Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
16988025
label
Housing (7)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
16988025
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Housing (7)
citationUrl
collections
James M. Cannon Files (Ford Administration)
James Cannon's Issues Files
subjects
Housing
Legislation
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
16988025
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1976-12-31
month
12
year
1976
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1976-09-01
month
9
year
1976
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
35160475860f3fb9
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 18, folder "Housing (7)" of the James M.
Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box 18 of the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
CC: Quern
McConahey
May
THE WHITE HOUSE
Fletcher
WASHINGTON
October 2, 1976
file
1976 OCT 2 PM 3 34
Housing /
neighborhoods
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CANNON
FROM:
JIM CONNOR JEE
SUBJECT:
Governor Milliken
The President reviewed your memorandum of September 30
on suggestions made by Governor Milliken and made the
following notation:
"I think, if possible, we should visit an Inner City
neighborhood in Detroit or Chicago."
Please follow-up with appropriate action.
FGRD is LIBRARY GERALD
cc: Dick Cheney
Jerry Jones
100208
Housing
I. May
ACTION REQUESTED
October 2, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CAVANAUGH
PAUL O'NEILL
BILL BAROODY
FROM:
FRED SLIGHT
FNF
SUBJECT:
Article Request
The President has been requested to comment upon several
position papers issued by the American Institute of Architects
for publication in their newsletter as well as distribution
to their upcoming convention's attendees.
Attached at Tab A are the AIA position papers for which
responses have been drafted. The draft comments, prepared
by the Department of HUD's public information office, are
attached at Tab B for your review.
Inasmuch as the extended submission date for publication
is Tuesday, October 5, I would appreciate your comments and/or
suggestions by 12:00 noon, Tuesday, October 5. Again, I
regret this extremely quick turnaround requested.
Thank you for your cooperation and assistance.
Attachments
FORD LIBRARY & GERALD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
DATE: 10/5
TO:
FRED SLIGHT
FROM:
ALLEN MOORE
SUBJECT: Article Request
sent to Jim Cavanaugh
ACTION:
GREATO 51: TOAD LIBRARY
FYI:
Attached is an edited version
of the AIA material.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 5, 1976
TO:
LYNN MAY
FROM:
GLENN Glern SCHLEEDE
SUBJECT:
Article Request
The HUD statement is a bit too bureaucratic
and promotional of pet Federal agency
efforts -- rather than promotional and
supportive of private efforts. I recommend
changing it as marked up on the attached.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 5, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
ALLEN MOORE
FROM:
LYNN MAY
h
SUBJECT:
Article Request
Per your request, I am returning the edited comments to the
position papers of the American Institute of Architects.
Please note that Sarah Massengale suggests the substitution
of a statement prepared for the Historical Trust Newsletter
to the response on Historical Trust prepared by HUD.
Glenn Schleede has not returned his comments on the section
on Saving Energy in the Built Environment.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
washington
10/6/76
TO: JIM CANNON
7 PM 14
5
FORD
&
LIBRARY
LIBR
1976 OCT
Robert NDL D. Linder
Homory
Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation
WASHINGTON
1522 K Street N.W.
THE WHITE HOUSE
RECEP. AND SECURITY UNIT
HAND DELIVERED
1976 OCT 6 AM 10 04
Washington, D.C. 20005
October 4, 1976
The President
The White House
Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. President:
I am writing to advise you of the recommendations of the Advisory
RN
Council on Historic Preservation concerning the "Public Buildings
Cooperative Use Act of 1976" which passed the Senate on October 1,
1976, and was sent to you for approval.
The Council strongly supports the Public Buildings Cooperative Use
Act and recommends that you sign this bill into law.
At its meeting on May 7th and 8th, 1975, the Council reviewed the
provisions of this legislation, as then proposed, and voted
unanimously to endorse early enactment of the legislation. The
Council finds that the bill as passed by the Congress is consistent
with the Congressional declaration of national historic preservation
policy, articulated in the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,
that "the historical and cultural foundations of the Nation should be
preserved as a living part of our community life and development in
order to give a sense of orientation to the American people."
Further, the Council's experience with regard to the reuse of historically
and architecturally significant buildings confirms the validity of the
approach of this bill to the revitalization of urban areas, to energy
and resource conservation, and to labor intensive employment. The con-
cept of reusing historically, culturally or architecturally significant
buildings for new purposes has gained considerable currency. While
there are examples of Federal government reuse of existing structures,
most notably here in Washington, the Federal government has not agres-
sively pursued adaptive use of historic buildings to meet its current
space needs. Favorable action on this bill would direct the Federal
government, through the General Services Administration, to take a
positive approach to incorporating the useful elements of our past into
our lives today. Such action would fulfill the government's duty to
provide leadership in the conservation and preservation of our cultural
heritage. It would also affirm the government's commitment to an
economy based on conservation rather than consumption.
