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
1515972
label
Urban Policy (1)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1515972
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Urban Policy (1)
citationUrl
collections
James M. Cannon Files (Ford Administration)
James Cannon's Issues Files
subjects
Finance
Urban policy
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1515972
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1976-07-31
month
7
year
1976
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1975-07-01
month
7
year
1975
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
308676e7c1f227a5
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 39, folder "Urban Policy (1)" 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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.
Some items in this folder were not digitized because it contains copyrighted
materials. Please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library for access to
these materials.
Digitized from Box 39 of the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JULY 10, 1975
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
P New Review
PRESS CONFERENCE
OF
G voup File
WILLIAM E. SIMON
SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
Urban
MOON LANDRIEU
MAYOR OF THE
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS
AND
RALPH PERK
MAYOR OF THE
CITY OF CLEVELAND
THE BRIEFING ROOM
4:10 P.M. EDT
MR. NESSEN: I think you know basically how
the meeting of the mayors went. The President and Vice
President spoke first. You had an opportunity to see
that and film that.
Then there was a working session with Treasury
Secretary Simon presiding, and so Bill Simon is here;
also, Mayor Moon Landrieu, of New Orleans, who is the
President of the U.S. Conference of Mayors; and Mayor
Ralph Perk, of Cleveland, who is the head of the new
organization of Republican Mayors. They will talk to
you a little bit about their meeting and answer your
questions.
SECRETARY SIMON: Thank you, Ron.
We met for two hours upstairs, with roughly
the first hour spent with the President, the Vice
President, and my brief remarks -- and my remarks will
be passed out in a minute, and we will respond to any
questions.
Then, we spent the second hour -- and it is
still going on upstairs -- with give and take with all
of the participants in the meeting.
I would say that the major focus was on two
subjects: one, general revenue sharing and its possible
extensions, which we favor very strongly, and how it
can be done.
MORE
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
- 2 -
We discussed changes in the formula, potential
changes in the formulas to make it perhaps more equitable,
and the countercyclical proposal that has been under
discussion many times. We agreed to take another look
at the countercyclical proposal which we will do in a
very brief period of time.
I would like to call on the mayors to make
a very brief comment on the session we had, and then we
will open it up for any questions you might have, which
the three of us will be glad to answer.
Mayor Landrieu.
MR. LANDRIEU: Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
We are grateful to the President and the Council
for bringing this meeting together. We are going to
make an all-out effort, and that is what it is going
to take to re-enact general revenue sharing.
There has been much discussion over the past
several years about its effectiveness from students
of Government who have examined it from every angle.
Insofar as we are concerned, and I think insofar as most
of the reports are concerned, general revenue sharing
has been a smashing success.
There have been those who could find a fault
here or a fault there, or who could suggest in their
own judgments a formula which might do what they
individually might prefer to have done. But by and
large, in our judgment, it is the best program that the
Federal Government has enacted in the last 25 years, if
not more. It has certainly done everything that we had
hoped that it would do, and we very strongly support
its re-enactment.
We have very strong allies in the Governors
Conference, in the county officials, and certainly
with the leadership of the Administration we expect to
be successful in that.
We are also grateful that the Administration
gave us the opportunity to express our views with
respect to the anti-recession legislation which we have
been fostering.
Despite the fact that general revenue sharing
has been tremendously helpful to all units of Government
across this country, there are a number of units of
local governments that are very severely impacted by
the recession.
MORE
- 3 -
That does not appear to be a permanent
situation but many local governments are finding it
extremely difficult to maintain the basic level of police,
fire and sanitation services that are essential, if
those cities are not to rapidly deteriorate.
Secretary Simon indicated they will review their
position on that matter, as he stated quite appropriately
for himself, that we are not wed to any particular
kind of formula, or a particular amount, though we
have suggested that an area of $2 billion is an
appropriate formula that would put that money where
it is needed on those most heavily impacted cities.
That would be certainly extraordinarily beneficial to
this country.
So we leave today on a very positive note;
that is, one of total cooperation in terms of the
general revenue sharing, and hopefully coming together
on some immediate assistance for those heavily impacted
areas.
MR. PERK: The one conclusion we all came
out with is nearly every mayor in the country, whether
he be Republican, Democrat or independent, is solidly
behind President Ford's proposal for re-enactment of
revenue sharing. This appears to be the number one
priority in the minds of all the mayors throughout
the country and particularly those represented today
at the White House.
I believe that all of us gave President Ford
a very enthusiastic welcome and a standing ovation,
and all of you witnessed that, because when he talked
about revenue sharing he was talking about the very
heart of the cities, the very heart of the need of the
cities, but more important than the money that goes
with that is the fact that we are reestablishing and
continuing this important principle of returning Govern-
ment back to the people through revenue sharing, allowing
the people at the local level, the elected officials
at the local level to determine the priorities that are
best needed for their communities, and then let those
elected officials be responsible to the people locally
for the decisions that they make.
