. Not some pastoral dream of long ago, but the dream of today—the dream of decent housing for all, of an unfenced society, of prosperous communities, busy streets, and well-planned new neighborhoods, where all can live the good life. And while we are undoing the mistakes and omissions of the past, we must be dealing with the fact that our population may well double over the next four decades. It is inevitable that our rising standards of living and constantly growing Gross National Product will require more of everything per capita than we have ever envisioned and of better quality than our current standards demand. From our past, two lessons are pertinent. The first is that we are capable of great accomplishments, and the second is that there has always been a lag between what man is capable of doing and what he elects to do. A National Commitment Is Needed Are we ready to do what we are capable of doing? Do we really have a national commitment to meet our urban problems? The evidence to the contrary is ominous and frightening. Perhaps the single most disturbing piece of evidence is the inadequacy of the authority to place in full operation the Model Cities program—which is almost universally recognized as an immensely promising vehicle to put cities large and small on the road toward rebuilding deteriorated neighborhoods through a combined attack on their physical and social defects. The 193 cities that applied for Federal funds under the Model Cities program reported that the application effort was itself of tremendous value. It forced a close look at problems. It stimulated ideas for solutions. City after city set forth imaginative outlines for dealing with their worst neighborhoods. City after city produced feasible preliminary plans for attacking rundown housing, poverty, unemployment, disease, crime, and bad schools. Yet as this creative program is just coming to life, authority is inadequate to put it in full operation. Another example is our failure to provide equal access to housing for all Americans. This is primarily a matter of morality, but it is also, in part, a matter of money and legislation. Clearly there has to be a supply of housing in reasonable relationship to demand at all price levels. That means more housing inside and outside the slums and ghettos. But unless housing is open to all who can afford it, investors and builders are not able to supply what is needed and where it is needed. The Nation has come a long way in a short time in enacting national policies against discrimination. There is a national policy against discrimination in the military services and in the use of public facilities and accommodations, in education, and in voting. However, in housing, the national policy does not yet speak in clear and unmistakable terms. A Concern for the Quality of Urban Life Is Needed As a Nation, we should have a deep concern for the quality of urban life. That means, among other things, security for person and property. It means a respect for law and order. But it also means making real the promise of equal opportunity for all Americans. If we recognize that equal justice and equal opportunity are dual imperatives, we will be able to make our streets safe for all our citizens. More and Better Housing Is Needed While housing statistics are not always precise, we know, definitely, that we will need, in the decade ending in 1978, somewhere around 104 26 million more housing units of all kinds. This involves all Americans, affluent and poor, and the demands of the market, the vagaries of the economy, and the stubborn obstacles of a financial marketplace that discriminates against housing when economic conditions are toughest. Old practices and procedures will not suffice. New programs and readapting of old programs will be the only answer. A Stable Flow of Mortgage Money Is Needed In early 1967, there was a considerable easing of the tight mortgage market of 1966. The reduced availability of mortgage funds in 1966 resulted in a reduction in new housing starts to the lowest number in many years. In 1967, the volume went up substantially. But few sophisticated observers would project a continuation of this trend in light of recent financial developments. Certainly there are some favorable basic, long-run developments—a mounting demand for homes, low inventory of unsold new homes, low vacancy rates, and increased savings flows. But we cannot accept a rose-colored view of today’s mortgage market. Some savings and loan companies have increased interest rates. Fanny Mae has had to reduce its prices in the secondary market. The basic long-term need is, of course, that the supply of funds for housing finance be increased and stabilized. These funds are today too much at the mercy of cyclical periods of capital shortages. FHA and Fanny Mae have some proposals under study, and are attempting to be innovative in this area. It is not only FHA and Fanny Mae actions that have grave implications for the fiscal and monetary conditions of the Nation. The fiscal and monetary policy deci sions of the Treasury, Budget, Council of Economic Advisers, and Federal Reserve crucially affect the mortgage market and the homebuilding industry. Positive actions are being taken to attract new sources of financing for mortgages for low- and moderate-income housing. Some months ago the life insurance industry pledged $1 billion for mortgages in our ghetto areas. We are exploring with leaders in the savings and loan field the possibility of stepping up their interest in similar investments. The mutual savings banks, long committed to activity in this field, also are now negotiating with us to become more involved in meeting the social needs that we all recognize. Better Neighborhoods Are Needed Besides being concerned with more and better housing, we must make the neighborhoods in which this housing stands more desirable. We must be concerned with the totality of peoples’ environment. This means, of course, adequate public facilities. But it also includes the myriad of personal and human services that urban life requires. We need to pay special attention to cultural facilities and activities, the open spaces, the relationships of the various parts to one another—and last, but not least, to speed the flow of traffic and mass transit. Better Technology Is Needed In the technology of housing and urban development, there is today a shelf of essentially unused new concepts, methods, materials, and techniques awaiting widespread and effective application. One barrier to their wide use is that many of our institutions act as impediments