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
100717
The Council is an independent unit of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government charged by the Act of
October 15, 1966 to advise the President and Congress in the field of Historic Preservation.
Activities undertaken in response to this bill can and will be an
example for communities across the Nation. The plans currently pro-
posed by the National Endowment for the Arts to adaptively use the
01d Post Office on Pennsylvania Avenue here in Washington are aimed
at providing the Endowment with needed office space, providing a show-
case for their activities, and indeed at contributing new vitality to
the surrounding downtown area. The Federal government's creative
reuse of an existing structure could have an important effect on
revitalizing and enhancing not only individual structures but whole
neighborhoods and communities.
A recent special report prepared by the Advisory Council surveyed con-
struction costs involved in adaptive use projects. In part, the report
concluded that based on construction cost data "adaptive use stands as
an equally feasible alternative to meet the space needs of a tenant
Adaptive use projects not only reward the investors and the occupants,
but also the community by being the primary ingredients of an urban
conservation theme. This fresh new look at the urban fabric has the
potential of redefining and reestablishing the promise of America's
cities."
The Public Buildings Cooperative Use Act has received the endorsement
of the American Institute of Architects, the National Endowment for
the Arts, and virtually every major historic preservation organization
throughout the United States, including the National Trust for Historic
Preservation. The legislation has also been supported by the General
Services Administration, the agency that would be most affected by the
bill.
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation is pleased to join with
these agencies and organizations in recommending that you sign the
Public Buildings Cooperative Use Act.
Sincerely yours,
Silvestro
Clement M. Silvestro
Chairman
GERALE FORD
Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation
POSTAGE AND FEES PAID
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
1522 K Street N.W.
INT-417
Washington, D.C. 20005
U.S.MAIL
The President
The White House
Washington, D.C.
,
INFORMATION
Housing
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
1976 OCT 11 PM 12 11
October 8, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CANNON
FROM:
LYNN MAY hym or
SUBJECT:
Chad Minifee
FYI. The HUD Regional Office in Boston at my request
cleared up the impediments to the commencement of the restoration
of the area around Trinity Church in Newport, Rhode Island.
Mr. Minifee is grateful and sends his regards.
I
FORD LIBRARY is SERALD
101101
INFORMATION
DOMESTIC COUNCIL
file
FROM:
GOVERNOR Mills Godwin
Housing
SUBJECT:
Telegram to the President re:
Section 8 housing authorizations
10/18/76
Date:
COMMENTS:
Godwin has been informed that HUD
has made no 1977 authorizations
to finance mortgage loans from
state housing financing agencies
under Section 8.
He seeks reconsideration of this apparent
decision.
Lynn May is preparing a response.
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
ACTION:
Date:
FYI
Jmc-
This is from Governor
Godwin. Acopy was
sent to Lynn may.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
10.18.76
K
TO: Jim Cannon
For Your Information:
For Appropriate Handling:
\
nwc
Robert D. Linder
101902
FORD LIBRARY s GERALD
Thite House
2
3
#H3080(1848) (2-038389A292)PD 10/18/76 1844
4
ICS IPMNAWB WSH
1976 OCT 18 PM 8 06
5
6
09154 NAC003 (1603) (2-024508C292) 10-18
7
PMS RELAY 01151 RICHMOND VIR 242 10-18 0421P EDT
8
9
THE HONORABLE GERALD R FORD, PRESIDENT
10
WHITEHOUSE DC
11
12
I HAVE BEEN INFORMED THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
13
DEVELOPMENT HAS MADE NO 1977 AUTHORIZATION TO FINANCE MORTGAGE
14
15
LOANS FROM STATE HOUSING FINANCE AGENCIES UNDER SECTION 8 OF THE
16
HOUSING ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS PROGRAM. AS THE VIRGINIA HOUSING
17
18
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (VHDA) IS THE PRINCIPAL AGENCY FOR PROVIDING
19
LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING IN VIRGINIA I MUST ADVISE THAT
20
21
THIS DECISION IS OF MAJOR CONCERN TO US.
22
I FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT THERE MAY BE SOME FUNDING FOR STATE
23
24
HOUSING FINANCE AGENCIES DURING FISCAL YEAR 1977- FROM FUNDS
25
CARRIED OVER FROM PRIOR FISCAL YEARS. HOWEVER, THIS IS NO
26
02061
4
5
6
SUBSTITUTE FOR THE UTILIZATION OF FISCAL 77 AUTHORIZATION FOR
7
STATE AGENCIES.