Now with respect to the countercyclical bill,
the one discussion that I think came out of that which
is extremely important is the fact that the Administration
agreed -- and I say the Administration because both
Mr. Simon and Jim Lynn said they would be willing to
look at some kind of a bill that might be of a compromise
nature.
MORE
- 4 -
This Administration in the White House has
proven itself not to be inflexible. This Administration
has proven itself to be willing to work with those on
the Hill, with the mayors, also, with the Governors,
the county officials, and because it is not inflexible
we believe that perhaps a countercyclical bill with a
different triggering percentage -- you see, at the moment,
as I understand the bill, it has a triggering of some
6.5 percent unemployment figure, to trigger the assistance.
Perhaps at 10 percent it might not be so
inflationary insofar as the Federal budget is concerned.
And yet, the cities with the greatest need would be
getting some assistance.
And there are cities where unemployment is
beyond the 10 percent level or above the 10 percent level,
and that would need that kind of assistance. I think
we have got to sit down with the Congressional leaders,
and with Congress, and work out -- and with the President
and the White House and work out some kind of a
compromise there.
But the important thing that all of us have
on our minds is that, number one, the Congress should be
passing revenue sharing and passing it immediately. And
then we can go on to the other issues to see where there
is greater need beyond what revenue sharing will provide
for the cities.
Q
May I ask whether, Secretary Simon, when
you agreed to review this request for $2 billion or so,
were you speaking for the President? Because a few
days ago we got the view here from the White House that
the President was not amenable to any additions.
SECRETARY SIMON: That is correct. We wrote
a letter to the chairman of the committee that proposed
that -- the name escapes me now, I can give it to you
because I have it in a folder -- with our arguments
against the countercyclical proposal as it had been
presented to us, grants to State and local governments
tied to unemployment levels would interfere primarily
with the national fiscal policy, the facts of the unemploy-
ment, State and local economic conditions, considering
them jointly.
Also, it would obviously increase the needed
borrowing on the part of the Federal Government. It is
only $2 billion, some people say.
MORE
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
- 5 -
This was pointed out upstairs, as Everett
Dirksen used to say, a billion here, a billion there,
and pretty soon we are talking about real money. That
is where we are. We are already facing a staggering
deficit. We have to make sure the monies we spend are
not going to be counterproductive.
Q
What have the mayors said?
SECRETARY SIMON: I said Jim Lynn and myself
have said we will take another look at that. I am
sure we will be testifying on this proposal in a very
short period of time so we will go to work and take
another look at the proposal.
Q
It sounds as though you will take another
look and say no, judging by what you said.
SECRETARY SIMON: I wouldn't pre-judge any
suggestions to the original proposal. That isn't to say
there couldn't be a proposal that would be acceptable
to us. I don't wish to encourage that notion. I don't
want to say pro or con or pre-judge the outcome of the
study.
Q
The mayors are encouraged. Are they
wrong to be encouraged?
SECRETARY SIMON: The mayors are encouraged
because we said that we would take another look at it
and rely on the discussion here in the Executive Branch.
They know full well, as Mayor Perk said, we have
exercised flexibility in the past.
As I said, I wouldn't want to pre-judge what
might be acceptable or whether the notion is acceptable
or not.
MR. PERK: All of us are so anxious to have
revenue sharing passed immediately so we can then debate
the other questions.
We would like to give our message to Congress.
The message should be to pass revenue sharing tomorrow,
if it is possible.
All the mayors there were asking, how do we
contact the committee chairman? How do we contact the
various influential Members of Congress so we can ask
them to pass revenue sharing immediately? Then we
can go on with these other issues. That is important.
MORE
- 6 -
Countercyclical is important to continue
to discuss and to find a common ground because there
are some cities with a very low level of unemployment,
but there are other cities with a very high level.
Q
Do you have reason to believe Congress is
not going to pass it?
MR. PERK: We have at the U.S. Conference of
Mayors -- the executive director told us by his count
about a week ago or two weeks ago we were short about
50 votes in the House. We believe we need some very
strong lobbying efforts on the part of the mayors, the
county officials and the Governors.
And we have the strongest coalition -- and I
like to refer to this as the Ford coalition because in
this particular case, the Ford Administration in trying
to hold together the Governors, the county officials
and the city officials, the mayors as a coalition for
the rapid re-enactment of revenue sharing is very
important to the cities. Unless it is passed very
quickly, we as mayors will not be able to determine
how to handle our budgets for 1976.
MORE
- 7 -
Q
Mayor Landrieu, is it the position of the
U.S. Conference of Mayors that first Congress should
extend revenue sharing and then consider anti-recession
aid to the cities?
MR. LANDRIEU: Our position has been that we
need three things now.
First of all, the first priority has always
been the re-enactment of general revenue sharing. The
question of timing on that is important to us because
many cities are now going into their budgetary process
and it is impossible under many city charters to budget
money that is not legally appropriated.
So, it makes it extraordinarily difficult and
counterproductive, really, for Congress to delay in
re-enacting revenue sharing.