to change. There may be a zoning regulation that permits only one home per acre, a building code that prohibits drywall construction, a tax structure that contains little penalty for holding land undeveloped while waiting for a rise in values, and so forth. The Federal Government has recognized the importance of these institutional barriers and a National Commission on Urban Problems, under the chairmanship of former Senator Paul Douglas, is conducting a study of these problems and making appropriate recommendations. Equally important are economic barriers. On the drawing board or in the laboratory, a prototype structure or method of construction may suggest that mass production would result in significant reduction of unit costs. But seldom has this reduction come about. The failure to reduce cost may result from the inability to find a mass market. Financing for mass production and marketing may be inadequate. Or it may be the disinclination of the public to accept a new product or a new method. In any event, of many “breakthroughs” structurally feasible and not blocked by institutional impediments, only a small number so far have been economically possible in terms of a large enough market to produce economies of scale. It would be short-sighted and pessimistic to asume that we will not achieve significant technological advances in housing and other forms of construction. If we are able to come to grips realistically with institutional impediments, and if we allocate reasonable resources for research and development, we can soon arrest the trend toward increasing cost of construction. This could, rather quickly, result in better housing for no higher initial and long-term cost than we now pay for a lesser product. 105 Transportation Planning Is Needed The magnitude of the job of transporting 200 million people and the goods they produce and consume— especially when they move through urban areas—makes one shudder. In the next century, the generations after us will be inhabiting a Nation of super-sized urban areas—for better or worse, depending on what this generation does about urban problems. We cannot know in detail yet how those areas will look, or how well they will function. We need not catalog the evils, ailments, and discomforts of the Nation’s urban mass transit condition today. Perhaps the most important overall achievement we seek is the development of a national policy and program that puts urban mass transportation into the vital place that it ought to have in the total development of an urbanizing America. Transportation has not had that integral place in the past. The arithmetic of future population growth alone dictates that we cannot go on permitting transit and urban development to proceed indifferently to each other. Or, rather, we could, but we know what the results would be. They would be more of the history lessons we should have learned from the past: that is, cities choking on more traffic than they had planned for; or cities wasting away because transit services are not situated Where the people are; or urban areas sprouting along highways without enough regard for whether either the highways or the new developments make much sense to each other. Citizen Participation Is Needed As we look ahead to the next five or ten crucial years and outline the goals we must achieve if we are to realize our potential and keep the promises we have made to our so ciety, we see that the realization of these goals will require not only a massive and coordinated effort by all levels of government and private enterprise, but also by the citizens of the country. But we cannot expect the order of cooperation we need from our citizens unless they are well informed. We must have a citizenry truly concerned with every man’s right to live with dignity and in freedom in a society where there is equal opportunity for all. New Communities Are Needed Perhaps the most significant instrument for testing, demonstrating and ultimately evaluating new urban concepts will be the construction of entirely new communities. These can be a vehicle for detailed planning of most aspects of urban life, an opportunity to provide new arrangements for urban living. People can see what can be done. They will not only recognize that more is possible for urban America, but they will also be prompted to demand more of urban America. In such an environment it should be possible to include patterns of living that will help achieve economic and ethnic diversity—two of the greatest needs of urban America today. It is now apparent that if there are to be new communities in this country, there will have to be new sources of long-term financing. Some forms of Federal financial involvement, over and above what now exists, will be required. Any such support must require social and economic diversification as a condition for its availability. A Land Policy Is Needed It is hard to believe that this country has never had a land policy. A Nation that is to double its population in less than half a century has to be concerned about land as well as people. The essence of urban life is a concentration of people in a limited area. Although new communities are an exciting prospect, most of our new population growth will be contiguous to existing cities. The question remains how this growing urbanization will occur. It could be more uncoordinated, haphazard scatterization that will waste valuable land, complicate transportation, involve unnecessary and uneconomic expenditures for facilities, and duplicate the worst features of current suburbia. But the other alternative begins with an awareness of land use, a concern for preserving open space and developing effective patterns of site development. In brief, it recognizes that man should and can control his physical environment. Advanced Acquisition of Land Is Needed Urban land use in this Nation is haphazard. The need for an urban land policy is clear. Its roots are the requirements of a rapidly urbanizing society. It calls for recognition of the key role of planning, and of the necessity to initiate new instruments. One instrument obviously needed is a program for advanced acquisition of land. This program would involve the optioning or purchasing of land now unused or in agricultural use but clearly destined for urbanization within the next few years or decades. Advanced acquisition of land for urban development by State or local agencies would not only facilitate land use controls but also come to grips with the matter of land price. By early optioning or purchase of sites for urban expansion, speculative land