8
9
AS A MATTER OF BACKGROUND, SINCE THE INCEPTION OF THE SECTION
10
8 PROGRAM, HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS FINANCED BY VHDA ACCOUNT FOR
11
12
84-9/0 OF ALL RESERVATIONS OF SECTION 8 CONTRACT AUTHORITY, AND
13
100-0/0 OF ALL CONSTRUCTION STARTS IN VIRGINIA. I CITE THESE
14
15
FIGURES TO DEMONSTRATE HOW IMPORTANT IT IS FOR THE SUCCESS OF THE
16
SECTION 8 PROGRAM THAT STATE AGENCIES, SUCH AS VHDA CONTINUE
17
18
TO RECEIVE SET-ASIDES OF SECTION 8 FUNDS FROM HUD.
19
I STRONGLY URGE YOU AND SECRETARY HILLS TO RECONSIDER
20
21
THE DECISION OF NOT ALLOCATING SECTION 8 CONTRACT AUTHORITY
22
TO STATE HOUSING FINANCE AGENCIES. INSTEAD, I URGE YOU TO
23
24
SPECIFICALLY SET ASIDE ON A NATIONAL BASIS SUFFICIENT FUNDS FOR
25
SUCH AGENCIES TO CONTINUE TO MAKE SECTION 8 A MEANINGFUL PROGRAM
26
1
2
3
RALD GERALDR LIBRARY FORD
4
5
6
TO PROVIDE LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING.
7
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE.
=
9
CC: THE HONORABLE CARLA A HILLS
10
MILLS E GODWIN JR
11
12
GOVERNOR
13
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
14
15
16
NNNN
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 28, 1976
Dear Chad:
That was a nice letter you sent to
Lynn May.
I am glad that things worked out
so well and that we could be of
some help to you.
lom 8 This Best his regards. used Sincerely, The childen
James M. Cannon
Assistant to the President
for Domestic Affairs
The Reverend Charles J. Minifie
Trinity Church
FORD LIBRA 078833
P.O. Box 359
Newport, Rhode Island 02840
- nice letter you sent to lynn May
Housing
- Glad we could be ofsome help
TRINITY CHURCH
that Ark in Durti + housing
POST OFFICE Box 359
NEWPORT, RHODE ISLAND 02840
THE REVEREND CHARLES J. MINIFIE
Parish Office
Rector
27 CHURCH STREET
TEL. 401-846-0660
THE REVEREND D. LORNE COYLE
Assistant
Mr. Lynn May
Associate Director Domestic Council
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Lynn:
On behalf of Trinity Church, Miss Doris
Duke and the people of Newport, I write to
express our deepest gratitude to you for all
that you did in expediting HUD's approval of
Queen Anne Square.
As I explained to you on the telephone
when I first told you of the problem, a long
delay because of the HUD mixup very probably
would have caused the project's demise. Quite
frankly, those of us who knew about the prob-
lem were afraid that the latest delay would
have been the straw that broke the camel's
back. So, as you can see, we owe you our
hearty thanks for all that you did!
This letter comes to you with my deep
appreciation, warm best wishes and greetings,
Sincerely yours,
Chy
Charles J. Minifie
24 October 1976
Jun Many, many thanks!
FORD i LIBRARI 07V839
102704
housing
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 28, 1976
Dear Carla:
I like your vigor and I like your
style.
This is an excellent letter.
Sincerely
James M. Cannon
Assistant to the President
for Domestic Affairs
Honorable Carla A. Hills
Secretary of the Department
of Housing and Urban
Development
Washington, D.C.
FORD LIBREST i GERALD
CC: Quern
May
DEPARTMENT
OF
U.S.
HOUSING
*
THE SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
AND
WASHINGTON, D. C.. 20410
URBAN
October 22, 1976
1976 OCT 25 PM 3 03
Mr. John B. Oakes
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Editorial Page Editor
The New York Times
New York, New York
Dear Mr. Oakes:
For the second time in four weeks, a New York Times
editorial on housing contains glaring errors and mistaken
assumptions that distort the issue.
I replied to the September 19 editorial. The editorial
of October 21 contains such an extraordinary collection of mis-
statements that I am compelled to respond again.
First, the errors.
You state flatly that "only 15 percent of American
families can afford a new median priced home. " That
figure, widely discredited by economists of both political
parties, has been contradicted by actual home purchases.
The truth is that 65 percent of Americans own their
homes and the trend is up. Homeownership expanded during
the 1970's four times as fast as it did in the 1960's.