Simultaneous with that, we have asked for and
have lobbied for, and will continue to do so, a counter-
recession piece of legislation that somehow or another
comes to the aid of those cities that are on the verge
of bankruptcy as a result of this recession. We have also
asked for a public works bill.
Q
Which is your priority?
MR. LANDRIEU: It is difficult to talk in terms
of priority unless you listen carefully to what I say
about the timing. General revenue sharing is the number
one priority of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, has been
and will continue to be.
But simultaneous with that -- and that does
not expire for another year -- is the immediate passage of
a countercyclical bill. We are not talking about a counter-
cyclical bill that puts money in all cities across this
country. We are only talking about one that would help
very significantly those that are on the verge of
severe financial crisis or in severe financial crisis.
Of course, you have read ef any number of
those that are in that position.
Q
Would a 10 percent unemployment trigger
be acceptable to the conference?
MR. LANDRIEU: I can't respond to that, and I
wouldn't expect the Administration to respond to that at
this point, either. We came with a feeling that up to
this point we had had a no and, of course, we are happy
over the fact that we have now gotten at least a look-see,
if not at that particular proposal that has been made, at
one that is similar to it, if on a different formula and
on a reduced basis.
MORE
- 8 -
The Administration certainly expressed its
concern and as I know it had to be concerned and the
President has been sensitive to the plights of some of
those cities, that are on the verge of bankruptcy.
Q
When the bill has a $2 million figure
in it and the Secretary has spoken of a compromise, how
little money will this cost?
MR. LANDRIEU: We have not discussed the question
of a compromise.
Q
He did. I think the Secretary did just
now.
MR. LANDRIEU: We made a suggestion that the
Administration re-evaluate -- Mayor Perk was one of our
spokesmen in this regard -- its position on the counter-
cyclical legislation.
There is a definite proposal there. The Admin-
istration did not lead us to believe that they would
immediately reverse themselves and support that legis-
lation. They did indicate that they understood the
problem, were concerned about it and would review their
position and perhaps could see their way clear to some
kind of a bill with a different triggering mechanism.
I don't take that, and I don't think any mayor
did, as a reversal of the Administration's position or
as support of a countercyclical bill. We also expressed
to the Administration, at least I might say I did, that
we felt so strongly about the countercyclical bill that
we would go it alone if we had to, although we under-
stood the pitfalls in that and how difficult it would
be. We had no choice.
Q
If you had about a $2 billion and a 10
percent figure, roughly how many cities could you reach?
MR. LANDRIEU: I couldn't begin to tell you
that. It would be a distribution factor. Until you
computerize it and quantify all of those elements, no
human being could tell you what it would look like.
MR. PERK: I might mention that question by
saying I mentioned 10 percent, Mayor Coleman Young said
15 percent would satisfy him because he has 22 percent
unemployment.
Q
What I am getting at, is this aid something
that would help cities in really dire straits like New
York, Detroit, or is it something that would be spread
over 50 or 60?
MORE
- 9 -
MR. PERK: It was made rather clear to us at
the White House Conference of Mayors that the unemploy-
ment is spread pretty evenly across the country today.
A year ago the unemployment was in various pockets of
the country, such as the larger cities, but now it is
spread kind of evenly across the country, so I would
imagine, regardless of where you set the figure, if it
can be a compromise, those in need will be receiving
some additional funding.
I would like to see something like 10 percent.
That was only a suggestion. I don't know how much money
that would involve because we weren't talking about
reducing the amount of money in the actual bill. We
were talking about changing the language and perhaps
changing the triggering mechanism.
That was not agreed upon by anyone. It wasn't
opposed by anyone. It was merely a discussion.
MR. LANDRIEU: I am speaking for a group of
mayors. I wouldn't want it to be assumed that we have
altered our position in support of a $2 billion bill
triggered at 6 percent. We haven't, nor have we spoken
other than just generally about the need for that kind of
bill, about any kind of compromise.
All we have asked the Administration to do is
to re-evaluate its position.
SECRETARY SIMON: I would like to comment on
both subjects very briefly, relative to a question,
Helen, I believe you asked, about is revenue sharing in
danger of being enacted in the Congress.
Yes, we are going to have problems enacting
revenue sharing in the Congress. I don't think that that
is a very surprising thing. It is not a surprise. It
is well known to you the philosophy of this Administration
that we desire to reduce the role of the Federal Govern-
ment and the turning of the decision-making, as Mayor
Perk said, back to the State and local Governments.
We consider revenue sharing as a critical
priority in this Administration, that the State and
local Governments have a better ability to understand
their own priorities than the Federal bureaucracy does.
They can do it more efficiently, cheaper and it
is the direction this country should go.
Is this really the way many Congressmen feel?
Perhaps not.
MORE
- 10 -
Q
They are down on their knees now and they
have had revenue sharing and they are asking for $2
billion more and you are turning them down.
SECRETARY SIMON: We are talking about revenue
sharing, which is an ongoing extension of a five and
three-quarter program which doesn't expire for another
two years. The notion Congress would be giving $39
billion out in one block, in voting the extension on
revenue sharing vis-a-vis the usual way they give
money out, or $500 million here, a billion there, for
sewers, they seem to pick up more chits for that type
spending.