prices can be avoided and the cost of shelter can be reduced. The increase in land value, created primarily by 106 social and public action, would be passed on to the people who have created it. Concurrently, the cost to the taxpayers for building schools and other public facilities, and preserving open space, would be appreciably lessened. We must realize that proliferating local governments cannot be effective in controlling land use. The Federal Government is equally impotent, because of constitutional limitations and tradition. Thus, the States are the only instrument for dealing with the matter. The Federal role is one of setting standards, articulating objectives, and providing inducements to the States. But time is running out. We should at once start the discussion, develop the programs, and begin the colloquy. Greater Participation by Industry Is Needed In recent months, there has seemed to be a wide acceptance of the desirability of greater involvement by private enterprise in urban problems, especially housing for the urban poor. Currently private sponsorship of such housing is largely carried out by nonprofit, or limited-profit, or cooperative bodies. This kind of sponsorship is necessary to assure that the subsidies actually will be used to keep the rents low and actually benefit low- and moderate-income families rather than simply augment the sponsor’s profits. The limited-profit sponsor is attracted by the returns he can receive on a limited amount of cash outlay. These potential returns on a relatively limited investment are attracting an increasing number of competent and reasonably efficient developers. Also, there has been a slow but significant emergence of other sponsors who seek no profit at all. Some are union groups, many are churches, and others are community groups. While few of them develop expertise in construction, they do benefit from an opportunity for citizen participation in planning, financial arrangements, management, and the like. They have often taken the lead in training and employing indigenous labor for construction. One of the lessons we have learned in the rent supplement and moderate-income housing programs is that the more sophisticated and better financed limiteddividend sponsors can and do move more quickly and at higher volume than most nonprofit groups. Thus, if a larger volume of construction, quickly initiated and rapidly completed, is the goal, the limited-dividend entrepreneur is by far the most effective sponsor. And he can be, as he has been, induced or required to hire indigenous labor. The same applies to entrepreneurship. Housing is needed— now. We must use the tools that will provide the maximum volume of decent housing as quickly as possible. This means using all the sponsorship forms currently available. But we also must encourage nonprofit and cooperative sponsors, in part to stimulate ownership and citizen involvement. We can use some new financial tools in the ghettos, not only as instruments for training and employing craftsmen, but also for training the entrepreneur and teaching management skills. The instrument for doing this is at hand. It is the Model Cities program. New Resources Are Needed Under the Model Cities program, we expect a scale and scope of construction and reconstruction that will challenge the capacity of exist ing resources. We must develop new and hitherto undeveloped resources. It is possible to use Model Cities funds to develop new entrepreneurs and managers, as well as craftsmen and mechanics, and it is expected that in many cities the funds will be so used. In most Model Cities, where planning will include the people in the affected neighborhoods so that they will develop a better understanding of the available alternatives, there will emerge a demand for a balanced housing program. This will facilitate both rapid upgrading of shelter and significant training in all phases of housing planning, sponsorship, production, and management. A New National Effort Is Needed The magnitude of the job ahead— to house our people adequately, to provide the facilities and services they need, and to construct new urban settings—is so great that we can only meet those demands with a new level of national effort. There are many theories about the future of urban America. At one extreme is the conviction that our cities are destined for destruction. At the other extreme is the belief that all we need to revitalize our cities is the will to do so. The real answer probably lies somewhere in between these two extremes. We must, of course, repudiate the notion that we should just accept the inevitable decline of the city. Nor can we delude ourselves that we have the means to correct all urban ills—physical and social. But we can do a great deal to arrest the blight that engulfs so many of our communities and revitalize them so that they once again become dynamic, living organisms. We can devote the energies and the resources necessary to make 107 our cities attractive and desirable places to live, and work, and visit. We can remake our cities so that they provide an urban environment that meets man’s needs. The immediate problems of our slums and ghettos are manifest. They are the consequences of years—indeed generations—of dis crimination, deprivation, and neglect. While most middle-class Americans deplore violence in the streets and find it difficult to understand why there are cries of Black Power, few fail to comprehend that central cities have severe and pressing problems. Many long ago fled the core area; others are confused; but few fail to recognize that a social revolution is in process. They may not be prepared to face the necessity for radical and curative action, but they do comprehend that something has to be done in our central cities if urban America is to survive and prosper. The first Rent Supplement Housing development consisting of entirely new construction was opened in Boston in August. Charlame Park Homes is a 38-unit 221(d)(3) development to house Rent Supplement tenants. It is built on urban renewal land (Washington Park Project). It thus incorpo- rates three HUD Programs in providing housing for low-income families. Sponsor of the housing is the First African Methodist Episcopal Society of Boston. The FHA mortgage insurance is in the amount of $612,600. 108 Job counseling and health guidance—major services in HUD-assisted neighborhood centers. U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1968 O—308-901 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C., 20402 - Price $1.25 110 HD 7293 .A4844 1967 UD05 EM557M&1 fl