The rate rose between 1960-1970 from 62 to 63 percent, and
in the four years between 1970-1974 from 63 to 65 percent.
Your statement on increased home prices is a half truth.
The other half is that family incomes have increased at the
same rate as home prices. Since 1968, the median new home
price and median family income have both risen by 59 percent.
In the same period, the size of homes has expanded and home
quality has substantially improved. Increases in purchasing
power, in short, have kept up with increased home costs, a
fact totally ignored in your editorial.
You insist we have a "depressed housing market". The
facts are the opposite. More new single family homes were
started in the first nine months of 1976 than in all of last
year or in all of 1974, 1970, 1969, 1968, 1967 or 1966. If
we don't build another new house this year, the total for
1976 will still be the fourth best year in a decade, quite
contrary to your statement that "the number of new housing
starts has slumped in the last three years to the lowest
levels since World War II."
102604
-2-
GERALD
The major false assumption of the editorial is that
"a high volume of production" will solve the housing problems
of the nation's lower and middle income families.
Artificial stimulation of the market pursuant to the
Housing Act of 1968 created great pockets of overproduction
in this country, which we are just now working off. Over-
production fostered the notion that we could discard our
existing urban assets, and that we could throw away slightly
tarnished city housing for the shiny new, further out. Those
notions created urban sprawl, abandonment in our cities and
too often turned sound urban housing into boarded and empty
deteriorating blight.
Today, we are far more effectively meeting existing and
rapidly developing needs through coordinated community develop-
ment, neighborhood revitalization, housing rehabilitation and
rental subsidy policies of President Ford, working with the
private market. Administration policies are moving us toward
more homeownership, lower interest rates, fewer foreclosures
and better housing quality. Our faith in the private market
is balanced by an awareness of our responsibilities to sub-
sidized markets into which the Administration has pumped $15
billion in mortgage assistance from 1974 through 1976.
Your other errors are equally grievous.
You compare a 6 percent interest rate of the 1960's to
a 10 percent rate as though 10 percent reflected credit avail-
able today. In fact, the Ford Administration has lowered the
Federal mortgage rate to 8 percent in line with the current
market. It was able to do so because of its successful fight
to reduce double-digit inflation.
Your statistics on housing deprivation are more than
double the actual numbers. The number of inadequate units
is lower than ever before and is declining steadily.
Finally, the Times again notes only the vetoed, not the
enacted, version of the 1975 Emergency Housing Act. That
Presidential veto was supported not only by Republicans but
also by knowledgeable Democrats including the Chairman of the
House Urban Subcommittee who called it "a turkey that could
never fly."
8.005
is
-3-
RALD
You ignore the new bill, introduced the day after the
veto. This improved bill is now law, a fact also unmentioned
by the Times editorial.
The vetoed bill was a bad one.
So is the writer of housing editorials of the Times, I
reluctantly conclude.
Sincerely,
Carla A. Hills
CC: Arthur Sulzberger
Publisher
bcc: Ron Nessen
William Greener
L. William Seidman
James Cannon
file
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 4, 1976
MEMO FOR: LYNN MAY
FROM:
SUBJECT: Legislative Program for HUD
JIM CANNON Dm
Please look this over and identify for
me in a brief memo the key points of
concern.
Attachment
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Card
REQUEST
INFORMATION
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 976 NOV 9, 10 1976 PM
3
17
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CANNON
Thanks Lymn
FROM:
LYNN MAY 1ym
SUBJECT:
Addendum to HUD Legislative Program
give
Per your request, I have reviewed the additional legislative
proposals submitted by HUD in an October 21, 1976 memo to
Jim Lynn. The first two items are of relatively minor
importance. The first would amend language of a 1965 Housing
Law to correspond to the language of a 1974 Act. The second
would exempt modular homes from being classified as mobile
homes if they meet certain criteria, thus freeing modular
homes from the zoning and financial restrictions facing
mobile homes.
The third proposal-- expanding the homesteading program to
include structures of more than four units -- is significant
because it would expand the housing stock open to homesteading.
HUD has not committed itself to this course but is holding
it under consideration.
FORD LIBRARY & CERRID
111006
Cannon
U.S. DEPARTMENT * UNBAN OF HOUSING * AMD
THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20410
OCT 21 1976
Honorable James T. Lynn
Director
Office of Management and Budget
Washington, D. C. 20503
Dear Mr. Lynn:
Subject: HUD Legislative Program, 95th Congress
On October 4, I forwarded to you this Department's legislative
program for the first session of the 95th Congress. Subsequent
to this submission, the Department has adopted two other pro-
posals, copies of which are enclosed. These should be added
to Part II of our October 4 legislative program package, as
items 95-40 and 95-41. I would also like to advise you of
an additional proposal relating to urban homesteading which
we are now considering. A brief description of this is
enclosed which should be added as item 16 to the listing of
proposals "under consideration" which was included in our
October 4 package.