Obviously, it is going to be more difficult,
but we intend to work with the mayors and with the
Governors, and State and local Governments in getting an
enactment of that program.
Countercyclical has an additional problem
I didn't mention. We are concerned about the Congress-
ional support for revenue sharing being watered down if
we go for the countercyclical proposal. They might
change revenue sharing, reduce the amount, or just not
extend it, saying we have done this for State and local
Government.
Look what we are doing for State and local
Governments now. Almost $60 billion is going to the
State and local Governments this year directly. That
includes the money for revenue sharing as well.
MORE
- 11 -
Q
What response did you get to your public
works request?
MR. LANDRIEU: That was just mentioned, and I
must say it was not discussed in any detail at all.
Q
How will this affect the taxpayers,
Mr. Secretary, the citizens back in the cities?
SECRETARY SIMON: How will what affect the
taxpayers?
Q
The revenue sharing that you propose
for the 1976 budget?
SECRETARY SIMON: Revenue sharing is already
in the budget.
Q
Then in 1977?
SECRETARY SIMON: The present revenue sharing
program doesn't expire until 1978.
Q
Then 1978 -- how will it affect the
taxpayer?
SECRETARY SIMON: It would affect them. A
great percentage of the revenue sharing payments have
gone out to reduce taxes in the State or local govern-
ments, or to avoid an increase in taxes that would be
inevitable if revenue sharing were not in existence.
Q
How many cities now have unemployment
rates of 6.5 percent or above, and what are the rates
in Cleveland and New Orleans?
SECRETARY SIMON: I don't know the number,
frankly, of how many cities ---
Q
Do any of the mayors know how many
cities?
MR. PERK: I would imagine a great number of
the cities have unemployment rates beyond 6.5 percent.
The Cleveland rate at the moment is about 11.7 or 11. 8
percent. Detroit has a 22 percent unemployment rate.
Most of the mayors who stood up said that they had 12
to 15 to 17 percent unemployment in their areas.
Now those were the mayors getting up to talk
because they would be affected by the countercyclical
bill.
MORE
- 12 -
It would appear to me that if the national
average -- and I don't have these figures -- but if the
national average is nine percent, it would be rather
foolhardy on the part of Congress to pass a counter-
cyclical bill that would trigger at 6.5 percent. It
would certainly be inflationary.
All of the mayors who understand the economy
know that we don't want the Federal Government going
into a tremendous deficit because, when they go on the
money market, that deficit takes up all the money on
the money market and our interest rates go up. The
building trades begin to go down. There is no new
money for new tools of production, and inflation takes
place and recession results from there.
So we understand the danger of a tremendous
Federal deficit. We would like to work with the
Administration in providing money for the cities wherever
needed but work in such a way that it won't cause
inflation, that won't cause a tremendous deficit which
will affect us to the point where we will have unemploy-
ment.
Q
Mayor Landrieu, how does general revenue
sharing fundamentally return Government to the cities
if the cities have to keep coming back to Washington
for more revenue sharing? Hasn't the Government got
you still on a pretty strong leash?
MR. LANDRIEU: No, the general revenue sharing
bill reflected a tremendous change in Federal-city
relationships. Prior to the passage of general revenue
sharing, the only way you could get a return of what
we considered to be local dollars sent to Washington
was by filing an application under a categorical grant
concept or program. That was a very burdensome, some-
times rather arbitrary process.
Then the money was made available only
for those things the Federal Government determined
the money could be used for.
General revenue sharing effectively transferred,
over the past five years, some $30 billion out of the
Federal Treasury back to local treasuries to be spent
as the local government officials thought it should be
spent within some extraordinarily broad guidelines. We
think that is a substantial improvement.
Q
Aren't you asking for supplements all
the time?
MORE
- 13 -
MR. LANDRIEU: I frankly wish there was some
magical way that an automatic amount of money on a
formula built into the United States Constitution would
transfer it back to the local governments, but I have
not been able to enact such a piece of legislation.
In the absence of that, general revenue sharing
has been the best thing since ice cream, so far as we
are concerned.
I want to make one point quite clear. I am
not here to argue with Mayor Perk, because we are
colleagues, even though from different parts of the
country, but I do have somewhat of a different
responsibility than he.
The U.S. Conference of Mayors does not all
look at this counter-recession legislation as being
inflationary with a trigger of six percent. We feel
quite strongly that a $2 billion expenditure with a
triggering device at six percent is not inflationary
in light of the overall Federal budget, in light of the
gross national product, and we feel very strongly that,
if the economic base of the cities can be maintained,
that an uplift in employment will more than make up for
that.
I might say to say the mere saving of money
at the Federal level does not mean that money is not going
to be spent by local governments, because there isn't
a local government I know of that has to make the difficult
choice of cutting through, and too deeply, into its police,
and fire and sanitation departments that is not going
to be raising taxes anyway, and spending more money.
It has been pointed out the raising of local
taxes is even more inflationary than raising Federal
taxes or borrowing by the Federal Government.
MR. PERK: In further answer to your question,
we are told that there are over a thousand Federal
domestic programs and there are tens of thousands of
categorical grants. If you will combine those categorical
grants and programs into a fewer number of programs,
and that aid goes directly to the cities, there is no
question in my mind the cities with the greatest need
will have sufficient funds to run their operations.
I believe that most of us would rather see
the categorical grants turned over to revenue sharing,
if it is possible, because there are so few strings
attached to revenue sharing. And there is so much red
tape and so much bureaucracy attached to categorical
grants.
I am sure we agree on that, don't we, Mr. Mayor?
MORE
- 14 -
MR. LANDRIEU: Yes.
Q
Secretary Simon, given the Administration's
agreement with the mayors to get enactments on revenue
sharing, why did you invite all these mayors down here
today?
SECRETARY SIMON: The President, Vice President
and the President's council invited the mayors down today
because these topics were brought up in the Mayor's
Conference in Boston this past week. Revenue sharing
and countercyclical proposals were two of the major ones.
We thought that was important enough to bring
them down and have a dialogue with the Administration
about the problems we see with respect to its enactment.
In the area of the countercyclical proposals,
let's remember we have many countercyclical functions in
Government right now. One of the largest is the expanded
employment and public service employment programs where
we are going to spend over $20 billion in 1976.
Obviously, that amount grows according to the
need, according to the trigger we have put in, food
stamps, SSI, all the rest of those proposals.
MR. PERK: To answer your question directly --
no offense to anyone -- but I was involved in that.
Several weeks ago Carla Hills called about 100 mayors
down to a meeting in which she was going to announce a
program. At that time, many of the mayors asked the
White House if we could have a conference on revenue
sharing so we could get a better understanding where it
stands in the Congress.
The White House decided to do that, but many
of the mayors went home before they had a chance to get
to the White House. Those of us that came here about
several weeks ago asked if we could have another White
House conference on revenue sharing so we could all have
some input and all be a part of the organized effort to
get revenue sharing adopted as quickly as possible.
In response to that, to the request from the
mayors, the invitation was extended.
Q
Secretary Simon, do you have any objection
to the triggering mechanism now at 6 percent? Does the
exact figure of unemployment mean anything to you one way
or another?
MORE
- 15 -
SECRETARY SIMON: Of course, we use the
unemployment triggering mechanism in programs we already
have in place.
Q
Did your objections to the proposal include
the 6 percent figure?
SECRETARY SIMON: The objections we gave didn't
relate to the particular trigger at 6 percent.
Q
It is the money?
SECRETARY SIMON: Of course it is the size of
the money, the inference with the fiscal program in
Government, the need to borrow, the threat to general
revenue sharing. All the reasons I mentioned before
were part of our rationale going into proposal.
Q
What kind of figure would you sit still
for? How much can you reduce a mere $2 billion and
still leave a program --
SECRETARY SIMON: A mere $2 billion? These
mere $2 billion are the things that got us into the
problem we are in now.
Q
How much can you reduce that figure and
still leave any kind of meaningful program that would
aid anybody's city?
MR. PERK: I wouldn't want the Secretary to
answer that question because we would like to work out
some kind of a compromise.
SECRETARY SIMON: As I was about to say
before Ralph popped in, I am not going to get pinned
down on any particular number or whether indeed we will
accept or reject a countercyclical proposal. We are
going to open the subject up for further discussion, and
after we have looked at the whole package, a potential
trigger, the pros and the cons, then we will make a
decision, the President will make a decision.
Q
Do you believe it is possible to reduce
that $2 billion figure by something significant and
still leave a program that will make any difference to
cities? I would like all three of you to answer that.
SECRETARY SIMON: Again, it all depends on
whether it is feasible or possible to do as Mayor Landrieu
said and recognize the problem exists in just a few
cities or some particular cities, and the notion that
if we give to some we have to give to all really doesn't
apply in this instance.
MORE
- 16 -
We have to take a look at where the problem
areas are. I guess what you would say, Moon, is attack
it with a rifle rather than a shotgun approach.
This has political problems, as you well know,
when you go to the Congress to ask for funds or a program
that affects just a few. The instant reaction is if
they are going to get it, we should get it, too.
MR. LANDRIEU: If you had $2 billion and you
could play God and weren't limited by any of the
formulas you have to pass through Congress, you could
certainly place $2 billion around in impacted areas
and be of significant help.
As a matter of fact, you could place a million
dollars around and be of significant help. I am not
prepared to say what you can reduce that to and distribute
it on the basis of a formula and do any significant good.
The problem is not to try to duplicate general
revenue sharing with a countercyclical bill. General
revenue sharing gives money to 38,000 jurisdictions. All
38,000 jurisdictions are not impacted the same by the
recession in which we find ourselves.
For instance, there are cities that are
normally much healthier from a long-term standpoint than
the cities of New Orleans, who are impacted far worse
by the current recession than we are becuase we are in
a service kind of an economy. We are poor and we
stay poor.