Sincerely,
/s/ Robert R. Elliott
Robert R. Elliott
Enclosures
FORD LIBRARY & GERALD
porto
95-40. Technical Amendment of Income Limits Under Rent
Supplement Program. This proposal would amend section
101 (c) (1) of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965
to provide that income limits for qualified tenants be
established pursuant to section 3(2) of the United States
Housing Act of 1937, rather than pursuant to section 2(2)
and 15 (7) (b) (ii) of the 1937 Act as under existing law.
The proposal would take into account amendments to the 1937
Act made by the Housing and Community Development Act of
1974, eliminating the requirement under section 15 (7) (b) (ii)
that there be a 20 percent gap between the upper rental
limits for admission to low-rent housing and the lowest
rentals provided by private housing, and substituting the
section 3 (2) definition of low-income families for that
contained under former section 2(2). Application of the
former sections 2 and 15 eligibility standards to the rent
supplement program would result in income limits substantially
below those now approvable for low income housing. The
proposal would correct the current failure of section 101 to
include the 1974 amendments and reflect the original intent
of section 101 of establishing the same income limits for
rent supplement and low income housing projects.
R.FOOT
RALD
95-41. Authority to Exempt Modular Homes From National
Mobile Home Construction Standards. This proposal would
amend the National Mobile Home Construction and Safety
Standards Act of 1974 to authorize the Secretary to exempt
modular homes in whole or in part from the provision of
the Act if manufactured in accordance with acceptable
modular housing standards. The definition of mobile homes
under section 603 (6) of the Act may now technically be
applicable to such structures if constructed on a permanent
chassis, although there is no indication that Congress
actually contemplated that the Act so apply. Generally,
modular housing is manufactured to nationally recognized
building codes or to State or local codes that are
substantially similar to codes covering stick-built housing,
and are treated as stick-built housing for zoning and
financing purposes. Industry comments indicate that modular
homes cannot economically meet both mobile home and modular
home standards, and that if modulars are required to have
mobile home labels, they will be subject to the same zoning
and financing restrictions as mobile homes.
GERALD
16. Amendment of section 810 of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974 to authorize transfer of multi-
family properties for use in urban homestead programs. The
program is now restricted by statute to 1 to 4 family
dwellings. The proposal is designed to permit transfer to
local governments of larger structures, typically walk-ups
which could be conveyed to cooperative associations.
DEPARTMENT OF MOUSING *
Housing
THE SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
AND
WASHINGTON, D. C.. 20410
URBAN
DEC 6 1976
976 DEC 7 AM 10 42
MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
GERALD R. FOR
FROM:
Carla A. Hills
As you requested, I have looked into Belding, Michigan's
participation in our Community Development Block Grant program.
Under either OMB's or HUD's proposal, Belding's hold-harmless
allocation will phase down to zero in 1980; and, because it is
a community of less than 50,000, it has no formula participation
under anyone's proposal.
We are very concerned that the current formula favored by
OMB is heavily biased against older large cities. These cities
will receive dramatically less funding with the expiration of
hold-harmless. Yet, these are the very cities identified as
having the greatest relative needs in HUD's study of the formula,
and by the President's Committee, Brookings Institution, the
Urban Institute and the Conference of Mayors.
A few examples will indicate the magnitude of this problem.
FY-77
1980 Funding
Formula Entitlement
City
Funding
Under OMB Plan
Under HUD Plan 1/
Lansing, Michigan
6,169
2,029
5,696
Newark, New Jersey
19,508
11,122
26,153
Flint, Michigan
7,608
3,543
13,448
Baltimore, Maryland
29,042
20,651
38,740
Boston, Massachusetts
28,993
13,032
34,769
Akron, Ohio
9,819
4,453
9,033
San Francisco, California
28,430
14,031
31,851
($ in thousands)
1/
Estimates are based on current unemployment. Funding would
decrease as unemployment decreases.
120701
-2-
I believe it is of the greatest importance that you, your
Administration and our party not appear insensitive to the well-
documented needs of our major metropolitan areas.
However, recognizing the need to balance the budget and the
problems of our older cities, we suggest a compromise. By
limiting funding for smaller communities outside the formula
allocation, we could reduce our budget request from $4.6 billion
to $4.2 billion and still implement our basic proposal.
CC: James T. Lynn
James M. Cannon
GERALD R.