There are those cities that do extremely well
in periods of prosperity, but in a period of decline
cannot meet their bills. So, we are urgingsome kind of
review of the Federal policy that would analyze the
current situation in light of the impact of the
recession.
MR. PERK: I would rather have a compromise
countercyclical bill than no countercyclical bill at
all. I think that is why it is important for the Admin-
istration and the mayors to get together and work out
the same kind of compromise we worked out together in
the President's Cabinet bill on the mass transit bill.
The same kind of compromise we worked out on
community development block grants, the same kind of
compromise we worked out on the Comprehensive Employment
and Training Act. It is more important to have these
bills adopted on a compromise because better legislation
comes out of compromises, and I would like to see that
happen without nailing any one of us down to a figure,
because I don't think we could do that here at a press
conference.
MORE
- 17 -
Q
Mr. Simon, what persuaded the President
to give a second look?
SECRETARY SIMON: The President was not in
the room. This was during a panel session in discussing
this countercyclical proposal and revenue sharing where
Jim Lynn and I in response to questions said we would
take another look at this.
Q
Were the initial suggestions based on a
Presidential decision or based on your own decision?
SECRETARY SIMON: This was based on the decisions
in the Economic Policy Board and by the group who
studies this, these programs, and the Labor Department,
obviously is part of this Board.
Q
Who would make the final decision?
SECRETARY SIMON: In this instance this is of
sufficient importance, in my judgment, that it would go
to the President.
THE PRESS: Thank you, gentlemen.
END (AT 4:43 P.M. EDT)
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
File
December 22, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR THE VICE PRESIDENT
FROM:
SUBJECT:
JIM UDC CANNON Jui
The Washington Post had a very interesting
editorial December 20 about the vindication
of UDC.
Attachment
Sjish Fin
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
File
December 22, 1975
my
MEMORANDUM FOR THE VICE PRESIDENT
FROM:
SUBJECT:
UDC JIM CANNON Jun
The Washington Post had a very interesting
editorial December 20 about the vindication
of UDC.
Attachment
think
In
FORD is LIDRARY GERALD
A16
SATURDAY, DEC
Saturday, Dec. 20, 1975
The Washington Post
an INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER
An Instrument for Jobs and Housing
THE WHITE HOUSE
Policy
WASHINGTON
caul ze Koch:
March 5, 1976
On behalf of the President, I would like to respond to your
letter proposing a White House Conference on the problems
facing American cities. Your suggestions in this matter are
very much appreciated and have received considerable con-
sideration in the Administration.
The basic assessment of your proposal, however, is that
regular channels of communications like the U. S. Conference
of Mayors, the National League of Cities, Federal Regional
Councils, and Federal agency channels are more effective
means of discussing the problems to which you allude. All
of these concerns like pollution, social services, racial
relations etc., are part of a continuing debate between
Federal, State and local officials as well as outside
interest groups. It is doubtful that a conference could do
little more than restate issues and proposed solutions that
are currently being decided in the normal give and take of
our political and economic processes at all levels.
The President appreciates your interest in this matter and
has asked me to thank you for your submission.
Sincerely,
James M. Cannon
Assistant to the President
for Domestic Affairs
The Honorable Edward I. Koch
House of Representatives
Washington, D. C. 20515
mc
Bw.
LG
November 4, 1975
closed
Nov. 11
NAN
per Lalk
Dear Mr. Koch:
On behalf of the President, I wish to thank
you for your October 30 letter suggesting that
the Administration sponsor a national con-
ference on the problems of our cities.
Rush
He appreciates your making this suggestion
and wishes me to assure you that it will be
given careful consideration by the appropriate
members of the staff,
With kind regards,
a
Sincerely,
Vernon C. Loen
caned reoceas
Deputy Assistant
to the President
respon Shoe
mom
The Honorable Edward L Koch
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
bcc: w/incoming to James Cannon- for further handling.
VCL:EF:VO:vo
sure Loeno office
RECEIVED
Note:
make received copy of final letter
LIBRARY GERALD the FORD
E.WARD.I. KOCH
NEW YORK OFFICE:
18TH CHSTRICT, EW YORK
ROOM 3139
26 FEDERAL PLAZA
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10007
PHONE: 212-264-1066
SUBCOMMITTEES:
FOREIGN OPERATIONS
Congress of the United States
TRANSPORTATION
WASHINGTON OFFICE:
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
house of Representatives
1134 LONGWORTH OFFICE BUILDING
PHONE: 202-225-2436
Washington, D.C. 20515
October 30, 1975
Honorable Gerald R. Ford
President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
ME
Putting aside for a moment our disagreement on how
to deal with the financial plight of New York City, I
would like to make a proposal to you which I hope you will
consider.
I propose that you sponsor a national conference
|before the end of the year on the problems of our cities.
Such a conference, patterned after the economic conference
held last fall in Washington and the White House conferences
in previous years on aging, children and youth, the indus-
trial world ahead, and food and nutrition and health,
would provide a needed total examination of the problems,
assets and changing circumstances of our cities today.
No such White House Conference has ever been held, even
though our cities have undergone dramatic changes in the
past decade and the Conference would relate to the lives
of the greater majority of our population.
I should suggest that included in the conference's
consideration should be the impact of our cities of
national economic problems, rising local tax burdens,
increased demands for social services, municipal labor
relations, changes in educational patterns, sanitation
and pollution problems, racial relations and transportation.
An assessment must also be made of local versus State
and national responsibilities in providing social services,
local municipal management, and the impact of technological
changes on rural versus city living patterns.
THIS STATIONERY PRINTED ON PAPER MADE WITH RECYCLED FIBERS
Honorable Gerald R. Ford -2-
October 30, 1975
I would appreciate whatever comments you have on
the merits of this proposal.
Sincerely,
Edward Ed I. Koch
EIK: jb
Newyoh Defrait
THE WHITE HOUSE
cleulend falo
WAS HINGTON
March 8, 1976
youkers Baton Hadbar
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CANNON
FROM:
ART QUERN
SUBJECT:
UrBan Problems
As we have discussed, there is a clear need to sit down
with Art Fletcher, Steve McConahey, and others on the
staff to review where we are and where we are headed in
regard to the cities.
We need to address: Prices
&
1.
What position should the Administration take in
when you 10
regard to the problems of the cities.
2.
What process do we have for dealing with specific
calls for help from mayors of cities in fiscal
E
has
trouble.
3.
How can we best approach the development of a
long-term policy toward the nation's cities.
Generally, I would suggest that we begin by examining:
1.
How to put together a survey of exactly which
cities are or soon will be in trouble (McConahey).
Procedure-
2.
How we might establish and maintain a regular
(not crisis oriented) channel of communication
with urban centers (Fletcher).
3.
The status of our attempt to develop a "tool"
or "yardstick" to assist in measuring the fiscal
conditions of different cities (Hurd).
4.
How we might review Federal programs specifically
designed to help the cities (Lynn May).
FORD & LIBRARY 07V870
5.
How we can examine the impact on cities of major
Federal programs which are not specifically
"urban", e.g. welfare, environmental (Moore).
I would be pleased to set up such a session and request
preparation by the names in parenthesis above. I believe
we should plan on a two to three hour session somewhere
away from the phones.
Set up
Let's discuss
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
Nearly everywhere, outlying suburbs
1 ne r uture Revised
will thrive.
-Dispersal of population will remain the
[4/6/76]
Cities May Flourish
major urban trend through the year 2000.
If the urbane economic outlook look more
somber than 10 years ago, birth control is a
In South and West,
big part of the reason. Then, most seers
thought the U.S. population would soar to
Decline in Northeast
about 340 million by the year 2000. Nearly
all cities would keep growing, it was ex-
pected, even though some would grow a
great deal more than others. Now, however,
But Manhattan : Could Be
lower birthrates have sharply reduced popu-
lation estimates to between 245 million and
A Rich Enclave; Suburbia
287 million at the turn of the century, up
from 214 million today; this means, for ex-
To Expand Everywhere
ample, that Houston's growth may come at
Cleveland's expense.
Even as many cities lose population, the
A Downturn in Violence?
nation will become more urban. The Re-
gional Plan Association, a New York re-
search group, predicts that 10% of all Amer-
By ROGER RICKLEFS
icans in the year 2020 will live in metropoli-
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
tan areas of more than 2.5 million people, up
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 8, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CANNON
FROM:
ART QUERN
SUBJECT:
Urban Problems
As we have discussed, there is a clear need to sit down
with Art Fletcher, Steve McConahey, and others on the
staff to review where we are and where we are headed in
regard to the cities.
We need to address:
1.
What position should the Administration take in
regard to the problems of the cities.
2.
What process do we have for dealing with specific
calls for help from mayors of cities in fiscal
trouble.
3.
How can we best approach the development of a
long-term policy toward the nation's cities.
Generally, I would suggest that we begin by examining:
states'
1.
How to put together a survey of exactly which
cities are or soon will be in trouble (McConahey).
2.
How we might establish and maintain a regular
(not crisis oriented) channel of communication
with urban centers (Fletcher).
3.
The status of our attempt to develop a "tool"
or "yardstick" to assist in measuring the fiscal
conditions of different cities (Hurd).
4.
How we might review Federal programs specifically
designed to help the cities (Lynn May).
2
5.
How we can examine the impact on cities of major
Federal programs which are not specifically
"urban", e.g. welfare, environmental (Moore).
I would be pleased to set up such a session and request
preparation by the names in parenthesis above. I believe
we should plan on a two to three hour session somewhere
away from the phones.
Set up
Let's discuss
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 17, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CANNON
ART FLETCHER
STEVE McCONAHEY
PAT DELANEY
LYNN MAY
ALLEN MOORE
FROM:
ART QUERN
SUBJECT:
Urban Issues
This is to summarize the follow-up assignments stemming from
this morning's meeting on Urban Issues:
1. Art Fletcher will explore the possibility of a
meeting with a representative of the New Brunswick
organization.
2. Steve McConahey will draft a proposal for establishing
a "process" for handling specific inquiries and
problems.
3. Steve and Pat will put together a list of cities which
we sense to be close to serious problems.
4. Lynn May will schedule a meeting with Secretary Hills.
5. Art Quern will draft an initial rough outline of an
urban policy statement (ideas to be submitted by all
participants).
6. Allen Moore will put together a report on the progress
to date in developing "indicators" for identifying the
relative fiscal condition of cities.
7. Art Quern will determine exact status of tax incentive
proposal.
8. Steve and Allen will look into Allied Services concept
for urban areas.
THOOP
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 22, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CANNON
FROM:
ART QUERN
SUBJECT:
First Draft: Urban Statement
Attached is a very rough draft of an approach to a
statement on the problems of the cities. I solicit
your help, comments and any suggestions you might
have.
Attachment
CC: Art Fletcher
Steve McConahey
Pat Delaney
Lynn May
Allen Moore
March 22, 1976
DRAFT
I.
American Cities
A. Cities are places where a gathering of people produces
a special community
-- larger
-- busier
-- more intensive concentration of attitudes,
energies, concerns and talents.
B. American cities provide, therefore, concentrations
of the hallmarks of American life
-- vigor
-- individual expression
-- an opportunity for self-advancement
C. American cities also are plagued by the concentrated
problems of our changing society
-- crime
--- education
-- poverty
-- transportation
-- housing
II. Problems of the Cities
A. These problems are often expressed as "fiscal" but
must be seen
human terms
B. These problems have resisted massive Federal cures.
C. These problems have lagged behind the rest of the
nation in the current economic recovery.
D. These problems are summarized in the need for
permanent, private sector jobs.
FORD & 9ERALD LIBRARY
2
III. American Cities Are Not Walled
A. Many ancient cities survived because they were
walled cities, protected by walls from the many
threats and troubles surrounding them.
B. American cities have not, can not, and should not
be walled off from the rest of American society.
C. Often, however, there is a tendency to pretend
that the cities are walled and that their problems
should be so encased.
D. To attempt to so cut the cities off is an error of
the most fundamental nature
QUALITY
on
-- our culture, our commerse, our progress as a
modern nation requires that the health of our
cities be a concern of
American
every
IV. American Cities Must Solve their own Problems
A. Cities alone can make the determinations which
will lead to improving the lives of their citizens.
-- They must confront the limitatioms of resources
and balance it with the demand for services.
-- They and only they can actually determine how to
bring private sector jobs to their city.
B. Cities can not do this without Allies
1. Alliance within the City
--
Business
--
Labor
--
Press
--
Religious leaders
--
Existing community groups
2. Alliance with the Suburbs
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
--
For a new base of revenues
--
For new arrangements of services systems.
3
3. Alliance with the States
--
For a fair allocation of responsibilities
--
For urban revenue sharing
--
For reducing the obstacles to private job
expansion in the cities.
4. Alliance with the Federal Government
--
General revenue sharing
--
Tax incentives for industrial development
--
Allied services legislation
--
Extended unemployment benefits in urban
areas.
--
Review of Federal laws which could be
changed to encourage jobs in the cities.
V.
Cities are People
-- The survival of the cities will depend on their
ability to offer permanent, private sector jobs.
-- Quick fixes work against real solutions.
-- Real solutions can best be found by a metropolitan
alliance in each city.
-- The people of each city as businessmen, workers,
property owners and taxpayers need to come to the
determination of how best to run their own city.
-- They need allies, but they, and only they, can
create the climate and produce the resources
necessary for the economic recovery of the cities.
-- Cities will have those allies in Washington
-- Each city needs to muster its leaders together in
concerted efforts to solve its own problems.
-- - CITIES ARE PEOPLE AND PEOPLE, will soave
CAN AND
THE PROBLEMS of THEIR city
FORD & 034870 LIBRARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 8, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CANNON
ART FLETCHER
STEVE McCONAHEY
LYNN MAY
ALLEN MOORE
PAT DELANEY
FROM:
ART QUERN
and
SUBJECT:
Proposed Agenda for Tomorrow's
Meeting on Urban Issues
(Room 248, 2:00 PM)
1. List of cities perceived to be in or approaching serious
financial difficulty (McConahey)
2. Process for handling specific inquiries and problems
from cities (McConahey)
3. Urban policy statement
a. Reaction to circulated outline
b. Desired content
C. Forum
d. Timing
4. The role of private business in preserving urban areas
(Fletcher)
a. Meeting with New Brunswick people
b. U.S. Chamber of Commerce urban activities
5. Efforts to improve information on intergovernmental
finance (Moore)
6. Status of tax incentive proposal (Quern)
7. Allied Services Act (McConahey, Moore)
8. Status of meeting with Secretary Hills (May)
9. New developments
10. Next steps